Slate's Bizbox
readme: Policy made plain.

Baby Needs a New Set of GenesEveryone's against genetic discrimination. Or so they think.

By Michael Kinsley
Updated Thursday, April 20, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET

Is That Slate in Your Pocket or Are You Just Glad To See Me? Click here for news of a new Slate feature.

If there is anyone in favor of genetic discrimination, the newspapers have been unable to find him or her. With biotech hurtling toward discoveries like the gene for ingrown toenails, or the gene for preferring Fox News over CNN, there seems to be unanimous agreement that what we are able to learn about people's genes should not be held against them. The fear is that employers will pass you over if they find out you have, for example, a predisposition to early onset Alzheimer's. Or insurance companies will charge you more if a genetic test shows you're more likely than average to have a heart attack.

Most states already have some kind of ban on genetic discrimination in health insurance, and a few ban discrimination in hiring as well. In February, President Clinton signed an executive order forbidding discrimination based on genetic tests by the federal government, and he urged Congress to pass a law applying that principle to private employers. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott's only public objection was that Congress already has a full agenda. The National Association of Manufacturers said a law forbidding genetic discrimination is unnecessary because the abuse is so rare.

It's wonderful how everyone agrees (or fears to disagree) that genetic discrimination is a bad thing. Your genes are beyond your control. Why should you be punished for them? Unfortunately, genetic discrimination is universal, inevitable and, in some ways, essential. Leaving aside the hot issue of intelligence, consider clearly genetic traits such as musical or athletic talent. Practice, practice will get you to Carnegie Hall, but only if you're born on the right bus. The notion of not discriminating on the basis of inborn talent is not even an abstract ideal. The world would be a poorer place if it did not distinguish between me and Yo-Yo Ma in doling out opportunities to be a concert cellist.

As we learn more about the human genome, we'll learn that more and more of the traits we reward have a genetic component. Martin Luther King Jr. said we should all be judged on "the content of our character." But if a disposition to hard work or courage or creative imagination turns out to have a large genetic component, should we still judge people based on these qualities? Then, too, the world discriminates on the basis of clearly genetic traits, such as physical beauty, that are irrelevant in most circumstances. Occasionally, some zealot proposes to ban this kind of discrimination, too. But it will never happen.

So what is the limiting principle on banning genetic discrimination? Where do we stop? Right now, the universal consensus makes a distinction between the results of genetic tests and genetic traits that reveal themselves in some other way. It seems unfair and arbitrary that your fate in life should be determined in any important way by what a drop of your blood reveals under a microscope. But logically, there is no difference between this and letting your fate be determined by how tall or musically gifted you are. A Juilliard tryout is, in part, a genetic test. If there were a blood test for musical talent, as there may be some day, it would do the same thing more efficiently. A blood test might even be fairer than the crude substitutes we use instead to judge and choose among people: It would zero in on the trait we really need to discriminate about and reduce discrimination on the basis of traits that are irrelevant.

Some people say the danger is that genetic testing will encourage irrelevant discrimination. Employers will overreact and refuse to hire you even though your actual likelihood of getting Alzheimer's before your retirement is minuscule. But discrimination by mistake will often bring its own punishment, like any business misjudgment. The real problem is discrimination that makes perfect sense. A health insurer is not crazy or stupid to want to keep people out of its insurance pool if they're more likely to get sick. Nor is the company evil to do this if the law allows it. The idea of insurance is to protect against unpredictable costs. Ignoring predictable costs, when your competitors aren't required to do the same, is a recipe for bankruptcy.

Then there's the distinction between discrimination based on having a genetic condition and discrimination based on merely having a predisposition toward a condition. It's a distinction, all right, but which one is supposed to be worse? President Clinton's executive order forbids discrimination based on a predisposition but allows the government in some circumstances to use the results of tests that reveal actual health conditions. The Americans With Disabilities Act, by contrast, clearly applies to actual conditions but may or may not forbid discrimination based on a predisposition. The confusion is understandable because the distinction makes no sense. Why is it worse—or better—to punish someone whose genes have betrayed her than someone whose genes are likely to betray her?

So this ban on genetic discrimination that everyone seems to be for would, if applied consistently, be an exercise in social leveling like nothing since the Khmer Rouge turned Cambodia into Kampuchea. That seems to leave only two logically coherent positions, both intolerable: 1) level away; or 2) don't start down this road, because there's no place to stop.

Is That Slate in Your Pocket or Are You Just Glad To See Me? Click here for news of a new Slate feature.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time and the founding editor of Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


You neglect to point out that while we certainly already perform genetic discrimination we are also already in the habit of conscientiously abstaining from it. To stop the violist from taking the stage for her audition because the blood test results just arrived is no different from stopping her because her arm looks too short for the viola--yet we don't do this. The real question is what principle guides this conscientiousness. It seems, alas, to be nothing logical (hence your dilemma). We want to be seen and to see others as entire, tangible, ineffable--not reduced, abstract or calculated. This may be a case in which we should respect gut feeling and habitual practice over any clear guiding principle. George Eliot wrote that:
There is no general doctrine that will not eat out our morality if unchecked by the deep-seated habit of direct fellow-feeling with individual fellow men.
That's coherent enough for me.

--Amos Orlofsky

(To reply, click here.)


Which one is supposed to be worse? No brainer. Discriminating against a job candidate because people with similar genes tend to be incompetent is racist, sexist, or [insert basis for stereotype here]-ist. Discriminating against a job candidate because she actually is incompetent is both a smart employment practice and the definition of meritocracy. It's the difference between rejecting a candidate before the interview and rejecting a candidate afterwards.

--Noam Scheiber

(To reply, click here.)


It is a lot easier to find a genetic defect than it is to find what genes make someone smarter or stronger. Defects detected by modern science involve singular gene defects--one gene is messed up. Things like intelligence and strength involve many, many genes. It's not just a matter of finding a non-working or out-of-place gene. It involves understanding how the blueprint of DNA builds the body and brain, figuring out how to build a better body and brain, and then coding that into DNA. Right now we don't even have the blueprint (that is what the human genome project is for), let alone the technology to read it.

--Brian Ellenberger

(To reply, click here.)


Mike Kinsley confuses the strength of genetic influences with an almost absolute determinism. Genetic traits (genotypes) interact with the environment as well as other traits to create tangible but varied manifestations (phenotypes). No matter how much progress we may make in genetic testing, admission to Juilliard will always require an audition. Students are not admitted solely because they have the physical capacity to play well; they must show that they do play well. Someone with prodigy-genes may also be warped by his environment or personality-genes to be incapable of the discipline or interest to be a performer. Genetics determine the rules of the game, not the results.

--Marc

(To reply, click here.)

(4/24)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby