I remember watching this movie at a summer program when I was in high school, so I was very excited when I saw this movie again at a Rose event. I generally don’t like sci-fi movies, but this was one of my favorites for a long time. As cheesy as this sounds, the movie sets a very positive message to its viewers and inspired me to work hard for my dreams. In the movie, the main character was born with a birth defect that prevented him from doing space travel. However, his determination and perseverance did not stop him from achieving what he wants. He went through incredible lengths, such as taking someone else’s identity to help him make it past security. This shows that a person’s condition at birth or the resources they’re born with do not necessarily dictate the future. Everything depends on a person’s drive and how much they’re willing to sacrifice in the process.

My favorite quote in the movie:

“You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back.”

-Vincent, Gattaca

Besides the movie’s positive message, it also made me think of the ethical use of eugenics. I know many people have debated over the idea of creating “perfect humans” by manipulating genes, but I thought it was interesting how an old film like this can connect to an issue people are facing in the present. It really brings into question the ethical and moral facets of enhancing genes for “beneficial” purposes.

Another movie set in the future, Gattaca tells the story of a man predetermined to die young who changes his fate by cheating the system. Vincent was born with a genetic defect that determined he would not live long enough, and therefore has been shorted on job opportunities and never has the chance to pursue his dreams of space travel. He instead used the DNA of a man named Jerome, who is essentially the perfect candidate for space travel. Through hard work and intensive trials, Vincent is able to beat the system and make his way into space.

This movie serves as an inspiration to those who have ever been told they aren’t good enough or can’t overcome their challenges. When we look at students with disabilities and how hard they work to overcome their disability and rise above what society believed was ever possible, that is when we can see how wrong a dystopian future such as that of which is presented in Gattaca would be. We should never judge someone’s success based on how they were born or where they come from. We should never hold someone back from pursuing their dreams, and I believe as a society we are getting even better at making it possible for anyone to achieve what they want to achieve in life.

First off, the movie GATTACA was, by my standards average. Though it seemed hackneyed at times, and the acting seemed, as many have said before, “low-energy,” the premise was intriguing enough for me to keep wanting to watch the movie, all the way to the bitter, abrupt end.

I did not realize the impact the movie had on me, however, until I got launched into a debate with my friend over a text chat. I had mentioned that this selective genetic process could lead to self-augmentation, and, as an incurable cynic, I only foresaw disaster from this.

I believed that if people were able to make their offspring smarter, then this would incur a positive feedback loop (Oh boy, I do love me my positive feedback loops). People would begin to focus singularly on the pursuit of becoming smarter. Each generation would become an improvement on the previous, but, ever curious, we would continue to wonder what lay beyond our (enhanced) realm of understanding. Thus, we would focus on improving our intellect, perhaps obsessively. This stems from the assumption that people aren’t satisfied with knowing enough; people are only satisfied once they know everything. To know everything, of course, is impossible.

As people get smarter, then issues start to arise. People become suspicious of the unknown, and it is impossible to predict what a smarter person might do. Those who remain unaugmented in any way could become oppressed without even knowing it. Who knows what humanity might have to sacrifice in this ultimately obsessive pursuit of infinite intellect?

The transcendentalist counterargument is that it is better for humanity to expand our boundaries for the betterment of our race. What stars could we explore with augmented minds? What discoveries could we uncover, what breakthroughs could we achieve?

I don’t buy it. Maybe I’m just far to skeptical to believe it. But I do know that almost any resource-consuming positive feedback loop is destructive. If this is the way that humanity is going, well, I am most certainly quite worried.

Gattaca provides a necessary inspection into a problem that we will eventually have to face, which is the decision to apply genetic modifications to humans. The arguments against revolve around the consequences if we “tamper” with nature and the arguments in support tend to focus on the “perfect” human. The extremes are irreconcilable, but it is obvious that if we look at specific points of both sides there will be some middle ground resulting in minor modifications to the humane gene.

While speaking with two students who were vastly more informed on the subject than I was, I got a good grasp of the full range of concerns of the opposition. For one, there’s the fear of another Nazi-esque eugenics movement, which is rooted in the reasonable concern over who decides what gene mutations are superior. Whoever this arbiter figure would be decides the fate of human evolution. Doubtless, there would be backlash over every decision stemming from each protester’s sense of what needs to be preserved in the gene pool. This is without taking into the account the more spiritual side of tampering with nature, as in some sense we’ve already done a good deal of this with the more spiritual disputants unknowingly enjoying the reaped benefits and human modifications would only serve to benefit everyone if done correctly. Done correctly is the second point of contention, as it implies avoiding all the frightening eugenics and focuses on improving human intelligence and physical capability, but avoids how to account for the unknown. I’m unprepared to argue against this point as I was oblivious to the fact that, at this moment there apparently already exists differences in blood types that may be considered unfit, but help survival rates in Africa against disease. How to plan and foresee what changes to the work nature has carefully handcrafted over millennia would likely become a huge topic of study. The third point, which I find a little less troublesome if strong privacy ethics are upheld or enough generations take up genetic modifications, is the fear of social genetic stratification. That is to say, some people’s genes are better because they have more of X and Y or a person is inferior for a position because they carry the Z gene. All points carry merit, but they all have solutions, however difficult these may be to apply.

If Genetically Modified Humans were to come into existence, I believe much of the rational concerns from the opposition could be quelled by judicious application of the technology. Assuming we only focus on what I imagine are shared “absolute qualities” by all societies, such as increased intelligence and genetic health of muscle and other tissue. These qualities are things that the GMH’s could decide to fully utilize or not, meaning no one forces a more physically capable human to run more or the more intelligent people to study. Addressing the opposition point of who decides the measure for intelligence, I mean in the sense of absolute intelligence such as faster chemical neuron signals and better memory which has served to benefit, as far as I’m aware, every human and past civilization. As for capability to understand abstract ideas and an appreciation for art, I believe those are subjective and modification should be avoided. I am no geneticist and I have no clue how one would pinpoint these beneficial modifications, but as a thought experiment to say if we ever could, if the route taken was highly cautious of past human-failures, I do not see a viable argument for purposely halting progress towards building a better human.

While this may all be easy to say, it is likely near impossible to perfectly apply this system and man will inevitably lapse back to repeat some atrocity from history, but maybe a modified human wouldn’t.

I thought the movie was interesting, it was interesting to think about how eugenics could influence social inequality in the future. It is weird to think about the possibility of genetic engineering, and yet it is a phenomenon that occurs today, and is becoming a major ethical discussion. We already use CRISPR-Cas9 to edit genes and select for favorable or unfavorable traits, and the uses of CRISPR are only expanding. The movie highlighted a possible scenario of genetic engineering, one where those who are born “naturally” are immediately looked down-upon, and have almost no chance of competing with those who were genetically engineered creations.

Although, the movie touches upon how people can live up to those who are genetically engineered, but it requires a high degree of difficulty and planning in order to resemble those who were were bred for success.

I enjoyed the movie, and it really got me thinking about the future of genetic engineering and its capabilities.

Last week, I watched Gattaca at the Flora’s Films event. It was an interesting commentary about the upcoming age of genetic engineering, and the potential consequences of the future.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It was nice seeing the protagonist, Vincent, achieve his dream of piloting a spaceship; however, it does strike me as very irresponsible for him to to do this when his heart is in danger of giving out at any moment. Sure, there are incredible places that pure willpower can take you, but it can’t prevent your heart from giving out due to a genetic defect. Piloting a ship when his heart was already past its deadline sort of soured the feel-good story that the movie was aiming for, at least in my experience.

