When I think of “science fiction,” I picture three-eyed aliens with purple-and-gold tentacles — not the disturbing demise of a man, and a company, depicted in the film “The Perfect 46.”
Nor do I expect to ponder the ethics of a company that strives to produce genetically “pure” children.
Yet this is precisely the type of science fiction filmmaker Brett Ryan Bonowicz dished up to a sold-out Stanford crowd last week. Following the film, an all-star panel of genetics experts fielded questions.
The film’s premise is simple, and alluring. People can send their sequenced genome, along with their partner’s, in to a company called The Perfect 46 and allow its proprietary algorithm to figure out if their children will be born genetic-defect free — or not.
“Jesse [Darden, the company’s CEO] wasn’t going to cure the diseases, he would just breed them out. It made a lot of people uncomfortable,” said one of the characters in the film.
So uncomfortable, in fact, that the company, and its leader Jesse Darden, played with a standout performance by actor Whit Hertford, unravels quite thoroughly – with Darden’s painful personal and professional demise forming the meat of “The Perfect 46’s” somewhat-tortured plot.
For me, the ethical quandary is a no-brainer: perfect – what fun is that? My husband and I are both far from perfect, and if we had a perfect child, it certainly wouldn’t be anything like us.
More seriously, however, the film poses thorny questions about the future of consumer genetics, a boom-and-bust field that’s both promising and terrifying. “The Perfect 46” doesn’t answer these questions, but the post-screening panelists delved into some of them.
During the talk, the experts made it clear the technology featured in the film isn’t there – yet. Right now, if scientists sequence a genome , they don’t know the meaning of the many versions, or allele , of the gene that pop up. “Often, we don’t know if it’s disease-causing or not,” said panel member Michael Snyder, PhD, Stanford professor and chair of genetics.
Although the film takes place in the “near future,” corporations that provide basic genetic screening are already available, the experts said. And corporations may not be providing adequate counseling for potential parents, panel member Sandra Lee, PhD, a senior researcher at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, pointed out.
The Stanford-heavy audience seemed to dig the movie, but I thought the film would be more effective if its lessons were a little subtler and its pace a bit quicker.
Still, the questions it asks are real, even pressing, and not science-fictiony at all.
Becky Bach is a former park ranger who now spends her time writing, exploring, or practicing yoga. She’s currently a science writing intern in the medical school’s Office of Communication & Public Affairs.
Previously:Stanford patient on having her genome sequenced: “This is the right thing to do for our family”, Stanford geneticist discusses genomics and medicine in TEDMED talk, New recommendations for genetic disclosure released and A conversation about the benefits and limitations of direct-to-consumer genetic tests
Screenshot of movie courtesy of Clindar
From August 11-25, Scope will be on a limited publishing schedule. During that time, you may also notice a delay in comment moderation. We’ll return to our regular schedule on August 25.