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...
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
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.
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!"
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
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.
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
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?
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
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?)
BUT, being a sociopath provides you with the perfect skill set for a career in marketing!
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
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!