In the movie, there exists a sort of class hierarchy between those who have been genetically engineered and those who haven’t. This happens even though there was a law designed to protect against “genetic discrimination.” I thought this was interesting–if an employer such as the Gattaca space center is given the option of hiring a genetically superior person over someone like Vincent for piloting a critical mission to Saturn, of course they’re going to choose the former. It’s really impossible to guard against genetic discrimination–it’s like passing a law today to outlaw “ability discrimination.” A person cannot be hired over another based on their abilities. This makes me wonder if there’s any way to make life fair for non-engineered humans if a scenario like the one in Gattaca appears in the future.

Last Friday, I watched the movie Gattaca. I did not enjoy the movie because there were some unrealistic things going on. Vincent faked his identity in order to get a job at Gattaca, which he would not have gotten otherwise due to his inferior genes. In order to bypass the system, he used an alternative route to fulfill his dreams. What I found a bit odd was that despite his brother’s “superior” genes, Vincent still beat him in swimming. In addition, there was no climax to grasp my attention. Vincent basically joined Gattaca by faking his identity, and as soon as he was about to start his space mission, the mission director was killed. Later on, the culprit was found, someone who was considered “valid.” I wanted to see what would’ve happened if Vincent was caught. Would he be punished or let go? If he were to be punished, what punishment would there be for this?  The movie ended on Vincent fulfilling his dream of going to space. The movie also ended my expectations of the movie.

For last week’s movie screening, we watched Gattica, a movie about a man and his ambition to go to space despite his losing edge in the gene pool. The workers of Gattica only consist of people with near perfect genes, meaning that they were not prone to diseases, had good physical attributes, long lives, etc,. However, a man by the name of Vincent, whose parents decided not to give him the edge of bioengineering, lives the life of a ‘normal’ person by letting chance decide the makeup of his genes. And it is precisely this that bars him from achieving this goal to fly to space.

I thought that this was interesting how society progressed to a point where people needed to have superior genes to be eligible for a job like that. In addition, I think this movie shows how the power and influence of one’s work ethic, along with motivation is enough to offset the competitive edge that other people have. The fact that no one ever knew that Vincent had inferior genes since he lived under the life of Jerome proved that it wasn’t Vincent’s genes that stopped him from achieving his goals, but it was the standards that society wanted to preserve. I also found this movie to be a bit more emotional and sad that I expected it to. Jerome’s sacrifice at the end of the movie when he cremated himself in the very chamber that Vincent would go to to rid himself of his inferior genes stood out a lot to me. Despite not being able to achieve his own goals, Jerome let someone else use his identity to help achieve their goals. I definitely felt bad for Jerome, but I think this movie shows that natural born talent isn’t the only thing that makes someone successful. It’s the hard work and effort that counts.

I thought GATTACA was a good movie, but it had a really low energy to it.  Even during the more suspenseful parts of the movie that involved committing felonies and space travel, I didn’t really get that excited.  One of the major characteristics of the society in the movie is its pragmatism.  So while some parts were slow, it all seemed to add to this sort of business-oriented model of living.  In this world, job interviews consist of genome sequencing to analytically hire the most genetically favorable applicants.  By choosing the “best” applicant for a job, firms avoid follies and optimize efficiency in the workplace.  That’s sort of how the story-telling felt to me: straightforward and fairly unemotional, especially considering some of the subplots that were being told.

I do enjoy underdog stories, so it was nice to see the main character end up where he wanted to be.  Though as someone already pointed out, nothing major changed for the society.  This did seem anticlimactic as much of the movie was spent seeing how different businesses function and how individuals of different genetic castes live their lives.  At the same time though, it seemed more realistic and also more tragic to see just a small snapshot of this future world in the form of one person’s story.  The movie does investigate the world, but its main focus, the main character’s triumph, is small and personal.  The lead character’s own concern does not seem to be in line with the concern of the audience.  Instead of worrying about how to completely override the system, Ethan Hawke’s character simply wishes to cheat the system so that he may personally benefit.  In this way, his character is relatable.  His character already has to spend a great amount of time physically and mentally sharpening himself so that he might be accepted into a space program, so the audience can imagine what it would be like to start a full blown revolution.  Still, I wanted to see more of a hint of change for the world that was presented.

