In this blog post, we’ll examine—through the movie ‘Gattaca’—what advantages “custom-made” humans might offer in improving humanity’s quality of life, and how we can address the discrimination and ethical issues that could arise from their widespread adoption.
“Gattaca” is set in an era where genetic technology is so highly advanced that a person’s health status and susceptibility to disease can be predicted based solely on their genetic information. In the world of the film, most people opt for a method of conception that involves selecting and modifying genetic information before fertilization, rather than relying on natural pregnancy. People born through natural conception are considered at a disadvantage in terms of genetic susceptibility to disease and life expectancy, and thus face discrimination in various situations, such as employment. In other words, a society has emerged that favors those born through genetic selection, resulting in the majority of people being born this way, while those born naturally constitute only a small minority. Those born through this process are called “designer humans,” while those born naturally are referred to as “natural humans.” Since most companies prefer “custom-made humans,” who are considered genetically superior, “natural humans” are limited to only a few occupations, such as janitors. The film frequently depicts how “natural humans” are increasingly marginalized and discriminated against as the number of “custom-made humans” grows, making it inevitable for viewers to develop a negative perception of the latter. But are “custom-made humans” really bad? No, they are not. In fact, “custom-made humans” possess advantages that can benefit humanity.
Designer humans can significantly contribute to increasing average life expectancy and improving quality of life. Even today, many people die from diseases at a relatively young age rather than from old age. However, if gene-editing or screening technologies can be used to reduce the likelihood of certain genetic diseases, it would be possible to alleviate the suffering caused by illness and increase the chances of living a healthy life. However, current gene-editing technology has not yet reached the stage depicted in the movie ‘Gattaca’, where human genetic information is extensively modified to tailor both health and intelligence to desired specifications. Representative gene-editing therapies are already in clinical use; in the United States, a CRISPR/Cas9-based treatment for sickle cell disease was approved in 2023, and its age eligibility was expanded in 2026. These technologies demonstrate the potential for greater use in the prevention or treatment of specific genetic diseases in the future. In this regard, some may argue that creating “custom-made humans”—by removing recessive genes and selecting only dominant ones for fertilization—would reduce genetic diversity, making people more susceptible to infectious diseases. However, the “designer humans” depicted in ‘Gattaca’ are not created by cloning the genes of celebrities or widely disseminating the genes of a select few; rather, they are portrayed as being created by removing disease-causing or health-compromising factors from the parents’ genes before fertilization. Therefore, this approach differs from the large-scale dissemination of genes from a specific minority, and the issue of reduced genetic diversity cannot be viewed in the same light. In fact, since the relationship between genetic diversity and disease risk is difficult to assess simply by classifying specific genes as dominant or recessive, the issue of genetic diversity in genetically engineered humans must also be approached with great caution.
One argument against “designer humans” is that “in a society where designer humans are widespread, discrimination between designer humans and naturally born humans will become a serious problem, just as depicted in the movie.” However, the world of ‘Gattaca’ is a fictional construct by the director, hypothesizing a scenario of severe discrimination in a society where designer humans are prevalent. In other words, ‘Gattaca’ can be seen as an extreme example where discrimination is particularly pronounced. In real society, there are various ways to reduce discrimination. In particular, unlike the film’s premise, current human genome editing technology has not yet reached the stage where genetic information can be used to comprehensively design human abilities and lifespan; moreover, heritable human genome editing is subject to even stricter scrutiny due to safety and ethical concerns. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also highlighted the potential impacts of heritable human genome editing on children and society as a whole, as well as the associated safety and ethical issues, emphasizing the need for strong governance and oversight.
Discrimination can be reduced by enacting strong laws. In ‘Gattaca’, because genetic information can be used to determine a person’s health status and genetic traits, it is possible to distinguish between “custom-designed” humans and “natural” humans. Because these two groups can be distinguished, discrimination occurs in areas such as employment. This is made possible by the film’s premise, in which the collection and analysis of genetic information are not sufficiently restricted. If laws were enacted to prohibit employers and others from arbitrarily obtaining and analyzing a job applicant’s genetic information, it would become difficult for companies to distinguish between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans,” thereby significantly reducing discrimination based on genetic differences. In reality, the use of genetic information raises important issues regarding individual rights and privacy protection; therefore, institutional safeguards are needed to prevent discrimination based on genetic information. Strong penalties and a robust oversight system are also necessary to deter companies from circumventing regulations by using applicants’ biological samples—which contain genetic information—to obtain such data through medical institutions or third parties. Regarding human genome editing, the WHO also emphasizes the need for governance and oversight systems at both the national and international levels.
