In a world where a predominant proportion of the population is created in a Petri dish, what happens to natural born citizens? Will they be discriminated against? Naturally, we like the ‘better’ people. We worship our football heroes, our star actors and actresses, and our other famous people. When genetically engineered children grow to fill these roles, what will society feel about these lower class individuals who won’t be able to compete with their modified siblings? In the movie Gattaca, a story about the life of a natural born man in a world of genetically engineered humans, the ‘god-born’ individuals are regulated to menial jobs such as janitorial work, much like today’s handicapped are. Indeed the ‘in-valids’ as they are called in Gattaca, could have a difficult time getting a worthwhile job. “My real resume was in my cells,” claims the main character Vincent, “Why should anyone invest all that money to train me, when there are a thousand other applicants with far cleaner profiles.” [1] A business could stand to lose a significant amount of time and money if a high level worker died unexpectedly. Businesses who use all ‘valid’ labor might have cheaper insurance rates, leading to job discrimination. “We have discrimination down to a science.. Its called geneticism,” claims Vincent.

In Gattaca, even the terms used to describe the two different classes demonstrate the possible human segregation. The genetically superior are marked as ‘valid’ while the genetically inferior are merely ‘in-valids.’ In today’s politically correct society, we may forget that ‘invalid’ was used as a polite term for handicapped individuals. In the Gattaca world where most of the population is artificially created and far superior to their ‘normal’ counterparts, they are recognized as the ‘valid’ measure. Compared to them, the rest are indeed physically challenged. Another interesting aspect is the use of biological scanners at Gattaca. When an ‘in-valid’ enters the facility and presents himself for scanning, alarms scream, shouting ‘in-valid!’ There is never a chance that a unmodified person could get accepted. When applying, Vincent gives a fake urine sample, and the doctor congratulates him for being accepted. “What about the interview?” he asks and to which the doctor replies “That was it.” [2] Even the name assumed by the real Jerome – Eugene - is a play on words. “Eugene” is a Greek word for “well-born” which he most certainly is. [3]

We still know relatively little about cloning or genetic engineering. We’re barely at the beginning of the path. One of the so-called positive benefits of genetic engineering is the concept of modifying plants to make them more resistant to bugs or insects. These modifications would enable the plants to grow in harsher conditions utilizing less water. However, we do not know how these foods will affect our bodies or the environment. In Canada, modified canola has spread seed all across the western half of the country, and organic farmers, worried about their futures, have formed a class action lawsuit to get retribution for the loss of their canola crops. The lawsuit is also attempting to prohibit the growth of genetically modified wheat. [4] Because of these fears a recent trend toward eating organic food has cropped up. Organics are seen as an alternative to eating the pesticide ridden, fertilizer filled foods that are found in grocery stores today. Some people simply do not want to take the chance with modified foods.

There are also worries about how these new plants will compete with their natural counterparts. They could theoretically wipe out – either through direct competition, or through human intervention such as leveling rainforests to plant soy – rare or endangered species. Of course the corporations who produce these seeds claim they have no affect other than their advanced growth. Yet these are the same corporate giants who sold us DDT with the promises of cheaper food prices, and less pesticide use. Marketed as the wonder insecticide, it was only discovered that the chemical stayed resident in the ecosystem for years after the initial spray. DDT Residue is still found in California, over 13 years after it was last sprayed! [5] Today, it is banned nearly everywhere. Only the future will tell us how these genetically engineered foods will affect us.

Yet modification to the food supply and other plants are not the only benefit or risk to mankind. Genetic Engineering could also revolutionize the field of medicine. Drugs could be created that bind to certain protein folds, as seen with AIDS. Another possibility is using the technology to grow new organs that would ‘fit’ in with one’s body, and not be rejected by the immune system. There is talk about growing these organs in animals such as pigs, but this is unlikely, due to the huge differences between a pig and a human. [6] Another possibility that has been looked at is growing a ‘headless’ human body, then salvaging the pieces, however this is not technically feasible. The head and brain control too many vital functions to be simply removed. If one were to get into an accident and needed a new lung or a new heart, it would take months to clone an individual and implant the fertilized egg. Even at an accelerated pace, it would still take years to get an adult sized heart. It is my belief that the use of clones will first fill this role in medicine. Body farms may crop up, where hundreds of clones are kept in cages, fed, watered, and exercised, waiting for their owner and genetic twin to have an accident, so that their innards were removed. A key piece of this is making sure society doesn’t recognize these clones as human beings. By denying the clones basic human rights, and surgically removing their arms, legs, and vocal cords, society would only see these humans as vegetables awaiting harvest time.

