Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Your Rights Online

IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate 297

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the my-levis-are-better-than-yours dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate More

IBM Vows Not to Genetically Discriminate

Comments Filter:

  • however... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Brunellus ( 875635 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:28PM (#13757867) Homepage
    they reaffirmed their commitment to constantly split infinitives...
    • "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."

    • Re:however... (Score:2, Funny)

      by cerelib ( 903469 )
      I hope that you realize that "to constantly split" is a split infinitive.

    • Re:however... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @03:05PM (#13758595)
      Attaching this here anon 'cause I didn't see it elsewhere and it's pretty relevant.

      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.

    • Unobligatory fortune reference:

      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

  • G.A.T.T.A.C.A? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alokeb ( 764754 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:29PM (#13757871)
    The movie coming to reality? Hopefully not.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sdirrim ( 909976 ) <sdirrim AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:29PM (#13757876) Journal
    How would someone be discriminated against based on Genetic Material?

    Sorry, but you have a AGGTAGTGCACA sequence. We can't hire you.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by muellerr1 ( 868578 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:33PM (#13757906) Homepage
      More likely, "Sorry, but you had a genetic predisposition for carpal tunnel syndrome which makes it a pre-existing condition that our health care plan will not fund."

      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sad Loser ( 625938 ) * on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:58PM (#13758103)
        This is a brave stance, but they will end up having to weasel out of it, otherwise they will end up hovering up the shallow end of the gene pool
        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)

          by Moofie ( 22272 )
          "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."

          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.
          • Actually we do make decisions based on that history. (IAAD).
            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)

              by Moofie ( 22272 )
              Hold on.

              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
          • Doctors will not make the decision to treat or not to treat based on family history, but health insurance companies could make the decision to cover or not to cover based on family history. I've never beed asked about my family backround when going to a doctor. Only when filling out insurance forms. (then again, my doctor is the family practitioner so he knows anyways.)

        • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Stonehand ( 71085 )
          Family history isn't genetic screening; it's a substitute, really. Neither is asking about current health problems, since that's asking about the ailments themselves.

          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
      • At which point you send them a copy of the ADA (in the US) and the notice from your attorney. The you wait for them to settle.

        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)

        by jafac ( 1449 )
        The solution?
        Nationalize the Health Insurance Industry.

        If they insure everybody, then there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.

    • Examples (Score:5, Informative)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:35PM (#13757929) Homepage Journal
      How would someone be discriminated against based on Genetic Material?

      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.

      • "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."

        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.

      • This is one major reason why providing health care should be the responsibility of the government, and not your employer. It really sucks if your medical condition costs a lot. It sucks more if no one will hire you because of your expensive medical condition. Governments don't really have the power to discriminate, because, the good ones anyway, provide the same services for all their citizens, regardless of their condition. We can't expect corporations who's only driving force is money, to be the ones
        • Governments don't really have the power to discriminate, because, the good ones anyway, provide the same services for all their citizens, regardless of their condition.

          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:Huh? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Hope Thelps ( 322083 )
      How would someone be discriminated against based on Genetic Material?

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:31PM (#13757890)
    addition of genetic makeup (Genetic Registration Required) to its non-discrimination policy

    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).
    • 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).

      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)

    by w.p.richardson ( 218394 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:31PM (#13757895) Homepage
    The companies that should institute such a policy are the Aetna's, KaiserPermanente's, and MetLife's of the world. However, that would not be wise, given the business models of said companies.

    • Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:4, Informative)

      by Stile 65 ( 722451 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:34PM (#13757918) Homepage Journal
      I think HIPAA already prohibits considering genetic information a pre-existing condition unless it is a factor in an existing condition that has manifest itself. This means that if you're genetically predisposed to diabetes but don't have diabetes at this point, health insurance companies can't exclude diabetes from a new policy for you as if you already had it.

      • Re:IBM isn't the one to worry about (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Coffee Warlord ( 266564 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:13PM (#13758202)
        I'm sure there's some sort of loophole (or will be when genetic
        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.

    • You should probably include all insurance companies'. Unless a companies policy specifically states they do not use genetic tests, they would if they could. Someone said HIPPAA prohibits this (let's hope). You mentioned these companies business model - what model is this that would make them not want to know what an insured client might get? IMHO, looking at it from the insurance companies prospective, i would want to know - even if I do not charger higher.

  • Good news! (Score:5, Funny)

    by nurhussein ( 864532 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:33PM (#13757907) Homepage
    Well that's good news for those of us who were born with a genetic anomaly that gives us a superhealing factor and retractable claws! We'll have no problems applying for work at IBM!

    *snikt!*

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Musteval ( 817324 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:33PM (#13757911)
    I'm only stupid because of genetic makeup! IBM, hire me or I'll sue you for genetic discrimination!

