The recent announcement in the press that a scientist had produced a headless tadpole - and his presumably off-the-cuff remark that such technology could potentially produce headless human clones for use as organ donors - sparked an alarmist public outcry against a perceived lack of ethics in the biotechnology community. As the power, potential, and public knowledge of biotechnology grows, the spotlight will turn to the ethics of its potential uses. Such uses are governed by scientists' ethical standards, but they are governed even more profoundly by regulatory agencies, which are in turn directed by public officials and the public that elects them.

High-profile movies like Gattaca - billed as a near-future "what-if" drama in which society favors those with genetically engineered births - could put a bad rap on biotechnology, and thus make some scientists and public policy makers nervous. And rightly so. Until science education in the schools improves, Hollywood may have the strongest influence on public attitudes toward science. A public that frowns on biotechnology and the future it could bring might be stingy with research support.

The movie focuses on the struggles of naturally, "faith-born" Vincent, who struggles to overcome his perceived genetic inferiority in a world whose workplaces are dominated by those who were genetically engineered at birth. A slogan I noticed at the theater nicely sums up the movie's theme: "There is no gene for the human spirit."

At a screening I attended in Seattle with a number of bioscientists and journalists, the reactions were mixed but generally negative. "It distresses me that somehow science in the movies is always portrayed as meddling and destructive," said John Potter, a University of Washington epidemiologist, after the screening. "Movies tend not to show some of the joys and beauties of the things scientists do. Most of us ended up in the game because we were intrigued how nature works. Most of us don't want to screw with it, we just want to understand it."

"I can't imagine recommending it," said Maxine Linial, a researcher studying replication of retroviruses at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Aside from what she considers a poor portrayal of science, Lineal thought the movie's plot was far too predictable. "In a way I'm glad it was a bad movie because I think it would be [more damaging to biotechnology's reputation] to have a good movie with bad science in it."

On the other hand, most agree that with genetic engineering slowly emerging - and with the Human Genome Project set to ignite further applications and research - it is an appropriate time for public debate of ethical questions. So does Gattaca bring up the issues intelligently?

Just so-so, Linial maintains. "I think it raised [interesting ethical issues], but didn't really pursue them well. It was interesting that one character, who had been given all these [superior] genes, tried to kill himself . . . he was obviously depressed, and that [mental state] shouldn't have come with his genes."

The premise of treating genetic disease, and actually eradicating those wayward genes from society through genetic engineering, was tantalizing, says Mark Sullivan, a technician in Linial's lab. But the movie didn't follow through very well. "You had to think about that to understand that it was an ethical issue. The movie didn't really present it that way," he says.

The movie certainly is not a frontal attack on science, but rather dispels the notion that science is a cure-all for all that ails us, insisting instead that human determination counts for more than genes. Today, scientists continually remind the public that genes are not the whole story - that environmental factors, including nutrition, culture, and exposure, are just as important, if not more important, than the blueprints we carry.

The movie argues the same point. Vincent is left to the chance genetic recombination that occurs naturally, but he rises above peers who had the supposed benefit of designer genes. More subtle examples follow. The genetically "perfect" Jerome, whose genetic profile Vincent borrows in order to land a job at the Gattaca space institute, develops a drinking problem as a result (we presume) of an athletic injury that has left him wheelchair-bound. The Gattaca facility's director, who says his genetic profile would reveal "not a violent bone in my body," becomes so when his manned mission to Titan is threatened. The love interest Irene - played by Uma Thurman - though also genetically enhanced, was apparently victimized at birth by a laboratory error: she has a heart ailment. As the pair run from the law in one of the movie's few suspenseful scenes, Irene reminds Vincent that she can't do this sort of thing - her heart won't stand it. "You just did," Vincent points out to her.

A striking irony plays out near the end of the movie, when the genetically perfect but wheelchair-bound Jerome pulls himself up the spiral staircase in the apartment that he and Vincent share. He must reach the top before a detective arrives, so that he can play-act Vincent's role. The staircase - placed smack dab in the center of the apartment, where much of the action takes place - clearly represents DNA (although, as was pointed out to me by one of the scientists who attended the screening, the architectural representation is left-handed, unlike DNA, which is a right-handed spiral - but we'll forgive the director that small inaccuracy). Jerome's labored effort to reach the top, just so he can impersonate the more able, yet genetically imperfect Vincent, is a cunning metaphor.

"What was interesting, Potter says, "was [the theme that] someone who is genetically bad news can nonetheless, by human will, rise above the apparent human defects." But "other [movies] have done better" - specifically the movie Trading Places, which featured a street bum played by Eddie Murphy swapping locales and trappings with an insider trader played by Dan Aykroyd. The highborn Aykroyd, thought to carry the superior genes, initially bombs in his homeless role, while Murphy excels on Wall Street. But Aykroyd eventually pulls himself together, and the two team up to sink the schemers who set them up. "It's rather more poignant [than Gattaca] in some ways. The hubris [of Trading Places] was that the people who were messing with people's lives got their comeuppance," says Potter.

It isn't clear what overall effect the movie is likely to have on the typical viewer. Perhaps it really isn't an issue: "I don't know anyone who is a nonscientist who saw it - they didn't really seem interested in it," says Sullivan. The film doesn't take a clear stance on the morality of genetic engineering. It focuses instead on the generally accepted fact that genetics contributes only one of the factors that make us what we are. That's a pretty good lesson for anyone - scientist or layperson - to keep in mind.

Gattaca - official Web site. Requires Shockwave Flash plug-in. A plot summary, with illustrations from the film, may be found on the Cinema1 Web site.

Scientific American and Nature Genetics - scientific journals review the movie. Other reviews may be found on the Internet Movie Database, at the Corona Productions site, Science Fiction Weekly, and MovieWeb.

Bioethics Internet Project - the most informative bioethics site on the Internet. Includes introductory and in-depth articles, and a discussion specifically on ethics and genetics. Maintained by the University of Pennsylvania Health System's Center for Bioethics, an educational group "to advance scholarly and public understanding of ethical, legal, social and public policy issues in health care." The Bioethics Internet Project was featured in an HMS Beagle Site Review.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research Program - supports basic and applied research that identifies and analyzes the issues surrounding human genetics research. Maintained by the National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Other HMS Beagle columns have addressed the ethical issues of genetics :

• "To Test or Not to Test? Genetic Counseling Is the Key" by Jill Stopfer
• "Ifgene and 'The Future of DNA': A Conference on Ethical Issues of DNA Technology" by David J. Heaf and Pat Cheney
• "The Non-Ethics of Cloning" by John Maddox

"Science and Ethics of Mammalian Cloning" - HMS Beagle's Cutting Edge debate, moderated by Jon W. Gordon.

Left Handed DNA Hall of Fame - rogue's gallery of other backward depictions of DNA.