IELTS Practice: Science and Technology Speaking Part

Yes, for the most part. I wasn’t a natural at physics, to be honest, but I loved the practical side of science — doing experiments in the lab and seeing a theory actually work in front of you. That hands-on element made it far more memorable than subjects where we just copied notes.

Useful language:a natural atthe practical side ofhands-on element

Definitely biology. I was fascinated by how the human body works — things like how the immune system recognises a virus. It felt relevant to everyday life in a way that chemistry formulas sometimes didn’t, and we had a very enthusiastic teacher, which certainly helped.

Useful language:fascinated byrelevant to everyday lifeenthusiastic

Absolutely. Almost everything we take for granted — clean water, the phone in my pocket, the medicine in the cupboard — exists because of science. Even small decisions, like checking the weather forecast before going out, rely on scientific data.

Useful language:take for grantedrely onscientific data

Yes, a few years ago I visited a science museum on a school trip. The highlight was an interactive space exhibition where you could see what you’d weigh on Mars. It was a great way to make abstract ideas tangible, especially for younger visitors.

Useful language:the highlight wasinteractive exhibitionmake abstract ideas tangible

I am, although I tend to read summaries rather than the original research papers, which can be quite dense. I particularly enjoy stories about medical breakthroughs, because you can see the direct impact on people’s lives.

Useful language:tend toquite densemedical breakthroughsdirect impact

A couple, yes. I follow a few science communicators who explain complicated topics in short, entertaining videos. I find it a far more digestible way to keep up with new research than reading long articles.

Useful language:science communicatorsdigestiblekeep up with

I think the biggest changes will be in healthcare. With advances in genetics and artificial intelligence, treatments could become personalised to each patient. I also expect clean energy to become much cheaper, which could transform how we live and travel.

Useful language:advances inpersonalisedtransform

Probably not as a researcher, because I don’t think I have the patience for years of lab work. But I’d be interested in a role that connects science with the public, such as science journalism or working in a museum.

Useful language:have the patience forconnects science with the public

I’d like to talk about the discovery of penicillin, which I first learned about in a biology class and have found fascinating ever since.

It was discovered in 1928 by a Scottish scientist called Alexander Fleming, and the interesting thing is that it happened almost by accident. Fleming had gone on holiday and left some dishes of bacteria in his lab. When he came back, he noticed that a mould had grown on one of them, and the bacteria around the mould had been destroyed. Instead of throwing the dish away, he was curious enough to investigate, and he realised the mould was producing a substance that killed bacteria.

What I find so interesting is that it shows how important observation and curiosity are in science. Many people would have seen a contaminated dish as a failed experiment, but Fleming saw an opportunity. It also took more than a decade, and the work of other scientists, before penicillin could be mass-produced, which reminds me that great discoveries are usually a team effort.

As for its impact on society, it’s hard to overstate. Penicillin was the first widely used antibiotic, and it has saved millions of lives — infections that used to be deadly became easy to treat. Modern surgery would be far riskier without antibiotics. At the same time, the discovery carries a warning for today: because antibiotics have been overused, some bacteria have become resistant, so scientists now face the challenge of developing new ones. For me, that combination of luck, curiosity and huge consequences makes it one of the most remarkable discoveries in history.

Useful language:almost by accidentcurious enough to investigatea team effortit’s hard to overstateresistantremarkable

I’d say science has moved from the laboratory into everyday conversation. A few decades ago, most people only encountered science at school or through occasional news stories, whereas now topics like climate change, vaccines and artificial intelligence are discussed at the dinner table. Science has also become much more visible in policy-making — the pandemic was a clear example, when governments were making decisions based on scientific advice almost daily. The downside is that science has become more politicised, and misinformation spreads quickly online.

Useful language:moved from … intopolicy-makingpoliticisedmisinformation

Not all of it, but I think governments should fund research that serves the public interest and might not be profitable in the short term — basic research, for example, or studies into rare diseases. Private companies are naturally driven by profit, so they tend to focus on products they can sell. A mixed model works best: public money for long-term, fundamental research, and private investment for developing commercial applications.

Useful language:serves the public interestprofitable in the short termdriven by profita mixed model

The most effective approach is probably to make science feel exciting and relevant early on. Schools could replace some textbook learning with practical projects that solve real local problems. Role models matter too — if young people, especially girls, see scientists who look like them, they’re more likely to imagine themselves in that career. Finally, offering scholarships and making science careers better paid would remove some of the financial barriers.

Useful language:make science feel relevantrole modelsimagine themselves infinancial barriers

Ethical rules certainly slow some research down. In areas like genetic engineering or testing on animals, scientists have to follow strict guidelines, and some experiments simply aren’t allowed. However, I’d argue these limits are necessary. Without them, research could harm people or be used irresponsibly. So while ethics may restrict the speed of progress, they help make sure the progress we do make is trustworthy and benefits society.

Useful language:strict guidelinesused irresponsiblyrestrict the speed of progresstrustworthy

One major risk is that society can’t adapt as fast as technology changes. For example, automation could replace jobs faster than workers can retrain. There are also privacy concerns, since so much personal data is now collected, and security risks if critical systems are hacked. And finally, rapid change can widen inequality, because people who can’t afford new technology or don’t have digital skills are left behind.

Useful language:adaptretrainprivacy concernswiden inequalityleft behind

I think it starts with how science is taught: rather than memorising facts, students should learn how the scientific method works — how to evaluate evidence and spot unreliable sources. Beyond school, the media has a responsibility to report research accurately rather than exaggerating headlines. Scientists themselves could also communicate more directly with the public, through social media, podcasts or community events.

Useful language:the scientific methodevaluate evidenceunreliable sourcesexaggerating headlines

Science should be at the centre of policy decisions, particularly in areas like public health, energy and the environment, because it provides objective evidence about what actually works. That said, science can’t make every decision on its own — policies also involve values, costs and public opinion. So I’d say scientists should advise and inform, while elected politicians remain responsible for the final decision and for explaining it to the public.

Useful language:at the centre ofobjective evidenceadvise and informelected politicians