IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate 297
An anonymous reader writes "Today the New York Times is reporting that IBM announced the addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy. It appears that IBM is the first company worldwide to do this. With congress considering genetic privacy legislation, and with projects like the National Geographic Genographic Project, are we nearing the time when we all need to worry about our genetic privacy?"
however... (Score:4, Funny)
As Winston Churchill said about split infinitives: (Score:2)
Re:As Winston Churchill said about split infinitiv (Score:2, Informative)
Re:As Winston Churchill said about split infinitiv (Score:2)
Re:As Winston Churchill said about split infinitiv (Score:2)
Re:however... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:however... (Score:5, Informative)
IBM hired it's first black employee in 1899, along with its first women employees. In 1944, IBM was the first corporation to support the United Negro College Fund. IBM began hiring women to work as professional systems service staff in 1935. Thomas J. Watson Sr. wrote: "Men and women will do the same kind of work for equal pay. They will have the same treatment, the same responsibilities and the same opportunities for advancement."
Pretty damn progressive for the stereotypical big, uncaring megacorp.
Re:however... (Score:3, Funny)
William Safire's Rules for Writers:
Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice
should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form.
Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if
you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a
great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing. A
writer must not shift your point of view. And don't start
Re: (Score:2)
G.A.T.T.A.C.A? (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but you have a AGGTAGTGCACA sequence. We can't hire you.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some interesting sides to this though, as it might be more cost-effective to hire people who tend to die early, as long as they have no sick leave before hand. It would certainly save on pensions/ superannuation.
Genetic health screening is already done to an extent when doctors ask you about illnesses in the family, what age did your relatives die, have you got any chronic health problems. Genetic screening will come in gradually as an extension to this, and I think companies will find themselves forced to use it by the market.
People with a positive genetic test for something long and expensive like MS, mental health problems, or early Alzheimers would be pretty much unemployable, even before they developed the clinical signs of the disease. As all tests are fallible, some of them would not go on to develop the disease anyway. These sort of problems will need legislation to protect people from the worst excesses of such testing, but I don't see how we are going to stop it.
As the developing world catches us up, and plenty of companies with no compunction about using such tests, I would be surprised if IBM is still saying the same thing in 20 years time.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Doctors don't make decisions based on whether to treat you or not based on that history. That history informs the doctor, and makes them aware of things they need to be on the lookout for.
I want my doctor to have as much information about my health as possible. I want anybody who's not my doctor to have as little as possible.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It becomes relevant in deciding the pre-test probability of a disease existing. Most tests for disease are not black and white.
We need to work out the probability of a disease existing, to choose the right test (to minimise false positives and false negatives).
This is a practical application of Bayes Theorem [wikipedia.org].
If you have a slightly high blood pressure on testing (which is a flawed test with false positives and false negatives), do I advise t
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
You're telling me "Well, you look pre-disposed to Moofie's Syndrome. Never really liked people with Moofie's Syndrome...guess you're out of luck!"
I understand that the doctor needs to know the family history to make sound diagnoses. I do not understand why a doctor could, in good conscience, refuse to treat somebody because they have a genetic pre-disposition. In your example, you're using family history to narrow the scope of the problem, which is a) entirely appropriate and b) absolutely necess
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
A genetic screen would require sequencing the DNA and looking for genes that are linked to ailments, not asking about the ailments themselves. In some cases, the linkages may not be firmly understood or the genes may not be sufficient to cause an ailment by themselves. There's the real ugly area; while it's pretty much guaranteed that trisom
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It's illegal to discriminate in such cases already. Just because better ways are being developed to find diseases, that doesn't mean employers can start discriminating.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nationalize the Health Insurance Industry.
If they insure everybody, then there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps care would be limited by civil war: treat everybody, until government mismanagement causes the citizenry to storm Congress, pitchforks and torches in hand.
Or perhaps care would be limited by race/culture: those who are or are descended from persecuted minorities get first dibs. (As a descendent of French Canadians, I'm all for this.) Note that this w
Re: huh? (Score:2)
Yes, some of them only use urine. However, some of them also use hair. With the hair-based ones, if you get a folicle, you have live cells. Hello DNA test.
Examples (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the material itself, but extrapolations based on analysis of the material.
An analysis of your genetic material indicates that you have a higher than normal chance of becoming mentally unstable. We therefore will not hire you.
Your genetic material shows a predisposition to a certain inherited disease that is expensive to treat. We don't want our health coverage plan to have to deal with a claim for this sort of disease, so we will not hire you.
