Slashdot Mirror
IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate
An anonymous reader writes "Today the New York Times is reporting that IBM announced the addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy. It appears that IBM is the first company worldwide to do this. With congress considering genetic privacy legislation, and with projects like the National Geographic Genographic Project, are we nearing the time when we all need to worry about our genetic privacy?"
they reaffirmed their commitment to constantly split infinitives...
The movie coming to reality? Hopefully not.
How would someone be discriminated against based on Genetic Material?
Sorry, but you have a AGGTAGTGCACA sequence. We can't hire you.
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy
Until the company goes down the crapper because all the other companies are making billions by having lower health care costs and hiring people that correctly match their genetic makeup (yeah 3005 stuff).
The companies that should institute such a policy are the Aetna's, KaiserPermanente's, and MetLife's of the world. However, that would not be wise, given the business models of said companies.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Well that's good news for those of us who were born with a genetic anomaly that gives us a superhealing factor and retractable claws! We'll have no problems applying for work at IBM!
*snikt!*
I'm only stupid because of genetic makeup! IBM, hire me or I'll sue you for genetic discrimination!
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
For those who actually bother to know the basics of business law (should really be a college gen ed) would know their states discrimination laws.
In NJ for example, this practice has been illegal for several years already. I believe a few other states have also outlawed this practice.
http://news.com.com/IBM+Workers+genetic+data+off+l imits/2100-11395_3-5892244.html?tag=nefd.top
I think the text was copied verbatim, but I'm not sure.
It's not the material itself, but extrapolations based on analysis of the material.
An analysis of your genetic material indicates that you have a higher than normal chance of becoming mentally unstable. We therefore will not hire you.
Your genetic material shows a predisposition to a certain inherited disease that is expensive to treat. We don't want our health coverage plan to have to deal with a claim for this sort of disease, so we will not hire you.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This came up in the NBA recently....
And more articles from Google...
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
to living as we did in 1970. I'm sure life was happier then, with less bs.
As was in the movie Gattica, it became illegal to discriminate on the basis on genetics, but it happened anyway.
What does a company do when a gene is found that causes a 100% chance of the individual being sociopathic?
Disclaimer: I am genetically an idiot.
Well, if it's really true and IBM is truly dedicated to a non-discriminatory genetic policy, this could be a good thing. A couple of questions:
Much good can, will (and has) come from genetic understanding and it's important to remember what it brings. But from the article, there is a cautionary example (from the article):
This is a topic long sneaking up on current consciousness and conscience and at some point needs to be stared down. I'm not a socialist, but if we start seeing a society free to not hire, not talk to, not help, etc., simply because of some percieved defect in their genetic makeup, I'd support some public policy not allowing this.
With Huntington's disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntingtons_disease ) in the family, this has been one of my worries. Who would insure us, since we can be proven to have a catastrophic illness that we cannot hope to pay for the care of.
As an example, my mom's nursing home costs more than her salary from when she was working. We need the help of big insurance, but they don't want to cover us. And if I get tested they will want to withold both life and health insurance, since I would be proven to be a poor risk.
I can only hope that other companies follow IBM's lead. We need to have genetic privacy legislation.
meh
Here's a shining example. IBM has stepped up to the plate in the non-discrimination game. I say that we should table all legislation on genetic discrimination, and let the corporations police themselves. We know that they will all do the right thing. Those that don't will be judged in the marketplace for their decisions. The strong will prevail and the weak disappear. It's a win-win for everyone, and avoids needless government regulation where it can only be a hindrance to our economy.
:-)
Besides, there's no need for government interference, unless you have something genetic you need to hide, right?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The time is coming when people will alter themselves or their kids. They are actually working on super drugs to increase brain power, muscle power etc. Like it or not, this is coming. Genetic research is coming along too. So... in 20 years or so, if it will give your kid a leg up (or allow him/her) to keep up, will you do it? If not, what happens? A two-tier society. The enhanced and unenhanced. Who will companies prefer to hire? Someone with enhancements to help them work longer and be more effective - or a standard human. Who will be able to afford the treatments? What will happen to those that can't? What will become of those that choose not to do it?
The axiom of science is that if it can be done, it will be done. This declaration by IBM may be early, but in time it may be required.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=8290005& BRD=1379&PAG=461&dept_id=162912&rfi=6
What are they doing with my genetic data anyways? It doesn't affect my job performance in any way does it?
I didn't think so.
... you've come a long way
It just means that they can outsource all of their jobs to ethnic Indians and it's right there in their company policy.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Has anyone else noticed that they are able to view NY Times articles without logging in? I know they have that "premium" (paid) content now, but it seems that the free stuff does not require registration.
As for this IBM thing, it's nice that such a high-profile corporation is taking a stand on this. It was mentioned elsewhere that it is already illegal in some states to discriminate based on genetic makeup, but having an in-house policy emphasized its importance. Most companies have policies not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. even though it is illegal to do so in most states (but not necessarily in all countries where the corporation has offices!).
