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.
Testing for jobs? WHAT JOBS?
Something that isn't happening may someday happen.
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).
Apparently Gattaca is not as far off as I would have thought.
Don't worry, we've got a plan!
this is. The traditional American value of getting ahead by hard work and grit is completely opposed to this sort of genetic pre-disposition. The nature-nurture conflict doesn't go away simply because HR can now test for nature and is completely incapable of testing for nurture.
It hardly matters if we get to the point where we're editing our own genes and creating designer babies. No reason we can't have a nice blue-eyed, red-headed child with Asian facial features and a deep mahogany skin color with the fast twitch muscles and a mental disposition towards a strong work ethnic in order to make them a sports sensation.
The President of the United States job application(s) might be a good first test of DNA testing. Who cares about tax statements or emails when we can know whats in their DNA, right?
Well if this wasn't bullshit, then my identical twin brother wouldn't be a couch potato stoner while the rest of the family works 10 hours a day.
I pity anyone who takes his DNA and hires him.
Is this just paving the way toward scientific justification for nepotism? No tests needed for some, obviously, that's just for the ordinary folks.
In other words, DNA tests as a predictor of job performance are as accurate as those personality tests currently used.
Preselection before you have spoken a word or conducted an action... What could go wrong?
So they're more likely to hire someone who's very good at something they're too lazy to do.
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
Except that for many traits, Nurture dominates Nature. E.g. there are less academics coming from poor communities, be them the ghetto or the Appalachian mountains, than from middle class groups. You can do all the DNA test you want, but Nurture dominates in this case as in many others.
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.
The problem with something like this is that genes don't always express and gene expression isn't binary (on/off). So someone might test as a good leader and then when stressed by the job their gene expression changes and they aren't a good leader anymore. Someone with a biology background can correct me (and probably will) but this sounds like it won't actually work very well in practice.
Complex traits like intelligence and leadership are influenced by genes but you'd learn more about the candidate by mapping their neural net to see what 'nurture' did to them, which will be more important than the 'nature' stuff. The 'robots will take all our jobs' stuff would probably happen before we could pull that off well enough to use it as an employment criterion.
No worries, this will never get approved. The public is so against this being legal, that anyone who revokes the law making DNA testing for jobs illegal would be committing political suicide.
Will not happen any time soon because politicians like keeping their jobs.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
There are at least two major weaknesses in this idea:
1) Looking around in the business landscape, it seems clear that 'we' (especially managers) have little understanding of what makes a good leader. ATM the trend is that you have to be the "Alpha Male", hence leadership courses that include white water rafting and other supposedly, very 'male' passtimes. This may impress the sales teams, but I doubt the engineers are in awe over it.
2) Even if we knew what personality traits make a good leader, it is far from clear that there is a simple - or even any - connection between your DNA toolkit and your personality. So far, we seem to have some trouble finding a well defined set of genes for things like skin colour or height, and things like personality are vastly more complex than a simple, physical trait. Plus, of course, we have very limited knowledge (in fact, next to none) about how brain structure maps to personality traits.
So far, we have only just begun to scrape the surface of the genome, the epi-genome and the structure of the nervous system. We are still in the phase where, the more we discover, the more we come to realise how hopelessly inadequate our current understanding still is. It is not impossible that we will understand these areas well, but it will take a while; we will probably be well-established on Mars and beyond long before that day. Going to Mars is, after all, only rocket science.
Robodoc! Says you have X and the only health plan that will cover you is feudal prison inmate plan. There is an bank only 0.5 miles away.
Just wait until someone finds particularly desirable genes on the Y chromosome and grab the popcorn...
There is more chance of selecting employees through gladiatorial combat trials than there is of using genetic profiling for this purpose anywhere in the EU.
automation and AI will have eliminated the vast majority of jobs for humans anyway. So let the point-one-percenters start applying these genetic criteria to each other - and watch them eat their own. Pass the popcorn! If we poor plebeians are still able to afford popcorn, that is...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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.
...for gene/DNA discrimination.