  • Doesn't matter in some states (Score:5, Informative)

    by digitalgimpus ( 468277 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:33PM (#13757913) Homepage
    For those who actually bother to know the basics of business law (should really be a college gen ed) would know their states discrimination laws.

    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.

    • I don't believe intro. level business law even gets into state law. I know that my business law course didn't. And actually, in my first year of law school, it's been mostly federal law.

      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.

  • Seems relavent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zach978 ( 98911 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:36PM (#13757932) Homepage
    This came up in the NBA recently [cnn.com]....

    And more articles from Google [google.com]...

  • 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:

    • 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 remain the only corporation committed to this policy.)
    • what and how are "defectives" (God! I hate this topic... very loaded) detected? Are they tested?, Is it mandatory?

    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):

    In a handful of publicly disclosed cases, genetic data has been used without workers' knowledge.

    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.

    • 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:

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:37PM (#13757949)
    With Huntington's disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntingtons_disease [wikipedia.org] ) in the family, this has been one of my worries. Who would insure us, since we can be proven to have a catastrophic illness that we cannot hope to pay for the care of.

    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
    • As much as I feel for you, can you really blame them? This would be like a casino putting in a slot machine that paid out to "unlucky" people. For a profit to be made (and incentive to keep on doing business), insurance HAS to issue policies in where the general perception is that the policy holder will be paying out more than they will ever get back. As unfair as it is, it makes perfect sense.
      • I don't intend on using any of the insurance I have, so my monthly payments probably go straight to his mother. That's the entire point of insurance, everyone pays a little so a few can benefit when required. Insurance is not about paying back stockholders in a company, however I'm not naive to feel that it's anything but this now.
        • I don't intend on using any of the insurance I have

          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

          • I'm 40, about to turn 41, and I dont use the insurance I am paying for.
            ( 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
          • We don't want Govt Health care, but not for the reasons you state. It would be VERY expensive, the quality would suck (lowest cost providers), you could forget about Research into new drugs, and doctors wouldn't have anything but the most basic of office hours, the paperwork would be a nightmare, and so on.
            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)

        by N3wsByt3 ( 758224 )
        "As unfair as it is, it makes perfect sense."

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:22PM (#13758285)
      With Huntington's disease ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntingtons_disease [wikipedia.org] ) in the family, this has been one of my worries. Who would insure us, since we can be proven to have a catastrophic illness that we cannot hope to pay for the care of...

      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)

        by Shajenko42 ( 627901 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @04:07PM (#13759034)
        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.
        Except that the insurance companies have linked them, by opposing any sort of single-payer health care at every term.
      • I think I would be remiss not to point out that we are not just and only a capitalist society.

        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

    • Huntington's disease is inherited in autosomal dominant fashion, meaning that it is a dominant allele. People with Huntington's disease have a 50% chance of passing the disease to each of their children.

      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

    • The problem with this is that someone has to pay for it. If you have genetic privacy legislation, then you can keep it secret from the insurance companies. However, all this means is that everyone else's premiums will go up to cover the undisclosed risky people. The risky people cost more, as a statistical fact, and SOMEONE has to pay for it, so maybe that should be the general population.

      And I am not being sarcastic here -- I am saying that maybe it is a societal solution. I Definitely think it is in

  • See, we don't need government regulation (Score:4, Funny)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:38PM (#13757954) Journal
    Here's a shining example. IBM has stepped up to the plate in the non-discrimination game. I say that we should table all legislation on genetic discrimination, and let the corporations police themselves. We know that they will all do the right thing. Those that don't will be judged in the marketplace for their decisions. The strong will prevail and the weak disappear. It's a win-win for everyone, and avoids needless government regulation where it can only be a hindrance to our economy.

    Besides, there's no need for government interference, unless you have something genetic you need to hide, right? :-)

  • Not yet, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bullfish ( 858648 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:40PM (#13757968)
    The time is coming when people will alter themselves or their kids. They are actually working on super drugs to increase brain power, muscle power etc. Like it or not, this is coming. Genetic research is coming along too. So... in 20 years or so, if it will give your kid a leg up (or allow him/her) to keep up, will you do it? If not, what happens? A two-tier society. The enhanced and unenhanced. Who will companies prefer to hire? Someone with enhancements to help them work longer and be more effective - or a standard human. Who will be able to afford the treatments? What will happen to those that can't? What will become of those that choose not to do it?

    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.
    • There's already an enhancement out there that will significantly improve your child's chances of getting a top notch college degree and earning more income. It's called private school. It's not that popular. I wouldn't expect altering your child's genetic makeup to be any more popular.
    • There's such a thing as being overqualified for both economic and job satisfaction reasons. A company doesn't necessarily hire the -most- fit for the job, if this would be much more expensive than hiring people that do an adequate job. If an "enhanced" person only got that way through expensive treatments, he's probably going to shift towards occupations that could really take advantage of that and would be willing to pay significantly more.