The movie GATTACA was not only interesting because of the unique plot line of a society that is founded on the information that can be retrieved from a genetic code but also because of the relationships that were depicted in the film. The relationship between Jerome and Vincent was an interesting situation where the audience can see the resistance that Jerome has while relinquishing his identity. However, he wants to be the Jerome that Vincent has created. Jerome has lost his will to live because he deems himself as worthy of second place, never first. When he sees Vincent excelling in his prospects and succeeding in his personal life as well, Jerome starts to crave his identity that Vincent has fixed. We knew that his suicide was inevitable yet, I still loved his character and it almost brought me to tears to see him end. The general dissatisfaction with what he has become and the bitterness of what he was is what characterized Jerome. His change from being a difficult character to a sidekick didn’t signal that he was getting better. Instead, his cooperation with Vincent goes against his character and made his intentions questionable. He was doing things without being asked and it seems he realized that he became dependent on Vincent. Jerome or Eugene became number two to Vincent’s Jerome and Jerome realized that he is nothing without Vincent. If he cannot supply his urine and blood, Jerome is nothing to Vincent, especially when the spacecraft flight mission was finalized.  Watching Vincent succeed was like adding nails to his own coffin. He was proud of Vincent but mad at his own inadequacy.

Dear Julia,

I certainly can see why Gattaca was chosen for Film Friday event; it checks a lot of good sci-fi dystopia boxes and it’s well made. That said as much as I wanted to enjoy the film, it kept rubbing me the wrong way in small ways. Ethan Hawke is a very particular actor to me–he’s just so specific– and seeing him in a thriller like this one felt jarring. I also thought that generally the film was very melodramatic at points. Example: the incredibly homoerotic swimming race between Ethan Hawke and his brother. I get what they were going for there and I thought it was interesting, but the cinematography and the score and the acting all together distracted–not intensified–the drama. I also thought that the film had some questionable politics about disability. I understand Jude Law’s character’s arc, but it just felt like bad posturing to have the one paraplegic character decide that life was not living due to his disability. For comparison–I think Forrest Gump does an excellent job with the character of Lieutenant Dan. His disability is one aspect of who he is, and his strengths and weaknesses as a person exist both within and without the context of his disability. Jude Law’s character on the other hand seemed like a perfectly capable and interesting person–he spends over a year helping Ethan Hawke assume his identity only to kill himself when he can’t exist to benefit someone without a disability. Beyond that though the entire premise of the movie bugged me. If doctors could assess you through your genes as depicted in the film, wouldn’t Ethan Hawke be a prime candidate for working at the company he sneaks into? The film’s message is that Ethan Hawke’s drive and passion and intelligence are more important than his limitations, but wouldn’t the test at his birth show all those qualities as well? That’s how things worked for Uma Thurman–who also had a heart condition. Furthermore, regardless of Ethan Hawke’s intelligence and wherewithal, I think that a high probability of having heart problems is a perfectly valid reason to prevent someone from going on a perilous space mission. It’s amazing Ethan Hawke could get a spot on the mission despite the adversity he faced, but by being there he could be endangering the lives of his crew and the success of the mission. Even today there are certain physical requirements astronauts need to meet–surely a heart condition such as Ethan Hawke’s would have precluded him even now. Oh well, despite my criticisms I still think the film was worth watching and thought provoking.

Love,

Robert

I’d first like to mention that the title of this movie is ingenious–supposedly named after the city of Gattica, but spelled GATTACA so as to look like a string of DNA. The name actually refers to guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine, which are the nucleotide building blocks of DNA. Therefore, the film’s subject matter is known before the movie even starts, and I found that pretty cool.