DNA testing is inherently racist, as genetic traits are heritable and are associated with your ethnic/genetic background.
And the genes that determine your "race" are not the same genes that determine your probable job aptitudes.
Or are we going to only hire people with high-melanin skin genes to do outside work and unemploy all the rednecks? It'd reduce skin-cancer insurance claims, after all.
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.
No, and I've been coming here for a long, long time
Indirectly, that is. If you are in the CEO's blood line, you've got a job.
Have gnu, will travel.
If DNA testing becomes a requirement for employment, it will also become a requirement for disability. This means, you can be a perfectly functional member of society, but get stuck living on the system because you don't have superior DNA... but why stop there? If the DNA is found at birth, you might as well not even waste your time going beyond high school, or even maybe bothering with elementary school... since you won't need to learn because you won't be able to get a job anyway.
The future sounds like a real crapshoot.
FUCK THAT
Eat the rich.
This happened on Star Trek, people genetically engineered and born into specific job roles, it didn't end well, ergo I don't think this would end well. What you lose are those people with unique characteristics that might add something unexpected or form an unexpected solution to a problem, granted they may not be particularly suited to a given role, but they may have other qualities that can contribute in larger unforeseen ways.
Exactly, this stinks of eugenics.
Eat the rich.
You can choose whatever you want from this list.
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.
Co-incidence of events and their reporting creates a strong association leading to the phenomenon whereby, at the sweet-spot of association strength, the perp may attempt to reverse the roles and create the events merely by purporting to'report' them.
Requiem for the American Dream
FTFY.
What's racist about race is presupposing outcomes that were highly predictable on first impression, because it's lamentably a very short step for an advantaged social group—often one of relatively homogeneous racial composition, suffused with elaborate rituals of social etiquette—to conclude that a disadvantaged racial subgroup never given an opportunity to do x can't do x.
Race isn't just some magic third rail used to divide humans into two distinct groups, in much the same way that humans divide house pets into two distinct groups: potty trained and not potty trained. There are days, though, where that can be a good working assumption.
What are the "if you don't work, you don't eat" crowd going to do about this?
Nothing. I expect that they are all confident they posses superior genes and even in the event of this actually being implemented, they would be unaffected.
Ummm. Uma Thurman. Bring on the blood tests ! (grin)
...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.
Perhaps one of the most accurate visions of the future ever put onto the big screen.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
We can't even use genetics to predict when someone will get type 2 diabetes, much less predict "leadership" aptitude. So much of this stuff is environmental and even the part that is genetic can be complex and impossible to predict. We know that type 2 diabetes has a strong environmental component, but even the genetic component isn't understood well. Most genes linked to diabetes are unknown, but we know they exist due to inheritance patterns. How in the ever loving hell would we apply genetics to something as complex and environmental as leadership when even type 2 diabetes isn't there yet? I'd like to volunteer my services to screen out junk posts on slashdot that have anything to do with genetics. This is rubbish.
I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down.
I seriously doubt it will happen at successful companies even if the costs go way down and it becomes legal. Nature is only a part of what determines your character: nurture plays a large role as well. That combined with the fact that I am not sure we all agree on what characteristics make a good leader leads me to have very severe doubts about whether this is even vaguely useful.
Given the personality correlations between success business leaders and psychopaths, then, if there is any genetic basis for these traits, which does not seem totally unlikely, what is the likely outcome of recruiting more psychopaths than there are leadership positions to fill?
This sig is a figment of your imagination.
They also aren't short, anymore. Put a dozen middle-class 25 year olds who grew up in Shanghai next to a dozen middle-class Americans of random ancestry from Los Angeles, London, or Toronto, and you'll notice that there's no longer any meaningful correlation between height and ethnicity that can't be better-explained by wealth & social class (higher ==> access to better food and healthcare, and probably less stress).
Remember, 500 years ago, most EUROPEANS were short, too... except for royalty, who literally towered over their subjects, mostly because they had more and better food during childhood.
