Gattaca: Fiction or Future. The ethical implications of gene editing technologies like CRISPR in human medicine.

Written by Eman Zaurayze

Edited by Yena Lee

"I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science." (Niccol, 2004). This quote is derived from the 1997 film Gattaca, which encapsulates the dystopian vision of a society stratified by genetic engineering. Though fictional, it raises real concerns about the ethics behind gene editing. Tools such as CRISPR have fundamentally changed human medicine by offering transformative methods of removing inherited diseases such as haemophilia and cancer (Meenakshi, 2021). However, medical advancements are often accompanied by the risk of abuse; causing controversy over the ethical ramifications of these developments. While there is widespread consensus amongst researchers and bioethicists that somatic gene editing is ethical, the same agreement does not extend to germline editing; due to its heritable nature and unforeseen consequences for the gene pool. (ASGCT, 2025)  To prevent establishing a social structure reminiscent of Gattaca, we must approach gene editing technologies circumspectly. 

At the heart of the debate is CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), a pioneering technology that enables scientists to modify genes with precision. Its discovery has sparked a medical revolution, guiding scientists toward eradicating numerous diseases. Somatic editing, which targets non-reproductive cells, is widely accepted for its effectiveness and ethical implications. By targeting non-reproductive cells, somatic editing ensures genetic changes are not inherited, evading the intermittent risks that could be provoked to the gene pool and the inquiry of nonconsensual DNA changes. The main incentive of this practice is to treat existing diseases with stringent medical regulations ensuring no technological misuse. The methods of somatic gene editing make it substantially viable and virtuous as a medical prospect to generalise in the future. 

Conversely, germline gene editing involves altering reproductive cells and therefore provides greater ethical challenges. As seen in Gattaca, germline editing orients the possibility of “designer babies” - a generation of medically enhanced babies with selected characteristics. Ultimately, this would lead to the re-emergence of eugenics, where genes are enhanced to create “superior” human beings. The application of this could eventually cause the exacerbation of social inequalities. The treatment plans for enhancement procedures would only be available to a specific class, growing the socio-economic divide as a genetically elite class forms. 

Economic disparities are not the only ethical concern associated with germline gene editing. Unlike somatic gene manipulation, it is heritable, meaning changes to the gene are passed on to future generations; potentially creating long-lasting impacts on the gene pool. Unknown factors like off-target mutations (Gyngell, 2016), may lead to unintended consequences for those who cannot consent. Nonconsensual genetic mutations infringe many ethical principles where adaptations to a person's body should exclusively be done with consent from that individual. Germline gene editing's irreversible effects put us at risk of creating a more disunited society. 

While gene editing technologies like CRISPR hold immense potential for treating diseases and improving human health, their ethical implications must be carefully considered. Somatic gene editing offers a promising and largely ethical avenue for medical advancement, but germline editing raises concerns about unforeseen consequences, social inequality, and nonconsensual genetic changes. It is imperative to approach these technologies with vigilance to avert a future where people resonate with Gattaca's main character when he states, “It didn’t matter how much I lied on my resume, my real C.V . was in my cells.”