Genetic discrimination ban edges closer to reality

By a fairly wide 420-3 margin, the House of Representatives gave a nearly unanimous thumbs-up to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which would "prohibit employers from using genetic information or test results when making employment and health benefits decisions" if it gets a similar nod of approval from the Senate. Fortunately for supporters, the Senate has been known to look fondly upon similar legislation in the past, and if the bill becomes law, health insurers couldn't use "genetic information to set premiums," nor could they require customers to submit genetic tests. Essentially, this could ensure that any future human mutation hacks you inflict on yourself, or more frightening, any robotic humanoid whose genes would find it out, will be safe from scrutiny come interview time. It's about time to order up that oh-so-keen intelligent carpet, right, hiring managers?

[Via Wired]

[apeguero @ May 1st 2007 11:35AM]

Gataca anyone?

[leep @ May 1st 2007 12:32PM]

@apeguero

beat me to it...

[DaveO @ May 1st 2007 12:39PM]

We have laws against discrimination, now. If those laws are routinely ignored why should we expect things to change in the brave new world of genetic testing?

[Eric @ May 1st 2007 12:44PM]

I'm of mixed feelings on this one. I believe that Gattaca had non-discrimination laws as well, but that did not stop them from finding new ways around the law to protect themselves. Once the possibility is there someone will abuse and misuse the information that it provides.

Is it discrimination to genetically screen bus drivers / pilots for health problems that cause sudden incapacitation? This is discrimination, but it's for the safety of the passengers.

What about testing teachers for pedophilia?

Police for the genes related to addiction?

Schoolchildren looking for criminal or aggressive tendencies?

You see.. it's not discrimination, but to protect the public that these tests need to be run.

[Brian @ May 1st 2007 12:51PM]

It's unfortunate that such a law is needed, but it's refreshing that the Pols in DC got this one right.

DaveO: because at least we can stop/punish those who break the law

[Yaktastic @ May 1st 2007 1:08PM]

@Eric

so you are saying that if someone has a genetic predisposition to something, regardless of their actions, they should be tagged and federally forced into specific job paths?

[Eric @ May 1st 2007 1:15PM]

@Yaktastic

No absolutely not... I'm just saying that even with anti-discrimination laws on the books companies will find ways of misusing/abusing the new information that is there for the picking. They can claim it's not discrimination because it's for the safety of ( children, passengers, the general public, _fill in the blank_ ). SCOTUS president already allows companies to discriminate against employees "For their own good" in high risk jobs ( I can't find the case at the moment ).

I was just trying to point out easy examples of where anti-discrimination breaks down and the information would probably start getting used for employment decisions.

[Yaktastic @ May 1st 2007 1:33PM]

Eric
thanks for the response, I do see your point, though i was a little worried about your original phrasing. We'll see how long it takes the technology to catch up in terms of being able to do quick genetic analysis surreptitiously, any employer that required me to give a blood/body fluid sample as a hiring requirement would certainly make me think twice about where i would want to be working. That being said, i am interested to see how long this takes to start being noticably applied and used for non-employment issues (i'm sure its ability to be tied to marriage rights is lost on few people).

also, HEY the "X responded to your comment" thing actually worked! life's little victories i guess.

[Mike @ May 1st 2007 1:08PM]

Wouldn't you like to know who the 3 were that voted AGAINST this??? They don't belong in office. They clearly don't represent the will of the people by voting against a measure such as this.

[Mark @ May 1st 2007 1:18PM]

Will pretending the condition doesn't exist make it go away? What, in principle, is the difference between using genetic information and using medical history?

Employers have the right to make hiring decisions based on ALL the available, relevant information, not just the information the government says it can.

[Ian H. @ May 1st 2007 1:30PM]

The three who voted against:
Jeff Flake (R, Arizona - Dist 6)
Ron Paul (R, Texas - Dist 14)
Edward Royce (R, California - Dist 40)

[Sean @ May 1st 2007 1:14PM]

Does this mean they can't ask about family medical histories either?

[Seventhexile @ May 1st 2007 2:47PM]

This looks like its just being passed to give the illusion that somethings being done..
Theres been quite a lot of debate over companies using medical history to discriminate against potential employees/
We are not 100% destine to a life designed by our genetics - we might have a predisposition towards certain things - but there is no guarantee these things will come to be.
From what I understand of psychology most people suffering from schizophrenia were genetically pre-inclined to develop it. However that being said theres a mass amount of cases showing people who have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia who never develop it.

oh .. and..
I cant wait to start splicing animal DNA into mine!!
We Can Rebuild Him: Make Him Faster, Stronger..hung like a horse.. ?

[Jeff @ May 1st 2007 3:03PM]

Brian, I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying the down-syndrome embryo should have been carried to term and brought into this world?

Anyway, that aside, yeah, this screams Gattaca - which was, btw, a fantastic movie that everyone who hasn't seen should probably treat themselves to renting - meaning that, who cares if it's illegal? Once the technology exists, companies will use it regardless, and obtain the sample they need "by way of a simple, perfectly legal drug test".

[Frankenstein Black @ May 1st 2007 3:21PM]

Sweeeet. Spider Splicing me wont get me fired? Sign me up! (as he looks forward to bypassing a crowded morning elevator, choosing instead to climb up the outer wall of the work building)...

[David @ May 1st 2007 4:31PM]

Dang. And I was really hoping to get some discounts on insurance for being genetically perfect.

[flamsmark @ May 1st 2007 4:32PM]

What about conditions that are genetically influenced? Will insurers no longer be allowed to give lower premiums to those at low risk of heart disease [because it's a geneticaly influenced condition] or the converse?

[John @ May 1st 2007 8:38PM]

Ron Paul, from Texas, voted against it because he believes it isn't constitutional for Congress to make such a law and that individual states should make their own decisions. He basically votes no on everything, it's no surprise he included this.

[Brian @ May 2nd 2007 11:49AM]

What about people doing in-vitro fertilization right now? They absolutely can, and do for an added fee, test the embryo for various ailments. A co-worker did this, and before implantation found out that one of the embryos had down-syndrome. Sorry kid, science revealed and society decided you are not worthy of life, goodbye.

Gattica is much closer than we think. We are already screening after conception, we are just not allowed to discriminate in the workplace.

[tree.hugger.chick @ May 2nd 2007 12:34PM]

Brian -

I don't get your point either. There's nothing wrong with checking on the condition of an embryo before deciding whether you carry it to term. If I found out through my ultrasound or some other test that there was a serious problem with my baby, I doubt I would carry it to term, to be honest. That's my personal choice. It's not a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of whether I think it would be right to bring a child into the world knowing that there's something seriously wrong with him/her and knowing that it's not too likely that they'll have a long, healthy, happy life. Sometimes it's just kinder. Besides, with in vitro fertilization, you can end up with a dozen embryos and you're obviously not going to carry all of them. It makes sense that you would test them and find out which ones are the healthy ones.

[KennX @ May 2nd 2007 12:36PM]

That's alright... Probably the reason we'll start using the Voight Kampf Empathy Test instead during interviews. After all, we don't want those replicants taking jobs away from illegal immigrants, do we? :)