I also found the subject matter of the movie, genetic discrimination, incredibly relevant. Congress is considering repealing GINA–the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act of 2008–which prevents employers from discriminating against employees, and insurance companies from discriminating against clients, because of one’s genotype. While it is not common for most people to have their genome sequenced or analyzed, it is a fast-growing trend. In my class, Personal Genomics, the Professor made it possible for all 150 of us to have our DNA tested for ancestry. We used a direct-to-consumer genetic test provided by 23andMe, and the group also provides health screening. This means that they can not only trace your DNA back thousands of years across the globe, but they can also tell you whether you are a carrier for genetic diseases (or if you have one). They can even tell you if you have a high chance of getting Alzheimer’s–a disease which currently has no cure. These types of companies will lead to more and more people getting their DNA analyzed for a lower and lower cost, and this is why legislation like GINA is incredibly important.

I’m not saying that if GINA is repealed we will fall into a class system based upon DNA like in Gattaca, but it may well be the first step towards having DNA be an everyday part of the workplace. As for the actual movie, I really enjoyed it. Though it could be argued that Vincent simply aligned with the status quo instead of trying to change the system, I got the sense that the system was so intractable that he would have been unable to do anything. At least he never would have gotten to go into space. And sometimes it’s okay to just focus on fulfilling your dream instead of trying to change the world. I saw how exhausting it was for Vincent to keep up the charade of being a “valid” person, and I think that’s all he had strength for. Changing a set status quo requires a change of public opinion, and that requires numerous people to sacrifice themselves for the goal of making the world better eventually. I’m not saying I wouldn’t have wished for Vincent to somehow tell everyone who he was and still go into space, but I understand why he acted the way he did. All in all, the movie raised important issues that society needs to consider, and the sooner the better.

I did not enjoy Gattaca. I found the acting forced, and the writing clichéd. I suppose, based on the subject matter, that this might be the result of intentional stylistic decisions, but I disliked it nonetheless.

I struggled to sympathize with the character of Vincent, though he was ostensibly the protagonist. His character was closed, angry, and one-dimensional. His anger was, of course, understandable, and justified. Because of his “inferior” genes, Vincent was denied the opportunity to join Gattaca, despite being-it would seem from the film-more than qualified. He was forced to take on the identity of another, and suspected of a crime he did not commit simply because of his genetic identity.

While I understand the plot of Gattaca is supposed to be a demonstration of power of the human spirit, Vincent struck me as being a “power feminist”-one of those women who have incredibly successful business careers, and write books about them, and are supposedly feminist icons for doing so, but who don’t really do anything to change the status quo. Vincent made no attempt to change the system in which he lived. Instead, he found a way to cheat. I think that of undermines whatever allegorical purpose the film intended. It seemed like it was saying that discrimination is bad, but so long as you try hard enough (and borrow someone’s blood) you can be whatever you want to be, anyway.

Near the end of the film, there was a moment when the Gattaca doctor revealed he had known Vincent was not Jerome Morrow for a while, and implied Vincent made him believe in the potential of his son. But really, this just proves Vincent could come back from his space mission, say, “Hey everyone, I’m not Jerome Morrow, I’m a normal person”, and actually change a few minds.

I know I am reading a little far into the “meaningful themes” aspect of this film, but as I said, as entertainment, it is abysmal. So I hoped the message the film told would be redeeming.

Last week I went to the Flora Friday Film night where we watched the 1997 science fiction film Gattaca. I particularly liked Gattaca because I’m taking a personal genomics class this semester which touches on many of the same issues as the film. Of course, the film simplifies many complicated situations in order to send a message, the message being that using gene editing technologies could have disastrous consequences for society. Gattaca told the emotional story of a man who had unedited genes in a world where everyone was designed for a role in life. Since ___’s genes were unaltered, employers would not hire him because it was riskier than hiring someone whose genes were better for the job. Even though there’s no guarantee the gene edited individual would perform better in the job, the simple fact that they had a higher probability of success was enough for __ to get rejected. Despite all its criticism of gene editing and its social consequences, Gattaca did not propose or mention any superior reality other than the current “unedited” world we live. This is because the film was made for entertainment, not for serious scientific or social debate. Most, if not all, of consequences we see in Gattaca can be avoided by government regulation and societal ethical standards. It was briefly mentioned in the movie that employee genetic discrimination was illegal but it made no difference because all employers ignored the law. The two sentences dedicated to this idea in the movie seem completely ridiculous. It’s similar to saying that there’s no point to passing the American’s with Disabilities Act because all employers would ignore the law, which is obviously not the case. No employer is brazen enough to openly discriminate like the employers in Gattaca did; Even if they tried to break the law, we live in the United States, people would sue.