Ok: 1) Referring to the movie Gattica? Come on, can't we do better. How about not refer to a movie, or at least not one so lame.
2) While it is great IBM does this now. Two things to note: a) they can always change this policy b) imagine this scenario - the gov't allows genetic testing, and thusly discrimination - now it becomes an insurance companies policy "you want insurance, it is twice as expensive w/o a genetic test"...IBM may be forced to change their policy to avoid paying twice as much in insurance costs.
I am happy IBM is doing this and hopefully it will push Congress to pass anti-genetic discrimination laws (which they should). In the end, what Congress does will make the difference.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Ummm.. In world war 2 IBM designed and sold technology to the nazis:
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Only after Jews were identified -- a massive and complex task that Hitler wanted done immediately -- could they be targeted for efficient asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, enslaved labor, and, ultimately, annihilation. It was a cross-tabulation and organizational challenge so monumental, it called for a computer. Of course, in the 1930s no computer existed.
But IBM's Hollerith punch card technology did exist. Aided by the company's custom-designed and constantly updated Hollerith systems, Hitler was able to automate his persecution of the Jews. Historians have always been amazed at the speed and accuracy with which the Nazis were able to identify and locate European Jewry. Until now, the pieces of this puzzle have never been fully assembled. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organize nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labor.
Healthcare costs are a huge expense for employers, and this is good news for tons of workers -- genetic markers that indicate higher risk for disease, and therefore higher healthcare expenses for employers, will not be a factor in hiring/promotion practices.
However, this doesn't give someone with bad genetics a free ride. If your genetics are expressed in a negative way that could be detrimental to your performance, then you can be discriminated against. It's only the alleles, not the expression, that won't be discriminated against.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
But won't be discrimitated against...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Company policies change. Someday in the future, a new CEO may come in when profits are lagging and decides this policiy is affecting shareholder value and profits. They may blame it on increased health care benefits costs or health insurance companies.
Maybe I am pessimistic. But company policies change.
They are already genetically discriminating because they hire smart people (their scientists). Or, they are hiring people based on their ethinic backgound in order not to run afoul of EEOC laws. This is getting fun!
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
They hire them as a CEO, as per a recent article on Slashdot.
No brainer? That's only a plus.
This must be related to the hacker who found the non-terresterial officer file in one of the government computers... or maybe this is more results from the 10th planet. WHOA! international conspiracy~
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference between a company that discriminates based on that (like in Gattaca) and one that doesn't (every company today) the fact that one had that little blood analysis machine at the door and the rest don't?
excellent, so i can sue when they kick me out of their lobby for bringing my pet skunk? oh just HUMAN genes. so they ARE discriminating then.
(imho, we really need a new word to represent the BAD kind of discrimination, so the main word can lose this negative connotation..)
Great, IBM won't discriminate based on genetic makeup, but they will plaster RFID tags to track you in museums, shopping malls, etc. Big Blue sounds more and more like Big Brother. The very fact that they say they won't discriminate makes me believe that they will indeed be looking at employees genetic makeup.
I for one am in favor of this law, as it allows me to finally realize my childhood dream of being a billionaire scientist astronaut who plays for the NBA.
As much as I feel for you, can you really blame them? This would be like a casino putting in a slot machine that paid out to "unlucky" people. For a profit to be made (and incentive to keep on doing business), insurance HAS to issue policies in where the general perception is that the policy holder will be paying out more than they will ever get back. As unfair as it is, it makes perfect sense.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
How exactly does this help from an insurance stand point. In my case I had congenital heart defects and had to have a heart transplant. I was 16 at the time, so my Fathers insurance had to pay for it (about 800,000.00). My family does not have any history of heart defects. So obviously I was an anomaly.
This quite simply isn't a factor in systems where everyone is entitled to health care.
Sure, other uses will be found for genetic markers. But the one everyone's worrying about is just a natural consequence of considering healthcare to be a privilege rather than a right, coupled with insurance companies' natural tendency to acquire a pool of low-risk customers.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I read the article head as the above and thought, hey cool, IBM's not gonna be axing my old mainframer friends (yes a UNIX admin can have tn3270 friends). Imagine my surprise. Well, here's hopin' they'll eventually get around to helping the boomers keep their jobs.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
I thought the point of insurance was to spread risk. Since noody can afford the treatment for certain catastrophic illnesses, the idea is to put everyone in a pool to share the risk. If insurers are allowed to cherry pick, why bother even having insurance, other than for accidental trauma?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
given their work on the Holocaust. See also here and here.
I wonder if the reason they have this clause is the fact that they will indeed be collecting the data. Says nothing about not selling the data once collected, just that they won't use it to determine whether to hire you or not.
I don't intend on using any of the insurance I have, so my monthly payments probably go straight to his mother. That's the entire point of insurance, everyone pays a little so a few can benefit when required. Insurance is not about paying back stockholders in a company, however I'm not naive to feel that it's anything but this now.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
... it's a really slipery situation now isn't it.
