In this blog post, based on the movie ‘Gattaca’, we will examine whether “designer humans” can improve humanity’s average lifespan and quality of life, and how we can address the discrimination and ethical issues that may arise from their emergence.
“Gattaca” is set in an era where genetic engineering is extremely advanced, allowing people to predict a person’s likelihood of developing diseases or their physical characteristics based on their genetic information. In this era, rather than choosing natural conception and childbirth, most people opt to select their children’s genetic traits based on the parents’ genetic information. People born naturally are considered at a disadvantage—in terms of life expectancy and susceptibility to disease—compared to those born through genetic selection, and thus face discrimination in various situations, such as employment. In other words, a society that favors genetically selected individuals has emerged in this era; most people are born this way, while those born naturally are a mere minority. The film distinguishes between these individuals as genetically selected humans and naturally born humans; due to the social climate that favors the genetically selected, naturally born people are limited to only a few occupations, such as janitors. Since the film frequently depicts how naturally born individuals become increasingly marginalized and discriminated against as the number of genetically selected people grows, it is inevitable that a negative perception of genetically engineered humans will arise. But are genetically engineered humans really a bad thing? No, they are not. In fact, genetically engineered humans possess advantages that can benefit humanity.
Designer humans can significantly contribute to increasing average life expectancy and improving quality of life. Currently, many people die not only from aging but also from diseases at a relatively young age. However, since designer humans are born after genetic factors have been adjusted to reduce the likelihood of specific diseases, average life expectancy increases, and suffering from illness decreases, thereby improving quality of life. In response to this, some may argue that if, when creating customized humans, recessive genes are eliminated and only dominant genes are selected to determine genetic traits, genetic diversity will decrease, potentially making people more vulnerable to infectious diseases. However, the customized humans depicted in ‘Gattaca’ are not portrayed as uniformly using the genes of famous individuals, but rather as individuals whose genetic makeup is based on their parents’ genetic information, designed to reduce the risk of disease and other factors detrimental to health. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that genetic diversity would be significantly reduced by this method alone. While repeatedly using the genetic information of only a very small number of people could lead to the widespread prevalence of specific genetic traits and a potential reduction in genetic diversity, the approach of modulating certain disease-related factors based on parental genetic information is different; consequently, the likelihood of a significant reduction in genetic diversity is relatively low compared to the former scenario.
An argument against “designer humans” might be that “in a society where designer humans are widespread, discrimination between designer humans and naturally born humans would become a serious problem, just as depicted in the movie.” However, the world of ‘Gattaca’ is the director’s imagination of a scenario where discrimination is severe in a society where genetically selected humans are widespread. In other words, ‘Gattaca’ can be seen as a single example where discrimination based on genetic differences is portrayed in an extreme manner. In real society, there are ways to reduce such discrimination.
Discrimination can be reduced by establishing strong laws and institutions. In ‘Gattaca’, genetic information can be used to determine an individual’s health status and genetic traits, making it possible to distinguish between genetically selected humans and naturally born humans. Because this distinction can be made, discrimination occurs in areas such as employment. This scenario is possible because the setting assumes that laws and institutions adequately restricting the collection or use of an individual’s genetic information are not sufficiently in place. In reality, considering that genetic information is sensitive personal data, laws and systems can be put in place to prevent its unfair use. If companies were prohibited from unfairly collecting or using a job applicant’s genetic information, it would become difficult for them to easily distinguish whether an applicant is a genetically selected individual or a naturally born individual; consequently, discrimination based on genetic differences could be significantly reduced. We also need a system capable of preventing and severely punishing companies that attempt to obtain genetic information through medical institutions or other organizations by using blood, hair, or other samples containing a job applicant’s genetic information in a circumventing manner.
During a class discussion, it was argued that even if the law prohibits such actions, discrimination cannot be prevented by the law alone because there will always be those who violate it. However, this argument takes an overly negative view of the very purpose of the law. One of the key roles of the law is to restrict socially unacceptable behavior and, by imposing sanctions for violations, to reduce the occurrence of such behavior. Of course, there will always be those who do not abide by the law. Even in such cases, the law is not rendered meaningless; rather, we must refine the system to reduce discrimination and enhance the law’s effectiveness, and strengthen penalties where necessary.
Another counterargument is that even if the law prohibits discrimination, there are limits to its effectiveness because companies can determine whether a person is “tailor-made” or “naturally born” simply by conducting basic physical ability tests—such as a 3-kilometer run—during the hiring process. One of the primary objectives of a business is to generate profit. It is reasonable for companies to use various tests to evaluate applicants’ abilities in order to recruit top talent. Typically, companies assess whether applicants possess the skills suitable for a given position. For research positions, they evaluate how well candidates conduct research; for sales positions, they assess how well candidates interact with people. These abilities are not entirely determined by genetics. Even if academic performance may be influenced by genetic factors, this does not mean that an individual’s effort or environmental factors can be completely disregarded. Abilities can vary significantly depending on how much one studies and the environment in which one learns. The same applies to a 3-kilometer run. While genetic factors may influence physical ability, performance times can also vary depending on training and effort. In other words, unless a company uses genetic testing to directly determine whether a person is “tailor-made” or “naturally born,” it is difficult for a company to accurately judge a candidate’s genetic background based solely on a simple ability assessment. Furthermore, from a company’s perspective, it is more beneficial to select suitable candidates by evaluating job-related abilities rather than using abilities—such as running—that have no direct relevance to the job to determine whether someone is naturally born or genetically selected. Therefore, the assumption that companies would go out of their way to distinguish between naturally born and genetically selected individuals is nothing more than a vague supposition.
Finally, there are counterarguments that point to ethical issues. The argument is that parents arbitrarily altering their child’s genes reflects only the parents’ will, not the child’s, and thus raises ethical concerns. The “designer humans” featured in ‘Gattaca’ are individuals whose genetic traits were selected to make their bodies healthier and reduce the likelihood of disease. While one could argue that this is unethical because it does not reflect the child’s will, it cannot be assumed that a child would necessarily dislike conditions that reduce the likelihood of disease and ensure a healthy birth. Of course, as discussed in the debate, I believe it is wrong for parents to specifically enhance genetic traits related to a particular field so that their child’s career path is determined according to their own wishes. However, modifying genes to promote health is different from determining a child’s future path; rather, it can be seen as enabling the child to choose from a wider range of paths throughout their life. Therefore, rather than categorically asserting that genetic modification for health purposes is ethically unproblematic, it is necessary to distinguish between its purpose and scope when making a judgment.
As mentioned earlier, in ‘Gattaca’, a significant amount of time has passed since the emergence of genetically selected humans, and because appropriate measures against discrimination have not been taken, discrimination against naturally born humans has become so widespread that it is difficult to eradicate. Watching ‘Gattaca’, one could easily conclude that “custom-made” humans lead to discrimination. However, in the real world, as technologies for modifying or selecting genetic traits advance and more and more people begin to use them, a world like the one depicted in ‘Gattaca’ is not inevitable—provided that discrimination is prevented from the outset through the establishment of strong laws and institutions, as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, if discrimination based on genetic information is appropriately restricted, it is believed that we can create a society where discrimination based on genetic differences is significantly reduced. If such a society is established, there would be no reason to unconditionally oppose genetic engineering technologies that can improve average life expectancy and quality of life; rather, it would be important to enjoy the benefits of these technologies while simultaneously addressing the discrimination and ethical issues that may arise in the process.