During a class discussion, it was argued that discrimination cannot be prevented by laws alone because there will always be people who violate them. However, this argument negates the very purpose of the law. This is because the purpose of the law is to restrict socially unacceptable behavior and minimize harm. Of course, there will always be those who do not obey the law. In such cases, it is not that the law is meaningless; rather, laws and systems must be continuously refined and strengthened to reduce violations and prevent harm.
Another counterargument is that there are limits to what laws can do to prohibit discrimination, since companies can determine whether a candidate is a “tailored” or “natural” fit simply by having them run a 3-kilometer race, for example, during the hiring process. The value of a company lies in generating profit. It is reasonable for companies to use various tests to evaluate applicants’ abilities in order to recruit top talent. Typically, companies assess whether an applicant possesses the skills suitable for the position. For research positions, they assess how well a person conducts research; for sales positions, they evaluate how well a person interacts with others. These abilities are not determined by genetics alone. Just because academic performance is influenced by genetic factors does not mean we can completely disregard the importance of effort. Ability can vary significantly depending on how much one studies. The same applies to a 3-kilometer run. With effort, one can improve their time as much as they want. In other words, unless companies use genetic testing to distinguish between “custom-made” and “natural” humans, it is difficult for them to easily determine whether a candidate is one or the other. Furthermore, from a company’s perspective, it is more beneficial to hire based on how well a candidate can perform the specific job duties rather than judging whether they are a “natural” or “custom-made” human based on secondary abilities like running. Therefore, the idea that companies would go out of their way to distinguish between “natural” and “custom-made” humans is nothing more than a vague fantasy.
Finally, there are counterarguments that point to ethical issues. The argument is that parents arbitrarily altering their child’s genes—a decision made solely by the parents and not by the child—raises ethical concerns. The “custom-made humans” depicted in ‘Gattaca’ are individuals whose genetic traits have been modified to make their bodies healthier and reduce their susceptibility to disease. While one could argue that this is unethical because it does not reflect the child’s will, it cannot be assumed that all children would necessarily object to being born with such health advantages. 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 is born with them, in order to determine the child’s future path according to their own wishes. However, modifying genes to improve health does not determine a child’s future path; rather, it can be used to enable the child to choose from a wider range of paths throughout their life, so it is difficult to view this as unconditionally problematic from an ethical standpoint. However, current science and technology have not yet reached the stage where genes can be perfectly adjusted in the desired direction, and since heritable genome editing can affect future generations, issues such as safety, informed consent, and social inequality must be considered together. The WHO also reports that heritable human genome editing may raise greater safety and ethical concerns than somatic genome editing.
As mentioned earlier, in ‘Gattaca’, a significant amount of time has passed since the advent of “custom-made” humans, and because no adequate measures have been taken to address discrimination, discrimination against “natural” humans has become so widespread that it is difficult to eradicate. Watching ‘Gattaca’, one might easily conclude that designer humans lead to discrimination. However, assuming that designer humans were developed in the real world today and an increasing number of people were born through genetic intervention, if discrimination were prevented from the outset—for instance, by enacting the strong laws mentioned above—it is not certain that the world depicted in ‘Gattaca’ would necessarily come to pass. In particular, the human genome editing technologies currently under development—unlike the customized humans depicted in the film—are primarily focused on treating or preventing specific diseases and are far removed from technologies designed to comprehensively engineer a person’s genetic traits. Furthermore, discussions regarding the safety and ethical implications of heritable human genome editing are still ongoing, and there are international recommendations that clinical applications should not be rushed. If these technologies advance sufficiently in the future and social consensus and institutional frameworks are established, there is a possibility that customized genetic technology could be utilized to improve average life expectancy and quality of life. In that case, rather than unconditionally opposing the concept of “custom-made humans” itself, it is more important to consider for what purposes and to what extent genetic technology should be used, and how to prevent discrimination and inequality that may arise in the process. Ultimately, the issue of “custom-made humans” is not whether the technology itself is good or evil, but rather what purpose it serves and under what social institutions and ethical standards it is regulated.
