This blog post explores whether human personality and abilities can be predicted through DNA analysis, along with its potential and ethical controversies.
We are made from DNA. Cells read DNA information to produce proteins, and these proteins form part of the cell or function as hormones, neurotransmitters, and more, constituting parts of our bodies. Muscles in our arms and legs, nerves, and bone cells shape physical characteristics like height and weight, while substances like hormones also influence personality. In other words, the information contained in DNA encompasses nearly all the information that makes up our bodies and minds.
Advances in technology have made it possible to analyze the vast content within DNA to some extent. DNA carries a coded message composed of four bases: A, G, C, and T. Human DNA consists of a total of 3 billion bases. This is an enormous amount of data too vast to handle manually, but analysis has become possible thanks to modern supercomputers. For example, the Human Genome Project, conducted from 1990 to 2003, succeeded in determining the sequence of 99% of human genes with 99.99% accuracy. Research to interpret these identified gene sequences is now actively underway.
As the future where DNA can reveal a person’s personality and characteristics draws nearer, ethical, legal, and social issues are also coming to the fore. For example, if someone’s DNA analysis suggests a criminal tendency, police might be able to monitor that person proactively. Or a teenager could be cut from a basketball team solely because they carry a gene associated with short stature. In such cases, one person’s freedom is infringed upon, while another is unfairly judged regardless of their actual ability.
However, I argue that evaluating people based on their genes is not only ethically problematic but also offers no practical benefit for the following reasons.
First, DNA analysis results are presented as probabilities and therefore cannot be absolutely trusted. According to psychological theory, the factors determining personality are influenced by innate factors at a rate of about 50%, peer group environmental factors at 40-50%, and parental environmental factors at 0-10%. Furthermore, even if someone has a genetically high predisposition toward crime, they may not commit a crime if they lack sufficient motivation. Conversely, someone genetically predisposed to integrity can become a criminal if raised in a high-crime environment. The same applies to characteristics like height, weight, personality, and disease susceptibility. Genetic analysis cannot accurately predict a person’s future; it can only indicate tendencies.
A prime example is identical twins. Identical twins form from the same fertilized egg that splits, sharing identical genes. However, if raised in different environments, their development can diverge significantly. Thus, even with identical genetics, individuals can develop completely differently based on their environment.
Second, it is practically impossible to precisely identify the specific genes influencing a particular skill. For instance, factors potentially affecting basketball skill include physical traits like height, jumping ability, muscular endurance, and judgment, as well as psychological traits like competitiveness, concentration, and perseverance. However, other seemingly unrelated genetic factors, such as manual dexterity, can also influence outcomes. Each characteristic can be further subdivided; for instance, judgment can vary depending on the situation. Assessing a person numerically by synthesizing all genetic information is practically impossible.
Some counterarguments may exist against this claim. One argument is that genetic information can serve as a form of ‘specification’ and thus be an evaluative factor. For instance, suppose someone interviews for a position as a speed racer. The interviewer might attempt to accurately assess and evaluate that person’s talent using genetic information. From the interviewer’s perspective, even if genetic information carries ethical concerns, they would likely want to evaluate based on all available information.
However, if genetic information is used for educational purposes instead of evaluation, this objection can be resolved. Unlike evaluation, educational purposes involve less potential harm from genetic analysis, allowing for its use without significant burden. Furthermore, using genetic information for educational purposes can promote equality at the starting line, as abilities would align more closely with the results of genetic analysis.
First, genetic information analysis results form the basis for ability. Genetic information is extremely vast, so statistical analysis methods like data mining are necessary to link it to ability. By accumulating data on the genetic information and corresponding abilities of numerous individuals, statistical analysis can identify correlations between genetic information and ability. Genetic information analyzed through such methods becomes more likely to reflect actual ability.
Second, if genetic information enables the early discovery of talent, everyone can start on the same footing. It is true that talented individuals can excel in specific fields. Film director George Lucas stated, “There is no such thing as a person without talent. The question is whether they can take action to discover that talent.” While discovering talent is now one of life’s crucial goals, genetic analysis can shorten this process.
One reason children attend various academies at a young age to explore their talents is to quickly find a field where they can excel, develop their skills, and lead a successful life. If a single genetic test could reveal talent, it would save time and resources. It also means that people without financial means could quickly discover their talents.
Regarding whether using genetic information for educational purposes raises ethical issues, it can be argued that no additional ethical problems arise when comparing the situation before and after genetic use. The current educational environment, relying solely on academy education, is already sufficient to accommodate both those with talent and those pursuing hobbies. Academies are unlikely to use genetic information as an excuse to screen students for performance reasons, as this would not align with their own interests.
In conclusion, evaluating people based on genetic information can cause ethical, legal, and social problems, and the results can be biased and inaccurate. Therefore, if genetic information is to be utilized, it is preferable to use it for educational purposes rather than for evaluating people. Discovering talent is a major goal in life today, and if this can be known through genetic analysis, it could lead to a better life and greater happiness.
