Hunjadi, KOVN15

How sci-fi frames the visuality of eugenic policies: a dive into the
world of Mass Effect
LINK to presentation:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1geT1DidgmoHmiPmMsc4pn1laHXm7UII2?usp=sharing

This paper discusses how sci-fi frames the visuality of eugenic policies by examining
the examples from the Mass Effect trilogy (image 1).
My focus lies on gene modifications and posing the ethical question of morality
when it comes to the implementation of eugenic policies and genetic engineering.
What is it that makes genetic engineering ethically unacceptable and under which
conditions it might be? Mass Effect provides a window into the world where gene
structure can be modified as means of therapy or even individual enhancement. Our
future might one day provide us with the same opportunities, but from the current
standpoint that future is so long way away that some of the instances of the game
seem fantastical. Not impossible, though, which is why we can relevantly relate it to
the questions of ethical permissibility that the real world experiences daily.
When it comes to gene modifications (image 2), it is a process that happens innately.
Environmental factors have warped us into what we are today. And now with the
steadfast expansion of medical advances, we are approaching the opportunity to take
the reins of change into our hands by manipulating the modification to create
healthier humans and overall improve humanity. There are only two problems, first -
we are not there yet, and second - most of what I just stated is somewhat illegal and
ethically unacceptable. So, the basic condition for the approval of modifications is
an individual choice, otherwise, if the changes are implemented by the requirement
of the state-sanctioned eugenic policies then it is not only ethically unacceptable but
also inherently wrong. Today, not all of the eugenic policies are used as means of
population control. Voluntary genetic screening, counselling, and abortion are
provided to insure the utmost health and safety of the pregnant person and the foetus.
That is also the extent of what can be done if any major disorders get detected. We
are still stuck doing only somatic gene therapy where we cure single gene disorders
by affecting the body cells. We are nowhere near the germ line therapy which
implies modifications in the sperm and zygote pre-implantation. Germ-line
engineering would affect multiple genes and be passed down to the offspring and that
is why it is illegal and considered unethical by most theorists.1
1
M. Lappe, ”Ethical Issues in Manipulating the Human Germ Line” in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (ed),
Bioethics : an anthology, Malden, Mass. : Blackwell, 2006, pp. 198-208.
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

The ethical scope of the theorists (image 3) whose stances I wished to touch upon
during the paper can be separated into 3 categories. Arguments against genetic
modification, arguments that are sympathetic to the cause, and those who argue for
the complete unsanctioned freedom of genetic engineering.
I was interested in how narratives of eugenics and control are framed within the
game and what was the gamer's response. Because, in an RPG like Mass Effect 2 the
player has freedom of choice in how the gameplay advances, and in the game, those
choices feature controversial topics, the ones I will be discussing. Now, fans like to
discuss the logic behind their choices online so it was interesting noting how they
respond differently to situations that stem from the same problem. That is why we
can relevantly relate the game to human disasters these narratives are modeled upon.
Eugenic programs of the 20th Century were highly questionable government
schemes intended to improve the gene pool thus casting a dark shadow over
contemporary genetics research. Because of this genetic engineering is susceptible to
a wide ethical debate as it not only affects the lives of individuals and the shape of
society, but it also has an impact on what it means to be human. (Images 4 – 9)
showcase those instances of human generated disasters that fuel the engine of the
ethical debate.

Further on, this paper will talk about how the line between what is acceptable and
what is not might seem blurred which will then transit into a discussion of why a
human-made Superman will never see the light of day, but a supersoldier like Steve
Rogers might and how the bioethical field sees that distinction. Now to simplify this,
both of these objectives have everything to do with control.
In the first example, we are encountering the exertion of control over the „other“ race
by a state-sanctioned apparatus. The Krogans (image 10 and 12) are essentially a
race of sentient brutes who can eat almost anything, they are tough to kill because of
their healing factor and an overabundance of secondary and tertiary organs and

2
The game operates on the assumption of civilization cycles. It is set in the distant future, in which
the human race is the latest edition to the space-faring community of races. The races are designed as
a wide variety of anthropomorphized animals with advanced technology and the ability to space
travel. In the game, our human character has the most active contact with the races that form the
council (Asari, Turian, and Salarian), and Krogans and Quarians. From the player's perspective, our
character enters situations and is forced to make decisions about issues, some of which predate
humanity as a whole. They can look at the situation objectively and make a decision that is the least
tainted by political games.
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

reproduce in high quantities. They are important for this argument because they did
not advance to the spacefaring stage naturally (image 13). They were uplifted for the
war, into a galactic society. Ironically, after the war, the rapidly-expanding Krogan
became a threat to the galaxy in turn, starting the Krogan Rebellions and forcing the
council to unleash the genophage. This genetic "infection" dramatically reduced
fertility in krogan females, causing a severe drop in births secondary to prenatal and
postnatal death and, ultimately eliminating the krogan's numerical advantage.
It is interesting to observe how the majority of the players see nothing wrong when it
comes to what is essentially genocide. They apply logic and the general application
of ethics to convince others of the correctness of the decision in the game. But the
charm of ethics is that, depending on the circumstances, no decision can be
considered completely ethically correct or incorrect.
I applied the example to the problem of the train and the workers (image 14 and 15).
The problem has no correct solution, either it will not change course and kill five or
it will change course and knowingly kill one person. Under the pretext of war, the
council races decided to uplift the Krogan, knowing what they are like, what they can
do, and what danger they pose. That decision later led to an ethical disaster in the
form of genocide against the race they uplifted.
Considering the example, committed genophage represents a much greater necessity
than uplifting, but if there was no uplifting, granting krogans with the technology far
ahead of their time, there wouldn't be much need or necessity to commit genocide in
the first place. Therefore, the genophage and all the decisions that preceded it are not
only morally suspect but also wrong. And the basis of my conclusion lies in the
argument of bioethicist Jonathan Glover.

