DNA Testing For Jobs May Be On Its Way, Warns Gartner (computerworld.com) 228
Reader dcblogs writes: It is illegal today to use DNA testing for employment, but as science advances its understanding of genes that correlate to certain desirable traits -- such as leadership and intelligence -- business may want this information. People seeking leadership roles in business, or even those in search of funding for a start-up, may volunteer their DNA test results to demonstrate that they have the right aptitude, leadership capabilities and intelligence for the job. This may sound farfetched, but it's possible based on the direction of the science, according to Gartner analysts David Furlonger and Stephen Smith, who presented their research Wednesday at the firm's Symposium IT/xpo in Orlando. This research is called 'maverick' in Gartner parlance, meaning it has a somewhat low probability and is still years out, but its potential is nonetheless worrisome to the authors. It isn't as radical as it seems. Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports. Even without testing, businesses, governments and others may use this understanding about how some characteristics are genetically determined to develop new interview methodologies and testing to help identify candidates predisposed to the traits they desire.
testing...for.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:testing...for.. (Score:5, Funny)
If you test positive for DNA, you're not eligible.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Testing for jobs? WHAT JOBS?
Steve Jobs
Re: (Score:3)
He's Dead, Jim. . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:testing...for.. (Score:5, Funny)
but not as we know it!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:testing...for.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The question about jobs misses the more important point: all of this is nonsense. For instance, in the summary they say:
Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.
No, it's not. Job selection based on presented traits is common in the military and sports (e.g. small jockeys, tall basketball players, etc.), not based on genetic characteristics. Sure, there are genetics behind those traits, but no one is using them directly to make decisions.
And the reason why is simple: there are widely-supported, decades-old laws that anyone who has even a passing awareness of the subject knows about (but which the Gartner analysts apparently couldn't be bothered to look up) that prevent employers from doing exactly what they're suggesting will happen. Even if a job candidate volunteered their genetic information to "prove" they were fit for a job, the employer would still be barred from using it, based on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act [wikipedia.org]. It doesn't just bar them from collecting DNA; it bars them from using DNA at all when making hiring, firing, promotion, and placement decisions, regardless of how it was obtained.
So, unless the laws change--which is unlikely, given the massive bipartisan support for that bill and the suggestions over the years that it should be strengthened even further--those Gartner analysts are way off-base.
...which shouldn't come as a surprise, since this is the same Gartner that routinely misses the mark in their predictions. Like when they suggested in 2011 (when everyone else had already seen the writing on the wall) that Microsoft would be second-only to Android in smartphone market share by 2015 and that RIM would manage to maintain its market share over that same period. How'd that work out, just 4 years later?
If they're labeling an idea that's years and years away as "maverick", I'm labeling it "rubbish" (alternatively: "brain vomit from that week we didn't sleep because our boss said we had to come up with something").
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gattaca. It's spelled Gattaca.
Thank you for submitting your resume. Don't contact us; we will contact you.
Not to Sound iIke a Snowflake... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but the very idea of testing genetics in order to determine your qualifications is Offensive in the worst way and an Affront to humanity.
The essence of being human is the ability to overcome the challenges placed before you. A Dyslexic person becoming a famous author, a victim of ALS persevering and becoming an award winning winning Physicist (and possible Nobel Prize winner), a blind and deaf person learning to speak and write, etc.
I'm not going to spend time looking it up, but I expect that you will find many great people in history who have overcome inherent disabilities of one kind or another to become Leaders in public service, technology, the military, etc, who, under this DNA testing philosophy, would have been disqualified from the start.
Re:Not to Sound iIke a Snowflake... (Score:4, Funny)
This would be terrifying, but it's a prediction by Gartner, so somehow I'm not worried.
Re:Not to Sound iIke a Snowflake... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not only that. The problem with most theories of eugenics is that they draw from experience with agricultural breeding of domesticated species. Humans are not domesticated; we're a wild species with massive genetic diversity compared to, say, purebred Arabian horses.
This means that with us sexual reproduction still does what it is supposed to do: generate genetic diversity in offspring. Look at large families. You get some who are tall and some who are short; some who have Grandpa Joe's nose and others that have Grandpa John's jaw, others who get both or neither. Even with litter of pedigreed puppies you'll get one total loser and if you're lucky one champion; and pedigreed dog litters are much more alike than any set of human siblings. And that's just physical traits; in terms of interests, talents, and success there is massive variability among siblings, although there is some correlation, in part due to economic circumstances, upbringing and education.
