Slashdot Mirror
DNA Testing For Jobs May Be On Its Way, Warns Gartner (computerworld.com)
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.
There are laws that prevent employers from considering health, gender, religious views, and other deeply personal attributes when hiring a candidate. I don't see how this could possibly be allowed in the future (unless our laws change).
It's been my experience that if HR can test for it and not get in trouble, they will test for it. Relevant or not.
OK, it is already known that DNA is not the code science once thought it was. DNA interacts with the rest of the cell to produce its results. If the rest of the contents of the cell differ in specific ways, the results of specific DNA is different.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Hiring an employee for a job is expensive without DNA testing and as such represents a big financial risk for companies if the hires don't work out. I've talked to people who had to spend *days* taking a battery of psychological tests, physicals, etc to get pretty high level jobs.
Adding in another $2500 doesn't seem to be that big of a deal if the cost to hire an employee is already $25k or more.
The question I guess I'd ask is whether it will actually be useful. Will they actually be able to notice significant improvements in performance? I would think that the psychological and occupational type testing they do now would be 90% of the value.
Apparently Gattaca is not as far off as I would have thought.
Gattaca simply took a concept which is almost certain to happen and took it to an illogical extreme to create drama and conflict. Not unlike many sci-fi books and movies. I haven't read any scientific literature claiming we will ever be able to use genetic testing to perfectly determine someone's capabilities, as explicitly shown in Gattaca by interviews consisting of only a genetic test. Nurture still has an effect, so genetics will only ever be one of many factors.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.
The only genetic testing I'm aware of in sports were those for proving an athlete is a woman. And I think that one was replaced with a test for testosterone. I'm unaware of anywhere in the military where that happens either (maybe astronauts?). There is certainly selectivity based on abilities and attributes, but those aren't purely genetic tests. About the closest you get to a genetic test is height, but that's also based on nutrition and other environmental factors. If you classify these as genetic tests, then I don't see how this is different from also calling the current job requirements for intelligence genetic tests. Things like GPA or just talking to someone in an interview are as much genetic tests as measuring someone's height or their running speed are.
I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down. Currently the cost for this type of analysis is around $2,500. I can't imagine any employer willing to spend $25,000 just to interview 10 people.
For a job at McDonalds no. For a six figure tech job they already spend more than that on the interview process in a lot of places. Hiring the wrong person is a LOT more expensive than a few tests for jobs with serious consequences. I've seen companies spend substantial sums on background checks, length interviews, psychological and proficiency tests, etc. Believe me that DNA tests would get used too if they became a realistic option.
Of course I'm pretty sure there will be legislation prohibiting this sort of behavior. I think discrimination based on DNA will join the other protected classes (gender, race, etc) except for cases of it being a bona-fide job requirement which will be rare.
I think there's a lot about our old values which may need changing in the face of better understanding. Even now, left wing tend to assume that if someone is poor, it is because the social system is oppressing them, whilst right wing tend to assume that if someone is poor, it is because the individual lacks good character. And not only is it obviously a combination of both, but it is a complex combination involving genes, family upbringing, sub culture, and so on, as well as the local opportunities which were available. Plus, free will.
And then there's complicated issues around how we define what's "fair". Is it fair that someone ends up poorer just because they didn't win the genetic lottery, either in looks or brains or some other marketable asset? And what if one day, say we discover a mechanism that proves reincarnation, as a sort of information transfer through some newly detected energy field. And then we realise, oh the capacity to be good and ethical and compassionate actually builds across lifetimes! So if you're "poor" as you're a "thief" then it is your lack of being willing to grow ethically across your lifetimes! And I'm not saying that's what is, I'm just saying, a lot of what we discover may challenge all sorts of assumptions.
But one thing about those traditional values is that they can always be bent to interpret some fact to suit an agenda. So if genes really do play a big part, then they can see it as part of "good breeding" and how "hard work" can help you succeed enough to marry into a good family and so raise the genetic quality of your children. They can frame it as, a quality of being rich and smart is being careful and selective in who you sleep with so as to gain a genetic reward, ie. still conservative hard-work values.
I avoid companies like that. It's a sign that they are probably a terrible place to work, and likely have a high turnover rate. Often these tests are a reaction to that - some idiot consultant advises them to waste money on vetting and more consultancy because it must obviously be the people who are broken, not the company that is paying them and doesn't want to hear the truth.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Anyone who accepts getting DNA test to get a job is by definition a follower, a brown-nose, a suck-up, not a leader.
Employers don't really want too many leader types - they tend to call out bullshit instead of bending over and taking it.
And if you want grovelers, there are easier ways to screen for them. Just tell them the interview is at 1 PM sharp, and then keep them waiting a few hours. Those that wait it out have demonstrated that they'll put up with being treated like crap, and will probably also say okay to unpaid overtime and weekends, etc. "These are the proles you're looking for."
Also, the test is clearly arbitrary, invasive, and unproven. Any company that asks for this is a place you don't want to work for (unless you're a submissive prole, of course). It's also illegal - a blood sample will also reveal genetic diseases such as Type 1 diabetes, making it easy to discriminate against "those people" based on a hidden physical handicap. The presence or lack of a Y chromosome can also out transsexuals. The presence of a Y chromosome also carries with it a higher risk of color-blindness, A Y chromosome also generally means a shorter life span, so lower pension costs. XX means the chance of medical costs for pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions, and more unplanned time off to deal with the kids.
IEven if they use anonymous evaluation in the hiring process, and don't test specifically for XX or XY, the genetic presence of color-blindness unmasks males, making it somewhat easier to choose whichever sex you want to discriminate against.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.