Bourne and Generic Engineering

A few days ago I went to see the new Bourne movie and found myself completely caught up with the science behind the film. For years now this concept of genetic engineering has both fascinated and terrified me. As the daughter of a brittle Type 1 diabetic, I’m torn on the subject of scientific tampering. On the one hand, I pray for the day when we’ve progressed far enough to eradicate hereditary diseases and rid human evolution of this kind of genetic weakness. On the other hand, where is the line? How do we know when we’ve venture too far from our benevolent aims and begun tampering not only with DNA, but with human nature itself?

This is a common theme in the science fiction genre, and in nearly every literary and cinematic example, we see the terrible effects of cellular tampering. Like the Larx-03 agent from The Bourne Legacy. Spoilers: While physically he proved very advanced, ultimately he seemed to be little more than a human robot, completely devoid of emotional responses. They achieved their goal of creating an agent – or assassin – capable of immeasurable violence and destruction, but they sacrificed his moral understanding of the world in the process. Larx-03 seemed closer to a robotic Terminator than a human being.

This concept of creating a ‘supersoldier’ isn’t a new one. In fact, it’s pretty common these days with the popularity of comic book films like Captain America, and war-related video games such as Halo and Resident Evil. But what keeps me up at night is the very real possibility that governments are already developing scientific projects to create genuine ‘supersoldiers’. The truth is, having never underestimated the lengths to which political powers will go, I have no doubt that this is already under way. Government agencies like DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) devote their energies to the pursuit of any and all scientific and technological advancements that might give us a military advantage. They’ve delved into behavioral sciences already – why not genetic engineering?

Whether it’s for medical or military purposes, I fear that this concept of improving humanity could potentially lead us down a dark road. When does eradicating diseases or creating better soldiers transcend into something else – something more extreme?

When does it cross over into eugenics?

Historically we’ve seen the terrible repercussions eugenics can have. Segregation, marginalization – even sterilization, infanticide and genocide. This quest for enhancing human genetics is dangerously flawed. And while I approve of attempts to lesson mankind’s suffering via genetic exploration, I’m apprehensive about any scientific endeavors which could lead to such deadly consequences.

I’ll leave off here with one last thought. The human race is an imperfect one – to try to make us perfect is going against our very nature. I just hope we never lose sight of that as our scientific exploration of the human mind and body continues on its amazing path forward.

The Minority Report Dilemma

The other day my parents sent me an article from the Wall Street Journal written by Brian M. Carney ('Unraveling the Mysteries of Murderous Minds'). The basis of the article is Dr. Theodore Dalrymple’s (aka. Anthony Daniels, a psychiatrist and doctor in Britain’s prison systems for over fifteen years) discussion of the psychological reasoning behind Anders Behring Breivik’s Norway shooting. He explains that there’s a general fascination and desire to “understand” atrocities like this – on both a personal and political level. However, he warns us that an attempt to “figure out” criminals and understand their motivations can lead to a misguided “statistical generality”.

Dalrymple argues that "‘you examine [Breivik] and you come to the conclusion that this, that and the other factor went to create the situation. You wouldn't have any more than a statistical generality.’ But if that statistical correlation could be verified, could it lead to ‘locking up people before they've done anything’?”

Hmm . . .

Furthermore, Dalrymple stated that at one point, “the British government . . . wanted doctors to speculate on what people might do” and use this psychological insight to “offer law enforcement their views about who was likely to become dangerous”.  

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

To classical sci-fi (and Tom Cruise) fans it will. The use of psychological mapping to anticipate crime and assist in the pre-identification of criminals Dalrymple discusses sounds remarkably like Philip K. Dick’s Precrime system in the 1956 short story The Minority Report.

For those who are not familiar with Philip K. Dick’s work, the plot of The Minority Report centers around the belief that if we can anticipate crime, we can prevent it. In the story, “Precrime” is a government system set up to eliminate crime before it happens through the employment of three “precogs” (human beings with a talent for precognition). Their ability to forsee criminal events is so effective that Precrime “cut down felonies by ninety-nine and decimal point eight percent”.

However, there’s just one problem . . . the three precogs do not always see the same vision. In the event that differences occur, computers take their precognitions and synthesize them into a majority (the two closest visions) and minority (the dissenting vision) report, so the Precrime unit can proceed in its systematic eradication of crime without concern for the human ability to adapt and change according to their own free will.

Thus the story suggests that the ability to predict and prevent crime before it happens is deeply flawed. In the past when I’ve read Dick’s story (or watched Spielberg’s somewhat bastardized version), I always marveled at this defective penal system. So imagine my surprise – and utter horror – to find that, according to Dalrymple, governments have already taking steps in the same direction. Could it be that our future holds its own version of a Precrime division, headed by a team of government mandated psychologists, sociobiologists and neuroscientists (in place of precogs)?

I’d like to think we’re smarter than that. But I’ve been proven wrong before. Just look at our fiscal policies . . .