„ Perhaps we would aim for producing people who were especially

imaginative and creative, and only too late to find we had produced
people who were also very violent and aggressive. This kind of
mistake might not only be disastrous, but also very hard to ”correct”
in subsequent generations. For when we suggested sterilization to the
people we had produced, or else corrective genetic engineering for
their offspring, we might find them hard to persuade. They might like
the way they were, and reject, in characteristically violent fashion, our
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

explanation that they were a mistake.“ (Jonathan Glover, Bioethics: an

anthology, 192.)3

Glover's argument is based on the possible risk of error, and my example clearly
shows all the elements of why it should not be acted upon. 4 Because the outcome was
foreseeable, it is valid to conclude that interfering with uplifting in the krogan
evolutionary path should not have happened. A player represents an important factor.
You have a chance whether you want to or not to provide the cure that can reverse
the genophage. But if you decide to pull the lever, you are exerting control of them
as well. And this is what I do through my playthroughs, I give them the cure as I
believe that way, I am righting a wrong. I am just returning the control over their
bodies that has been taken from them. That does not mean that my choice is right,
nor does it make it wrong. And that is how the line is blurred.

In the second example, we are encountering individual choice as grounds for arguing
in favor of the acceptability of enhancement. As I concluded with the last point, the
implementation of genetic engineering as a way of cure provisioning can be
considered ethically acceptable on the grounds of the individual choice of the person
receiving the cure. So why should it be any different with enhancement? With this
next point, I want to expand on that in further consideration of ethical permissibility.
John Harris and Allen Buchanan certainly seem to think so. Buchanan's works are
practically a call for the legitimization and social, political, and legal regulation of
individual enhancement, in pursuit of human betterment.5 And Harris argues in favor
of replacing natural selection6 by stating „We have a moral responsibility to

3
J. Glover, ”Questions About Some Uses of Genetic Engineering” in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (ed),
Bioethics : an anthology, Malden, Mass. : Blackwell, 2006, pp. 187-197.

4
If we likened the example of Krogans (image 10 and 12) to an infuriating group of people within our
society akin to the stereotypical rednecks(image 11), we see why the ethical line is blurred. Post
January 6, should the US government have attempted to control their numbers by releasing the
infection that rendered them sterile? Of course not, because that would be morally wrong, but they
should also stop uplifting them by constantly approving their right to bear arms as they are a danger to
the rest of society. Take image 11, for example. When did you last see a civilian ordering coffee with
a bazooka strapped to their back. If it happened anywhere else, they would have been detained. The
notion is so silly to image that it is practically cartoonish, but in the U.S. that is considered as normal.

5
A., Buchanan, Beyond humanity?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.

6
J., Harris, Enhancing Evolution. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007.
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

influence the process.“7 Other mentioned bioethicists agree that pure enhancement
will never be possible because there is a tendency for gains to be accompanied by
losses. And that will always be the case. Even if we manage to get rid of genetic
defects, overall improvement is impossible because changing the genetic code to
enhance a particular trait can lead to undesirable consequences for some other trait
that is affected by the gene that we modified, and we were not aware of this
influence.
The game frames the visuality of enhancement as a standard issue procedure. One of
the main characters from Mass Effect 2, Miranda Lawson (image 16), is a genetically
engineered human.8 There are of course regulations put in place such as Sudham-
Wolcott Genetic Heritage Act and Citadel regulations, that forbid gaining new
abilities or creating new species, but gene modifications as forms of therapy and
limited forms of enhancement are a regular occurrence. All human soldiers have
gene therapy during initial training, and all the defective traits can be dealt with upon
individual/parental request. The law states, that the modification of natural abilities
is legal, but the acquisition of new ones is not.
We are far away from what is shown as standard procedure in the game, in terms of
therapy let alone enhancement and we might never get to the point of producing
viable designer babies. The CRISPR method9 that was discovered in 2012 is the
furthest that we ventured. It edits genes by precisely cutting DNA and then letting
natural DNA repair processes take over (image 17).
The CRISPR method is not yet viable to be used on humans, although there was an
incident a couple of years ago when a Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, modified the
gene structures in the eggs and sperm which resulted in carried-out pregnancies. The
doctor spent 3 years in prison and is back to practicing medicine. 10 The condition of

7
John Harris on Enhancing Evolution (Interview), (online video), 2013,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQSTRITPyHY (accessed 12 March 2023)

8
Miranda was genetically engineered to be a specimen of human perfection. Everything from her
intelligence, physical constitution, and abilities to her appearance, were designed before birth to be
excellent. Miranda also heals faster than other humans and will probably live half a lifespan longer.