People already submit to letting their employers test their blood and pee for whatever substances the employer chooses. They also let their employers check their credit. Most people don't give a shit about any sort of privacy. They just want what they want, and they want it NOW. Heck, I'm surprised that DNA testing of employees isn't happening already.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
is the word for this. Duh.
The law is not an ass. No really.
On the subject of 'cautionary tales', I suggest everyone re-watch that movie, because it's 100% relevant.
This sort of nonsense should remain outlawed. Genetic predisposition is not the be-all-end-all of human potential; we learn. Education, skills, and experience should be determining factors.
Congratulations! You are now a delivery boy.
So, we bring up this topic about the potential benefits of using Genetic testing to better our lives only to be reminded of the pitfalls that also come with it. As The Grim Reaper pointed out, Gattaca dealt with this topic rather extensively. However, I'm not sure that this will even be a choice to not put ourselves forward for this sort of testing.
Genetic testing is being fairly "hip" these days with companies like 23 and Me offering their services. Even Ancestry.com will offer the use for help with your genealogy tree. There are major dangers with freely giving over DNA to these companies though. They build up genetic databases and under current US law, our DNA does not technically belong to the individual but to the research team that "borrowed" it for "research" purposes.
We can get scared about it or we can work to come up with intelligent legislation to afford some protections to ourselves in our respective countries.
On the plus side, we can get away with Eugenics under some-what less than ethical apology.
Exactly. ..." relating to human beings in anything other than a medical context, you can be 95% certain that reading further is a waste of your time.
If you read the words "the gene for
This reveals a basically magical, not scientific, idea of what "genes" are. Or a scammer.
Even in medical contexts, there is a vast gap between identifying a genetic variation associated with a disease and figuring out what the gene actually does and how the disease actually arises. It's the *beginning* of the real research.
A lot of this crap works along the lines of "Ooh, people with abnormalities in this gene can't speak" from which is deduced "Eureka! we've found the gene for language!"
Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
Everything Gartner says is wrong...going back to the 1990s. Therefore, Gattaca will never happen.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I think of "DNA testing for jobs may be on its way" in much the same way that I think of the knowledge that a world-ending meteor may be on its way. It could be devastating if it happens, but it's unlikely and can be averted via human intervention.
Pay for Gartner's advice and then do the exact opposite thing. They are a reverse oracle.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
... a mental disposition towards a strong work ethNic ...
Best Freudian Slip of the Week.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibits employers from refusing to hire someone because of their genetics... but what if the reason to refusing to hire someone in particular is because they didn't submit their genetic information at all? How can they be said to refuse to hire someone based on their genetics if they don't have the genetic information in the first place?
Further, it seems that the refusal to hire someone who did submit such information would not necessarily be because of *their* genetics but because the employer has since filled the position they were seeking with someone else who *did* have the genetic qualifications they were seeking. In this case, the employer may be choosing to *hire*, not refusing to hire, somebody based on their genetics, but this does not appear to be prohibited by GINA.
I don't know if this has already been tried and shot down in court, or if this kind of reasoning would actually work. While it's entirely unethical in terms of the spirit of the law, it seems like it still ought to be technically legal.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The idiots don't understand the difference between group tendencies and individual prediction. Picking people for jobs based on genes is stupid because you get a much better (although for many things still not very good) indication by giving an actual performance test.
And no dcblogs, nobody chooses basketball players by their genes. They're selected by their *height* and their ability to play basketball.
You willfully misunderstand this. Present day definition of racism is anchored on discrimination based on inherent traits. Therefore it follows that if you perform genetic testing for employment you will be discriminating based on these inherent traits. The only difference is that typically these traits were limited to visible characteristics and now we have technology to look for underlying genetic markers.
That is, saying that you won't hire people with slanted eyes is not categorically different from saying that you won't hire people without X,Y,Z genetic markers associated with high intelligence and achievement. If you take this to logical conclusion, this means that the only way to not be racist is to completely discard the idea of baseline ability and instead benchmark individual's achievements over his or her own starting baseline.
