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?"

3 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about by jokestress · · Score: 1, Troll

    Actually, IBM should be highly responsive on this issue-- they don't have the best track record on eugenics and technology.

    --
    Evil sig is livE.
  2. This is a subtle change... by Irvu · · Score: 1, Troll

    given their work on the Holocaust. See also here and here.

  3. Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about by Cally · · Score: 0, Troll
    But... but... but... I don't understand! For years on Slashdot, we've been constantly reminded that the laws of capitalism, U.S. style, mean that a company's directors can be jailed if they fail to do absolutely everything to maximise revenue and profit, no matter how morally distasteful or unpleasant such actions might be. (This usually comes up in the context of Free vs. proprietary software, but also in the long-running space exploration holy war, the **AA, and many other perennial Slashdot stories. )

    So, surely IBM are in trouble now! The first time someone wants to make easy money, surely they'll just buy some token IBM stock, wait a year, then start a class action alleging a failure to maximise revenue by screening out employees who are, for example, likely to become seriously ill later in life. (Imagine the cost of a DNA test vs. the money required to pay a senior engineer or exec to sit around at home in a wheelchair for years - if the tests aren't dirt cheap now, they probably soon will be.)

    Unless... either IBM are motivated by additional factors than maximising revenue (like - being able to sleep at night knowing that one isn't helping to destroy human civilisation)... or altrustic acts can themselves improve a company's image, and thus help bring in extra revenue?

    Well, which is it?

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe