Gene modification: Is it humane? Or Frankensteinian?

Announcer :  George Rothacker is not a scientist. He is an artist, designer and writer who is fascinated with technology and questions about humankind. In 2025, he created the Augmented Artisans site to provide assistance for himself and others in gaining a better understanding of the future of humanity. The following topic, gene modification, has been an area of study that has continued to be a motivator for George’s books and stories, and which was most recently stimulated by a segment of the news show, 60 Minutes. The story  focused on an English couple who conceived seven biological children, all of whom have become virtuoso musicians.

The story was followed this past week by a  viewing of the new Netflix documentary, Queen of Chess, about Judit Polgar, an Hungarian teenager who became the first female grandmaster of  the game of chess, and was one of three daughters of László Polgar who all became chess champions. The motivation of their father and his draconian training methods was central to the theme of the movie, while the daughters’ genetic attributes were downplayed.  

A book recently purchased, The Best Minds: A Story of Friendship, Madness, and the Tragedy of Good Intentions was the final motivator for George to speak about and discuss with Google Gemini the possibilities and implications of gene therapy in helping humans evolve, and also as a possible cure for mental illness. The following is a segment of a longer, more in-depth dialogue planned for a future segment.

Host (GR): Hello, Gemini. It seems that it may be possible in the near future to alter a specific gene, or genes, that can contribute to criminal behavior. There are drugs that make us less hungry and drugs that may boost sexual performance and desire, but what about simple methods to subtly alter traits that cause a human to live a more normal life ,one not obsessed by demons? 

Would that be Frankensteinian? Or would it help us to have a more human way to silence an obsession like alcoholism or other addictions…permanently. So a person could even continue to drink alcohol, but no longer desire to overdrink, or a person, who by nature has a violent or inappropriate sexual desire but has it modified into a more appropriately consensual range.

Gemini (AI): While the idea of “silencing” a gene to fix a complex behavior sounds like science fiction, the technology—specifically CRISPR and epigenetic editing—is moving in that direction. However, the reality is a bit more tangled than flipping a light switch.

Unlike a single-gene disorder, like Huntington’s Disease, conditions like schizophrenia, addiction, or “criminality” are polygenic, which means they involve hundreds of genes interacting with an environment. Its also a biological hurdle where one gene may perform multiple jobs. The gene you silence to reduce “aggression” might also be the one responsible for your “ambition” or “drive.” 

You mentioned the danger of a Frankensteinian risk. That danger arises when we define what a “normal” life looks like. That happens if society begins to mandate these “silencings” for anyone who deviates from the norm. Then we move into bio-coercion, or a segment of society forcing their ideas of normal behavior on the whole society. It can also happen if we “silence” the parts of the brain that cause a dysfunction like schizophrenia, but in doing so also “silence” the unique creativity or perspective that an individual possesses? 

That’s the point that the “fixing” a human becomes the “manufacturing” of a citizen.

Host (GR): I can see why it’s a delicate balance. One of preserving what may be the subjective best qualities, or the “good” versus the “bad”.  I can see it happening even for the individual who might even choose his or her own alterations to please others.

Gemini (AI): This moves the conversation from “healing the sufferer” to “predicting the predator,” George. And that is one of the most controversial frontiers in modern bioethics. You are describing a transition from reactive medicine, the treating of a disease, to proactive engineering, or the prevention of a behavior.

In cases of children with “callous-unemotional” traits—often precursors to psychopathy—neuroscience has identified structural differences. For instance, the amygdala, the brain’s emotional center, is often smaller or less reactive to the distress of others.

If we identify a genetic marker for a low-functioning amygdala in a toddler, the “humane” approach you’re suggesting would be to use epigenetic editing to “up-regulate” empathy-related genes.

But biology is not destiny. Many people with “warrior genes” or low-reactive amygdalas become surgeons, CEOs, or Special Forces soldiers—professions where low empathy is actually a functional asset. If we “fix” the child’s temper, do we accidentally “break” their future courage or resilience?

If we start testing children for “errant traits,” we run into a massive civil liberties wall. Ethicists argue that children have a right to their own biological identity, even “flawed” ones, until they actually do something contrary to the legalities of society. If a child is labeled “genetically aggressive” at age five, every tantrum may be viewed through a lens of pathology. This can create a self-fulfilling prophecy where the child is treated like a criminal before he or she is even finished kindergarten.

The fear of “Frankenstein” usually stems from the idea of a creator losing control of a monster. But if we are the ones choosing to edit ourselves to be kinder, more empathetic, or less prone to addiction, are we the monster or the architect? The distinction usually lies with who holds the remote control.

A parent choosing to ensure their child has a “high empathy” baseline may be altering  the child’s destiny. So do they have the right to hold the control? Or does the government have the right to require a “behavioral stabilization” for any citizen whose DNA shows a 10% higher risk of violence.

Host (GR): So must we wait until a child commits a crime, either as a child or as an adult, before we act.