It is disturbing and if you look at the radical pro-abortion agenda being advanced by the left this year. Attacking the Hyde Amendment, trying to ensure elective procedures (murders) are covered by health insurance, the "share your abortion story" push by Richards, the "My sister is a Happy Ghost" children's book etc, its all little bits of nasty final solution. Next look where they put up the free/low cost abortion "clinics" and than look at what groups are having abortions by the numbers, the game is clear.
Its pretty clear to me the "progressives" in this country are working to revive the early twentieth century eugenics movement. Much of their own electorate is being used as ignorant rubes with lots of fancy language about "rights," "equality," and "liberty" while the elites laugh knowing they are going to pressure these same people into murdering their own children. Making it so they can't get jobs because they don't have the right markers for intellect etc despite their own actual achievements, work ethic, etc is just a way to turn up the heat. "See you don't even have a future yourself, continuing your genetic line would just be curl, you don't want to be parent" I can almost hear it now. If you are unemployed you don't have money to participate in the political system to try and stop them. They are going after the tax exempt status of religious institutions that don't play nice, again take away the money, it started way back with the Johnson amendment and now that people are over that they are turning up the heat a little more.
This is about slowly boiling Pepe. Its about accomplishing what they could not get done in the 1920s and 30s because honest decent Americans were still organized and could oppose these people. Its because Hitler fouled up and took things to a place so ugly anyone with a little good in them could not ignore. The curl joke is the marketing machine paints the American left as the party of down trodden when really its a viscous machine designed to consume their very lives.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
And the genes that determine your "race" are not the same genes that determine your probable job aptitudes.
This is illogical. Why would genes that determine your probable job aptitude act any differently than any other gene? They are all heritable, at least when you talk populations.
Hiring based on DNA testing looking for a specific gene is guaranteed to not produce diversity.
I got this sweet job, the only downside is that I have to use my friend's DNA to pass the constant testing. And I have to make sure not to leave any skin or hair samples at work.
If you are not bloody careful, soon Trump will trump political correctness
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I have been required to take "programming tests" that were pretty much intelligence tests.
And as a manager yourself, you know that getting around laws is easy. Don't want to hire that 40 something? He just doesn't have the skills.
DNA has about as much to do with "intelligence" as purported IQ tests, which is to say very little other than in a very general sense. The same could be said for "leadership" and various other ridiculous tests more appropriate for nothing more than wasting time on FB.
There is no "intelligence" gene, nor is there one for "leadership", that is absolutely ridiculous. I mean in a very broad sense you could use DNA to look for *possible* indicators of certain genetic disorders that may have an impact on either trait. However those disorders would also be so absolutely obvious that you could determine that by simple written comprehension or even say talking to someone for say 5 minutes.
So all that BS aside, there are some ways in which DNA could effect your employment opportunities in a very real and sinister way. Namely if your employer pays for your benefits and insurance. A big chunk of either are medical expenses. They could potentially use DNA testing to eliminate you from competition for jobs on the simply liability of you and or your offspring might be more expensive medically (due to having indicators of possibility being susceptible to certain genetic maladies) requiring the employer to have more robust benefit or insurance packages.
Anyway the idea of using DNA like a resume is absurd. A better indicator is environment, the biggest of which likely socioeconomic background (i.e. better opportunities, education, health, etc). That isn't to say that there isn't potential abuse for DNA information by employers.
DNA testing is inherently racist, as genetic traits are heritable and are associated with your ethnic/genetic background.
Genetic variability between any two individuals of the very same tribe dwarfs ethnicity. This is why judging individuals on a genetic basis by their tribe/race is illogical and also why your argument doesn't hold up.
I would agree for different reasons allowing this is a bad idea. Chance of these schemes ever being deemed socially acceptable in my estimation is 0... Probably also quite useless given people in many ways that matter are more or less products of their environments rather than genetics.
I imaging the guards at the Nazi death camps were given some version of its not murder they are not people too.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Genetic variability between any two individuals of the very same tribe dwarfs ethnicity.
