## Inferno (2016) **Directed by Ron Howard | Based on the novel by Dan Brown** A billionaire geneticist named Bertrand Zobrist is convinced that humanity is on the brink of catastrophe due to overpopulation. His solution is radical: he engineers a virus designed to render a significant portion of the world's population infertile, thereby reducing the human population to what he considers sustainable levels. When Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon wakes up in a Florence hospital with amnesia, he is drawn into a frantic chase across Europe to find and stop Zobrist's plague before it is released. Along the way, the film raises uncomfortable questions about whether monstrous means could ever be justified by seemingly noble ends. ### Spoiler Alert This page discusses major plot points from Inferno. The book is upfront about the fact that this is not a great movie. But bad movies can still be surprisingly useful for thinking about emerging technologies, and Inferno turns out to be a surprisingly rich starting point for exploring some genuinely important ideas about synthetic biology, biosecurity, and the ethics of genetic manipulation. ### What This Chapter Explores The chapter opens with the environmentalist Paul Ehrlich's dire 1969 predictions about the consequences of human overpopulation, predictions that turned out to be wrong, but that captured a way of thinking about population and resources that continues to influence people, including, apparently, the fictional Zobrist. The film's premise, that one person armed with the right knowledge could engineer a biological agent capable of reshaping the human species, is melodramatic. But the underlying capability is not entirely fictional, and that is what makes the chapter worth reading. The chapter uses Inferno to explore gain-of-function research: the scientific practice of deliberately modifying pathogens to make them more transmissible, more virulent, or more resistant to treatment. This is real research that real scientists do, and it is the subject of intense debate within the scientific community. Proponents argue that understanding how pathogens could become more dangerous is essential for developing defenses against them. Critics argue that the research itself creates risks that outweigh the benefits, because the modified pathogens could escape the laboratory or be weaponized. The chapter also dives into synthetic biology more broadly, exploring how advances in genetic engineering and gene synthesis are making it increasingly feasible to design and construct biological organisms from scratch. The tools for reading and writing DNA are becoming faster, cheaper, and more accessible every year. This creates extraordinary opportunities for developing new medicines, materials, and agricultural products. But it also lowers the barriers for misuse. The chapter asks what happens as the ability to engineer biology becomes available to a wider and wider range of people, and how we balance the benefits of open science against the risks of dual-use research. Zobrist's character, however flawed his portrayal, raises a genuinely disturbing question: do the ends ever justify the means when attempting to create a better future using science and technology? His logic is internally consistent, even if his conclusions are monstrous. He sees a problem (overpopulation), has the technical means to address it (engineered biology), and acts on his convictions. The chapter uses this to explore the dangerous territory where scientific capability meets moral certainty, and asks how societies can prevent brilliant but misguided individuals from using powerful technologies to impose their vision of the greater good on everyone else. The chapter also examines the role of scientists as advocates and activists. Unlike the isolated, single-minded scientists in some of the other films, Zobrist is driven by a genuine concern for humanity's future. His methods are abhorrent, but his motivation to use his expertise to address a global crisis is something many scientists share. The chapter asks how scientists can responsibly engage with the big challenges facing society without crossing the line into dangerous territory. ### Key Technologies - [Gain-of-function research](est_gain_of_function.html) — Deliberately modifying pathogens to study how they could become more dangerous - [Synthetic biology](est_synthetic_biology.html) — Designing and constructing biological systems and organisms from scratch - [Genetic engineering](est_genetic_engineering.html) — The tools and techniques for reading, writing, and editing the genetic code ### Ethical and Responsibility Themes - [Could we? Should we?](rei_could_we_should_we.html) — The terrifying implications of having the capability to reshape biology at will - [Dual-use research and biosecurity](rei_dual_use.html) — When research intended to protect can also be used to harm - [The role of scientists and innovators in society](rei_role_of_scientists.html) — The responsibilities that come with expertise, and the line between advocacy and overreach - [Deception, manipulation, and convenient lies](rei_deception_manipulation.html) — How moral certainty can be used to justify terrible acts ### Navigating the Future - [Hype vs. reality](ntf_hype_vs_reality.html) — Separating genuine biosecurity risks from overblown fears - [Science, belief, and ways of knowing](ntf_science_belief.html) — How conviction and evidence interact in decisions about dangerous technologies ### Discussion Questions * Can bad movies still be useful in making sense of emerging technologies and what they might do? * Should scientists be allowed to create deadly pathogens in the lab, and tell others how to do it? * Do the ends ever justify the means when attempting to create a better future using science and technology? * How can scientists be advocates and activists? Should they be? * What makes the difference between a rational argument for extreme action and a dangerous rationalization? * How do we weigh the risks of studying dangerous pathogens against the risks of not understanding them? * If a single individual has both the conviction and the capability to act on a global scale, what safeguards should exist? ### Continue Exploring Inferno's exploration of genetic manipulation connects to [Jurassic Park](movies_jurassic_park.html) (the ethics of genetic engineering) and the synthetic biology themes in [Transcendence](movies_transcendence.html). The question of scientists' responsibilities to society is also central to [The Man in the White Suit](movies_man_in_the_white_suit.html) and [Contact](movies_contact.html). And for more on how belief and evidence interact, see [Contact](movies_contact.html). ## Further Reading - [Weaponizing the Genome (Future of Being Human)](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/weaponizing-the-genome) — Andrew Maynard explores the real science behind Inferno's premise, examining gain-of-function research, synthetic biology, and the risks of engineering pathogens. The discussion confronts the uncomfortable reality that the tools for reading and writing DNA are becoming cheaper and more accessible, lowering barriers to both beneficial and harmful applications. - [The Honest Broker Meets Dan Brown's Inferno (Future of Being Human)](https://www.futureofbeinghuman.com/p/the-honest-broker-meets-dan-browns-inferno-ed637700b633) — This companion piece examines how Dan Brown's thriller connects to real debates about biosecurity, dual-use research, and the responsibilities of scientists who work with dangerous pathogens. It explores the tension between open science and the risks of making dangerous knowledge freely available. - [Inferno on IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3062096/) — The complete film page for Ron Howard's 2016 adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, starring Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. While the film received mixed reviews, its premise about an engineered pathogen designed to address overpopulation provides a surprisingly useful starting point for exploring biosecurity. - [Biosafety and Biosecurity (World Health Organization)](https://www.who.int/health-topics/biosafety) — The WHO's resource on biosafety and biosecurity addresses the global frameworks designed to prevent the misuse of biological research. This connects directly to the film's central concern: what happens when the knowledge to engineer dangerous pathogens falls into the wrong hands.