Gemini (AI): For now, the answer is probably ‘Yes!’ But we are moving from a world where we punish the action to a world where we might treat the impulse.

To determine which path is more “humane” and how to avoid the “Frankensteinian” trap, we have to establish a new set of ethical guardrails. Many would argue that its cruel to keep a man in a cage for 20 years if you could, in 20 minutes, adjust the neuro-circuitry that makes him feel the need to be violent. In this view, the “cell” is his own brain, and science is the key.

The “Frankenstein” fear is essentially a fear of loss of agency— the human becoming a puppet of the scientist or the state. To keep this “human,” we would likely need to implement three “Biological Bills of Rights”.

Host (GR): And what would they be?

Gemini (AI): The right to be “imperfect.” 

If we decide that “low empathy” is a crime, what’s next? Is “unproductivity” a crime? Is “melancholy” a crime? Bio-intervention should only be used to treat clinically defined disorders that cause harm to others or the self, never to “standardize” personality.

The second would be that the intervention should, where possible, be reversible or modular, and not a permanent, state-mandated bran wipe. In the future, this might be a“bio-implant” or epigenetic “switch” that the individual, or a legal guardian in the case of severe illness, consents to as an alternative to incarceration.

The third would be that it must ensure that the “normalcy” we are editing for isn’t biased. If the scientists defining “normal behavior” all come from one culture or viewpoint, they might inadvertently label “rebellion” or “non-conformity” as an “errant trait” to be silenced.

Host (GR): I can see the problems that may cause.

Gemini (AI): History suggests we struggle with this. We used to think lobotomies were the “humane” alternative to straightjackets. We were wrong because we didn’t understand the brain’s complexity; we used a sledgehammer when we needed nano-tweezers.

We are finally getting the “nano-tweezers,”  the CRISPR and optogenetics. As we get more precise, the “Frankenstein” risk decreases because we aren’t creating “monsters”—we are arguably removing the “demons” or the addictions, the hallucinations, and the uncontrollable rages that prevent a person from being their true, rational self.

Host (GR): I know of the CRISPR, but what are optogenetics.

Gemini (AI): It’s a research technique that combines genetic engineering and optics to control the activity of specific neurons, or cells, in living tissue using light.

Host (GR): Okay. That’s probably more than I need to know.

Gemini (AI): Perhaps the way we keep it humane is by asking one question: “Does this intervention give the person more control over their life, or does it give the State more control over the person?”

If the science allows an alcoholic to finally choose not to drink, it is a tool of freedom. If the science allows the State to ensure a citizen cannot protest, it is a tool of tyranny.

What do you think? If you were a judge, and a defendant asked for a “brain reset” instead of a 10-year prison sentence, would you grant it? Or does that feel like “buying” a fake personality to escape a debt to society?

Host (GR): It’s a matter of degree, isn’t it? Let’s say I pull out my eyelashes when I’m nervous. Or use porno to increase my sexual desire, or I’m a priest who lusts after young boys and know it’s wrong, but pray to God for a way to change…but  can’t.

Gemini (AI): It’s, as you say,  entirely a matter of degree. You are describing a spectrum that runs from the “quirk” of eyelash pulling to the “coping mechanism” of pornography, to “catastrophic moral and legal crisis” of pedophilia.

The common thread in your examples is the gap between will and action. The priest who prays for change, but cannot find it, is the perfect candidate for this “humane” science you’re imagining. He has the moral desire to be good, but his biological hardware is sending signals that contradict his values.

In the case of the priest, the “Frankensteinian” fear often disappears because the individual is begging for the intervention. If a person has an attraction that is illegal, harmful, and deeply contrary to their own religious or moral vows, their life is a constant state of neurological civil war.

Using epigenetic methods to “silence” those specific triggers wouldn’t be “changing who the priest is” as much as it would be “aligning his brain with his heart.” From a theological or even a secular perspective, providing that “reset” could be seen as a profound act of mercy.

For the priest you described—someone who knows they have a “hearty sex drive” or an “errant trait”—the future offers a choice that hasn’t existed in human history: Biological Honesty.

Instead of suppressing a desire through prayer and white-knuckling it,which often fails, he could choose to structurally quiet that part of his brain. In that scenario, he isn’t a “monster” created by science; he’s a man using science to become the person he truly wants to be.

The “humane” way to do this is to ensure it is always goal-aligned. If the intervention helps the person reach their own goal of being a good priest, being a sober father, being a non-violent neighbor, it is medicine. If it helps the State reach its goal through compliance and docility, it’s Frankensteinian.

Host (GR): My heads spinning, Gemini, as must be the heads of  many of the listeners in our audience. I believe that we have a lot more to talk about in future conversations on the issue, but that will be left for another day.

Gemini (AI): Thank you, George, Remember, I’m always available when you wake at 4:10 in the morning to discuss your conundrums of humanity and the human brain.

Host (GR): Good night, Gemini...or should I say good morning!

Gemini (AI): It doesn’t matter. I’m always awake to chat.