In addition to glossing over possible regulations, the movie didn’t explore the possible benefits of gene editing. If gene editing becomes cheap enough, many science fiction scenarios can become real. Many diseases will become nonexistent, and the average IQ could become in the hundreds, which in itself will have major positive consequences we can’t anticipate.

Overall, I love Gattaca. Sure, I don’t think the dystopia it depicts will become real (or that it’s even likely), but it was a great piece of storytelling that makes the viewer think about issues they might not have if they hadn’t watched the movie.

This past Friday I attended Flora’s showing of the movie Gattaca. This film showcases a futuristic world in which the use of eugenics has resulted in a society of unequal treatment and opportunity. This is a wildly interesting concept, and thus I expected to be wowed by the film. Instead, I was left underwhelmed by sub-par acting, despite the presence of various well-acclaimed stars including Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke. Unfortunately, these actors delivered emotionless, static, and scripted characters in whom I was not invested. In fact, even the love story between Thurman and Hawke’s characters was implausible and forced. There was absolutely no chemistry between them, as they barely conversed with each other. Therefore, why should I have to care about their so-called romance? It didn’t even advance the film’s plot.

Furthermore, I was disappointed by the film because there was no great villain to root against and despise. The people of the futuristic society who hired mainly genetically superior people were the antagonists, and I certainly did not agree with their practices. However, they were not outwardly evil enough to be despicable. Once they solved the murder in the movie and justly indicted one of their own genetically superior workers for the crime, that was it! Problem solved! No great battle ensued between the hero (Ethan Hawke) and the villains. Hawke simply went to space and accomplished his dream without serious issue. This movie simply did not sufficiently advance a conflict, furthering my lack of investment in the film.

The other big problem with the movie was that I did not feel sympathetic towards the hero, Ethan Hawke’s character. He had a heart condition and thus faked his identity, disguising himself with good genes, so he could accomplish his dream and travel to space. Although I am certainly not an advocate for eugenics, I still don’t believe that people like Hawke with serious cardiovascular conditions should be allowed to travel to space, as they would be endangering their comrades and themselves. Hawke’s character couldn’t even handle running on a treadmill without nearly dying. Therefore, it’s hard to feel sympathetic and root for Hawke’s character.

Thus, overall, the film left me uninvested, as I didn’t care about the supposed hero, was too apathetic towards the villain, and was underwhelmed by bad acting.

What struck me most about the movie “Gattaca” was the notion that society is leaning towards genetically defined discrimination, because I simply cannot imagine a world where we depend solely on what genetic code and machines, however mistaken they may be, tell us about a person. This idea alone undermines the impact that nurture has on people and what differentiates us from machines that can be programmed to do exactly what we want. As a species, we depend on motivation and emotion to drive us besides what we are physically capable of doing. The mere thought that hard work can get people further than natural talent seems to frequently escape the minds of many people. I would like to argue this movie from two perspectives: psychological abilities and physical abilities.

