In this blog post, we will examine the potential of personalized human technology to prevent diseases and disabilities and improve the quality of human life, as well as the social and ethical issues that may arise in the process, and consider how this technology should ideally be utilized.
In the early 2000s, when Professor Hwang Woo-suk’s research team garnered worldwide attention for their work on human embryonic stem cells, people were enthusiastic about the potential to overcome various disabilities and diseases. However, it was later revealed that a significant portion of the research results had been fabricated, leading to the retraction of the related papers and sparking major social controversy over the ethics and verification procedures in life science research. At the same time, concerns have consistently been raised regarding whether research on human genetic information and the genetic modification of germ cells and embryos are ethically permissible, and whether there is a risk that such technologies could be misused. The movie ‘Gattaca’ takes this a step further, depicting a society where parents can intervene in various traits—such as appearance, personality, abilities, and diseases—by altering or selecting a child’s genetic information even before birth. Of course, there remains a significant gap between the technology depicted in the film and current genome-editing techniques. While human genome editing has advanced to the point where it is used in actual medical practice for the treatment or prevention of specific diseases, it has not yet reached the stage where all desired human traits can be freely engineered. In particular, it is not possible with current science and technology to precisely engineer traits such as intelligence, personality, and physical ability—which result from the complex interaction of multiple genes—in a desired direction. Therefore, if such technology advances in the future, the problems it entails could become even more significant; conversely, the positive impact it could have on human society would also be immense. However, the root of the issue is not significantly different from the current debate. Focusing on this, I will proceed with the discussion by incorporating the specific problems of the future society depicted in the film.
To put it simply, although there are many concerns, rather than unconditionally rejecting customized human technology for the sake of the universal progress of human society, I believe it is reasonable to seek ways to actively utilize it while ensuring safety and adhering to ethical standards. If personalized human technology develops sufficiently, humanity can expect the possibility of preemptively reducing the risk of traits or diseases in which genetic factors play a role—such as alcohol dependence, impulsivity, or violence. Similarly, there is potential to simultaneously extend lifespan and improve quality of life by preventing various genetic disorders or increasing resistance to specific diseases. However, it must be recognized that these effects do not apply equally to all diseases or behavioral traits, and that many human traits are influenced by a combination of numerous genes and environmental factors. Furthermore, the prospect of being able to be born with outstanding abilities in all areas—such as intelligence, physical fitness, and emotional intelligence—remains, for now, a possibility for the future. Nevertheless, if these technologies eventually become capable of partially compensating for inherent human limitations, people will be less likely to give up on their dreams or face frustration due to a lack of innate talent, and will be able to fully unleash their abilities and talents in the fields they love. If this happens, human society as a whole could experience significant progress. As more people benefit from customized human technology, the pace of social development is likely to accelerate, and in the long term, it may even lead to a new society by reducing certain disparities in human health and abilities. However, for such a vision to become a reality, social consensus must be reached—not merely on technological advancement itself, but on who will apply the technology, under what criteria, and to whom.
In this context, the first issue that may arise is how to resolve the numerous problems that could occur during the transitional period until society develops as a whole. The disparities that may emerge between customized humans and naturally born humans could evolve beyond individual differences into social class divisions; furthermore, countries lacking economic resources may be completely excluded from such benefits. In fact, international discussions surrounding human genome editing have highlighted the possibility that health disparities will widen as the benefits of the technology become concentrated in certain countries or social classes. The World Health Organization (WHO) also emphasizes that while human genome editing technology has the potential to improve health, international governance and oversight are necessary to prevent it from exacerbating inequalities within nations and societies. Therefore, to endorse personalized human technologies, we must also propose measures to address these social disparities.
Given the nature of personalized human technologies, a transitional period is inevitable. However, efforts must be made to minimize its impact. The first step toward this is to establish a social and institutional management system for personalized human technologies and, where necessary, introduce them in phases while ensuring the public interest is safeguarded. Entrusting the creation of “customized humans” entirely to private companies or general hospitals could lead to various dangerous genetic modifications or unproven procedures; furthermore, differences in regulatory standards between countries could make it difficult to control the technology, potentially prolonging the transition period. Therefore, under the firm oversight of the government and independent specialized agencies, technologies whose safety and efficacy have been verified should be applied in phases, and institutional mechanisms must be established to ensure that everyone can receive medical benefits under reasonable conditions. Currently, supervision and governance at the national and international levels are already emphasized regarding human genome editing; in particular, the genetic editing of germ cells and embryos—which can be passed on to future generations—requires a much higher level of safety and ethical review than somatic cell editing. If such systems are properly established, it will be possible to institutionally minimize the potential for discrimination between people born naturally and those who have undergone genetic intervention. If institutional measures are put in place to prohibit potential forms of discrimination—such as in employment or educational opportunities—it appears we can navigate this transitional period without major issues. Furthermore, the issue of international disparities must not be taken lightly. While economic disparities between nations historically led to gaps in medical technology, as genome editing technology advances, these disparities are likely to translate more directly into differences in health and survival. Therefore, it is necessary for countries that have developed the technology first to share it and their medical infrastructure with other nations, and to provide support so that even countries with limited economic resources can safely benefit from it. This approach would not differ significantly from the way countries that have already established infrastructure—such as electricity, water supply, and educational facilities—assist developing nations in their progress.