Nature works this way because variability is good for the species, and that variability comes from combinations of genes being shuffled. Add to that the massive behavioral plasticity of our gigantic brains, and the idea that you can sample some of, say, Steve Jobs DNA for successful CEO markers is ludicrous. If you'd raised Jobs in a different family and sent him to a different set of schools, and didn't get him luck out by ending up close friends with Woz, then while he may well have been quite successful in some other way, he wouldn't have been the Steve Jobs we knew.
Of course, willingness to go along with the DNA test is a good test for one phenotypical trait: the willingness to put up with pseudo-scientific baloney.
Big news (Score:5, Funny)
Something that isn't happening may someday happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, knowing humanity at it's current state, it probably will catch on in such a way that it becomes normal for everyone to have their own DNA tests done prior to applying for a job, and simply bringing in the paperwork to the interview. And of course, peo
Re:Big news (Score:4, Interesting)
Hiring an employee for a job is expensive without DNA testing and as such represents a big financial risk for companies if the hires don't work out. I've talked to people who had to spend *days* taking a battery of psychological tests, physicals, etc to get pretty high level jobs.
Adding in another $2500 doesn't seem to be that big of a deal if the cost to hire an employee is already $25k or more.
The question I guess I'd ask is whether it will actually be useful. Will they actually be able to notice significant improvements in performance? I would think that the psychological and occupational type testing they do now would be 90% of the value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big news (Score:4, Interesting)
I avoid companies like that. It's a sign that they are probably a terrible place to work, and likely have a high turnover rate. Often these tests are a reaction to that - some idiot consultant advises them to waste money on vetting and more consultancy because it must obviously be the people who are broken, not the company that is paying them and doesn't want to hear the truth.
Exactly this! (Score:4, Insightful)
The brash open eugenics message should be extremely disturbing. Your option, boycott any company that adopts a practice like this. Petition for laws to prevent abuse of your basic human right to privacy. "Too late" is not an excuse to give up privacy, "Too late" is an excuse for the worst type of tyranny.
Lets not forget the rash of claims last year that people would be labelled by their tweets and posts and categorized by the same. Remember that these same people (openly pushing eugenics) try to claim that others are racist, homophobic, etc...
Re: (Score:3)
I imaging the guards at the Nazi death camps were given some version of its not murder they are not people too.
It's counter-intuitive (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone who accepts getting DNA test to get a job is by definition a follower, a brown-nose, a suck-up, not a leader.
Employers don't really want too many leader types - they tend to call out bullshit instead of bending over and taking it.
And if you want grovelers, there are easier ways to screen for them. Just tell them the interview is at 1 PM sharp, and then keep them waiting a few hours. Those that wait it out have demonstrated that they'll put up with being treated like crap, and will probably also say okay to unpaid overtime and weekends, etc. "These are the proles you're looking for."
Also, the test is clearly arbitrary, invasive, and unproven. Any company that asks for this is a place you don't want to work for (unless you're a submissive prole, of course). It's also illegal - a blood sample will also reveal genetic diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, making it easy to discriminate against "those people" based on a hidden physical handicap. The presence or lack of a Y chromosome can also out transsexuals. The presence of a Y chromosome also carries with it a higher risk of color-blindness, A Y chromosome also generally means a shorter life span, so lower pension costs. XX means the chance of medical costs for pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions, and more unplanned time off to deal with the kids.
IEven if they use anonymous evaluation in the hiring process, and don't test specifically for XX or XY, the genetic presence of color-blindness unmasks males, making it somewhat easier to choose whichever sex you want to discriminate against.
Re: (Score:2)
However the real question how much in DNA would determine if a new-hire will or will not work out?
Problem 1: What makes a good leader? A good leader for company A can be a horrible leader for company B. It would even be different across many departments. IT Departments usually have well educated self motivated employees where the leader will need to make sure they are working in concert with each other, and their priorities are inlign with the institution.
The Billing department may have lesser educated gro
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I think the psychological or occupational testing would be most informative. The DNA test only describes what the ingredients in the cake mix box are, the psych testing tells you what the cake tastes like.
AFAIK there is no predictive DNA testing for personality or higher level psychological attributes. Hell, they often can't clearly identify genes responsible for some heritable physical illnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the job you will pay for your own DNS test and background check.
