In this blog post, I’d like to examine the concept of “custom-made humans” as portrayed in the movie ‘Gattaca’, its necessity, and the social and ethical issues surrounding it.
An individual’s life expectancy, probability of disease, motor skills, and intellectual abilities are all determined before birth, and wherever one goes, genetic traits extracted from their eyebrows, hair, or saliva serve as a form of identification. From the moment of birth, one’s occupation and career path are determined by predetermined genetic characteristics, and genes—rather than nationality—distinguish one person from another. In a way, this life—where technocracy seems to reign supreme—and this world inhabited by “custom-made” humans created through genetic engineering is precisely the world depicted in the film ‘Gattaca’.
The protagonist, Vincent, a “natural human,” was conceived and born naturally without his parents undergoing genetic engineering or genetic screening. In contrast, his younger brother, Anton, is a “custom-made human” created through in vitro fertilization, where the embryo’s genetic traits were screened to eliminate diseases and specific risk factors. The two types of humans—natural humans and genetically engineered humans—which are constantly contrasted in the film, are not only major ethical and scientific issues in themselves but also have their own respective advantages and disadvantages. However, as society continues to advance technologically, we are likely to face the question of whether genetically engineered humans are necessary, and discussions will continue regarding just how far the technology to create humans like those depicted in the film can develop. To answer the questions of whether such developments are desirable and whether “custom-made humans” are morally justified, we must first examine what a “custom-made human” actually is.
Following the laws of inheritance established by Gregor Mendel, a 19th-century Austrian monk, genetics evolved into modern genetics in the 20th century and continued to advance. Genetics progressed rapidly after Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA, and subsequent revelations confirmed that genetic information is stored in DNA and elucidated the operating principles of the genetic code. In 2003, the Human Genome Project was officially completed, and subsequent research continued to analyze even those regions of the human genome that had not been decoded at the time, leading to the publication of a virtually complete human genome sequence in 2022. Recently, research has been actively underway to utilize this accumulated human genome information to identify genetic factors associated with diseases and to correct specific genes or regulate their functions. In particular, while somatic gene therapy using gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 is already being applied in clinical practice, heritable genome editing—which involves editing human germ cells or embryos so that the changes are passed on to future generations—remains the subject of scientific, ethical, and social debate. Therefore, although it does not yet take the exact form of the “custom-made humans” depicted in movies—which have not yet become a reality—the technical possibility of analyzing an individual’s genetic characteristics before birth to reduce disease-related genetic risks or select specific traits can be linked to the concept of “custom-made humans.” However, since an individual’s actual genetic characteristics result from the complex interaction of multiple genes and environmental factors, simply replacing a specific gene with a dominant allele does not mean that complex traits—such as intellectual ability or athletic ability—will be determined in the desired direction.
The significance of “designer humans” does not lie simply in the fact that they create superior human beings. Their significance can be considered in terms of their potential to offer fundamental solutions to various unavoidable social problems related to the biological limitations of humans.
Advances in healthcare and welfare systems, as well as medical technology, have significantly extended human life expectancy. Global average life expectancy has also increased significantly compared to the past, but behind this extension of human life lies the shadow of the inevitable problem of an aging society. As birth rates decline while average life expectancy rises, the proportion of the elderly in the population is increasing, and the proportion of the working-age population—those capable of economic activity—is decreasing. This phenomenon has become a major social issue in many countries, including South Korea. However, one could argue that introducing humans who are more resistant to intractable and genetic diseases and have a lower risk of specific illnesses or disabilities—as a solution to this decline in economic productivity—could offer a potential resolution to the problem from both of these perspectives. First, we can expect a compensatory effect against the decline in economic productivity caused not only by an aging society but also by other issues such as population decline. In other words, if we can generally enhance people’s capacity for economic activity, we can expect them to perform tasks that were previously difficult to carry out, and we can also expect higher work efficiency under the same working conditions. Second, it would extend the practical working age range. While many countries statistically define the working-age population within a specific age range, the actual working age varies by country and individual and is difficult to determine based solely on fixed criteria. If customized humans go beyond mere life extension and can partially overcome the productivity limitations caused by natural human aging, people would be able to engage in economic activities requiring significant ability and workload even as they grow older.
