This blog post examines the ethical justification and social implications of creating genetically engineered humans through genetic intervention.
The film ‘Gattaca’ is set in an era where genetic technology is highly advanced, allowing a person’s entire profile to be determined from just a small amount of genetic information. In this era, most people opt for artificial insemination with genetically enhanced sperm over natural conception when having children. Those born through natural conception face disadvantages in employment and other areas due to genetic disadvantages compared to those born through artificial insemination, such as shorter lifespans and higher disease susceptibility. In other words, this era is a society that favors those born through artificial insemination. Most people are born through artificial insemination, while those born through natural insemination are a minority. Those born through artificial insemination are called ‘custom humans’, while those born through natural insemination are called ‘natural humans’. Since most companies prefer genetically superior custom humans, natural humans can only work in a limited number of occupations, such as janitors. As the number of custom-made humans increases in this film, natural humans become increasingly marginalized and discriminated against, inevitably spreading negative perceptions about custom-made humans. But are custom-made humans truly bad? Not at all. Custom-made humans actually possess several advantages that benefit humanity.
Custom humans significantly contribute to increased average lifespan and improved quality of life. Currently, many people die young from disease, not old age. However, custom humans are conceived with genetic factors causing disease removed, leading to longer average lifespans and reduced suffering from illness, thereby enhancing quality of life. Regarding this, it could be argued that when creating customized humans by removing recessive factors and selecting only dominant factors for fertilization, genetic diversity decreases, potentially making them more vulnerable to epidemics. However, the customized humans depicted in ‘Gattaca’ are not created using the genes of celebrities. Instead, they are conceived after removing factors from the parents’ genes that cause disease or shorten lifespan. Therefore, genetic diversity does not significantly decrease. In the former case, genetic diversity could decrease as only a very small number of people’s genes spread, like in sperm banks or egg banks. However, in the latter case, it involves removing a few factors from the parents’ genes, so genetic diversity is hardly reduced.
Opponents of designer humans argue that ‘in a society where designer humans are widespread, discrimination between designer humans and natural humans will become a serious problem, as depicted in the movie.’ However, the world of ‘Gattaca’ is the director’s imagined scenario of a society rife with discrimination in a world where designer humans are commonplace. In other words, ‘Gattaca’ can be seen as one extreme example of severe discrimination. In reality, methods exist to reduce discrimination.
Strong laws can be enacted to minimize discrimination. In ‘Gattaca’, genetic information allows access to a person’s entire profile, enabling the distinction between genetically engineered humans and natural humans. This distinction leads to discrimination in areas like employment. This is possible because obtaining and analyzing genetic information is not legally prohibited. If laws were enacted to prohibit ordinary citizens from obtaining and analyzing genetic information, companies would be unable to distinguish whether applicants are genetically engineered or natural humans. This would significantly reduce discrimination based on genetic differences. Should companies resort to loopholes, such as using applicants’ fingerprints or hair containing genetic information to obtain genetic data from doctors, strong penalties are needed to deter such actions.
During class discussions, some argued that laws cannot prevent discrimination because people will always violate them. However, this argument negates the very purpose of law. The purpose of law is to prevent specific actions through its existence. Of course, people who break the law will always exist. In such cases, the law is not meaningless; rather, it must be progressively strengthened to further reduce discrimination.
Another counterargument states that even if laws prohibit discrimination, they have limitations because companies can determine whether a person is a “custom-made human” or a “natural human” simply by having them run 3km during hiring. A company’s value lies in profit generation. It is reasonable for companies to use various tests to evaluate applicants’ abilities in order to select excellent talent. Generally, companies test whether applicants possess the appropriate skills for the job. Research positions assess research proficiency, while sales roles evaluate interpersonal skills. These abilities are not genetically determined. The claim that academic ability is genetic ignores the importance of effort. Capabilities can change significantly based on how much one studies. The same applies to running 3km. With effort, anyone can improve. In other words, unless genetic testing is used to determine whether someone is a custom-made human or a natural human, companies cannot easily judge whether an applicant is one or the other. Furthermore, from a company’s perspective, it is more advantageous to hire employees based on job-related skills rather than using secondary abilities like running to determine whether they are natural or custom-made. Therefore, the idea that companies would specifically seek to distinguish between natural and custom-made humans is merely a vague fantasy.
Finally, there are counterarguments pointing to ethical issues. The claim is that parents arbitrarily altering their child’s genes reflects only the parents’ will, not the child’s, making it ethically problematic. The ‘custom-made humans’ depicted in ‘Gattaca’ are individuals born with enhanced physical health and reduced susceptibility to disease. While one could argue this is unethical because it disregards the child’s will, it’s unlikely any child would dislike being born with such advantageous conditions. Of course, as mentioned in the discussion, it is considered wrong for parents to specifically enhance genes in certain areas to determine their child’s career path according to their own wishes. However, modifying genes to enhance health does not determine the child’s career path; rather, it provides the child with more opportunities for career choices in life. Therefore, it poses no ethical problem whatsoever.
As mentioned earlier, in ‘Gattaca’, a long time has passed since the emergence of custom-made humans, and without adequate measures against discrimination, discrimination against natural humans has intensified. Watching ‘Gattaca’ might lead one to think custom-made humans cause discrimination. However, assuming customized humans are developed in reality and their numbers gradually increase, if discrimination is prevented from the outset through strong legislation, the world of ‘Gattaca’ will not materialize. Instead, a world will emerge where customized humans and natural humans become indistinguishable, resulting in a society with almost no discrimination based on genetic differences. If such a world is built, there is absolutely no reason to oppose customized humans that enhance average lifespan and quality of life.