... well, more more money than I care to think about on insurance, and I've never used a dime of benefit to my recollection. Last time I did anything medical was when I was exiting military service, after that, I've managed to get by on bandaids(tm) and off-the-shelf remedies.... and even those are used with some rarity. (I did cut my finger last night though...so there's a bandaid(tm) on my finger now) But the point of my rambling is this: while we (USA people) don't really have an effective social medical system, competitive insurance is as close as we'll come I think. So I don't mind paying for health insurance even if I never utilize the benefits -- I recognize that I might one day and that there are people who need it now.
But I have to wonder, though, if at the same time we arrive at a notion of "genetic health" and such how far off we will be from also being able to heal or correct such problems on a permanant basis? Would we be able to, then, repair everything from crooked teeth to a crooked spine?
And if we could make such corrections, would descrimination be an issue? I suppose the very notion of a cure for genetic problem disposes of the idea of descrimination doesn't it... So far, I feel pretty lucky... my problems are somewhat mild -- one ear slightly (though barely noticably) higher than the other and crowded teeth... other than that, I'm a pretty healthy guy... as far as I know. Then again, my next genetic profile might reveal something more devastating right?
Let's make sure that the insurance game remains as it is -- a gamble for the industry. After all, as gambling goes, they win more often than not. But the more they remove uncertainty from their game, the less valuable their services are -- if only "healthy" people can get insurance, then nobody needs it! Just build a large enough interest-bearing investment portfolio and never pay another premium again! In my life, I've probably paid
Where have you been? Its past time to worry about that.
I wonder how long IBM will do this.. ant hold out forever. First law suit against them 'you could have detected that billy was prone to coming in and shooting up the office, but you didnt take proper steps to determine this'...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As an example, my mom's nursing home costs more than her salary from when she was working. We need the help of big insurance, but they don't want to cover us. And if I get tested they will want to withold both life and health insurance, since I would be proven to be a poor risk.
My deepest sympathies go out to you and your family for this misfortune, but at the same time I would be remiss if I didn't point out that that's pretty much the point of insurance in a capitalist society - it's essentially a bet, and nobody who doesn't have a burning desire to lose money is going to bet on somebody with this disease.
Remember, the topic of whether or not the citizenry should collectively bear the costs of caring for someone with this catastrophic illness is a different debate. If we work under the assumption of insurance companies operating within a capitalist framework, then it's just business. People start insurance businesses to make money by offering you a bet that you will get sick disproportionate to their estimate of the actual odds of that happening. Under normal circumstances, it's designed to cover accidents and acts of god, not things they can see coming a mile away - and if they can see it coming a mile away, then the price for their service goes up in proportion to the estimated cost of treating your ailment (which is why nobody except smokers really complains when their insurance company asks them whether or not they use tobacco).
Taking out policies when they know them to be losing bets will lose the insurance company money, and drives up prices for everybody (usually disproportionately to the loss they've taken to boot - people generally see a loss of $5 as a good opportunity to jack up the price $6), which means the citizenry is effectively collectively paying for that health insurance anyway.
Asking companies to insure someone whom they know will have this disease in the future is the same as going up to a doctor and asking him to operate for free. We can debate about whether or not the state should get involved and operate health care as a collective, but under a capitalist framework that policy, while pleasant-sounding, is at its core unfair (after all, let us be honest here: if you ran an insurance company, you wouldn't want to have an estimate of your customers' total cost of care that is orders of magnitude more accurate than the one you currently have?)
That was pretty nice of your parents to pass along a dominant debilitating disease to their offspring, eh? I guess you'll be having kids, too, right? Kinda reminds me of some of my wife's studies into the horrible genetic diseases that were common among the Amish. The doctors counseling them couldn't keep them from having more genetically ill-fated children.
I know it doesn't sound this way, but I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I'm just interested in the extreme drive to create offspring, even if it's highly likely you'll be passing on a disease that's as devastating as you describe. Even the Amish had the excuse of not trusting or believing the doctors.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Anyone who's investigated history a little would find that the tabulation machines the Nazis needed in order to categorically kill 6 million Jews were provided to them by none other than IBM themselves..who continued to be allowed to do business in the USA even though we passed a law specifically outlawing business from Nazi suppliers..IBM was the only one at the time with a machines allowing them to do this, so thanks IBM...
source: http://www.geurillanews.com/
They already have "rebates" for non smokers, I can foresee
where volunteer genetic testing also results in additional
rebates.
As long as its voluntary, there won't be a problem, of course
if you don't volunteer your health insurance might be 10X
that of a volunteer, but that's your problem.
Or do drug tests having nothing to do with genetics?
The problem with this is that someone has to pay for it. If you have genetic privacy legislation, then you can keep it secret from the insurance companies. However, all this means is that everyone else's premiums will go up to cover the undisclosed risky people. The risky people cost more, as a statistical fact, and SOMEONE has to pay for it, so maybe that should be the general population.