Re: (Score:3)
Would MAC spoofing count as ID theft in this case?
Re:Big news (Score:5, Informative)
I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down.
Full genome sequencing cost $100M in 2001, $10k in 2011, and is about $1000 today. If you just want to check for a few specific genes, rather than full sequencing, the cost can be under $100. These prices are expected to continue to fall. Larger companies can buy their own sequencer for about $5k, and do the analysis in-house for faster turn around.
DNA testing in hiring may or may not be a good idea, but cost will not be a significant barrier.
My prediction: The best predictor of future performance will continue to be past performance.
Cost not the problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down. Currently the cost for this type of analysis is around $2,500. I can't imagine any employer willing to spend $25,000 just to interview 10 people.
For a job at McDonalds no. For a six figure tech job they already spend more than that on the interview process in a lot of places. Hiring the wrong person is a LOT more expensive than a few tests for jobs with serious consequences. I've seen companies spend substantial sums on background checks, length interviews, psychological and proficiency tests, etc. Believe me that DNA tests would get used too if they became a realistic option.
Of course I'm pretty sure there will be legislation prohibiting this sort of behavior. I think discrimination based on DNA will join the other protected classes (gender, race, etc) except for cases of it being a bona-fide job requirement [wikipedia.org] which will be rare.
Re: (Score:3)
I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down.
I am sure it will come way down.
Many organizations drug screen and we have come to accept this (for some reason). Why would DNA testing be any different?
I see a very strong possibility that this will come to pass. The reason I say this is because any time something makes financial sense for a business to do, then it will become legal if enough of them throw money at it (which they will).
Unlikely to be Useful (Score:2)
I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down.
I seriously doubt it will happen at successful companies even if the costs go way down and it becomes legal. Nature is only a part of what determines your character: nurture plays a large role as well. That combined with the fact that I am not sure we all agree on what characteristics make a good leader leads me to have very severe doubts about whether this is even vaguely useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Gartner having a clue... isn't happening nor will it someday happen.
Ummm (Score:2, Interesting)
There are laws that prevent employers from considering health, gender, religious views, and other deeply personal attributes when hiring a candidate. I don't see how this could possibly be allowed in the future (unless our laws change).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OR... The laws are ignored, kinda like whats going on now...
Re: (Score:3)
There are laws that prevent employers from considering health, gender, religious views, and other deeply personal attributes when hiring a candidate. I don't see how this could possibly be allowed in the future (unless our laws change).
Genetic testing is simply an egregiously extreme version of attempting to determine how smart, hard working, determined, etc. a candidate is, which is allowed by our current laws. If a company cannot use genetic markers which signify greater intelligence (if such a thing even exists), why would they be allowed to use an IQ test or school grades, or any other indication used to guesstimate a candidate's intelligence?
I think new laws will be needed to stop abuses, because I'm not convinced our current employm
Re: (Score:2)
If a company cannot use genetic markers which signify greater intelligence (if such a thing even exists), why would they be allowed to use an IQ test
Using IQ tests, or any other test for general intelligence, is ILLEGAL in America [wikipedia.org].
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Informative)
Using IQ tests, or any other test for general intelligence, is ILLEGAL in America [wikipedia.org].
That is not true. That ruling simply ensures that employment tests provide a demonstrable link between the test and ability to perform job functions. In this case any high school graduate could complete the job (and probably even that is an unnecessary requirement). IQ tests are generally regarded as poor choices for employment related tests, but they are not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws that prevent employers from considering health
There are laws that prevent discrimination based on permanent disabilities, and even then there is only a requirement for "reasonable accommodation". So you can refuse to hire someone in a wheelchair to work in your warehouse, but not as a programmer. But there is no broad protection of "health". For instance, my company refuses to hire smokers, specifically because they are unhealthy, running up insurance costs and taking more sick days. That is legal. Nicotine addiction is not a protected disability.
Gattaca (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gattaca (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently Gattaca is not as far off as I would have thought.
