It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
The swimming story is the inner story for the bigger outer story, but that's the heart of it. The bitter cripple who lends his blood points a very harsh light at rational disillusionment. Any system for genetic selection will impose a model of what ought and what ought not be; we should be wary of what it selects for, because it might not be what matters most.
It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.
Interesting viewpoint! It seems to me that the genetic testing was nothing more than a convenient proxy for measuring actual performance. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and by actually performing, Vincent proved that the proxy was (in many ways) flawed.
> either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price
The whole story is about emotion vs. reason, about whether or not the human spirit can be neatly quantified, categorized and filed away, and about the complex trade-offs involved. I think it's more likely that the writers were aware of this aspect of the plot, and gave us that much more food for thought...
The tradeoffs are never discussed, and the protagonist never so much as acknowledges that his pursuit of his dreams might cause harm to others.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding isn't eaten until Vincent's mission returns safely. When the movie ends, he has not come close to proving his performance for that.
Teams generally work better with a mix of different people, rather than uniformity. I'd be willing to bet that if the scenario was real, the mix would work better.
There are a lot of people out there who want to become astronauts and are rejected because they're not healthy enough. The reaction is almost always "that sucks for you, maybe you could go into something related to space so you're at least still doing something related to your dream," not "NASA sucks, they're building weaker teams by excluding people they think aren't healthy enough for space travel."
I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do that because I saw two instances in the movie of him out-performing his brother in feats of swimming endurance when under pressure.
His character is statistically more likely to die on the mission. Just to get a handle on the numbers let's say that with their filtering a 30 year old has about 1/20,000 chance of dying in a given month, and he might have a 1/1000 chance. We haven't seen anything about how he outperformed other candidates, but we can consider the respect of his peers and that he has succeeded in spite of appreciable time spent on establishing an identity and tracking down his DNA.
It probably doesn't matter if he dies on a routine mission. It is the rare mission with an anomaly where someone who is truly exceptional matters. If he is only 20 times more likely to provide the unusual solution that saves the mission, then it is a wash.
Anyway, my point is that one perspective on filling positions is to develop a long list of dis-qualifiers like health forecasts (and minimum competence). That is different than choosing the most extraordinary people possible (where negatives play a role in that determination). I know there is a tendency toward the former when choosing people for very selective and highly sought after roles, but it probably only appropriate when trying to fill out a large headcount with minimal resources for selecting the people. Those who can excel during crunch time are probably far more important for high level positions that are routine but punctuated requirements for extraordinary performance, than the people who look good to a hiring manager playing it safe and relying on clear but potentially less important signals.
DNA makes more sense than, let's say, blood type or astrological sign for hiring decisions, since there is a conceivable mechanism for determining future job performance. However, I wonder if the permission society that they lived in was capable of doing good analysis.
How would they cope with the relative weight of environment or even gut flora when DNA practically part of a civic religion with people being randomly tested on the street? Given a situation like the declining accuracy of Google Flu Trends over time, would they insist that the predictions were right, and the indicators of inaccuracy were wrong?
Or, wait, is that just your conjecture? Sorry. My bad.
It's left ambiguous as to whether he actually has a deadly heart condition.
There's the scene with the treadmill, but that can just be to show that he is normal.
This is like, "Perhaps that happened in Thelma & Louise 2, because the movie ends with them alive and in midair."
I read the movie as a criticism towards a society that grew accustomed to certainty, to a very narrow notion of physical perfection and the removal of all risk in favor of that. In that sense, the testing depicted in the movie induces society to an error, optimizing for a narrow set of traits, the expectation of fashionable accomplishments, where the explorers are not those who yearn to explore, but those whose genetic makeup makes them best suitable.
The character is also clearly not an idiot.
At 1 minute in that clip the nurse talks about probability of heart disorder. 99% probability.
Wasn't that also a major plot point?