Re:Examples (Score:2)
I'm sure the lawsuit for discrimination (which in this case is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act) will be FAR less expensive.
The type of discrimination you describe is already illegal.
Re:Examples (Score:2)
Re:Examples (Score:2)
You must have an awful lot faith in your fellow man.
In any event, discrimination is inevitable with finite resources and anything demanding a non-free service, such as health care. Organ transplantation, for instance, entails some selection so long as there is a relative shortage of suitable donors that match potential recipients. Governmen
Re:Examples (Score:2)
Re:Examples (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Sadly it happens all the time. Where I work we won't even consider job applications by tomato plants despite the fact that the only differences between them and human employees arise from their genetics.
Money in mouth when it comes time (Score:3, Insightful)
Until the company goes down the crapper because all the other companies are making billions by having lower health care costs and hiring people that correctly match their genetic makeup (yeah 3005 stuff).
Re:Money in mouth when it comes time (Score:2, Interesting)
Or IBM'll profit, because they'll still employ the people with slight genetic flaws who are still brilliant. They'll have an easier time competing for workers overall, as they'll be hiring from a larger base. We aren't talking about useless people here, these people would still be smart enough to be hir
IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:4, Informative)
Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:4, Insightful)
testing inevitably becomes mainstream). Always is with insurance
companies. Apply discounts to people who take (and pass) genetic
screenings, et cetera.
Basically, similar to how auto insurances companies screw you over
if you had a lapse. They legally can't jack up the price on someone
who had a lapse in coverage, but they CAN offer a discount to people
who have not had a lapse in coverage.
Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:2)
Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:2)
That of course has nothing to do with the fact that all crazed left-wing slashbots are dead wrong, and all corporations are Good and Just and they all Love and Care for every living thing on the planet.
Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
*snikt!*
Re:Good news! (Score:4, Informative)
Just to nitpick (this is slashdot afterall), Wolverine wasn't born with the
claws -- they were implanted long after birth as part of the Weapon X project.
Well, to nitpick further, he was born with the claws, they were just made out
of bone, and were coated with adamantium as part of the Weapon X project.
SealBeater
Re:Good news! (Score:2)
claws -- they were implanted long after birth as part of the Weapon X project.
Well, to nitpick further, he was born with the claws, they were just made out
of bone, and were coated with adamantium as part of the Weapon X project.
Those aren't claws! They're long razors that are embeded in his forearms and eject out the top part of his hands upon will. They actually pierce through his skin each time they come out. This would cause a nor
Re:Good news! (Score:2)
Re:Good news! (Score:2)
Re:Good news! (Score:2)
Just to go one step further in the dorkiness...since Wolverwine's past, before weapon X project is still in mystery, nobody really knows if he used his claws prior to having the adamantium laced. Since he lost his adamantium lacing, he went very feral - so he was probably just as feral prior to weapon x. They found him, probably, with tree hugging with a bunch of other wolverines
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure they have a manager position on the OS/2 new markets division.
Doesn't matter in some states (Score:5, Informative)
In NJ for example, this practice has been illegal for several years already [bmjjournals.com]. I believe a few other states have also outlawed this practice.
Re:Doesn't matter in some states (Score:2)
The issue goes beyond a college course. Individuals ought to try and inform themselves of their jurisdiction's laws, or at least the ones addressing the most common public policy issues.
news.com.com version (Score:3, Informative)
I think the text was copied verbatim, but I'm not sure.
Seems relavent (Score:5, Informative)
And more articles from Google [google.com]...
Re:Seems relavent (Score:2)
Well of course the NBA practices genetic discrimination! Just ask any Asian man.
genetic discrimination may bring legislation (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am genetically an idiot.
Well, if it's really true and IBM is truly dedicated to a non-discriminatory genetic policy, this could be a good thing. A couple of questions:
Much good can, will (and has) come from genetic understanding and it's important to remember what it brings. But from the article, there is a cautionary example (from the article):
This is a topic long sneaking up on current consciousness and conscience and at some point needs to be stared down. I'm not a socialist, but if we start seeing a society free to not hire, not talk to, not help, etc., simply because of some percieved defect in their genetic makeup, I'd support some public policy not allowing this.