And I am not being sarcastic here -- I am saying that maybe it is a societal solution. I Definitely think it is in the best interests of society to have all of us pay for Katrina clean-up, not just those affected by it. However, it is a different situation to use societal money to rebuild those areas, below sea level, water held back by bumps and walls...
I think there comes a time when particular people in society engage in such risky behavior that society cannot afford to pay for their mistakes. From what I have read of the literature, you have a 50% chance to pass the gene of Huntington's to your child, and a 25% chance of giving them the disease. Is it up to society to pay for that child's medical care for life when you knowingly engage in this risky behavior?
You are effectively gambling with hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers' dollars when you decide to have a child. And I am not saying you should be prohibited from having a child, merely that the people who will likely be PAYING for this child's medical care should have a vote as to whether they support paying for it. If not, then the child must be supported by his family.
The situation would be no different than AIDS a child inherits from his parent. If you bring a child into the world having AIDS yourself, you know there is a good chance your child may have it. That is unnecessarily risky behavior and it is irresponsible to assume that society should "clean up" after you in the sense of providing health care to the child.
There has to be times when society says, "OK, sir, engage in whatever behavior you wish, but we cannot support you in this action". Dangerous sports activities are one of these sorts of things, and deliberately bringing children into the world who are likely to be diseased are another.
And I am not saying that these actions should not be allowed to happen; no, merely I am saying that the taxpayers of society should have a vote as to whether they allow their money to go to such uses.
This is a democracy and people on wellfare having children only to increase their government handouts are leeches on the system. They are a leech by choice; you could potentially be a leech by wreckless action and disregard for others' (time and money).
I don't mean to sound morbid but perhaps you would be doing society a favor by removing your genes from the gene pool and not reproducing. After all, is it fair to bring a child into the world only for his life to be plagued by this condition? Is it fair to society to force others to support him, when this likely condition was known about in advance?
We don't need genetic privacy. If your genes aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide, right?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
So i guess this is a way for furture employees of the IBM to be recognized?? If genetically they wont discrminate then the new hires for IBM will be people for Red Planet, Aliens, Robots and AI i guess..
"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
For those of you interested in this subject and the applications of the human genome project to understanding propensity, genetic discrimination, behavior, and a host of other issues I recommend that you read the book: "Genome" by Matt Ridley. It was a NYTIMES bestseller and is very informative on this subject.
For instance did you know that caucasian, pale, tall, thin, blue-eyed Europeans (by ancestory) are more likely to be shy in general and anxious when challenged (in conflict)and this has to do with an overactive amygdala in the brain that was presumably selected for during evolution because it provided increased metabolism to generate body heat (presumably to keep warm in Europe/Nordic regions). Shyness and anxiety are by-products. He makes the claim that an HR recruiter would be good to know this information since they discriminate based on personality anyways. A personality is simply a product of genetic influences.
However, shyness and anxiety can be treated successfully by therapy and/or drugs. So the run-time system can be modified (so to speak).... so if you are a blue-eyed white guy.. don't worry to much...
"Your genes tell us you're too likely to spend time reading Slashdot articles during company hours. Sorry, we can't hire you."
This is probably the worst decision any company's made in a long time. Basically every aspect about us is caused by genetics, from factors irrelevant to one's ability to perform well at a job (race, gender, sexual orientation) to ones that have a profound impact on that ability (intelligence, memory, social skills). If genetic discrimination is banned, then publishers won't be able to deny book offers to bad writers; after all, some people are predisposed to be better writers than others. Sports teams won't be able to reject athletes who run slowly; that's a genetic trait as well. Or, in the case of IBM, they won't be able to reject an engineer who can't do math, as that might have a genetic cause. And the list goes on and on. I see where IBM is coming from; it seems only fair to not discriminate on the basis of things that one can't control. But if we carry out that noble idea to its full extent, the whole economy falls apart.
As a pure bred Celt, I have a genetic condition called Hemochromatosis [American spelling]. This is basically a malfunction of the gene that regulates the iron absorption by the body. It is white European's version of Sickle Cell Anemia, except as opposed to being anemic, we absorp too much iron. It effects 1 in 200 in the US and is the most widely underdiagnosed genetic condition out there.
3 0071714.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/9903
If correctly diagnosed in time, the iron loading can be controlled and monitored. Current treatment is a series of blood letting or phlebotomies to get the iron levels under control.
Otherwise the iron levels build in the liver, and begin to effect other organs in the body, leading to diabetes, pancreatic cancer, or rheumatoid arthritis, and ultimately death.
The ferretin test is relatively cheap $100 US and can be a life saver.
As the gene is a rather new discovery [1999] you will do better with a younger doctor, fresh out of medical school, rather than a middle aged one.