Gattaca simply took a concept which is almost certain to happen and took it to an illogical extreme to create drama and conflict. Not unlike many sci-fi books and movies. I haven't read any scientific literature claiming we will ever be able to use genetic testing to perfectly determine someone's capabilities, as explicitly shown in Gattaca by interviews consisting of only a genetic test. Nurture still has an effect, so genetics will only ever be one of many factors.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Gattaca - aside from the absurdity that one's genes could control lifespan to within months (too many other factors contribute) - is that presuming the central thesis is true, you have a person recklessly putting an entire spacecraft full of people in certain danger just to satisfy his own ego. Even Ayn Rand would have probably thought twice about creating a "hero" like that.
Genes for high intelligence don't mean squat if the person in question was oxygen-deprived, lobotomized, or otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could use my dialing wand.... oh wait... wrong franchise...
Crippled Jude Law's Blood to the Rescue? (Score:2, Funny)
Don't worry, we've got a plan!
against traditional American values (Score:2)
this is. The traditional American value of getting ahead by hard work and grit is completely opposed to this sort of genetic pre-disposition. The nature-nurture conflict doesn't go away simply because HR can now test for nature and is completely incapable of testing for nurture.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:against traditional American values (Score:4, Interesting)
I think there's a lot about our old values which may need changing in the face of better understanding. Even now, left wing tend to assume that if someone is poor, it is because the social system is oppressing them, whilst right wing tend to assume that if someone is poor, it is because the individual lacks good character. And not only is it obviously a combination of both, but it is a complex combination involving genes, family upbringing, sub culture, and so on, as well as the local opportunities which were available. Plus, free will.
And then there's complicated issues around how we define what's "fair". Is it fair that someone ends up poorer just because they didn't win the genetic lottery, either in looks or brains or some other marketable asset? And what if one day, say we discover a mechanism that proves reincarnation, as a sort of information transfer through some newly detected energy field. And then we realise, oh the capacity to be good and ethical and compassionate actually builds across lifetimes! So if you're "poor" as you're a "thief" then it is your lack of being willing to grow ethically across your lifetimes! And I'm not saying that's what is, I'm just saying, a lot of what we discover may challenge all sorts of assumptions.
But one thing about those traditional values is that they can always be bent to interpret some fact to suit an agenda. So if genes really do play a big part, then they can see it as part of "good breeding" and how "hard work" can help you succeed enough to marry into a good family and so raise the genetic quality of your children. They can frame it as, a quality of being rich and smart is being careful and selective in who you sleep with so as to gain a genetic reward, ie. still conservative hard-work values.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, that value is at odds with the capitalist value of getting ahead by any means available no matter the consequences to anyone else. So you'd better hope that DNA testing won't give any measurable advantage, otherwise it'll be yet another lock in your chains.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that parents tend to be the source of genetics also, maybe the parents are wealthy because of genetics too.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I personally contradict that principle.
That's the problem with using crude measures in an attempt to sell people short. You waste human capital.
You become a French surrender monkey.
I volunteer (Score:3)
The President of the United States job application(s) might be a good first test of DNA testing. Who cares about tax statements or emails when we can know whats in their DNA, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Like the man said, we should at least drug test them.
Re: (Score:3)
The lizard people ruling elite will never agree to that.
Nepotism? (Score:2)
Is this just paving the way toward scientific justification for nepotism? No tests needed for some, obviously, that's just for the ordinary folks.
Re: (Score:2)
No, a scientific approach would realize that it's necessary to throw random genomes at a problem in perpetuity or you'll stagnate at a local minima... and that investing in such a program is only helpful in that it generates data to be analyzed decades down the road when in-place gene editing has reached an adequate level of safety.
gattaca did it first! (Score:2)
Preselection before you have spoken a word or conducted an action... What could go wrong?
Aptitude vs. Effort (Score:4, Insightful)
So they're more likely to hire someone who's very good at something they're too lazy to do.
Anyone who hires based on DNA is a fool (Score:5, Interesting)
Nature vs. Nurture (Score:3)
Except that for many traits, Nurture dominates Nature. E.g. there are less academics coming from poor communities, be them the ghetto or the Appalachian mountains, than from middle class groups. You can do all the DNA test you want, but Nurture dominates in this case as in many others.
I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer to test people for what they can do instead of testing them what they're supposed to be good at. Mostly 'cause my clients want a product and are not satisfied knowing what we could do with the machinery we have.
Re: (Score:3)
It will be large companies with many staff who are more interested in this. They will try to avoid people whose DNA suggests they may be more prone to medical conditions like cancer that involve significant time off and push up medical insurance costs.
