Genetic sequences contain information useful for judging people for health risks and potential productivity in different occupations. But the US Congress doesn't want employers or insurers to use the results of genetic tests.
A bill that would prohibit discrimination by health insurers and employers based on the information that people carry in their genes won final approval in Congress on Thursday by an overwhelming vote.
But here's one of the problems with this legislation: People will make decisions about their insurance levels based on genetic test results. So the insurers won't be able to discriminate. But the insurees will discriminate. The ones most likely to get sick will buy more insurance and the ones least likely to get sick will buy less.
The personal use of knowledge about health conditions already influences some people to take jobs which offer better health benefits. Greater knowledge of genetic risk for disease will motivate more higher risk people to apply for jobs at companies with the best health and medical benefits. But knowledge of genetic risks is less a problem for insurance received as a condition of employment. Better paid employees are going to continue to get health insurance as a fringe benefit. Individually purchased health insurance will be more influenced by personal knowledge of genetically based health risks.
Health costs aside, I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons for employers to use genetic profiles in selecting employees and in designing work conditions. For example, people who are less able to break down some toxin due to their liver enzyme genes should avoid work places where exposure to such a toxin is a substantial risk. The toxin might be perfectly safe for people with other variations on liver enzymes.
Another example: night work and internal body clocks. I'm willing to bet that some people will have genetic profiles that allow them to work all night with less stress and wear and tear. Employers ought to select night shift workers based on genetic profiles for body clocks and stress response genes.
We are all potential victims of genetic discrimination? I'm more worried about what my genes will do to me than what insurers or employers might do.
“People know we all have bad genes, and we are all potential victims of genetic discrimination,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, who first proposed the legislation. The measure passed the House on Thursday by a 414-to-1 vote, and the Senate by 95-to-0 a week earlier.
Instead of totally keeping DNA sequencing info private what I expect this legislation will do in the long run is shift the focus from hiding information that harms one's interests toward revealing information that helps one's interests.
If it turns out you have genes that give you some workplace advantage then you might want to find ways to indicate this information to potential employers. Here's an idea: How about a company that will take a genetic sample from you and sequence it for a fee. As part of the deal you have the option to release part or all of your genetic profile on the web as part of a job seeker site.
Why do this? Well, suppose you have a genetic advantage that makes it easier for you to work in really cold conditions (e.g. on an Alaska North Slope oil rig), really hot conditions, at high altitudes, underwater or at night. Suppose some genes make someone a better pilot. Wouldn't you rather fly with such genetically advantaged pilots at the controls? Or suppose you have genes that give you lots of endurance or ability to handle lots of interruptions. You'd want some way for employers to see your genetic advantages. Governments are going to have a hard time knowing whether some managers checked that web site, perhaps using an internet cafe for anonymity.
Genetic samples of relatives can help narrow searches for criminals.
A 1999 Justice Department survey found that 46 percent of jail inmates had at least one sibling, parent or child who had been incarcerated at some point.
All states take DNA from all convicted felons, and many get specimens from a wide range of others.
Using conservative assumptions, Bieber and his colleagues calculated that U.S. law enforcement authorities could increase their "cold hit" rate (the percentage of DNA searches that result in perfect matches) by 40 percent if they were to check the DNA patterns of criminals' family members when searches generate near misses.
Cold-hit rates vary widely today. Assuming they average about 10 percent, Bieber said, a 40 percent increase would bump that rate up to 14 percent.
Some people with expansive views of privacy rights argue that if your relatives all give DNA samples then in effect a search is being done to you without your consent. I can't say that I'm much bothered by that idea. I'm more bothered by the idea that criminals could kill or maim me or rape someone I care about.
Imagine police have suspicions about some guy and he won't provide a DNA sample to test against crime scene evidence. In one case cited in the article police followed a suspect and grabbed a cigarette butt discarded by the suspect. This led to a conviction.
But often time the police have no realistic suspect. A comparison against a massive database of convicted felons might turn up near matches that would lead to investigations of relatives of felons. As DNA databases grow in size descendants of felons could come under suspicion due to near matches.
It is only a matter of time before a large assortment of genetic variations which contribute to criminality are identified. Once we reach that point I see a few issues coming up as a result:
- When felons with genetic traits that increase criminality have kids should their kids get tested both to assess their odds of future criminal activity and also to have them in databases to match against future crime scenes? Ditto fingerprints for matching against crime scenes.
- Should the genetically criminal have the right to reproduce? How strong should a person's genetic predisposition to criminality have to be before they lose the right to reproduce? Suppose they have a 50% odds of being a rapist or murders due to some genetic variations. Should they have the right to have kids?
- Alternatively, once we know the genetic variations that contribute to criminality should the genetically criminal be required to reproduce using in vitro fertilization (IVF) with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGID or PGD) where embryos are that do not contain the worst crime genes?
- Should it be legal to use the DNA samples of criminals against their will in order to do sequencing studies to identify genetic variations that contribute to criminality?
- Should felons with strong genetic predispositions to criminality be required to get a vasectomy or tubes tied as a condition of parole?
I see the classic arguments for individual rights as being first cut approximations of reality. Some people are greatly deficient in the capacity and desire to respect the rights of others. If we can detect them before they violate rights or can more easily identify them after they violate rights then I'm all for it. We are not born equal in our willingness and capacity to respect rights. Therefore we are not born equal in rights of our own.. It is a pretty myth to say we are. But it is also a damaging myth. The myth is going to become increasingly hard to defend against sicentific advances.