Re:genetic discrimination may bring legislation (Score:2)
what makes a non-discriminatory policy (obviously hiring is one)? Do people of certain genetic "deficiencies" have the same health benefits? At the same cost?
what happens if IBM becomes the only company that commits to this, and a stampede of genetic malware knocks at their door only? Do they modify their policies? (it could become VERY expensive for them should they
good. Good news for the Family! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an example, my mom's nursing home costs more than her salary from when she was working. We need the help of big insurance, but they don't want to cover us. And if I get tested they will want to withold both life and health insurance, since I would be proven to be a poor risk.
I can only hope that other companies follow IBM's lead. We need to have genetic privacy legislation.
meh
Re:good. Good news for the Family! (Score:3, Insightful)
He can have my share (Score:2)
Re:He can have my share (Score:2)
Let me guess, you're 18 years old and you'll never be sick a day in your life? Don't worry, you'll use it. Besides, 18-year-olds pay lower premiums than older people, exactly because they don't get sick much (and they don't think they ever will, like you).
The real solution to our country's medical-care-funding mess is mandatory government -run health insurance, with limits on the care options (no multi-million-dollar heroic lifesaving procedures). Un
Re:He can have my share (Score:2)
( All of it, from my own coffers, too ).
Does the insurance company have to make a profit on each
person? Or can they just in the aggregate?
Funny thing, my wife is on a special policy because she goes to the
doctor when she needs to go. She has had several surgeries, and is
on some medications.
The separate policy for me ( required by them, not me ) is almost as
expensive as hers. I dont go to the doctors very often at all.
Lets not speak of
Re:He can have my share (Score:2)
By the way we DO have healthcare for all, it's called MediCare and you get it provided if you are indigent. Also hospitals that get ANY Government dollars or public funds have to take in and treat anyone
No it doesn't (Score:3, Interesting)
No it doesn't. It *seems* to make sense, when you take the anglo-saxon neo-liberal capitalistic viewpoint as the only premise possible.
What you say only makes sense, if you accept that premise. But, in the exact same sense, it makes 'perfect sense' for companies to use child labour: they are cheaper and easier to control then adults. Thus, the profitmargin augments, thus the stockholders are happy because profit is larger, which is the point in a captilatic world
Re:good. Good news for the Family! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an example, my mom's nursing home costs more than her salary from when she was working. We need the help of big insurance, but they don't want to cover us. And if I get tested they will want to withold both life and health insurance, since I would be proven to be a poor risk.
My deepest sympathies go out to you and your family for this misfortune, but at the same time I would be remiss if I didn't point out that that's pretty much the point of insurance in a capitalist society - it's essentially a bet, and nobody who doesn't have a burning desire to lose money is going to bet on somebody with this disease.
Remember, the topic of whether or not the citizenry should collectively bear the costs of caring for someone with this catastrophic illness is a different debate. If we work under the assumption of insurance companies operating within a capitalist framework, then it's just business. People start insurance businesses to make money by offering you a bet that you will get sick disproportionate to their estimate of the actual odds of that happening. Under normal circumstances, it's designed to cover accidents and acts of god, not things they can see coming a mile away - and if they can see it coming a mile away, then the price for their service goes up in proportion to the estimated cost of treating your ailment (which is why nobody except smokers really complains when their insurance company asks them whether or not they use tobacco).
Taking out policies when they know them to be losing bets will lose the insurance company money, and drives up prices for everybody (usually disproportionately to the loss they've taken to boot - people generally see a loss of $5 as a good opportunity to jack up the price $6), which means the citizenry is effectively collectively paying for that health insurance anyway.
Asking companies to insure someone whom they know will have this disease in the future is the same as going up to a doctor and asking him to operate for free. We can debate about whether or not the state should get involved and operate health care as a collective, but under a capitalist framework that policy, while pleasant-sounding, is at its core unfair (after all, let us be honest here: if you ran an insurance company, you wouldn't want to have an estimate of your customers' total cost of care that is orders of magnitude more accurate than the one you currently have?)
Re:good. Good news for the Family! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good. Good news for the Family! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is money the only thing of value to our society? I know it has a high value, but
are there not other things we value?
No, I am not arguing that insurance companies should be money losing ventures, but I am
saying that *part* of the analysis needs to be the social issues. I think that is why
we find ourselves with a society that is part capitalism and part socialist. Because neither,
alone, are really very good societ
Nice parents, huh? (Score:2)
That was pretty nice of your parents to pass along a dominant debilitating disease to their offspring, eh? I guess you'll be having kids, too, right? Kinda reminds me of some of my wife's studies into the horrible genetic diseases that were common among the Amish. The doctors counseling them couldn't
Re:good. Good news for the Family! (Score:2, Flamebait)
And I am not being sarcastic here -- I am saying that maybe it is a societal solution. I Definitely think it is in
Re:good. Good news for the Family! (Score:2)
No one in society is entitled to money from the government -- that much I know. In our representative democracy, however, we as a people have decided to give some people support. We, the taxpayers have our representatives come together to vote on whether certain other people in society should receive money from us.
