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.

Comments

testing...for..

[sheramil]

Testing for jobs? WHAT JOBS?

Re:testing...for..

[Kohath]

If you test positive for DNA, you're not eligible.

Re:testing...for..

[Anubis IV]

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").

Big news

[Kohath]

Something that isn't happening may someday happen.

Re:Big news

[ShanghaiBill]

I seriously doubt this will happen, unless the costs for this type of DNA analysis comes way down.

Full genome sequencing cost $100M in 2001, $10k in 2011, and is about $1000 today. If you just want to check for a few specific genes, rather than full sequencing, the cost can be under $100. These prices are expected to continue to fall. Larger companies can buy their own sequencer for about $5k, and do the analysis in-house for faster turn around.

DNA testing in hiring may or may not be a good idea, but cost will not be a significant barrier.

My prediction: The best predictor of future performance will continue to be past performance.

Gattaca

[The Grim Reefer]

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

I don't know...

[Opportunist]

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.

Not to Sound iIke a Snowflake...

[sycodon]

...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.