9
Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9 (online video), 2014, https://youtu.be/2pp17E4E-O8 (Accessed
9 March 2023)

10
D. Cyranoski, ”WHAT’S NEXT FOR CRISPR BABIES?”, Nature, 566, 28 FEBRUARY 2019.
Available from: Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1 (Accessed 10 March
2023).
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

the babies, now toddlers, is unknown. The Chinese government hid their families so
nobody knows how severe the consequences are. But let's put it this way, the
modified mice develop cancers, infections, organ failure, etc. Simply put, we are not
there yet.
But, if we were to intentionally aim at creating designer babies, then it's a problem
because we negate the consent of the adult individuals that those babies might one
day become. As Jurgen Habermas put it, we would be putting ourselves in the
positions of the maker/designer, and by doing that we would take away the
offspring's possibility to ever be the creator of their own life. 11 That is why Superman
will never be ethically acceptable in the real world12.

Conclusion

I am of a firm stance that enhancement through the implementation of genetic

engineering is ethically unacceptable as long as it is not available to everyone, but
the Sci-fi genre presents how fine a line is between the acceptable use of genetic
engineering to enhance ourselves as a way of bettering mankind and using eugenic
policies so that a minority could overlord over the masses. Because, if it is made
possible for a small few and not for the majority, it is tipping the fickle balance. They
rule in a utilitarian way, not afraid to reduce the number of heads, or to perform
experiments without consent, treating them like an invasive species. Therefore,
genetically engineered enhancements can only be considered ethically acceptable iff
(if and only if) they are available to everyone. In a purely theoretical form, genetic
engineering on an individual voluntary level should not be classified as an ethical
dilemma considering the principle of having the liberty of choice over your own
body. The objections against eugenic policies and genetic engineering as a way of
bettering human life will always be there, but in a secular free society, they shouldn't
be debilitating boulders that block the way to progress.

11
J., Habermas, “The Debate on the Ethical Self-Understanding of the Species – The Moral Limits of
Eugenics”, in The Future of Human Nature, Cambridge, Polity, 2003.

12
I keep referring to Superman because Kryptonians are genetically engineered and born out of the
birthing chamber to fulfill a role in society. Natural selection has been eradicated in their culture by
the prohibition of sexual intercourse.
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Buchanan, A., Beyond humanity?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.

Cyranoski, D., ”WHAT’S NEXT FOR CRISPR BABIES?”, Nature, 566, 28

FEBRUARY 2019. Available from: Nature,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1 (Accessed 10 March 2023).

Glover, J., ”Questions About Some Uses of Genetic Engineering” in H. Kuhse and P.
Singer (ed), Bioethics : an anthology, Malden, Mass. : Blackwell, 2006, pp. 187-197.

Habermas, J., “The Debate on the Ethical Self-Understanding of the Species”, in The
Future of Human Nature, Cambridge: Polity, 2003.

Harris, J. Enhancing Evolution. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007.

Lappe, M., ”Ethical Issues in Manipulating the Human Germ Line” in H. Kuhse and
P. Singer (ed), Bioethics : an anthology, Malden, Mass. : Blackwell, 2006, pp. 198-
208.

Resnik, D.B., ”The Moral Significance of the Therapy-Enhancement in Distinction

in Human Genetics”, in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (ed), Bioethics : an anthology,
Malden, Mass. : Blackwell, 2006, pp. 209-218.

LIST OF VIDEOS

John Harris on Enhancing Evolution (Interview), (online video), 2013,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQSTRITPyHY (accessed 12 March 2023)

Genome Editing with CRISPR-Cas9 (online video), 2014,

https://youtu.be/2pp17E4E-O8 (Accessed 9 March 2023)

LIST OF IMAGES

Image 1 – Mass Effect game poster

 Hunjadi, KOVN15

Image 2 – Slide 2, Mind map on genetic engineering and eugenics

Image 3 – Slide 3, Mind map on bioethical theorists
Image 4 - Children in Auschwitz
Image 5 – Josef Mengele conducting experimentations on children
Image 6 – Lebensborn house
Image 7 - Indian Residential school in Canada
Image 8 - He Jiankui, the CRISPR doctor
Image 9 – Uighur muslim population held at a prison camp in Xinjian province, in
China
Image 10/11/12 – The Krogans (race from the game) and a stereotypical redneck
(buying coffee with a bazooka strapped to his back) comparation
Image 13 – Slide 9, Krogan evolutionary timeline
Image 14/15 – Slide 10/11, The train and workers ethical dilemma example
Image 16 – Character Miranda Lawson, genetically engineered human
Image 17 – The CRISPR method

IMAGES

Image 1
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

Image 2

Image 3
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

Image 4

Image 5
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

Image 6 and image 7

Image 8 and image 9

Image 10 and image 11 and image 12

 Hunjadi, KOVN15

Image 13

Image 14
 Hunjadi, KOVN15

Image 15

Image 16 and Image 17