No one is entitled by nature to have them given money. The society as a whole should vote on whether
See, we don't need government regulation (Score:4, Funny)
Besides, there's no need for government interference, unless you have something genetic you need to hide, right?
Not yet, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The axiom of science is that if it can be done, it will be done. This declaration by IBM may be early, but in time it may be required.
Re:Not yet, but... (Score:2)
Re:Not yet, but... (Score:2)
Re:Not yet, but... (Score:2)
Put up your hand if you believe companies would not take advantage of "super" workers, or if it they would not prefer them?
Viewed another way (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things (Score:4, Insightful)
2) While it is great IBM does this now. Two things to note: a) they can always change this policy b) imagine this scenario - the gov't allows genetic testing, and thusly discrimination - now it becomes an insurance companies policy "you want insurance, it is twice as expensive w/o a genetic test"...IBM may be forced to change their policy to avoid paying twice as much in insurance costs.
I am happy IBM is doing this and hopefully it will push Congress to pass anti-genetic discrimination laws (which they should). In the end, what Congress does will make the difference.
Re:Two things (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, that there were frequent tests for "drugs", and the way you passed "security identification" wasn't with a keycard, it was with your blood.
But all that was a sham in much the same way that SUVs are classified as "light trucks" to get around government regulations regarding fuel efficiency in cars.
Expression vs gentic makeup (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this doesn't give someone with bad genetics a free ride. If your genetics are expressed in a negative way that could be detrimental to your performance, then you can be discriminated against. It's only the alleles, not the expression, that won't be discriminated against.
Mutants still need to register (Score:4, Funny)
But won't be discrimitated against...
Re:Mutants still need to register (Score:2)
Re:Mutants still need to register (Score:2)
You wouldn't have machine empathy, would you, Citizen?
Is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference between a company that discriminates based on that (like in Gattaca) and one that doesn't (every company today) the fact that one had that little blood analysis machine at the door and the rest don't?
hell, if google can use pidgeons... (Score:2)
excellent, so i can sue when they kick me out of their lobby for bringing my pet skunk? oh just HUMAN genes. so they ARE discriminating then.
(imho, we really need a new word to represent the BAD kind of discrimination, so the main word can lose this negative connotation..)
RFID & Genetic Make Up (Score:3, Insightful)
What Gets Between Me and My Genes? Nothing. (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't this mainly a public health policy issue? (Score:2)
This quite simply isn't a factor in systems where everyone is entitled to health care.
Sure, other uses will be found for genetic markers. But the one everyone's worrying about is just a natural consequence of considering healthcare to be a privilege rather than a right, coupled with insurance companies' na
Re:Isn't this mainly a public health policy issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, uses that have already started. Women with a particular BRCA-1 marker have an 80% chance of developing breast cancer before age 65 [pbs.org]. Assuming a cheap test, most women should probably be tested. Even with a more expensive test, women with a family history should probably be tested. Positive test results may indicate that differences in health monitoring and/or treatment are appropriate. It seems likely that as tests for genetic markers become cheap, they will be incorporated along with other mandatory blood tests performed on newborns -- eg, PKU screening.
I'm beginning to think that it's a national disgrace that the US will be spending energy on the question "How do we keep this technology from being used to deny people health care?" while the rest of the industrialized countries get to ask "How can we use this technology to provide cost-effective health care?"
Geriatric Discrimination (Score:4, Funny)
what's the point of insurance then? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the point of insurance was to spread risk. Since noody can afford the treatment for certain catastrophic illnesses, the idea is to put everyone in a pool to share the risk. If insurers are allowed to cherry pick, why bother even having insurance, other than for accidental trauma?
Re:what's the point of insurance then? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, profit overcomes ethics.
Re:what's the point of insurance then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, the real profit in insurance is in the long term investments that the premiums are placed in, so they will sell at a lower price to gain more premium dollars to invest. (Free market selection by the consumer ensures the consumer will look to the lower cost options available.) We (the consumers) have accepted the fact that smokers and drinkers are going to be harder to insure. These are "lifestyle" choices. Likewise, I pay extra for my rock climbing: that fall outside the "norm". (I had to admit to it though because otherwise if I fell to my death they would have cause to not pay on my life insurance). People don't seem to mind dividing the risk pool on items that are *within the control* of the insured.
