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?"
The movie coming to reality? Hopefully not.
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.
Or do drug tests having nothing to do with genetics?
Insurance companies pick the lowest risk people so they get the insurance payments without having to pay for health bills. Is it ethically right? Probably not. Is it profitable? Hell yes it is.
In the end, profit overcomes ethics.
"Genetic health screening is already done to an extent when doctors ask you about illnesses in the family, what age did your relatives die, have you got any chronic health problems."
Doctors don't make decisions based on whether to treat you or not based on that history. That history informs the doctor, and makes them aware of things they need to be on the lookout for.
I want my doctor to have as much information about my health as possible. I want anybody who's not my doctor to have as little as possible.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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).
Or IBM'll profit, because they'll still employ the people with slight genetic flaws who are still brilliant. They'll have an easier time competing for workers overall, as they'll be hiring from a larger base. We aren't talking about useless people here, these people would still be smart enough to be hired normally, and they may not have any long term problems, it's just that they might someday have a problem.
As someone who consults on the software side for insurance companies I can tell you why "spreading risk" is diminishing. The original intent was to take the "pool" of insureds and insure everyone based on the risks present in the pool. However, if I'm selling insurance based on the "pool" price and my competitor becomes selective (say, not insuring those who smoke) the competitor's pool risk rate is lower than mine and he can either sell at the same price and make more profits or he can sell lower.
Now, the real profit in insurance is in the long term investments that the premiums are placed in, so they will sell at a lower price to gain more premium dollars to invest. (Free market selection by the consumer ensures the consumer will look to the lower cost options available.) We (the consumers) have accepted the fact that smokers and drinkers are going to be harder to insure. These are "lifestyle" choices. Likewise, I pay extra for my rock climbing: that fall outside the "norm". (I had to admit to it though because otherwise if I fell to my death they would have cause to not pay on my life insurance). People don't seem to mind dividing the risk pool on items that are *within the control* of the insured.
What has become offensive to even some *within* the insurance industry is the idea of dividing the risk pool on "uncontrolled" factors. There is a reason why they ask about your family history of disease: it is to partition on your genetic probability for specific diseases. Where the gene testing takes things further is simply increasing the accuracy of those risk assessments and adding new assessments that were impossible before.
Unfortunately, without state run insurance or strong regulations you end up with a competitive environment that selects for those companies that are "managing the risk pool" they accept. Fair it isn't (if your idea of insurance was based on the risk pool spreading costs) but it is the profitable way to go. I have written neural nets that take the risk pool and assess a new application based on the prior risks that were insured by the company. Some interesting trends came out of doing so: you end up doing ethnic discrimination as it turns out there are strong links between race and risk rates for some diseases. Eventually the idea of risk pools will be fully replaced with personal risk rates assuming no regulation to prevent it. (This is already true in the corporate insurance world where there are "uninsurable" companies and no law requires they be insurable for some types of insurance).
Sig under construction since 1998.
The solution?
Nationalize the Health Insurance Industry.
If they insure everybody, then there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Hold on.
You're telling me "Well, you look pre-disposed to Moofie's Syndrome. Never really liked people with Moofie's Syndrome...guess you're out of luck!"
I understand that the doctor needs to know the family history to make sound diagnoses. I do not understand why a doctor could, in good conscience, refuse to treat somebody because they have a genetic pre-disposition. In your example, you're using family history to narrow the scope of the problem, which is a) entirely appropriate and b) absolutely necessary. I'm talking about capriciously refusing to treat somebody because you don't like the look of their genes, which is exactly what the insurance companies are falling all over themselves to get to do.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"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." ---