Genetic Screening in the Work Place
Essay Preview: Genetic Screening in the Work Place
Report this essay
Genetic Screening in the Workplace
(thesis paper)
Workplace gene screening can be used to ferret out the weakest candidates for employment and minimize the related costs of decreased productivity, health insurance, retraining, relocation, and improvement of working conditions. The issue of genetic discrimination involves a severe conflict of interests. On one hand, the defenders of human rights proclaim that excluding workers from jobs on the basis of their genetic make up is immoral and threatens the life chances of large groups of people. On the other side, employers have a legitimate interest in hiring healthy workers to ensure high productivity and soaring profits. From their perspective, genetic prejudice is economically efficient.
In my paper, I will argue that testing for genetic abnormalities is ethically unwarranted. It concerns not only the invasion of privacy but also the unjust ostracism of individuals arising from a genetic contingency which is beyond their control. In addition, technology still cannot precisely predict the outcome of a disease and its degree of severity, hence perfect discrimination is not feasible. I will use this to prove that the testing procedure allows the waste of highly capable workforce.
For the purpose, I will first trace the advancements in genetic research and screening practices to point out the technical and causal limitations on the scientific prediction of critical outcomes. Second, I will highlight how depending on the reason for conducting genetic screening and the underlying conditions, it can be viewed as beneficial, practical, promoting public safety, or unethical. Further, I will focus on the concrete ethical implications of genetic screening and discuss how technology blurs the notions of genetic susceptibility to a disorder and the inevitability of a disease. In this context, I will refer to Gilles Deleuzes understanding of the modern control societies where individuals become dividuals, and masses – samples. As a result, risk assessment is based on belonging to a certain group, and probability statistics are used to justify decisions. An illustration of my point is the film Gattaca, which exemplifies the outcomes of employing genetic prejudice to able individuals.
Historical Background
Genetic screening is a result of the biological revolution triggered in the last century. The discovery of the structure of DNA molecules in 1953 suggested a copying mechanism for the genetic material. Nowadays, the clinical benefits of genetic screening are indisputable. Thanks to the continuing and rapid development in the fields of genetics and biotechnology, the diagnosis and treatment of genetic diseases ushered in a new phase.
A recent breakthrough in the sphere of genetics is the Human Genome Project, an internationally coordinated effort to determine the complete DNA sequence in the human genome. In April 2003, the mission ended as more than 99% of the sequence was identified. The findings are important but do not assure perfect pre-symptomatic prediction of illnesses and adverse drugs response. In this respect, science is still inaccurate.
The technical and causal limitations of genetic screening in its present stage of development pose ethical and moral implications. Often, scientists are not able to detect the particular gene in question. Instead, they recognize sequences of healthy genes that are usually, but not always, close to the “defective” one. This technical limitation calls for the use of statistical correlations. In addition, linkage analysis – a reference to the DNA patterns of affected and unaffected family members – might be needed to ascertain the expression of a mutated gene as a disorder. The causal limitations arise when a disease is indicated by several genes. Locating the gene in question means nothing without indicated auxiliary genes. While the genetic research promises an improvement of human health and well-being, robust paths towards the enhancement of genome-analysis technologies should be established (Kupfer, 191).
Purposes of Genetic Screening
As discussed above, genetic screening applied as a diagnostic-therapeutic model offers indisputable benefits to the individuals tested and treated. It provides valuable information for the availability of genes indicating an inheritable disorder. On the basis of similar knowledge, individuals can make well-versed decisions about their lifestyle or begin a timely preventive treatment. For example, information about heart disease disposition calls developing healthy habits, while identification of the Huntingtons disease gene should be considered in family planning.
Initially, businesses also conducted genetic screening as a precautionary procedure. Information about susceptibility to workplace toxins was used for safe employee placement. In the early 1980s, Dow Chemical and DuPont tested their workers for vulnerability to chemicals in the workplace in order to reduce exposure to the hazard through relocation. In this way, employees benefited from risk-free working conditions and businesses found a practical way to reduce the potential costs of absenteeism and health insurance. In other words, “at its inception, genetic screening of workers seemed to be a mutually agreed upon practice aimed at mutual benefits – workers and owners cooperating for the good of all” (Kupfer, 190).
Genetic screening promoting public safety is another just application. When the deprivation of individuals from certain privileges is contingent on the onset of a disorder and seeks solely to protect society, there is no deviation from ethically acceptable practices. For instance, railroad dispatchers should be able to quickly implement appropriate procedures in emergency situations. Hence, applicants with slow responses would not effectively prevent a number of people from harm or death, which justifiably renders them unqualified for the particular task.
However, corporations did not adhere for long to the traditional purpose of genetic screening. The availability of information about job applicants or current employees genetic make up can minimize their costs. Why worry about vulnerable workers compensations, high employee turnover, or expensive retraining programs in case of inception of a suspected disabling condition? Employers can simply deny work to potentially disordered individuals and fire the “defective” ones. Insurance companies can refuse health coverage or raise insurance premiums for people whose tests reveal a high probability of developing a disease.