What has become offensive to even some *within* the insurance industry is the idea of dividing the risk pool on "uncontrolled" factors. There is a reason why they ask about your family history of disease: it is to partition on your genetic probability for specific diseases. Where the gene testing takes things further is simply increasing the accuracy of those risk assessments and adding new assessments that were impossible before.
Unfortunately, without state run insurance or strong regulations you end up with a competitive environment that selects for those companies that are "managing the risk pool" they accept. Fair it isn't (if your idea of insurance was based on the risk pool spreading costs) but it is the profitable way to go. I have written neural nets that take the risk pool and assess a new application based on the prior risks that were insured by the company. Some interesting trends came out of doing so: you end up doing ethnic discrimination as it turns out there are strong links between race and risk rates for some diseases. Eventually the idea of risk pools will be fully replaced with personal risk rates assuming no regulation to prevent it. (This is already true in the corporate insurance world where there are "uninsurable" companies and no law requires they be insurable for some types of insurance).
Genetic privacy... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I have to wonder, though, if at the same time we arrive at a notion of "genetic health" and such how far off we will be from also being able to heal or correct such problems on a permanant basis? Would we be able to, then, repair everything from crooked teeth to a crooked spine?
And if we could make such corrections, would descrimination be an issue? I suppose the very notion of a cure for genetic problem disposes of the idea of descrimination doesn't it... So far, I feel pretty lucky... my problems are somewhat mild -- one ear slightly (though barely noticably) higher than the other and crowded teeth... other than that, I'm a pretty healthy guy... as far as I know. Then again, my next genetic profile might reveal something more devastating right?
Let's make sure that the insurance game remains as it is -- a gamble for the industry. After all, as gambling goes, they win more often than not. But the more they remove uncertainty from their game, the less valuable their services are -- if only "healthy" people can get insurance, then nobody needs it! Just build a large enough interest-bearing investment portfolio and never pay another premium again! In my life, I've probably paid
Nearing the time? (Score:2)
I wonder how long IBM will do this.. ant hold out forever. First law suit against them 'you could have detected that billy was prone to coming in and shooting up the office, but you didnt take proper steps to determine this'...
Drug Tests? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or do drug tests having nothing to do with genetics?
You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)
Genographic Project Is Anonymous (Score:2)
Will not discriminate, but it will harass you (Score:3, Funny)
Harass 2.0 will then make your work a living hell by randomly erasing your computer's data, adding files with inappropriate material, and spam you incessantly into finally making you quit your job. Benefits are then terminated, problem solved.
Re:This will be tested (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This will be tested (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will be tested (Score:2, Interesting)
Hire them as CEOs or Investors [pittsburghlive.com].
Re:This will be tested (Score:2, Funny)
Give them a reality TV show?
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Both of these things cost the company money. How? Well, if you're out frequently, then there's the lost productivity - not just for you but for your entire team, and for any team which must work with your product. Also, if you incur large medical bills, you can be a reason for the companies health insurer to raise premiums. If the company pays, then it comes right out of their profit, if the employees
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Medicine is getting better. As a result, people who are currently uncurable are generally able to live longer with their diseases. Pharmaceutical companies really do want to find cures for stuff. Cures are very valuable. Would you pay $20,000 to be cured of your disease, or pay $5/day to treat the symptoms? To the drug companies, $20,000 now is better than $5 a day from a financial standpoint. However, cures are very difficult and expensive, so they are happy wi
Re:This is a subtle change... (Score:2)
Re:This is a subtle change... (Score:4, Insightful)
To illustrate the double standard, China uses Linux based equipment to run it's police state. No-one is saying that Linus Torvolds is responsible for China oppression. (and yes, Linus Torvolds has the power to explicitly forbid the use by specific governments by changing the licence... which he has chosen not to do. And he most certainly knows that China uses Linux to facilitate oppressive policies.) The only difference is that no open-source geeks and their families are going to be tortured and killed if Linus forbid the use of Linux by China... which makes Linus far more responsible than IBM.
Once again, people blaming someone else for the oppressive policies of governments. No-one will dare blame genocide or oppression commited by governments ON GOVERNMENTS... because most people are in love with big oppressive governments in some form or another.