Customized humans may also be considered a solution to the inevitable problems caused by global warming, extreme weather events, and severe environmental destruction. Due to environmental pollution resulting from the increase in cars and factories, as well as indiscriminate energy use and shortages of food and water resources, future societies will require even greater resilience and adaptability. Although scientific and technological advancements are providing some remedies amid persistent resource shortages and environmental pollution, the continued emergence of the aforementioned problems raises the possibility that, if current trends persist, the quality of life will decline and parts of the environment will reach a point of irreversible damage. Therefore, before discussing solutions to these inevitable problems, if we consider what kind of human being is suited to the changing landscape of society, the “custom-designed human” can also be viewed as a viable possibility. It can be argued that “custom-made humans”—designed to have specific genetic traits that increase resistance to diseases caused by environmental pollution and reduce risk factors associated with mental illness, depression, and violent tendencies—would be able to adapt easily and survive better in any situation. However, since these traits are not actually determined by a single gene but are influenced by various genetic and environmental factors, the idea that genes alone completely determine human personality, behavior, or adaptability—as depicted in the movie—differs from the reality of genetics.
While these arguments provide a basis for supporting the concept of “custom-made humans,” opponents can raise the following counterarguments, and potential rebuttals to these can be found within the movie’s narrative.
First, opponents of “custom-made humans” may argue that if such individuals become widespread in society, they could cause a sense of relative deprivation among “natural humans” and lead to discrimination. This theme is similarly depicted in the film. Vincent, the protagonist and a “natural human” in the film, is predicted to have a 99% probability of developing heart disease and a life expectancy of only 30.2 years, which makes him ineligible to be an astronaut; however, he chooses to reject the fate assigned to him by his genetic information. In other words, by observing the protagonist—who defied the fate assigned to him by genetic analysis to follow his own will and convictions, ultimately achieving success—we can conclude that the sense of deprivation inherent in being a “natural human” can also be overcome, regardless of societal conventions. Furthermore, the film indicates that the law prohibits discrimination based on genetic characteristics during the hiring process. Thus, one could argue that such phenomena would not pose a problem if society prohibits discrimination against “custom-made humans,” establishes institutional safeguards to prevent the unilateral control of these individuals—simply because they have become superior through genetic modification—based on the identification of their genetic information, and, finally, fosters the recognition that individuals can overcome any limitations through their own will and effort. However, in reality, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that genetic information will be used as a basis for discrimination in areas such as hiring, insurance, and education; therefore, as technology advances, social and legal safeguards must be put in place to prevent this.
The second issue that may arise is an ethical one. Specifically, from a bioethical perspective, it is expected that there will clearly be concerns and public backlash regarding the artificial manipulation by humans of biological traits that are naturally inherited and determined. In biotechnology research, discussions regarding where the line between ethical and unethical conduct lies—as seen in animal testing and stem cell research—have always been a subject of intense debate without reaching a consensus. In other words, it is not enough to settle for a simple compromise based on the notion of “sacrificing the few for the many”; it is indeed necessary to improve social awareness and reach a consensus on the ethical aspects that are genuinely contentious. Just as the theory of evolution, which emerged in the 19th century, has long been the subject of repeated debates alongside creationism, issues surrounding the nature of life and humanity continue to be the subject of social and philosophical debate today. Similarly, it is difficult to provide a simple answer to the question of whether “designer humans” are ethical. In particular, while human genome editing technology has advanced to the point where it is used for the treatment of actual diseases, technologies that edit the genes of germ cells or embryos—thereby passing those changes on to the next generation—pose far greater safety and ethical concerns. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also stated that the clinical application of heritable human genome editing must be approached with caution, emphasizing the need for safety, efficacy, ethical considerations, and international governance regarding human genome editing. Therefore, to answer the question of whether “designer humans” are ethical, we must go beyond simply assessing technical feasibility; we must also reach a social consensus on whether prior research has established sufficient safety, how human dignity and the right to self-determination will be guaranteed, and how social inequality and discrimination will be prevented.