  • Viewed another way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:42PM (#13757977) Homepage
    It just means that they can outsource all of their jobs to ethnic Indians and it's right there in their company policy.

  • Two things (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:46PM (#13758008) Journal
    Ok: 1) Referring to the movie Gattica? Come on, can't we do better. How about not refer to a movie, or at least not one so lame.

    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)

      by edunbar93 ( 141167 )
      You forgot the bit in Gattica where it was illegal for companies - and especially large spacefaring government institutions - to test your genes.

      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)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:51PM (#13758040) Journal
    Healthcare costs are a huge expense for employers, and this is good news for tons of workers -- genetic markers that indicate higher risk for disease, and therefore higher healthcare expenses for employers, will not be a factor in hiring/promotion practices.

    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)

    by MECC ( 8478 ) * on Monday October 10, 2005 @01:51PM (#13758043)

    But won't be discrimitated against...

  • Is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Franklinstein ( 909568 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:03PM (#13758136)
    Is it just me...or would the simplest way to not discriminate against genetics be to NOT TEST FOR IT?

    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?


  • 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)

    by gcatullus ( 810326 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:05PM (#13758149)
    Great, IBM won't discriminate based on genetic makeup, but they will plaster RFID tags to track you in museums, shopping malls, etc. Big Blue sounds more and more like Big Brother. The very fact that they say they won't discriminate makes me believe that they will indeed be looking at employees genetic makeup.

  • What Gets Between Me and My Genes? Nothing. (Score:3, Funny)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:06PM (#13758152)
    I for one am in favor of this law, as it allows me to finally realize my childhood dream of being a billionaire scientist astronaut who plays for the NBA.
  • Not that I'd want any random joe sniffing around in MY base-pairs, but it seems to me that the biggest and most obvious use for this info is to deny health "insurance" coverage to people likely to need it.

    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)

      by michael_cain ( 66650 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @05:44PM (#13759715) Journal
      Sure, other uses will be found for genetic markers... but... the biggest and most obvious use for this info is to deny health "insurance" coverage to people likely to need it. This quite simply isn't a factor in systems where everyone is entitled to health care.

      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)

    by Genady ( 27988 ) <gary.rogersNO@SPAMmac.com> on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:14PM (#13758213)
    I read the article head as the above and thought, hey cool, IBM's not gonna be axing my old mainframer friends (yes a UNIX admin can have tn3270 friends). Imagine my surprise. Well, here's hopin' they'll eventually get around to helping the boomers keep their jobs.

  • what's the point of insurance then? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wansu ( 846 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:15PM (#13758219)


    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?

    • Insurance companies pick the lowest risk people so they get the insurance payments without having to pay for health bills. Is it ethically right? Probably not. Is it profitable? Hell yes it is.
      In the end, profit overcomes ethics.

    • Re:what's the point of insurance then? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Godeke ( 32895 ) * on Monday October 10, 2005 @03:18PM (#13758686)
      As someone who consults on the software side for insurance companies I can tell you why "spreading risk" is diminishing. The original intent was to take the "pool" of insureds and insure everyone based on the risks present in the pool. However, if I'm selling insurance based on the "pool" price and my competitor becomes selective (say, not insuring those who smoke) the competitor's pool risk rate is lower than mine and he can either sell at the same price and make more profits or he can sell lower.

      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)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:22PM (#13758276) Homepage
    ... it's a really slipery situation now isn't it.

    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 ... well, more more money than I care to think about on insurance, and I've never used a dime of benefit to my recollection. Last time I did anything medical was when I was exiting military service, after that, I've managed to get by on bandaids(tm) and off-the-shelf remedies.... and even those are used with some rarity. (I did cut my finger last night though...so there's a bandaid(tm) on my finger now) But the point of my rambling is this: while we (USA people) don't really have an effective social medical system, competitive insurance is as close as we'll come I think. So I don't mind paying for health insurance even if I never utilize the benefits -- I recognize that I might one day and that there are people who need it now.
  • Where have you been? Its past time to worry about that.

    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)

    by quibbs0 ( 803278 )
    Does this mean there is no longer a sign that says "Potheads not welcome"?

    Or do drug tests having nothing to do with genetics?

  • You know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @02:46PM (#13758468) Homepage
    We don't need genetic privacy. If your genes aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide, right?
  • Just to clarify the article. The DNA samples that are submitted to the National Geographic Genographic project [nationalgeographic.com] are completely anonymous. In addition, they are only using the material to look for specific genetic markers that help indicate patterns of human migration, not any medical signatures.

  • Will not discriminate, but it will harass you (Score:3, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Monday October 10, 2005 @03:04PM (#13758594)
    If Big Blue finds out you are genetically defective and a possible future health liability, it triggers its Harass 2.0 application to run.
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close