Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the mandatory-opt-in dept.

It is illegal today to use DNA testing for employment, but as science advances its understanding of genes that correlate to certain desirable traits -- such as leadership and intelligence -- business may want this information.

People seeking leadership roles in business, or even those in search of funding for a start-up, may volunteer their DNA test results to demonstrate that they have the right aptitude, leadership capabilities and intelligence for the job.

This may sound farfetched, but it's possible based on the direction of the science, according to Gartner analysts David Furlonger and Stephen Smith, who presented their research at the firm's Symposium IT/xpo here. This research is called "maverick" in Gartner parlance, meaning it has a somewhat low probability and is still years out, but its potential is nonetheless worrisome to the authors.

Businesses could also weed out people with diabetes, heart defects, and any other congenital defects that can lead to absenteeism.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:07PM

    by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:07PM (#416592) Journal

    If jobs become a luxury expect people to get always a bit lower to get one. Yesterday it was your FB account, today the DNA, tomorrow your daughter's ass.

    The current system is pushed to its own destruction, and the real leaders know it. I wonder what they have in store for us next.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:32PM (#416607)

    I made the decision to not have kids many years ago (variety of reasons). News articles like this, which I didn't foresee back then, only reinforce my decision. I'd hate to have young kids or grand kids now who faced this sort of screening as part of a job application.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:07PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:07PM (#416664) Journal

      That's a pity, because the bond between a parent and child is really the closest thing to pure love we can experience in this life.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:08PM (#416840)

        > the bond between a parent and child

        I got that bit OK -- my mother is still alive, my father lasted to 101 and we all worked together quite happily in the family business. But I had little desire to see it from the other side.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:11PM

        by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:11PM (#416843) Journal

        From a robotically academically metaphorical point of view, I argue a cat's love towards a mouse would be more pure, compared to the love for his own kittens, because it transcends biological bonds and barriers.

        --
        Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:55PM (#416901)

        That's some vomit-inducing shit right there, normie.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:23PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:23PM (#416676) Journal
    You know your society could always encourage employment instead. Competition between employers would fix that up fast.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:15PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:15PM (#416747) Journal

      That's crazy talk.

      The American ideal of business is that you don't have to do any work, and revenue just keeps coming in forever.

      Some concepts in law actually embody this idea. Copyrights and Patents. For example, write a song once and you and your grandchildren never have to work again. While a factory worker builds something and doesn't get a perpetual revenue stream for some reason.

      Or try this. Build an OS. Then just duplicate CD-ROMs cheaply to keep getting revenue. Improve this by having OEMs pre-install it for you, so you do nothing.

      Or patent rectangles with rounded corners. (Circles are a special case of this, and thus covered by the patent.)

      You take a drug developed by NHS, do clinical trials and get approval to market, then set outrageously high price. Then keep evergreening it for perpetual ever lasting revenue. Buy old out of patent drugs, be the exclusive manufacturer, and set outrageously high prices.

      Plenty more examples exist of this thinking. Banksters. Junk bonds. Enron style stock fraud.

      The idea that you have to keep working to keep earning seems like a relic of the past (to some people). I wonder if they teach this in business school or something?

      --
      To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.