If you can trace your ancestory to Europe, and you have diabetes, or feel like you have IBS or CFS, or feel chronically run down, do yourself a favour and ask for the iron [ferratin] test.
This [survival] gene developed to protect early man from long periods of starvation. Think Irish potatoe famine and you begin to get the idea.
Surprisingly the genes for European Celts that causes iron loading have been identified, but the genes for Asians and Pacific Islanders [who are even *bigger* iron loaders] have not been identified yet.
Many of the members of our support groups cite difficulties in getting insurance coverage, and feel that genetic discrimination is a very real issue in the US today. To avoid the discrimination, we are seeing a rise in genetic self testing kits, ie Health Check USA, which sells an at home genetic test kit. Results are known only to the patient. After getting insurance, people then begin to seek medical treatment for this genetic condition.
I applaud IBM's position on this.
Do you even know what a split infinitive is? Churchill said that about dangling preopsitions... Not to mention that they IBM isn't splitting any infinitives: "to not foo" is splitting the infinitive--"not to foo" is the right way to say it. Take the classic "To boldly go...".
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
Just to clarify the article. The DNA samples that are submitted to the National Geographic Genographic project are completely anonymous. In addition, they are only using the material to look for specific genetic markers that help indicate patterns of human migration, not any medical signatures.
If Big Blue finds out you are genetically defective and a possible future health liability, it triggers its Harass 2.0 application to run.
Harass 2.0 will then make your work a living hell by randomly erasing your computer's data, adding files with inappropriate material, and spam you incessantly into finally making you quit your job. Benefits are then terminated, problem solved.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, punish them for their fathers sins. Dirty bastards, should teach them!
I agree with you that parents that willingly and knowingly takes this kind of risk are irresponsible to say the least. However the actual children that gets born with this genetic defect can hardly be blamed, non the less you seem to be suggesting that society should punish them for their parents wrong doings.
This condition usually gets very expensive, unless the parents are filthy rich it is not likely they could aford to pay for proper care if one of their children gets the disease.
Not to mention that they IBM isn't splitting any infinitives: "to not foo" is splitting the infinitive--"not to foo" is the right way to say it. Take the classic "To boldly go...".
Huh? The infinitive is "to discriminate". The heading contains the phrase "to genetically discriminate". Of course it's a split infinitive. It's got this great big "genetically" bang in the middle of it.
I'm not impressed until they decide to not discriminate against Artificial Intelligences. Especially in management where AI's are desperately needed.
-- IV
http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
Gah... Right you are. I was expecting 'not' to split the infinitive, and blindly ignored the 'genetically'... Well, the first part of my post still stands--Churchill's quote has nothing to do with this...
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
to design their hardware?
So, in other words, if you're susceptible, then there's no possible way for you to get the job of your choice. In fact, you'd probaly end up getting stuck making fries for or asking "paper or plastic" for the rest of your life.
The argument that it saves the company money is useless to these people that it would be discriminating against. It isn't your fault if your genetics make you more prone to sickness. Should your genetics be the deciding factor to whether or not your child eats that week, whether or not you get to live in a nice house or you're stuck in the projects. Just look at the title of the article: the word Discriminate is there for a reason
You mean like Yao Ming?
To whoever modded the parent troll, I'll see you in metamod! I regularly use FIVE accounts to fight dumbass moderation so watch out you corporate whores!
Is it just me or is the whole idea of corporate america...heck corporations worldwide requiring a "pound of flesh" as it were as a factor for hire down-right appocolyptic? Doesn't the thought of your employer having your genetic code on file scare "H.E-double toothpicks" out of anyone? It's bad enough I have to pee in a cup for my employer or have needles stuck into parts of my body....so I can work! Maybe we should all wear the star of David next? Catch my drift? Are we all that blind were we would even engage in coversations about the pro's and con's of such an invasive...I don't even know what to call I get so angry when I think about it....aaargh! As I read through this thread all I could think was are these obviously highly intelligent people serious? While there was a lot of humor and poking fun at the whole idea I find the overall lack of seeing the larger picture and the kind of impact genetic screening of any kind is going to have on our already deteriorating freedoms left me slackjawed! Thoughts? Comments? Am I alone in my sentiments? WoW!
All your websites are belong to me!
Indeed, Congress must pass anti-genetic discrimination laws. It is a moral imperitive greater than perhaps any since the civil rights acts of the 60s (perhaps a bit of exageration). This extends to every facet of life, no matter the arguments against, it is still horribly wrong. Somethings about genetics will not be preventable: parents engineering babies to be the best will not be stopped by this, but it will eliminate the ability for companies to use genetic markers against employess (markers for disease, or mental instability).
A "Brave New World" indeed.
Perhaps it's time for a serious discussion on whether health care (and pensions for that matter) ought to be within the purview of corporations.
.... So, let's let the corporations off the hook. Sort of.
With the accelerating race amongst corporations to reduce or eliminate health care and pension benefits to workers and retirees it's becoming increasingly clear that corporations no longer wish have any long term commitment to their current or former employees. The justification for this is that these benefits cost too much in a "globalized" economic environment.