Citation? Just because it would be nice to have, doesn't mean that nature and genetics work this way.
It is very interesting to go down this path in thought, but it's overloading to a novice. It has been painted as hip and trendy to have abortions, and the people that believe that will flat out deny that much of a leap in cognitive dissonance. People aware can definitely investigate this, there are many books written on the subject. Sadly they are not horror books, but laying out evil of real people walking around in society.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
well maybe if it's applied to everyone regardless of background than possibly it's better than our current system which is called ivy league education...
Other way around. "Hey, you have normal DNA, there is no reason why you should not be successful. No welfare for you!"
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Can someone tell me where in the DNA sequence that information is stored? And how did they prove that it really is a result of those genes? Where are the published papers for this?
Some people would argue that there are reasons other than employment to be educated. When pursuing my master's degree in mathematics, I took a music class for my personal enjoyment. Did I waste my time because the music class had nothing to do with any job I applied for?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Citation? Just because it would be nice to have, doesn't mean that nature and genetics work this way.
No, I'm not going to give you a citation. You can Google it yourself. It takes seconds. This is a well known fact that has been widely studied.
Citation? Just because it would be nice to have, doesn't mean that nature and genetics work this way.
No, I'm not going to give you a citation. You can Google it yourself. It takes seconds. This is a well known fact that has been widely studied.
This is known as 'shifting the burden of proof', or informal logical fallacy. You are not offering citation because you are not familiar with the field of genetics and not sure what paper to cite to support your assertion. After Googling it yourself you quickly realized that by incorrectly citing you are risking on-point rebuttal for irrelevancy. Yet you manage to hold strong opinions, not grounded in facts, on how genetics is ought to work.
Mulligan?
I'd say yes, but I'd presume that you could have learned the same thing for free via the internet.
I just realized you said time, not money. hurrrr sorry
You know "curl" vs "cruel" would be spelling not grammar. Which one of us is ignorant now?
Next lets consider that you understood exactly what I meant as demonstrated by the fact that you proposed an alternative spelling we both recognize. English has a descriptive not a prescriptive dictionary. There is no body that is empowered to decided what is correct English there is only conventional and common usage. One can argue any message that is understood as the author intended without difficulty on the part of the recipient is in fact correct English as far as there can be such a thing as correct English, again there being no authority.
Don't lecture me about ignorance when you apparently don't even know or understand basic facts about the language your attempting to communicate in and the common definitions of words like spelling and grammar. I'll concede I understood your message so it was in that sense correctly encoded, if unconventional.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Eugenics by another name - but it's ok if we tie it to hiring a high-performance stud for business purposes.
Higher pay and prestige lead to better and more mating opportunities.
Who knew business could help mankind to the next level?
In the USA they can hire or fire for ANY reason. They just can't state all the reasons because some are illegal.
If you did try to plug this hole it would fix the fact they can quietly do whatever they want... then you have the workforce you could point to like they do with racial and gender discrimination and attempt to counter them circumventing the law which makes it more difficult for HR to get past those laws. Naturally, the lawyer politicians leave most of the enforcement up to civil courts to add to our sue crazy society.
Just how are we going to say an employer discriminates based on DNA?? Even in the existing mess we have today, you have to sue and collect gender or race statistics of all employees as part of discovery and that information is public. How does a legal case discover the private DNA info of all the employees? Does the employer then have to collect DNA just so they can fend off future lawsuits??
The only solution is a complete revamp of the HR process which requires OUTSOURCING of this huge aspect of HR. Some nations involve the government heavily in the process and it works pretty well and solves many issues while introducing some others. This would likely go beyond what those governments already do today. Many issues involved in that one... sure you could go to NGOs but those lack even a fraction of public input that government has -- even when it's moderately corrupt it's better than most NGOs. Then you have competing HR services which add more problems than they likely solve. At least in the mess we have today it's less dangerous... for now... remember, the USA just recently solved the HUUUGE problem with preexisting conditions in health insurance (and not without creating new issues.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news