‘Make People Better’ Review: A Fascinating Look At The Ethics Surrounding Human Genome Modification [Hot Docs]

Exploring the contentious debate surrounding germline editing within human embryos, Cody Sheehy’s documentary “Make People Better” is, like its subject, a complicated dive into the practicalities and ethics of genetic modification. Using the story of Dr. He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist who created the first genetically edited babies — Lulu and Nana — in late 2018, as a guiding framework, Sheehy’s film is perhaps too wonky in its delivery, but its subject matter nevertheless makes for a fascinating dive into the ethical quandaries around human genetic modification, even if it is a bit one-sided in the end.  

Colloquially known to friends as JK, Dr. Jiankui’s decision to genetically modify the DNA of two embryos to make them resistant to the AIDS virus set off alarms throughout the scientific community. As recounted by a number of friends, colleagues, and journalists, the idea behind the modification — which used CRISPR technology to edit parts of the human genome — had been championed as an abstract possibility by scientists including Harvard geneticist George Church and ASU Biologist Ben Hurlbut — two dominant voices within the film. Yet, once JK put these ideas into practice, the condemnation was swift. The scientific community and the Chinese government essentially disowned JK’s work, leading to his eventual imprisonment and the disappearance of Lulu and Nana. 

Dr. Jiankui was not alone in embracing the possibilities of genome editing, he was just the first to implement it. Whether you believe he was a leader of a new scientific revolution or negligent and unethical will probably determine whether you align with the film. Sheehy and his interview subjects take the former position, often drawing parallels to the rise of in vitro fertilization as the first indication that the public may, eventually, support such modifications. But, they also look at the implementation of GMO’s within farming practices as a cautionary tale, considering the public backlash when GMO’s rose as an alternative method of food production. The same goes for genetically altering DNA sequences. If this all sounds a bit too technical, Sheehy and co. do occasionally get lost within the discourse, relying mainly on scientists and academics to provide an in-depth, but nevertheless obtuse, inquiry into the process. 

Further, “Make People Better” is less of an all-sides exploration of the debate between opposing sides and more of an accounting of the possible benefits and some detriments to such radical rethinking of how our DNA can be changed. As such, the film seemingly aligns with Jiankui, Church, and Hurlbut’s point of view — excited by the possibilities of editing, but also wary of the implications and the ways that the technology can be used. This approach somewhat limits discussion about the nefarious ways that the altruistic goals of these geneticists can easily be corrupted. But, unlike the possibilities of disease eradication, etc., these threads aren’t given proper space within the film and are mainly left unexplored. 

The film works best when honed in on Dr. Jiankui, his eventual fallout with the Chinese government, and the scientific community at large. Questions surrounding the ethics of genetically altering two babies are fascinating in their own right, but are just as often subsumed by conversations surrounding Jiankui’s role as a martyr. How he is treated by colleagues before and after performing his procedure speaks volumes about the ebbs and flows of public discourse, and the way that science can become politicized. 

“Make People Better” is perhaps too closely aligned with its subjects, taking its own title as a mantra for the opportunities that genome editing can present. But, it also is a compelling discussion and portrait of the ethical dilemma surrounding changing human DNA and the scientist at the center of it. [B]