Not Gattaca
IBM is making a promise that genetic information will not be used in hiring or the administration of benefit plans. As a significant player in the genetic data-gathering and analysis field, this is a big step, even regardless of any legislation being contemplated in Washington. The implications can be taken broadly or narrowly, but I think it points to the company leaving open the option of collecting genetic information on its employees and applicants an using that data in some other, essentially external fashion, perhaps for modelling a software or hardware application. The promise not to use it doesn’t preclude collection, after all, and I’d be seriously concerned for security, both internal and external. In the human resources field, it’s well-known that to have information is to use it, and we safeguard as much as possible the dissemination of such data as might compromise employment decisions. It’s not hard to discriminate against someone by age or race or gender in the first place, but if you know one employee is closer to 60 than another, it can color your thinking inappropriately, if not form the basis of a decision to promote or hire or not. That somewhere in the company’s databases a predisposition for John or Jane towards Hodgkins of Parkinsons or some other such degenerative disorder that might strike at any time has been recorded means that data may surface. I’d even go so far as to say that it will inevitably surface, the only questions being where and when and with what identifying markers attached. Meanwhile, insurance companies already have too much power for too little benefit. To argue on their behalf that genetic data only allows them to mitigate risk factors is little different from claiming that casinos should be allowed to mark cards: it doesn’t affect the deal, but allows the dealer to fold or stay with more precision. So I’ll applaud IBM, but I’ll keep my eyes open, too.