In this blog post, we’ll examine the social, ethical, and medical implications of genetic engineering by looking at the example of the movie ‘Gattaca’ and the pros and cons of actual genetic engineering.

The Questions Raised by ‘Gattaca’

The movie ‘Gattaca’ dramatically illustrates the question: “Can hard work overcome genetic differences?” In the film, there are “Qualifieds” who were genetically engineered to possess superior traits from birth, and they train for space exploration at an organization called Gattaca. In contrast, the protagonist, Vincent, is an “Unqualified” who has not undergone any genetic modification; due to physical conditions such as nearsightedness and short stature, he is officially ineligible to apply to Gattaca. Vincent attempts to overcome the discrimination against him by assuming the identity of Jerome, a Qualifier, but what he demonstrates is not so much an effort to be recognized for his pure ability as it is a series of deceptions aimed at “appearing to be a Qualifier.”

Vincent’s Actions and the Film’s Message

Early in the film, Vincent demonstrates that his abilities are by no means inferior to those of the Qualifiers, earning praise from his superior. However, taking the job under Jerome’s identity was a crime, and to conceal this, Vincent engages in a series of negative actions: using someone else’s blood and urine, resorting to violence to evade identity verification, and replacing his own heartbeat with a recorded signal from Jerome. Rather than showing the process by which he actually proves his “ability” to join the space mission, the film increasingly focuses solely on his efforts to hide the title he has obtained until the very end. As a result, rather than experiencing the catharsis of success achieved through effort, the audience is left with a stronger impression that genetic background determines human success.

Social Conventions and Preferences Drive Genetic Modification

If we imagine a society where genetic modification is permitted, the direction of that modification would be determined by the conventions and preferences of that society—specifically, which traits are defined as “good.” Every society has certain behavioral patterns and evaluation criteria—that is, customs—and individuals form ideals of what is desirable based on those standards. Therefore, genetic engineering would be carried out to align with society’s preferences, and as a result, there is a high likelihood that specific genotypes would be excessively favored, leading to genetic homogenization within society. This phenomenon could give rise not only to ethical issues but also to social conflict.

Genetic homogenization carries evolutionary risks

Genetic homogenization undermines the diversity of the gene pool. The gene pool refers to the total genetic information possessed by a population; a large and diverse gene pool is more likely to contain genes capable of adapting to new environmental changes. From today’s perspective, certain traits may appear advantageous, but the value of genes to living organisms varies depending on environmental changes. Therefore, it is uncertain whether a gene pool homogenized by social conventions will be able to respond appropriately to drastic environmental changes in the distant future.

The Class Division and Hereditary Nature of Success

Genetic engineering has an absolute impact on an individual’s potential for success, and as a result, there is a risk that social class divisions will become entrenched. In modern society, many abilities that facilitate the accumulation of wealth—such as health, physical ability, intelligence, and appearance—are largely innate. Through genetic engineering, people with superior traits are more likely to accumulate wealth regardless of their effort, which renders the efforts of those who have not undergone such modifications relatively meaningless. The problem is that this genetic and economic advantage creates a positive feedback loop that reinforces itself across generations. The capital accumulated by a particular class enables them to “engineer” their children’s genetic advantages, ultimately creating a structure in which superior traits and wealth are inherited simultaneously. Consequently, the relative deprivation and social discontent felt by others can lead to decreased productivity and a decline in public morale.

Cost Issues and Inequality of Access

The cost of genetic technologies exacerbates inequality of access.
While there are reports that artificial insemination may involve relatively low costs, the manipulation of genes themselves—as opposed to simple fertilization—is expected to be far more expensive. Consequently, the wealthy will have more opportunities to impart superior traits to their children, while those from less privileged backgrounds will find it difficult to access such opportunities. As a result, the combination of genetic superiority and economic superiority risks hindering social mobility and entrenching social inequality.

The Dignity of Embryos and Ethical Issues

Genetic manipulation raises ethical issues directly linked to human dignity. Dignity implies the right to be respected simply for one’s existence; thus, the argument that an embryo’s dignity is violated if it is treated merely as a tool for a specific purpose is compelling. Embryos become subjects of manipulation regardless of their own will, a fact that sparks ethical debate. Furthermore, the very fact that genetic manipulation is possible raises the issue of determining and intervening at the embryonic stage in the congenital suffering that the future adult will experience.

Medical Benefits: Disease Prevention and Family Happiness

A strong positive aspect of genetic manipulation is the prevention of congenital diseases. Congenital diseases impose significant limitations on an individual’s life, place a heavy burden of responsibility on parents, and are often difficult to resolve entirely through personal effort. By correcting genetic information, it is possible to enhance family well-being and reduce the incidence of painful genetic diseases. From this perspective, genetic engineering is a means of significantly improving the quality of life for individuals and families.

Impact on the Healthcare System

Genetic engineering can reduce the societal and medical burden associated with specific congenital diseases. If congenital diseases are widely prevented through genetic testing and editing, the social capital currently spent on research and treatment infrastructure for those diseases can be redirected toward the treatment and prevention of other acquired diseases. This would allow the medical community to focus on a wider range of diseases, thereby improving average cure rates and contributing to the extension of humanity’s average life expectancy.

The Need for Legal Regulation and Its Direction

While genetic modification offers significant benefits as described above, it also has distinct side effects, making legal regulation absolutely necessary. A vague regulation that simply states “permitted for medical use only” leaves room for ambiguity and could allow for overly broad interpretations. Even for medical purposes, we cannot rule out the possibility that, after removing a harmful gene, the replacement gene might be one that carries socially preferred, superior traits. Furthermore, there are cases where it is difficult to determine what is “medical” and what is “cosmetic.” For example, while conditions that have a substantial impact on daily life—such as malocclusion—may be medically permissible, standards of beauty vary among individuals and societies, so the boundaries of regulation must be clearly defined.

Proposal for a Specific System: Sets A and B

Therefore, more specific legal regulations are needed. One approach is to establish a strict rule such as, “Only genes from Set A may be replaced with genes from Set B.” Here, Set A consists of genes identified by experts—based on agreed-upon criteria—as causing adverse outcomes. Just as society widely accepts disability classifications, Set A can be formed through sufficient public discourse and expert discussion to secure social consensus. Set B is a set that restricts all replacement genes from becoming superior traits; it must be designed so as not to exceed the purpose of merely removing adverse genes. Furthermore, since opposition to specifying a particular gene is expected, a method that guarantees some element of randomness—such as random selection—during replacement may be practically feasible.

Substitute Decision-Making and Accountability Systems

Since genetic modification is performed regardless of the embryo’s own will, it is difficult to completely avoid issues of dignity. To mitigate this, it is reasonable to introduce a framework similar to the system of legal representatives.

Specifically, this would be a system in which parents and medical professionals make decisions jointly and assume legal and ethical responsibility for those decisions. This approach would allow us to faithfully reflect the humanitarian goal of preventing the congenital suffering the embryo would experience as an adult, while also respecting the embryo’s dignity.

Conclusion: The Justification for Regulated Genetic Modification

Genetic modification carries significant side effects, including genetic homogenization and violations of dignity. At the same time, it offers clear benefits, such as the prevention of congenital diseases, the reduction of the burden on the healthcare system, and the extension of human lifespan. Therefore, genetic modification is not an issue to be unconditionally banned or indiscriminately permitted; rather, it should be implemented in a limited manner under specific and strict legal and institutional frameworks. Such regulations should be designed to respect the dignity of the embryo while preventing situations where the dignity of the resulting adult is compromised by unwanted diseases.