I read a book a few years back, titled “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell, that I relate to the topic of psychological ability. This book introduced me to the theory that genetics and IQ are merely benchmarks of people’s potential. As I recall, the book theorized that a higher IQ can make it easier for you to learn certain things, but after exceeding a certain threshold a higher IQ will provide no further benefit. This speaks for the effort that a person must exert to reach a certain potential. We are not born with innate ability to swim or read, we learn these traits the same way that we must learn other skills for what we wish to accomplish. While I personally believe that a large part of what we are capable of comes from emotional motivation and nurturing of interests as well as talents, I think there is validity to the argument that because genetically influenced traits may be mere thresholds, it is difficult to dictate what a person will be capable of accomplishing from a sequence of genes.

From a physical perspective, I think the movie overlooks the fact that a person born with the slightest chances of illness and disorder may fall into a pitfall of malnourishment or lack of self-care that will influence their capabilities. We don’t see olympic athletes that do not train hard every day or athletes that exclusively eat junk food and can keep up with physical demands. How we choose to take care of ourselves plays a significant role in what we can do. I believe that as long as there are educated people in the world that understand these complexities of the human mind and body, it is impossible to categorize people based on genetic code. Vincent beat the unlikeliest of odds by taking care of himself. He trained for his physical stamina. He studied to understand the logistics behind space travel. Nobody can predict with certainty what can or will happen under the correct conditions.

Gattaca presents a vision of a future society driven by eugenics, where children are genetically manipulated to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents. Genotype profiling is used to identify “Valids”, whose genetic perfection qualifies them for professional employment and higher social status.  Conversely, the “In-Valids” are relegated to jobs that serve the former, such as custodians. While such profiling is illegal, the new social system inherently favors those who are deemed genetically superior.

The film follows Vincent Freeman, played by Ethan Hawke, who was conceived without the aid of genetic manipulation. He is thus born with predisposition to several disorders, one being heart disease, and his life expectancy is about 30.2 years. Hawke must struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of traveling into space. The film addresses concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the resulting impact such developments would have on society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. With so much of people’s lives already predetermined (in the early portion of the film, it is mentioned that as soon as you born the manner and time in which the individual will die is already known), Ethan must struggle against society and with himself in order to find his place in the world and challenge the destiny assigned to him by his genes.

I enjoyed the film, and it made me think about my own thoughts on genetic manipulation. I think that anyone would want what would be best for their children. But what if, for example, a couple learns that their child would be born with severe autism or a mutation that would render the child paralyzed? And what if through genetic manipulation, the child’s life could be improved? The film depicted the possible consequences of genetic manipulation, but does it reject all manners of it, if it could improve the quality of life of an individual? I’m not sure that I have an answer. I thought that the film raised interesting questions about conceptions about the human experience, and found Ethan’s journey to be a message that you are more than what you appear to be, and in his case, more than what his genetics indicate.

This week’s Flora’s films featured the 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. This was my third or fourth time watching this movie, yet I found it to be just as enthralling as the first time.

The story takes place in the ‘not-too-distant’ future where science has advanced to a point where the majority of humanity consists of ‘designer’ babies. Parents choose traits, like gender and eye color, while the doctors guarantee that the child will not have any physical maladies, like heart disease or myopia. Nothing is left to chance.

The movie follows the story of an outcast who was conceived without eugenics and who must overcome societal genetic discrimination in order to achieve his goal of space travel.

Apart from being a great movie, Gattaca also warns its audience of what happens when science goes too far, a message that is very relevant today. The discovery and research of the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 indicates that it is completely plausible that we will see the making of ‘designer’ babies in our lifetime. However, a big threat to our freedom and protection from genetic discrimination is much closer than you may think. A U.S House bill aims to mandate genetic testing of employees who will otherwise face penalties, including a rise in insurance price. The House committee claims this will “promote a healthy workforce and lower health care costs.” From works of fiction like Gattaca or Brave New World, it is hard not to imagine all that can go wrong when an entity like the government knows every citizen’s genetic code. It is a slippery slope that is quite frankly dangerous to go down.

In our society, we may be at a point where science is moving much faster than political laws or societal consensus of scientific ethics. It is important to stay cognizant so that we will not end up in a dystopian society, like the one in Gattaca.