They will also be lured in by the usual big data nonsense about being able to detect hidden trends related to certain genetic markers. People with ginger hair taking an average of 3% longer bathroom breaks, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're pretty much right.
Sure, I'm on Amphetamine because my genetics caused a smaller, weaker prefrontal cortex and thus a lower amount of mental force coming out of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, diminishing my ability to control my brain's automatic impulses; but I've spent my life learning things, and learning to control parts of that. It's never going to be a drug-free solution because that just doesn't work; on the other hand, I'm able to control major impulses, and I've got an interest in fin
Those traits aren't simple... (Score:3)
No worries... (Score:2)
No worries, this will never get approved. The public is so against this being legal, that anyone who revokes the law making DNA testing for jobs illegal would be committing political suicide.
Will not happen any time soon because politicians like keeping their jobs.
Good luck with that (Score:3)
There are at least two major weaknesses in this idea:
1) Looking around in the business landscape, it seems clear that 'we' (especially managers) have little understanding of what makes a good leader. ATM the trend is that you have to be the "Alpha Male", hence leadership courses that include white water rafting and other supposedly, very 'male' passtimes. This may impress the sales teams, but I doubt the engineers are in awe over it.
2) Even if we knew what personality traits make a good leader, it is far from clear that there is a simple - or even any - connection between your DNA toolkit and your personality. So far, we seem to have some trouble finding a well defined set of genes for things like skin colour or height, and things like personality are vastly more complex than a simple, physical trait. Plus, of course, we have very limited knowledge (in fact, next to none) about how brain structure maps to personality traits.
So far, we have only just begun to scrape the surface of the genome, the epi-genome and the structure of the nervous system. We are still in the phase where, the more we discover, the more we come to realise how hopelessly inadequate our current understanding still is. It is not impossible that we will understand these areas well, but it will take a while; we will probably be well-established on Mars and beyond long before that day. Going to Mars is, after all, only rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's before we even consider the effects of upbringing on a personality.
Comeing soon Healthcare plans! (Score:2)
Robodoc! Says you have X and the only health plan that will cover you is feudal prison inmate plan. There is an bank only 0.5 miles away.
Genes for leadership and intelligence... (Score:3)
Just wait until someone finds particularly desirable genes on the Y chromosome and grab the popcorn...
Not anywhere with sane privacy laws (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we choose CEOs that way? Of course, the combat must be to the death.
By the time this comes to pass, (Score:2)
automation and AI will have eliminated the vast majority of jobs for humans anyway. So let the point-one-percenters start applying these genetic criteria to each other - and watch them eat their own. Pass the popcorn! If we poor plebeians are still able to afford popcorn, that is...
Genetic testing is NOT done currently in sports (Score:3, Interesting)
Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.
The only genetic testing I'm aware of in sports were those for proving an athlete is a woman. And I think that one was replaced with a test for testosterone. I'm unaware of anywhere in the military where that happens either (maybe astronauts?). There is certainly selectivity based on abilities and attributes, but those aren't purely genetic tests. About the closest you get to a genetic test is height, but that's also based on nutrition and other environmental factors. If you classify these as genetic tests, then I don't see how this is different from also calling the current job requirements for intelligence genetic tests. Things like GPA or just talking to someone in an interview are as much genetic tests as measuring someone's height or their running speed are.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the lawsuits... (Score:2)
Already done (Score:2)
Indirectly, that is. If you are in the CEO's blood line, you've got a job.
Do they really want more people living on welfare? (Score:2)
The future sounds lik
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, this stinks of eugenics.
I think I speak for everyone when I say (Score:2)
FUCK THAT
Star Trek (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All this makes me think that the future of society is predictability. Automated cars, genetic engineering, matching algorithms in dating sites, everything built so things work as they're supposed to. Kinda creepy, if you ask me.
Sure, You can be anything, Honey (Score:2)
Gattaca (Score:2)
Perhaps one of the most accurate visions of the future ever put onto the big screen.
not science based (Score:2)
Do they really want this? (Score:2)
Given the personality correlations between success business leaders and psychopaths, then, if there is any genetic basis for these traits, which does not seem totally unlikely, what is the likely outcome of recruiting more psychopaths than there are leadership positions to fill?
It'll happen, if it isn't happening already (Score:2)
GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA! GATTACA! (Score:3)
This sort of nonsense should remain outlawed. Genetic predisposition is not the be-all-end-all of human potential; we learn. Education, skills, and experience should be determining factors.