Even after these social and institutional issues are resolved, concerns may arise that parents are dictating their children’s entire lives, given that—due to the nature of personalized human technology—children with traits selected according to their parents’ wishes could be born. Parents often hope their children will fulfill the dreams they themselves were unable to achieve. However, it could become a major problem if these expectations are reinforced or fixed in a specific direction through genetic intervention. In particular, if parents attempt to select a child’s appearance, abilities, or personality beyond the therapeutic purpose of ensuring the child’s health, there is a high likelihood of a conflict between the child’s right to choose their own life and the parents’ right to make such choices. Because of these issues, current international discussions are highlighting the need to distinguish between genome editing aimed at treating or preventing diseases and genetic interventions intended to enhance human abilities or traits.
However, it would be incorrect to assume that parental choices will necessarily determine every aspect of a child’s life. Of course, individuals born with certain talents or abilities may carry the weight of their parents’ expectations on their shoulders, but this does not mean that other talents are necessarily neglected. On the contrary, if future genetic intervention technologies evolve not merely to enhance specific abilities but to reduce the risk of disease and improve overall health, the potential for individuals to utilize their abilities and aptitudes in diverse ways could increase even further. Defying parental expectations to forge one’s own path is no easy task even today. This will be no different in a society of “custom-made humans.” While overcoming parental opposition might still be a challenge if one has a passion for a particular path, the likelihood of being thwarted before even beginning the journey due to innate physical traits or illness could decrease. In fact, since talent is not limited to specific fields, if people with diverse abilities are able to pursue their dreams, society will be able to develop more rapidly alongside individual self-actualization, as mentioned earlier. Ultimately, what matters is not predetermining human lives through genetic intervention, but rather using technology to reduce situations where individuals cannot fully realize their potential due to illness or physical limitations, and to broaden the scope within which individuals can choose their own lives.
Finally, the most fundamental and critical ethical issues may arise. Among these, the question of individual identity will take center stage. If, as a result of human customization technology, parents pursue only the “best” genetic traits, humans could ultimately become homogenized into beings with similar characteristics, all striving toward the most “ideal” form imaginable. Would such a society truly be considered normal? Furthermore, if parents or society begin to evaluate human worth based on traits they deem desirable, those who fall short of such standards may come to feel that their very existence is inferior. Therefore, the issue of human customization technology is not merely a question of whether genes can be altered, but is also linked to the fundamental question of what constitutes a “desirable” human being.
It is difficult to give a simple “yes” to this question. Rather, I believe the challenge for a society utilizing human customization technology will be to actively employ it while preventing such a society from materializing. I believe this can be addressed through policies such as restricting genetic interventions related to physical appearance, limiting the scope of genetic modifications, and distinguishing between therapeutic purposes and those aimed at enhancing abilities. Currently, human genome editing technology is already being used in the treatment of certain diseases. For example, in 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved “Casgevy,” a treatment for sickle cell disease, making it the first CRISPR-based therapy approved by the FDA. As of 2026, the FDA has approved Casgevy for the treatment of not only sickle cell disease but also transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia. In other words, genome editing can no longer be considered a vague, futuristic technology that exists only in movies. However, we must distinguish between the advancement of these therapeutic technologies and the technology depicted in the movie ‘Gattaca’, which involves comprehensively designing human abilities and physical appearance before birth. Currently, the international community is approaching the genetic editing of germ cells and embryos—which can be passed on to future generations—with particular caution. The World Health Organization (WHO) views such genetic interventions as posing greater safety and ethical risks due to their potential to be passed down to future generations, and has stated that clinical applications should not be rushed at this time. Rather than delving into these details, let’s consider a more fundamental issue. As mentioned in the preface, Dr. Hwang Woo-suk had numerous supporters at the height of his research’s popularity. Among them were patients and their families who believed that treatment would only be possible if the technology he was expected to develop at the time were to materialize. However, no matter how high the expectations for scientific achievements may be, the integrity of research findings and research ethics cannot be sacrificed; the case of Hwang Woo-suk’s research also demonstrates that desperate hopes for a cure cannot take the place of scientific verification and ethical standards. That said, this does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the therapeutic potential and life-saving value that new technologies may bring. If new technologies can save lives or free people from disease, we must ask what kind of ethics would justify rejecting them outright. The same applies to personalized human technology. While it entails various potential problems, if the technology itself is developed safely and effectively and utilized appropriately, it has the potential to become a groundbreaking solution that can bring relief to countless people suffering from disease and disability. Any potential problems arising from this must be strictly controlled, and at the same time, institutional safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the benefits of the technology are not concentrated solely in specific social classes or nations. The World Health Organization also acknowledges the potential benefits of human genome editing while emphasizing the need for an international oversight system that takes safety, effectiveness, ethics, and equity into account. This is a technology worth actively developing and utilizing to improve human health and quality of life, even while accepting the associated challenges. For humans, the most precious things are life, health, and self-actualization. Rather than unconditionally rejecting personalized human technologies—which have the potential to provide all of these to more people—we must find ways to develop and widely utilize them safely while upholding human dignity and the right to choose.
