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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're pretty much right.
Sure, I'm on Amphetamine because my genetics caused a smaller, weaker prefrontal cortex and thus a lower amount of mental force coming out of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, diminishing my ability to control my brain's automatic impulses; but I've spent my life learning things, and learning to control parts of that. It's never going to be a drug-free solution because that just doesn't work; on the other hand, I'm able to control major impulses, and I've got an interest in finances, risk management, and other procedural behaviors which maximize efficiency.
That's just psychological development. Many genetic expressions are a matter of environment. Stress in the environment causes an upregulation and downregulation of gene expression: parts of your brain start pumping out RNA and assembling different neurochemicals. Relaxation techniques and some drugs (notably alcohol, and also foods with certain nutrient profiles) also affect genetic expression, changing brain chemistry or metabolism so you become more-relaxed, more-focused, or fatter, or whatever. It's not just that your brain is structured a certain way or you've eaten too many calories; your body has to decide how to activate its cellular machinery, which can determine what parts of your brain activate the most (even if they're weaker to begin with) or how to process food (do you store fat in fat cells or inside muscle cells? Frequent aerobic metabolism will cause your body to start putting fatty acids directly inside the muscles).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, that value is at odds with the capitalist value of getting ahead by any means available no matter the consequences to anyone else. So you'd better hope that DNA testing won't give any measurable advantage, otherwise it'll be yet another lock in your chains.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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