Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA Testing For Jobs May Be On Its Way, Warns Gartner (computerworld.com)

Posted by msmash on from the mandatory dept.

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.

10 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. testing...for.. by sheramil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Testing for jobs? WHAT JOBS?

    1. Re:testing...for.. by Anubis+IV · · 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. 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").

  2. Gattaca by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently Gattaca is not as far off as I would have thought.

  3. Gattaca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Gattaca

  4. Aptitude vs. Effort by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they're more likely to hire someone who's very good at something they're too lazy to do.

  5. I don't know... by Opportunist · · 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OR... The laws are ignored, kinda like whats going on now...

  7. Not to Sound iIke a Snowflake... by sycodon · · 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.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Not to Sound iIke a Snowflake... by hey! · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. Exactly this! by s.petry · · Score: 3, 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...

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.