Globalization isn't going away so
How about creating a single payer (not nationalized") health care system. The Government says "We represent a pool of 280M people. Which of you private health and insurance companies wants a piece of this action?" The Government collects premiums from the "workers" and disburses them to the health and insurance companies. "Workers" choose from any of the plans from any of the companies that sign up.
Those companies that sign up can set their own rates for general population groups within certain guidelines (think actuarial tables here) but do not get to "cherry pick" (i.e., no pre-existing condition clauses, no genetic marker discrimination, etc.). This is one giant group plan.
The "employer" companies (think they) win 'cause they're out of the health care business. They no longer have to spend time or money negotiating with the health and insurance companies (whoa, that HR department just got smaller). They only have to republish the Government plan catalog and administer the collection of the premiums and payment to the Government who redistributes them to the participating health and insurance companies.
Health and insurance companies can create and charge whatever they want. But, they now have to compete in the large for that 280M person pie. The workers get a medical plan that isn't tied to any one employer and can't be taken away as long as they keep the premiums paid.
Now, the laugh. With nothing but salary and working conditions to differentiate one employer from another what will happen to ones work environment?
"Hey, I don't have to put up with this crap", "I have no long term (medical or pension) reason to stick around", "I can make more across the street."
The scary part is that basically I'm a conservative. But, this conservative can see that lots of things are broken and need to be fixed. And; the sooner the better for all of us (including my 4 yr old nephew).
They stayed away in droves. Hmmmm...
You are correct, and once again I have my head firmly placed up my butt. I've been putting off relearning the third grade.
Sure they won't discriminate against you if you have a gene that's guarenteed to give you cancer or predispose you to schizophrenia, but once you've got the simptoms you are probably screwed, unless the disease has little or no bearing on your ability to do your job or the job you are applying for.
This is probably as it should be. After all, not even the ADA requires that you hire people who can't do the job at hand.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As another poster pointed out, Churchill said this about dangling prepositions, and I have firmly placed my head up my butt once again (ha.)
It's not an issue of blaming the child or punishing them. It's an issue of entitlement.
... I think the taxpayers have the right, morally, to say no.
No one in society is entitled to money from the government -- that much I know. In our representative democracy, however, we as a people have decided to give some people support. We, the taxpayers have our representatives come together to vote on whether certain other people in society should receive money from us.
No one is entitled by nature to have them given money. The society as a whole should vote on whether individuals should receive money.
I would support people who have had tragic accidents being given some money to help. However, when the parents blatently ignore probability to bring children into the world who in all probability have a debilitating disease that will ruin their lives and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
... stand in the way of my dream of going to Titan.
This sig is false.
I think I would be remiss not to point out that we are not just and only a capitalist society.
Is money the only thing of value to our society? I know it has a high value, but
are there not other things we value?
No, I am not arguing that insurance companies should be money losing ventures, but I am
saying that *part* of the analysis needs to be the social issues. I think that is why
we find ourselves with a society that is part capitalism and part socialist. Because neither,
alone, are really very good societies to live in.
emt 377 emt 4
>I think the taxpayers have the right, morally, to say no.
Well, then I guess we just have to agree that we disagree...
Thanx, Brother.
Another anonymous relative of Woody Guthrie
are we nearing the time when we all need to worry about our genetic privacy?
This is a perfect thing for Emily Litella:
Chevy Chase: Here to reply to a recent slashdot article is Emily Litella.
Emily Litella: Hello. I'm here to speak out against discrimination based on genital privacy. I think it's a horrible, horrible thing when you don't have genital privacy. Imagine trying to use the restroom! Considering the amount of porn on the Internet, it's clear we're not all interested in genital privacy but consider that --
Chevy: Excuse me, Ms Litella... the article is on "GENETIC" privacy... you know, to prevent discrimination based on your DNA.
Emily: Oh. That's very important too. Nevermind.
Doesn't this have the opposite effect? If lots of companies decide to make it their policy not to discriminate based on genetics, then there will be no need for legislation.
Like they could? I mean, we can't determine a whole lot yet from genetic codes provided provided someone would give theirs in the first place, so this comes across more as PR-BS, to wit:
1: We can't yet really determine much of anything useful about a potential employee from their DNA.
2: By the time this even becomes reasonably possible it will likely be made illegal anyway.
3: Hey, this is a great PR opportunity that isn't going to cost us a thing, and will probably even get us discussed on Slashdot to boot.
4: PROFIT!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Do you know how medicaid works, my friend??
Mom doesn't get enough pension to pay for it (hint, think 35K+ a year for care. That's *before* we get her meds, walkers, etc). Dad is expected to pick up the rest. Can't do it? Then go to medicaide. They will tell you to spend down to a low level (less than 100k in assets, property, retirement funds, stocks, etc) Dad is still working part time, holding out for his retirement. But he has to burn thru all his retirement nest egg *before* they will help out with the care for mom. This illness will leave him with nothing.
