In this blog post, we’ll examine the differences between custom-made humans—who could be created through genetic engineering—and natural humans, and we’ll explore the implications of likening custom-made humans, who overcome genetic limitations, to “natural humans wearing glasses.”
In the popular weekend drama “Passion,” the main character discovers through a paternity test that he is actually adopted. So-called “paternity tests,” which frequently appear on television these days, confirm a parent-child relationship by examining the degree of genetic similarity between parents and children. This is because genes contain information related to the various biological characteristics of the person who possesses them. In this sense, genes can be likened to a kind of “barcode” that contains a person’s information. For example, Han Hyo-joo’s genes contain genetic information related to various traits, such as her eye color and hair texture. However, a single gene does not simply determine a single physical trait; in reality, human characteristics are influenced by a combination of multiple genes and environmental factors.
Genetic engineering is a technology that introduces or modifies genes associated with specific traits into an organism’s original genetic material to produce new characteristics. Genetically modified crops, such as “non-brooding tomatoes” or herbicide-tolerant soybeans, are prime examples of this technology. If such genetic engineering were applied to humans, might it lead to the emergence of humans with superior traits? Now that genetic engineering is actually being utilized in agriculture, opinions are divided among people regarding whether to support so-called “designer humans” or to continue living as “natural humans” born without genetic modification. While technologies that edit human genes in a way that is passed on to the next generation still require careful consideration from both scientific and ethical perspectives, we can contemplate the possibility of designer humans on the assumption that such technologies will eventually become feasible.
Genetic engineering offers the advantage of identifying undesirable genetic factors in advance and mitigating their effects. For example, genetic technology could be used to lower the likelihood of congenital genetic disorders or reduce the risk of specific diseases; in the long term, as our understanding of biological processes related to aging deepens, it may also be used to extend human healthy life expectancy. On the other hand, those skeptical of genetic engineering express concern about the reduction of genetic diversity from an evolutionary biology perspective. They argue that if genetic diversity is excessively reduced, human populations may become vulnerable to changing natural environments or new diseases.
However, it is not appropriate to judge the results of genetic engineering technology solely in terms of a reduction in genetic diversity. Fundamentally, genetic variation continues to occur across multiple generations, and genetic engineering does not mean that all genetic diversity is permanently lost. In particular, if only genes related to specific traits are modified, it does not mean that all diversity across the entire genome disappears at once. Of course, there is a possibility that a reduction in genetic diversity could actually become a problem in certain situations. However, if genetic engineering is applied to genetic factors related to specific traits, it is possible to continuously monitor and manage any future issues that may arise in connection with the modified genes. For example, if unexpected diseases or side effects occur in people whose specific genetic traits have been altered, we can investigate those possibilities and manage them medically. In this way, I believe that evolutionary biological concerns regarding genetic engineering can also be managed to a certain extent if we thoroughly study and prepare for the potential future impacts of the modified genes.
I am in favor of the emergence of “designer humans.” Of course, a society composed solely of people with superior abilities could give rise to various unforeseen social problems; the movie ‘Gattaca’ also addresses the discrimination and social issues that could arise when society is structured around “custom-made humans” with superior genetic traits. However, depending on how genetic engineering technology is used, “custom-made humans” could simply become “modified natural humans.” If genetic technology is used not to make all humans uniform according to specific standards, but merely to partially compensate for innate disadvantages, the difference between “custom-made humans” and “natural humans” might not be as great as one might think.
One of the greatest advantages of genetic engineering is the ability to identify and address the possibility of specific genetic abnormalities or diseases before birth. For example, if genetic technology could be applied to children with congenital genetic disorders or syndromes, this could have profound implications. People with congenital disorders or disabilities are likely to face various challenges in health, education, and social life from the moment they are born. For instance, Down syndrome is a genetic condition characterized by an extra copy of chromosome 21, which can have various effects on development and learning, though the severity varies greatly from person to person. Therefore, it is inappropriate to define Down syndrome simply as “low intelligence,” and education and support should be tailored to each individual’s abilities and needs. Even today, opportunities for education and employment are not equally available to everyone. If genetic technology can prevent or alleviate specific congenital disorders or serious genetic problems, wouldn’t it be a technology that creates a fairer starting line rather than one that homogenizes people? In the frequently discussed issue of “equal opportunity,” people with congenital conditions or disabilities are often placed at a disadvantage due to health limitations; however, if future genetic technologies can reduce these congenital limitations, they have the potential to contribute to equal opportunity in a broader sense.
The movie “Gattaca” features Vincent, a “natural” human with genetic traits such as poor eyesight, a risk of heart disease, and a short life expectancy. Vincent studied hard and worked diligently because he wanted to become an astronaut, but the aerospace company assessed applicants’ suitability based on their genetic information, and he was deemed unfit. However, if Vincent had simply been a “natural” human wearing contact lenses, his eyesight would not have been an issue. In fact, in the movie, Vincent uses the identity and DNA of Jerome—a genetically superior individual—to evade genetic discrimination and join the aerospace company. Let’s take this a step further and imagine that Vincent’s genetic issues related to his vision were corrected through genetic engineering. He is not becoming a cyborg, nor is he modifying his body with machinery. He has merely corrected some of the disadvantageous genetic traits he was born with. In that sense, I believe he is a “modified natural human” and, metaphorically speaking, is no different from a “natural human wearing contact lenses.” The core issue depicted in ‘Gattaca’ lies not in genetic traits themselves, but in the practice of prejudging human capabilities and social value based on genetic information. In fact, the film is widely regarded as a work that illustrates the discrimination that can arise when genetic predictions unduly limit human potential.
Although the society depicted in the film ‘Gattaca’ is not exactly the same as our current society, there is a difference worth considering in that human potential can vary depending on genetic conditions. Even today, there are people who, due to congenital diseases or disabilities, find themselves at a disadvantage in education or employment, regardless of their actual abilities. In particular, with Down syndrome, there are significant individual differences in development and health status, and many people lead healthy lives with appropriate medical and educational support. Therefore, we must not simply define these individuals as those at a disadvantage in social competition. What is important is not to limit a person’s potential in advance based on genetic traits, but to enable each individual to fully realize their own potential. If future genetic technology can safely reduce the disadvantages caused by congenital conditions, it will not be a technology that homogenizes humanity, but rather a technology—like a “lens”—that helps each person realize their dreams. In the sense that it offers broader choices to fetuses with congenital disorders and their families, personalized genetic technology must be carefully researched and utilized to achieve this purpose.
