What does it mean to play god? If you’re Hollywood, it means tinkering with what man was never mean to tinker with: the genetic code. In movies, genetic modification is almost always portrayed in a negative light, often under the guise of man “playing god” when he was not meant to. GATTACA’s unethical eugenics, Interstellar’s lack of crop diversity, Jurassic Park’s unforeseen mutations, and Splice’s dangerous hybrids are all examples of how movies are often designed with genetic modification as the cause of conflict or danger. Some people may ask why this matters. Despite the evidence supporting the safety of genetic modification, a Pew Foundation poll revealed that only 37 percent of the American public views genetically modified food as
…show more content…
When discussing organisms in the context of genetic modification, Stefaan Blancke describes it as something that “makes us think of DNA as an organism’s “essence” - an unobservable and immutable core that causes the organism’s behaviour and development and determines its identity. As such, when a gene is transferred between two distantly related species, people are likely to believe that this process will cause characteristics typical of the source organism to emerge in the recipient” (Blancke). Despite being false, this idea of psychological essentialism can make intuitional sense to people, thus creating another potential emotional bias. For many who are not aware of how genetic modification works, the idea that taking genes from one species to another (something called transgenic) can bring over fundamental traits does not seem inherently false. He goes on further to provide an example of the phenomenon, citing a survey that found a majority of people believed fish DNA spliced into a tomato would cause the tomato to taste of fish (Blancke). Indeed, not only is essentialism a potential emotional bias, it is a popular one! This further demonstrates the lack of proper understanding of genetic modification that the public …show more content…
In fact, doing so is a veritable past time amongst Hollywood. In his essay for the art catalog Put on Your Blue Genes, Stephen Nottingham goes through Hollywood's use of genetic engineering and biotechnology in film, and some major scientific inaccuracies in them. Cloning is a popular topic in movies, and is an issue Hollywood desires to make their own ethical statements on. Unfortunately, they do so by grossly misrepresenting the science behind genetic engineering and cloning. Nottingham demonstrates how Hollywood has fostered fear through their representation of cloning. To begin, he describes the realities of real human cloning. “Real-life human clones would be like identical twins, although with different birth dates. Clones would be genetically identical, but would most likely be born a generation apart. Real human clones would be individuals with distinct personalities, just like identical twins” (Nottingham). This is an entirely logical conclusion, after all, people's memories and personalities are not contained in their genetic code. But Hollywood takes clones to their illogical conclusion, exploiting the fear of doppelgängers, and turning into a fear of clones. In movies, doppelgängers are clones that not only look like a person, but can convincingly mimic their behavior, even take over their lives or souls. Nottingham shows how clones and doppelgängers are used
When discussing organisms in the context of genetic modification, Stefaan Blancke describes it as something that “makes us think of DNA as an organism’s “essence” - an unobservable and immutable core that causes the organism’s behaviour and development and determines its identity. As such, when a gene is transferred between two distantly related species, people are likely to believe that this process will cause characteristics typical of the source organism to emerge in the recipient” (Blancke). Despite being false, this idea of psychological essentialism can make intuitional sense to people, thus creating another potential emotional bias. For many who are not aware of how genetic modification works, the idea that taking genes from one species to another (something called transgenic) can bring over fundamental traits does not seem inherently false. He goes on further to provide an example of the phenomenon, citing a survey that found a majority of people believed fish DNA spliced into a tomato would cause the tomato to taste of fish (Blancke). Indeed, not only is essentialism a potential emotional bias, it is a popular one! This further demonstrates the lack of proper understanding of genetic modification that the public …show more content…
In fact, doing so is a veritable past time amongst Hollywood. In his essay for the art catalog Put on Your Blue Genes, Stephen Nottingham goes through Hollywood's use of genetic engineering and biotechnology in film, and some major scientific inaccuracies in them. Cloning is a popular topic in movies, and is an issue Hollywood desires to make their own ethical statements on. Unfortunately, they do so by grossly misrepresenting the science behind genetic engineering and cloning. Nottingham demonstrates how Hollywood has fostered fear through their representation of cloning. To begin, he describes the realities of real human cloning. “Real-life human clones would be like identical twins, although with different birth dates. Clones would be genetically identical, but would most likely be born a generation apart. Real human clones would be individuals with distinct personalities, just like identical twins” (Nottingham). This is an entirely logical conclusion, after all, people's memories and personalities are not contained in their genetic code. But Hollywood takes clones to their illogical conclusion, exploiting the fear of doppelgängers, and turning into a fear of clones. In movies, doppelgängers are clones that not only look like a person, but can convincingly mimic their behavior, even take over their lives or souls. Nottingham shows how clones and doppelgängers are used