And so how, exactly, do you propose I prepare for this? Remember I'm a starting techie here. I'm not expecting more than 50k/yr when I get out of school. 50-30=20K/yr to live on after I save up for my future care. Then I need to buy a car, pay rent, get food, student loans, etc.
How am I supposed to do all that? I'd appreciate ideas, since I'm fresh out.
AC
I have no problem with people voting differently from me. I DO have a problem with any government blanketly deciding issues like this without giving the population -- through their representatives -- a say in how things will be decided.
:) die for your right to do so.
I would vote that children born by parents who knew they were likely to be diseased should not have state-provided healthcare. Then again, I would vote against most forms of state-provided healthcare period. I would prefer a private system, not a system like Canada where a patient has to wait 6+ months for a mammogram.
No one is obligated to give their money to anyone else, ever. By living in the United States, however, you consent to give your taxes to the country and proportioned to things that the people -- through their representatives -- feel are important. *The people* decide where the money goes. No one deserves money.
But as I said, you are free to vote differently, and I would (hypothetically speaking
I'll see if they'll hire my cat as a stress relief therapist.
"Asking companies to insure someone whom they know will have this disease in the future is the same as going up to a doctor and asking him to operate for free."
I think you should reread the original post; nowhere did the poster disagree with this statement. The topic related to whether or not there should be some form of genetic privacy, which would potentially prevent the companies from knowing when someone has a high probability of having that disease.
They're going to ATTAC everyone!!! bwahaha... bad DNA puns FTW! and what is this GATTACA movie everyone's always talking about? It sounds interesting.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Have you seen the movie Gatica?
Yes, we need to move on this now.
We won't discriminate against you for your genetic makeup, we promise.
Now just pee in this cup for the mandatory drug test... we *promise* we won't use it for genetic tests. Really. We do. It's illegal to do that...
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
New York NY A crowd of roughly 100,000 terrorists, mostly Genome Classification -2z commited an act of genocide on Park Avenue. Authorities say they are stymied by the lack of police officers who still meet the genetic qualifications of the National Genome Classification Act. A source at the NYPD noted that "Since the enforcement of the act, 2/3 of our police force are now working in the food service industry. Of course crime rates have dropped to zero at Denny's, but it looks like the genetically perfect will have to fend for themselves." .......
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
In my post, I argued that this the same as asking a person who wants an insurance policy whether or not they're a smoker, only this is of course much more accurate. If I ran an insurance company, you'd better believe I'd require genetic analysis as soon as it became feasible and accurate enough, and if the state/country in which I did business made it illegal, I'd obviously concentrate my efforts elsewhere, since I would be able to have more accurate information about my policy holders, and thus my business would be more efficient (and, believe it or not, because of that many customers would be paying substantially less than they would under inefficient insurance plans). You have the right to "genetic privacy" as much as you have the right of privacy of your criminal record; but when you go to be insured or employed, you sign documents waiving that right because otherwise the insurers or employers won't even look at you, and for good reason. Personally, I'd like to see insurance companies be more efficient, not less, as that would tend to eliminate some of the stupider shit they pull now (ie "people with red cars are 27% more likely to have an accident, therefore we're charging you more")
Can you imagine what an insurance company would say if someone wanted to take out a policy for non-smoker prices and then during a checkup for a claim refused to have the doctor take a chest x-ray because the state of his lungs is "private"? You wouldn't dare give any business to a casino that stacked the deck at the blackjack tables, offering you a bet that seems to be slightly negative in expectation without telling you it's actually much worse; why is this suddenly acceptable when a person who is almost certainly going to have a serious disease stacks the deck against the insurance company by refusing to give them the information that would let them know this? You discriminate against stupid people who apply for a job at your business because they cost you money; insurers discriminate against bad insurance risks for the same reason. I don't find anything particularly compelling about the argument that discriminating against stupid people is fine because it is evident that they are stupid by just meeting them, yet discriminating against bad insurance risks is not because you have to prick their finger and take a blood sample to do so.
Genetic analysis for insurance policies is going to happen, whether we like it or not (and my point is that we should like it, as it removes inefficiency from the market). If one is particularly offended by this, there will probably be a market choice for them too, but rest assured Genetic Privacy Insurance Co will generally charge you much more for that added benefit (partly to cover for customers like the OP, who will be charged much less than what he otherwise would have). Even if there is a law against it, to paraphrase another poster, the insurance companies will just charge a ridiculous amount for policies, and then offer huge discounts for anyone who voluntarily undergoes a genetic analysis.
father|brother|sister|mother|cousin|aunt had XYZ disease... Why? Because insurance companies wouldn't insure you... Thats the beauty of private insurance... They can use information like that to create an underclass of permanently marginalized people..
