Gattaca

Criticism

The film Gattaca's retro-futurist depiction of genetic discrimination has been cited by a few bioconservative critics in support of their view that liberal eugenics should be suppressed. Techno-progressive bioethicist James Hughes argues these points however:

1. astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons;

2. people are already discriminated against by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease despite the fact that genetic enhancement is not yet available;

3. rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society should ensure the privacy of genetic information, and strictly control when genetic information can be used to make decisions in education and employment.

However, in Gattaca, the use of genetic information to make decisions in education and employment is technically illegal (and is thinly disguised as "drug tests" to skirt the law), and the use of genetic information is portrayed as an irresistible "glimpse" into a candidate. Indeed, the world of Gattaca arguably demonstrates the possible impracticality of limiting the use of genetic information when reprogenetic technology has advanced to the point of complete ubiquity.

Hughes counters that science fiction can pose interesting questions, but no film "demonstrates" or "proves" anything about the workability of policies. Ultimately, society needs genetic information privacy laws that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination. Citizens would then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype.