SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:56AM
As best as we can tell, leadership and intelligence capabilities are not primarily genetic. There are some incredibly smart people that reproduced and their kids turned out to be not all that smart. Ditto for many fantastic leaders, as many a monarchy has learned the hard way. And conversely, some of greatest leaders had relatively humble upbringing suggesting that their parents weren't all that great of leaders, and some of the smartest people in history had not-particularly-bright parents and siblings.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:00PM
The child gets a random 50% from parent 1 and another random 50% of parent B.
If the desired qualities are represented in a very small part of dna; or in the absence of that part; it's pretty easy to get dumber or smarter kids.
However, if you start selecting for these kinds of things, you may also end up with a single minded view of how to do things in entire sectors.
A good movie covering this topic is gattaca http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ [imdb.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:09PM
As best as we can tell, leadership and intelligence capabilities are not primarily genetic.
That's true. But the broader question is -- even if some capabilities DO have a proven genetic correlation, why are we so focused on a deterministic outlook? Shouldn't businesses be more interested in what you can actually DO (now), rather than what your genes said you might be capable of when you were born decades ago?
This story sounds like some HR person looking at a resume from someone with a 25-year career, major accomplishments, well-known name in the field, and throwing it into the trash because, "Gee, this guy got his undergrad degree from a state school?? Obviously people like that can't do as well in the world as some of these other candidates with better pedigrees."
Most businesses care about what you've been doing lately. Your college degree may be important for getting your first job or two, but 25 years into your career, does it really matter where you went to school? Or would most businesses care more about what you've actually done in your previous jobs for the past 5 years?
In the same way, trying to use genetics to find leadership and intelligence in adults seems ridiculous. There are oodles of studies that show that environment has a huge affect on intelligence outcomes for kids, and if you're looking for a "leader," why not look and see whether this person has actually taken initiative or served as a leader in what he/she has done in the past few years? To go even more extreme, there are loads of examples of people who have overcome significant disabilities (physical, mental, etc.) and become very successful in life. Are you going to reject an applicant because his/her genetic profile says that that success is statistically unlikely, or would you actually value that candidate EVEN MORE because of the determination shown to achieve?
I have to agree with the last sentence of the summary -- if this actually were to become legal, it would be more likely to be used by businesses to weed out candidates who might get sick or cost more for health reasons or something, rather than to find "leaders" or "smart people."
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:26PM
Don't get me wrong: I think this is a terrible idea for lots of other reasons. I'm just pointing out that even if it weren't terrible for other reasons, its stated reasons don't even make the slightest bit of sense.
And I agree completely that the real purpose of this is to screen out employees that are likely to have health problems. Yet another entry under "reasons the US health care system is completely insane".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:03PM
This story sounds like some HR person looking at a resume from someone with a 25-year career, major accomplishments, well-known name in the field, and throwing it into the trash because, "Gee, this guy got his undergrad degree from a state school?? Obviously people like that can't do as well in the world as some of these other candidates with better pedigrees."
This sounds EXACTLY like what an HR department would do. HR departments are well known to roundfile resumes based on unimportant requirements that were never requested by the manager that requested the job posting.
Laws will need to be quite sure to ban the practice entirely. Otherwise, potential employees who know their genetic profile will meet HR standards (even if that has nothing to do with actual suitability) will happily volunteer for the test and HR departments will presume anyone who doesn't volunteer would have failed the test anyway.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday October 21 2016, @02:10PM
Yep, that was my point precisely. HR departments do stupid stuff in hiring. TFA also sounds like it would do stupid stuff in hiring. HR would love it. Q.E.D. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:53PM
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:33PM
Leadership is the sales pitch. Pedigree is what you are really buying.
As it is, most people are underutilized in any organization and "leadership" is the newest in a long list of management fads. Sure, it might be nice if your janitor has leadership skills, but it's not like they are going to have much opportunity to use them, now is it?
However, you can keep the riff-raff at the door and have a nice cover for why your organization is 90% WASP. It will certainly make your diversity events a lot easier to handle.
The bigger question is just how intrusive employment should be, and exactly what are they buying for that wage? It started going downhill with employment piss tests (bet you can't guess which groups those primarily affected), and has really ramped up with my employer now forbidding procuring legal prostitution (not that I had any inclination, but what an odd pronouncement to make) and tut-tutting any indication of being an adult like imbibing regularly ("because, you know, insurance reasons").
But if you want to gorge yourself on sugar-coated lard sticks, knock yourself out.
Of course if you ask how much your boss makes so you can gauge the financial stability of an organization, you'll find out that information gathering only goes one way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:31PM
As best as we can tell, leadership and intelligence capabilities are not primarily genetic.
So that's why all animals have the same intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:59PM
As best as we can tell
We can't tell, since we barely understand intelligence at all. The idea of IQ being a good measure of someone's intelligence is, at best, unproven and overly simplistic.