This blog post examines the ethical issues raised by genetic engineering and custom-made humans through the film Gattaca, and explores the social controversies that gene therapy technology may bring.
The film ‘Gattaca’ depicts a future world where technological advancement divides people into those born naturally (in-valid) and those born through genetic engineering (Valid). In this world, genetically engineered humans are valued by society for their superior health and abilities, while natural humans face discrimination due to perceived health issues or weaker physical capabilities. As depicted in the film, ‘creating’ customized humans through genetic manipulation raises ethical questions, sparking extensive debate over whether customized humans or naturally born individuals are more desirable. In my view, the advancement of genetic technology itself is not the problem. In a future where genetic manipulation becomes commonplace, genetic modification enabling the birth of healthy babies would be preferable to natural conception.
Genes (DNA) are a type of nucleic acid that plays a major role in the inheritance of traits in organisms, including humans. Problems caused by genes, such as diseases or genetic disorders, can be addressed by modifying the genetic makeup. Genetic modification is primarily divided into two categories: somatic cell gene therapy and germ-line gene therapy. Somatic gene therapy is a form of genetic modification that does not affect offspring or the entire gene pool, making it less objectionable to people. The ethical issues surrounding this therapy are generally similar to those considered in research and clinical treatment for medical advancement. In contrast, germ-line gene therapy involves modifying genes in germ cells, affecting not only the individual but also their descendants. Therefore, germline gene therapy is highly effective for treating genetic diseases. However, it is a subject of intense debate, as some argue it raises significant ethical, social, and political issues. A designer baby is a human born after manipulating the genome of an embryo through germline gene therapy to eliminate unfavorable traits.
From an efficiency standpoint, I support designer humans. Germline gene therapy can fundamentally prevent genetic diseases like cancer and Down’s Syndrome. Leroy Walters argued in his 1986 academic paper “The Ethics of Human Therapy” that germline gene therapy can be ethically justified from an efficiency perspective. Even if somatic cell gene therapy successfully treats single-gene disorders like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease, the cured individual remains a carrier of the disease and can still pass it on to their children. If the spouse of such a carrier possesses one normal and one abnormal gene, the probability of their child inheriting the genetic disease is 50%. In contrast, children born to two carriers of the same genetic disease will both inherit it. Of course, somatic cell gene therapy is an option, but in the long term, germline gene therapy is far more effective. This is because it fundamentally breaks the chain of hereditary disease within that family.
Furthermore, conditions like Down syndrome can cause irreversible brain damage to the fetus within the first three months of a natural pregnancy. Moreover, current medical technology cannot perform gene editing on a fetus in the womb. In such cases, the only options are abortion or giving birth to a child who will face lifelong hardship due to the genetic disease. Both choices represent an agonizing decision for parents. In December 2008, the world’s first cancer-free designer baby was born in the UK. This baby’s aunt, grandmother, and great-grandmother had all suffered from breast cancer. Because this dreadful genetic disease had plagued the family for so long, the baby’s parents now wanted to break that chain of suffering. The baby’s mother said in an interview: “I think this is what I have to do. If our daughter were born with this gene and developed breast cancer, I wouldn’t have the heart to look at her and say ‘I didn’t try’.” These words vividly convey a mother’s heartfelt desire to give her child a healthy body. Germline gene therapy represents the mother’s hope to avoid that difficult situation.
Walters argues in the same journal for the necessity of germline gene therapy, noting that certain diseases can only be treated through this method. For example, genetic disorders affecting the central nervous system cannot be treated with somatic cell gene therapy. In this sense, germline gene therapy—essentially creating customized humans—is an unavoidable reality. The previously mentioned cancer-free designer baby in the UK is precisely such a case. To elaborate, embryos carrying the breast cancer gene possess a defective BRCA1 gene. First, 11 embryos were obtained via in vitro fertilization (IVF). The embryos were then screened. Six embryos were discarded because they carried the BRCA1 gene. Of the remaining five, three were discarded due to other abnormalities. Two healthy embryos were implanted into the mother’s uterus, with only one ultimately succeeding. Seeing this case, how could one not willingly pursue germline gene therapy to guarantee the health of one’s child?
One reason for critically viewing germline gene therapy is the concern that it could promote eugenics, limit genetic diversity, and ultimately lead to a genetic supermarket. However, all these concerns stem not from germline gene therapy itself, but from excessive human greed. We cannot abandon this highly beneficial technology because of someone’s greed. Technology itself is value-neutral, possessing neither good nor evil; the problem lies in the greed of those who use it. Just as we seek solutions when problems arise, human greed must also be restrained. For instance, the development of the internet has brought countless benefits to people, yet some use it to harm others to satisfy their own interests or desires. Despite this, we do not abandon the internet; instead, we supplement its flaws with laws like the Cyber Information Protection Act. The same applies to germline gene therapy. I believe seeking solutions is far better than passively opposing germline gene therapy. In my view, we can legally prevent the genetic superhumans people fear enough to make this technology universally accessible. For instance, we could issue licenses permitting this treatment and limit the number of licenses granted. Only hospitals holding these licenses would be permitted to assist those in genuine need. Furthermore, since all gene editing procedures would be meticulously documented, oversight bodies could rigorously review these records to prohibit modifications driven by personal vanity, such as altering appearance or intelligence. However, we must always remember that the advancement and application of gene therapy technology aims to prevent and treat genetic diseases more effectively, not to engage in eugenics.
Some reject this technology, arguing that if germline gene therapy creates customized humans, natural individuals will face discrimination or contempt when seeking employment or purchasing insurance. Concerns exist that, as depicted in the film ‘Gattaca,’ individuals might be required to undergo genetic testing for employment or provide genetic information when purchasing insurance. However, I believe such scenarios are unlikely to materialize. The film was released in 1997, so such worries were understandable at the time. Nevertheless, a significant event concerning genetic testing occurred in the United States in 2002. This highly publicized case altered the previously feared scenario. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued BNSF, a major railroad company. BNSF violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by using employees’ genetic information to determine hiring decisions. As a result of this lawsuit, BNSF ceased such practices. This case demonstrates that discrimination in the hiring process existed even before the concept of “custom-made humans,” making it unrelated to that idea. Moreover, such discriminatory treatment can be legally restrained. In the United States, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 has been in effect since 2009. Under this law, it is illegal for health insurance providers to use genetic information to determine an individual’s eligibility for coverage. Additionally, employers are prohibited from using an individual’s genetic information to make decisions regarding hiring, promotion, or other employment actions. The existence of such laws suggests that, unlike in movies, obtaining a person’s genetic information isn’t that easy, so the problem of discriminatory treatment is actually less severe than one might think.
In a future where germline gene therapy technology is already advanced, are customized humans truly preferable? Or are natural humans preferable? In my opinion, utilizing technology to ensure the health of a newborn child seems like a good thing. Humans have an obligation to act virtuously. I believe we must do our utmost to avoid passing on genetic diseases or suffering to future generations. While this gene therapy technology may not satisfy every aspect, I trust we can compensate for its shortcomings through various methods. Nothing in this world is perfect. Rather than passively abandoning the technology, I believe it is far better to actively address its ethical issues.