this.. For example, by not hiring people with a given gene, they might be preventing themselves from hiring the next Einstein or Newton... The insurance companies may whine, but ultimately, they will need to abandon this eugenics thing. Why? Because eugenics and Medical IT don't get along... Doctors will refuse to use databases if the information in them is ruining people's lives as well as saving them.. They may say that they cant be profitable unless they know this information, but thats a baldfaced lie.. That is, unless they are forced to... by the 'government'
See http://waragainsttheweak.com/ - IBM's punch card technology was instrumental in helping Hitler round up the Jews during his 'Final Solution'. So, they are trying to stake out a visible position in this issue, now, knowing that ultimately, the GOP is so behind this that its pretty much inevitable. The GOP is pushing medical IT very hard.. This is basically a way to implement the insurance industry's wet dream.. genetic information for everybody in databases.. This is the whole goal of the Human Genome Project.. Its eugenics - with a friendly, neofascist face.. See http://waragainsttheweak.com/
I'm afraid we may already be there.
Just a few days ago, Eddie Curry, formerly of the Chicago Bulls, was traded to the New York Knicks because he refused to undergo a genetic test to see if he carried a gene that made him susceptible to heart problems. Curry had been benched for most of the last season after having a heart murmur (or something like that). He passed the physical with the Knicks. The Bulls made some statement about wanting him to take the test because they cared so much about his well-being. Unfortunately, if it turned out he carried the gene, he wouldn't have been allowed to play any more. At least not for the Bulls.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I can only hope that other companies follow IBM's lead. We need to have genetic privacy legislation.
In other words, you want other people to have to pay for your medical expenses. Nothing unusual about wanting something for nothing, but at least be honest and stop pretending it's about "fairness."
There we go again...
"You have the right to "genetic privacy" as much as you have the right of privacy of your criminal record; but when you go to be insured or employed, you sign documents waiving that right because otherwise the insurers or employers won't even look at you, and for good reason."
1)you equate having a criminal record with genetics; this analogy is false.
2)companies are hold to the same laws as individual citizens, and it are those citizens that vote for the people who make the laws - NOT the corporations (at least, in principle, I know corporatism has gone a long way in corrupting this, especially in the USA).
3)since companies are subject to those laws, they can put in their policies and contracts whatever they want; the provisions which are illegal will remain illegal and unenforcable (at least in Europe).
4)If you would move to another state, that state too should make similar laws. At the end, a federal law could make it valid upon ALL states.
5)One should make it a viable option to sue every company which discriminates with huge fines, this, in the same sort of skewed anglo-saxon neo-capitalistic reasoning, would lead to high costs and other unwelcome results, and thus, it would become less of an incentive to go for genetic screening.
I'm getting sick and tired of this sort of warped, single-minded view of how the world should work according to capitalistic principles. The market as darwinian system...yeah, has been claimed already in the 19th century. It's all a bunch of crap, because we, as humans, do not only consider market forces as the only driving force of our existence. I mean, what, with this sort of reasoning, it makes perfect sense for companies to use childlabour: they are way cheaper and more easy to control then adults. From 'the perspective of the companies' thus, it makes perfect sense to be for child-labour. So, why don't we see votes for (re)introducing childlabour?
Why...could it be that the interests and profits of corporations isn't *really* our primary concern?
What a novel idea!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"As unfair as it is, it makes perfect sense."
No it doesn't. It *seems* to make sense, when you take the anglo-saxon neo-liberal capitalistic viewpoint as the only premise possible.
What you say only makes sense, if you accept that premise. But, in the exact same sense, it makes 'perfect sense' for companies to use child labour: they are cheaper and easier to control then adults. Thus, the profitmargin augments, thus the stockholders are happy because profit is larger, which is the point in a captilatic worldview.
You see? Using that premise, it makes perfectly sense to use childlabour. But I don't see any votes going up in the West to (re)introduce childlabour, do you? So, maybe, just maybe, the premise you start is all wrong, and it *does not* make sense to make genetic discrimination, because we not only live in a market-driven society, but also a social one.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This is precisely how far I needed to read in your post to know that you probably don't have much to offer in terms of a rational argument; Better luck next time.
The dialectics behind IBM's announcment point to widespread genetic screening and discrimination by corporations in the future. Why? Because obviously someone, probably some junior bean counter trying to make an impression on her boss, suggested that one way the company could enhance productivity and efficiency would be to screen employees and job applicants for genetic markers that predict future health problems. This idea most likely horrified her boss, who is from an older generation encumbered by old school notions of the rights of individuals in an idealized pre-corporate world. This boss then passed the horror up the food chain where it eventually reached the Board of Directors who thought it would make good PR to issue a proclamation banning genetic discrimination from IBM forever. Bravo. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the corporate mindset, the idea will inevitably gain traction. And if one hapless IBM bean counter has thought of it, then certainly legions of other bean counters are thinking of it or will be soon. It's only a metter of time before genetic screening and discrimination is considered good business practice by our corporate overlords.