A company should not be able to discriminate against an employer based on their genetic profile
By
Brian Peppers
on May 06, 2007
It's becoming law in the US
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11787&feedId=online-news_rss20
Agreed
10
2
83.3% 16.7%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Similar claims
- 6-0 Sean C is looking for a new job.
- 8-19 People with genetic disorders should not have children.
- 4-37 People with genetic disorders should not be allowed to have children
- 127-27 Some people should not be allowed to have children.
- 27-54 Ignorance is bliss- that's why I shouldn't have gone to grad school!
Discussion (7)
i think you mean employee
yes, thank you for spotting the typo
Okay, so I admit that I didn't read the article. But the claim alone is more than a bit ridiculous since that is precisely what employers do when hiring - it's nearly all they do.
Brains? Check.
Math skills? Check.
Sociable? Check.
Attractive? Check.
Not to discount nurture, but to some extend all the things we are hired for are based on our genetics.
Kara: there's a difference between discriminating based on genetics, and discriminating based on emergent properties thereof.
If I say "no one with gene X can work for me" that's the former. if gene X happens to cause people to be incurable pyromaniacs and i run a gas station, on the other hand, i might happen to discriminate against holders of gene X without running a genetic analysis.
totally different, ethically.
While I generally have problems with any sort of discrimination I don't really here. Being able to determine if someone is even capable of doing the job would be useful. In my line of work I'm much more interested in HOW someone thinks than what they know. I'd like to see IQ/propencity tests, but they aren't compiled for everyone and I have no idea how legal that would be. As it stands lots of tech companies are giving these tests without calling them that (see Google's employment tests).
How awesome would it be to go to an interview, hand over a piece of hair, (if necessary) have a chat to determine compatibility, then find out right then if you have the job? As opposed to the method we use now. You go in for an interview, play the part of salesman (not your profession) and find out hours/days later whether you were a good enough salesperson.
so what's to keep the employer from hiring only people not predisposed to cancer, so that they can get cheaper insurance and more likely longer-lived workers? why not screen for loyalty while you're in there?
and, more relevantly, what about someone who is not at all genetically predisposed but who has kicked ass trying and learning and getting better? they may be able to bring a fresh viewpoint totally worth the time.
Modern media saturation has me picturing Al Pacino screaming, "Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!" for some reason.