How will human nature and social values change if the genetic engineering in the movie Gattaca becomes a reality?

While advances in genetic modification technology offer increasing benefits for human health and longevity, they also pose a threat to human nature and social values. We need to think about the ethical application of these technologies.

 

In the movie Gattaca, most children are born with artificially engineered genes. Parents’ sperm and eggs are collected and artificially fertilized, and the genes are edited. Only fertilized eggs with a reduced incidence of rare diseases and disabilities are implanted in the uterus. The resulting children have no physical abnormalities. They are born with bodies that can withstand a life expectancy of 100 years. Furthermore, it is possible to change the child’s natural talents, personality, appearance, etc. through further manipulations.
In the novel Brave New World, children are born in artificial wombs rather than in their mothers’ wombs, and people live their entire lives in young, healthy bodies and die in peace. Isn’t that amazing?
As far-fetched as these stories sound, we may not be far from the day when our society becomes more like Gattaca or Brave New World. This prediction is possible thanks to the rapidly advancing technology of genetic engineering. In fact, similar to Gattaca’s babies, today’s test-tube baby procedure involves pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, a process that looks at the genes before implantation. Eggs and sperm collected from the parents are fertilized to create fertilized eggs, and four to five days later, the embryo cells are used to diagnose genetic diseases. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is used to identify the presence of gene defects or other genetic disorders so that only embryos with the best genes can be implanted.
Modern genetic engineering technology has reached the point where it is possible to diagnose the genes of embryos and make implantation decisions. In particular, the Crisper genetic scissors, which were the talk of the life science world in 2015, have accelerated the development of this technology. CRISPR is an enzyme that cuts the DNA of a specific gene in a human or animal cell. This technology has the potential to reduce the time it takes to edit genes from years to days, and it can even edit multiple genes at the same time. A team of Chinese researchers successfully used CRISPR to replace a mutant hemoglobin beta (HBB) gene that causes anemia in human fertilized eggs (embryos) with a normal gene. When the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, the resulting child will not suffer from anemia. It’s a Gattaca come true.
However, there are various concerns about the application of human genetic engineering to our society at this level. Should we accept human genetic engineering into our society, and if so, how should we accept it? We need to think about these questions.
Human genetic engineering clearly exists for human benefit. A healthy body that doesn’t age, doesn’t develop diseases that run in families, and isn’t easily invaded by viruses or bacteria is something that humans have long dreamed of. Genetic engineering can fulfill our desire for health and longevity. But on the other hand, it can also threaten human nature and values.
In the modern competitive world, people use various techniques to enhance their appearance and abilities to increase their competitiveness. Schools, certifications, diets, plastic surgery, and more. When human genetic engineering is introduced into our society, genetic enhancement will be added to this list. If you could give birth to a child with enhanced appearance, personality, intelligence, and health, who wouldn’t want that? The problem is that human dignity and the essential values of democracy can be compromised in the process.
Enhancement through genetic manipulation is eugenic in the sense that it selects and eliminates genetically inadequate individuals to improve the genotype. Increasing the population with superior genes and decreasing the population with inferior genes seems like good logic on the surface. However, we already know the evils of eugenics in the past, especially when combined with the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany. Serious human rights violations occurred, with people with bad genes being forcibly sterilized and genocide committed in order to increase the number of good genes. The dignity of individual human beings has been disregarded in favor of genetic improvement of the population as a whole.
Even if future eugenics does not combine with totalitarianism, the outcome is not promising. In the competitive, capital-driven modern world, genetic manipulation is likely to combine with issues of inequality. This is because access to genetic modification technologies will be unequally divided according to capital. Money will be needed to fulfill the desire to have a child born with better genes. The financial status of the ancestors will determine whether the next generation will have better, mediocre, or inferior genes. In a competitive society, the children who are more likely to win are naturally those with genes that have been enhanced through genetic manipulation. Unequal genetic enhancement over many generations may lead to a class logic that separates the genetic aristocracy from the genetic plebeians. This is contrary to the democratic principle that all citizens are free and equal.
Furthermore, inferior genes are not necessarily inferior as eugenics claims. An example is sickle-shaped red blood cell syndrome. Normal red blood cells have round hemoglobin, which allows them to carry oxygen easily, but due to a gene mutation, deformed red blood cells with sickle-shaped hemoglobin cannot carry oxygen well, causing chronic anemia. At first glance, it would seem that a fully dominant (SS) red blood cell with a rounded hemoglobin would have a survival advantage. However, if the round red blood cell gene and the sickle-shaped red blood cell gene are heterozygous (Ss), they retain the round red blood cell shape and are resistant to malaria. The seemingly inferior sickle-shaped erythrocyte gene has survived because it is advantageous for survival in malaria-endemic areas of Africa and elsewhere. This is the result of natural selection. As the sickle cell syndrome example illustrates, the same gene can be advantageous or disadvantageous to survival depending on the environment in which the individual lives, and natural selection occurs in each case. So, if a trait is artificially selected and evolved by humans rather than nature, is it the same as natural selection among various mutations? We should consider whether genetic manipulation, which is aimed at suppressing mutations, is actually a hindrance to human evolution.
With the rapid development of science and technology, it is theoretically possible to push the limits of humanity through genetic manipulation. However, while the technology is advancing rapidly, the ethical considerations of its application have not kept pace. The application of human genetic engineering raises a number of ethical concerns, including eugenics and equality issues. Therefore, human genetic engineering should be limited to applications that benefit humans and minimize social problems. For example, sex selection of embryos should only be possible if pre-implantation genetic diagnostics reveal a recessively inherited genetic disease. Sex selection based on mere parental preference should be prohibited. Furthermore, genetic manipulation should only be allowed when the symptoms of a genetic disease are fatal to humans. Governments and societies should set guidelines for each genetic disease and genetic modification.
On the one hand, you might think that these restrictions are limiting human progress. However, in order to minimize social disruption, I think it’s better to have ethical discussions about the technology before applying it than to have it abused without any awareness.