104 lines
5.6 KiB
Standard ML
104 lines
5.6 KiB
Standard ML
Copyright 1983
|
||
NPG,Ltd.
|
||
GENETIC WORKER TESTING
|
||
|
||
ISSUE: Should private companies be allowed to screen job applicants on the
|
||
basis of genetic tests? (1) Yes. Companies should be free to use genetic or
|
||
any other kind of testing; if workers object, they are free to work elsewhere.
|
||
(2) No. It is unfair to reject job applicants on the basis of their genetic
|
||
structure, something that they can do nothing about.
|
||
|
||
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in genetic research allow researchers to
|
||
identify many genetic flaws that create tendencies toward diseases such as
|
||
emphysema, arteriosclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and others. Many of these
|
||
flaws are apparently randomly generated, giving no advance warning as to who
|
||
wll be affected. But some genetic flaws are not evenly distributed throughout
|
||
the population; rather they are concentrated in certain groups, including
|
||
certain minority groups. Businesses are becoming interested in genetic testing
|
||
as a way of identifying workers who are particularly susceptible to certain
|
||
substances By such early identification, precautions can be taken to improve
|
||
workers' safety. But business is also aware that workers with diseases
|
||
(genetically caused or not) are an economic burden on industry because they
|
||
miss more work than their healthy counterparts. Thus there is an economic
|
||
interest in screening job applicants for genetic defects.
|
||
|
||
POINT: If genetic tests are available that allow businesses to do a better
|
||
and more efficient job, then they should be allowed to use them. All consumers
|
||
benefit when business works better. It is wrong to burden others with the
|
||
problems of some individuals. And it is not a one-sided issue. Workers
|
||
benefit from having advance warning of susceptibilities. It allows them to
|
||
choose occupations which are less dangerous to them, and it allows them to
|
||
begin treatment earlier. You also have to be realistic. It is impractical,
|
||
bordering on impossible, to halt genetic testing for employment or other
|
||
business purposes while retaining it for the voluntary detection and early
|
||
treatment of diseases. People who have a tendency toward certain diseases
|
||
often have a shorter life expectancy than normal. If they share equally in
|
||
company-sponsored benefit programs including life and disability insurance,
|
||
they (or their estate) will statistically realize a greater return than the
|
||
average policy holder. That is unfair to every other participant in these
|
||
programs.
|
||
|
||
COUNTERPOINT: Business uses of genetic engineering, if allowed at all,
|
||
should be limited to voluntary ones, and any discrimination by business against
|
||
people who choose not to submit to the testing should be severely punished. A
|
||
certain amount of individual freedom is an essential part of working, and you
|
||
cannot allow companies to take that away just because they think it would be
|
||
more "efficient." No one is perfect, and this would just provide a credible
|
||
basis for otherwise unacceptable discrimination. Because some genetic defects
|
||
are tied to a person's racial or cultural background, the indiscriminate use of
|
||
genetic testing could result in a sharp resurgence of racial or other forms of
|
||
discrimination. Businesses will tend to view the genetic test results as
|
||
definitive. But that is not always true. Tests can be wrong. Even more
|
||
important, people have overcome genetically-caused problems in the past; they
|
||
ought to be given a fair chance to do so in the future. Widespread,
|
||
uncontrolled screening will not give them that chance. The fundamental
|
||
unfairness of genetic screening cannot be avoided. Unlike educational and
|
||
training deficiencies, genetic traits cannot be changed. People should not be
|
||
punished (and that is what a denial of employment really is) for things that
|
||
they cannot change, just as they cannot legally be discriminated against now on
|
||
the basis of race, religion or sex. This is not just a matter of philosophy;
|
||
it also has a fundamental legal dimension. To allow unrestricted involuntary
|
||
testing would violate an individual's Constitutional protection against
|
||
self-incrimination, because the results of that kind of test might be crucial
|
||
to his livelihood.
|
||
|
||
|
||
QUESTIONS:
|
||
o What would happen if government tried to impose controls on genetic
|
||
screening tests? Do you think they would work, that they would be able to
|
||
permit beneficial research while barring that which poses high risks?
|
||
|
||
o If a person has a genetically-based physical handicap such as
|
||
arteriosclerosis, should business be allowed to discriminate on the basis of
|
||
that handicap?
|
||
|
||
o Do you think that it is fair to say that you are really punishing a person
|
||
when you deny him or her a job because you think doing that job would be
|
||
injurious to that person?
|
||
|
||
REFERENCES:
|
||
|
||
o The Question of Genetic Tinkering, Nicholas Wade,
|
||
Technology Illustrated, November 1983, p.6
|
||
|
||
o NIH Weighing Plans to Release Altered Bacteria, Philip J.
|
||
Hilts, The Washington Post, September 20, 1983, p.A1
|
||
|
||
o Man-Made Life:An Overview of the Science, Technology and
|
||
Commerce of Genetic Engineering, Jeremy Cherfas, Pantheon Books,
|
||
1983
|
||
|
||
o Keeping Up With The Genetic Revilution, Kathleen McAuliffe
|
||
and Sharon McAuliffe, The New York Times Magazine, November 6,
|
||
1983, p.41
|
||
|
||
o New Technique to Produce Proteins May Alter Biotechnology
|
||
Industry, Jerry E. Bishop, The Wall Street Journal, November 10,
|
||
1983, Section 2
|
||
|
||
|
||
(Note: Please leave your thoughts -- message or uploaded comments -- on this
|
||
issue on Tom Mack's RBBS, The Second Ring --- (703) 759-5049. Please address
|
||
them to Terry Steichen of New Perspectives Group, Ltd.)
|
||
|
||
|