The removal of ‘bad’ genes is also another sought after possibility. Who can argue against permanently destroying AIDS, sickle cell anemia, Down syndrome, or even diabetes? Yet once the DNA helix is modified, why not take the next step and add to it? We are rapidly approaching this stage “..Research in genetics has gone beyond an investigation in the way in which our genes express themselves in our physical makeup.. Researchers are now exploring the genetic basis for human behavior – speculating that there may be genes determining sexual preference, predisposition to engage in criminal acts, and so on,” claims Simon Longstaff in “Genes for Sale.” Parents of the future, as seen in Gattaca, could have the option of choosing their children’s hair color, ethnic diversity, intelligence, and possibly even sexual preference! We will naturally gravitate toward having the best children possible, and once each gene is mapped, and the geneticist knows its purpose, who is going to keep from changing them? Why would anyone want to have an inferior child? Albert Moraczewski, Catholic priest and theologian, believes that families who attempt to clone or engineer their offspring “…controlling the very identity of the child” and “dehumanizing the act of procreating.” [7] With so little left to chance, what is left but consumerism?

Thankfully, we’re not there yet. An important question we must answer before answering the 'genetic question,’ is to understand who is funding the research, and why. Currently, large bio-manufacturers are spending millions of dollars to map and patent not only the human genome, but also DNA sequences of plants and animals as well! They plan on using these patents to hopefully create new medicines or cures that will sell for large sums of money; the patents provide an unlimited supply of cash. For example, Human Genome Sciences Incorporated recently received a patent that covers a gene known as the CCR5 receptor gene. Some scientists believe this gene binds with the HIV virus, allowing it to infect a cell. [8] It is believed that a drug, which would bind to these receptors, would stop the infection of HIV and the onset of AIDS. If this patent could be successfully turned into a working drug, millions of AIDS/HIV infected people around the world will scramble to get cured. Unfortunately, the company is not going to be giving the drug away for free. The rich AIDS victims will get cured, and the poor will die. Philosophers are concerned about access to these drugs. In today’s world, we have yet to provide widely accessible medical care or treatment for poor people. Once the human genome is raped for its secrets and turned into a huge moneymaker, shouldn’t the less well off have access to reap its benefits? These patents should not be locked away, hidden from use, protected as corporate secrets; they could hold the key to a healthy population.

Unfortunately, these profit driven companies are virtually the only people doing this research. The Federal government has put a hold on spending to research projects such as the Human Genome Mapping, or invitro fertilization [9] . When the infertility treatment research lost its Federal funds during the 1970s, private industry and companies took over. In order to continue the development of these fields, the Federal government has started granting patents to companies who research genomes. Up until the 1980s, life forms and genetic code was not even patentable, as they were a part of nature. A Supreme Court decision changed this law after a company applied for a patent on a modified oil dissolving bacteria. [10] According to them, since the bacteria never existed naturally, they were exempt from the law. Patents are designed to give a limited time monopoly to a corporation to reimburse them for the money they spent on research. The company is supposed to make their money back, plus a fair gain in the 20 years it takes the patent to expire. [11] In the case of the CCR5 patent, most likely anyone who could benefit from the drug, but could not afford it, would probably be dead by the time the patent expired and a new company started producing it. Could our future children, who we’d pay to have engineered, be patentable, if they came from a particularly good batch?

Science fiction and literature have warned us of the dangers we are about to face, for years. Stories of genetic supermen built with higher tolerances, better nerves, stronger muscles, and trained to be utterly loyal to their commanding officers, litter the scene. A predominant strain in these stories often ends up being the supermen versus the genetic normal. In the movie “The Blade Runner,” the main character’s job is to hunt down super-humans and destroy them. They are super-powerful men and women designed to kill, but because of their extraordinary bodies, they are pre-programmed to live only a few years after coming of age. [12] In the movie, the main character overcomes four individuals stronger and smarter than him. Similarly, in most of this literature, the unmodified human is successful in his/her endeavor – whether it is killing the supermen, or overcoming the obstacles presented by being weaker than everyone else – such as seen in Gattaca. While humanity yearns to have these ‘powers,’ we also dream of being able to conquer and rise above our modified brethren unaided. Realistically, this is near impossible.

The lure of genetic engineering may prove too hard to resist. Yet with each of the ‘good’ qualities, come a potential ‘bad’ counterpart. “What is at issue is nothing less than whether human procreation is going to remain human, whether children are going to be made rather than begotten, and whether it is a good thing..” says Leon Kass, a biochemist. [13] With every modification to the human DNA, we become less and less of a human, and more of a corporate product, owned by someone else. In a world where embryos are produced and biological manufacturers consider unmodified DNA to be “raw materials” [14] life itself is patented and used to make money, discrimination will run rampant. Yet genetic engineering should not be banned. The promises it holds for humanity will come at a price. The cures, expanded food supply, removal of ancient diseases, will be coupled with the loss of nature. We must remember to leave some things to chance; else we will lose our humanity.