Re: (Score:2)
Futurama (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Loophole in GINA? (Score:3)
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibits employers from refusing to hire someone because of their genetics... but what if the reason to refusing to hire someone in particular is because they didn't submit their genetic information at all? How can they be said to refuse to hire someone based on their genetics if they don't have the genetic information in the first place?
Further, it seems that the refusal to hire someone who did submit such information would not necessarily be because of *their* genetics but because the employer has since filled the position they were seeking with someone else who *did* have the genetic qualifications they were seeking. In this case, the employer may be choosing to *hire*, not refusing to hire, somebody based on their genetics, but this does not appear to be prohibited by GINA.
I don't know if this has already been tried and shot down in court, or if this kind of reasoning would actually work. While it's entirely unethical in terms of the spirit of the law, it seems like it still ought to be technically legal.
BS. Hogwash. Poppycock. Etc... (Score:3)
DNA has about as much to do with "intelligence" as purported IQ tests, which is to say very little other than in a very general sense. The same could be said for "leadership" and various other ridiculous tests more appropriate for nothing more than wasting time on FB.
There is no "intelligence" gene, nor is there one for "leadership", that is absolutely ridiculous. I mean in a very broad sense you could use DNA to look for *possible* indicators of certain genetic disorders that may have an impact on either trait. However those disorders would also be so absolutely obvious that you could determine that by simple written comprehension or even say talking to someone for say 5 minutes.
So all that BS aside, there are some ways in which DNA could effect your employment opportunities in a very real and sinister way. Namely if your employer pays for your benefits and insurance. A big chunk of either are medical expenses. They could potentially use DNA testing to eliminate you from competition for jobs on the simply liability of you and or your offspring might be more expensive medically (due to having indicators of possibility being susceptible to certain genetic maladies) requiring the employer to have more robust benefit or insurance packages.
Anyway the idea of using DNA like a resume is absurd. A better indicator is environment, the biggest of which likely socioeconomic background (i.e. better opportunities, education, health, etc). That isn't to say that there isn't potential abuse for DNA information by employers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... a mental disposition towards a strong work ethNic ...
Best Freudian Slip of the Week.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA testing is inherently racist, as genetic traits are heritable and are associated with your ethnic/genetic background.
And the genes that determine your "race" are not the same genes that determine your probable job aptitudes.
Or are we going to only hire people with high-melanin skin genes to do outside work and unemploy all the rednecks? It'd reduce skin-cancer insurance claims, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
What's racist about race is presupposing outcomes that were highly predictable on first impression, because it's lamentably a very short step for an advantaged social group—often one of relatively homogeneous racial composition, suffused with elaborate rituals of social etiquette—to conclude that a disadvantaged racial subgroup never given an opportunity to do x can't do
Re: (Score:3)
DNA testing is inherently racist, as genetic traits are heritable and are associated with your ethnic/genetic background.
Genetic variability between any two individuals of the very same tribe dwarfs ethnicity. This is why judging individuals on a genetic basis by their tribe/race is illogical and also why your argument doesn't hold up.
I would agree for different reasons allowing this is a bad idea. Chance of these schemes ever being deemed socially acceptable in my estimation is 0... Probably also quite useless given people in many ways that matter are more or less products of their environments rather than genetics.
Re: DNA testing is inherently racist (Score:3)
They also aren't short, anymore. Put a dozen middle-class 25 year olds who grew up in Shanghai next to a dozen middle-class Americans of random ancestry from Los Angeles, London, or Toronto, and you'll notice that there's no longer any meaningful correlation between height and ethnicity that can't be better-explained by wealth & social class (higher ==> access to better food and healthcare, and probably less stress).
Remember, 500 years ago, most EUROPEANS were short, too... except for royalty, who li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the "if you don't work, you don't eat" crowd going to do about this?
Nothing. I expect that they are all confident they posses superior genes and even in the event of this actually being implemented, they would be unaffected.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm. Uma Thurman. Bring on the blood tests ! (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the words "the gene for
This reveals a basically magical, not scientific, idea of what "genes" are. Or a scammer.
Even in medical contexts, there is a vast gap between identifying a genetic variation associated with a disease and figuring out what the gene actually does and how the disease actually arises. It's the *beginning* of the real resea