Posted on Friday 30 September 2005
After reading Damon’s comment about DNA testing, it occurred to me to wonder: what are some possibly beneficial uses of DNA testing as a condition for something? Obviously, it’s easy to come up with negative uses. So are there any positives?
Here are a couple of hypotheticals that came to mind. I’m not advocating DNA testing in these scenarios…I’m just brainstorming. First, what if the businesses require DNA testing for susceptibility to injury? For example, say a moving or construction companies requires applicants to submit to a DNA test which would show whether or not they’re genetically likely to have back problems. You could argue that this is beneficial to both the individual and the company since it may protect the worker from likely injury while freeing the employer from potential higher labor costs due to insurance and worker’s comp. Of course, it may also make it more difficult for someone with limited education to get into a decent paying job.
The second scenario deals with DNA testing for the potential benefit of society rather than the individual being tested. It seems like science is starting to indicate that a lot of things which appear to be psychological may actually be much more physiological (e.g., the amount of chemicals produced by your brain, which is genetic, may be the cause of why some people become addicted to smoking much easier than others). So let’s extrapolate to the point where we start to get into Minority Report territory.
Say that science is able to use DNA testing to determine genetic patterns which have a high correlation with those of known pedophiles. Should schools and daycares be allowed to require applicants to submit to DNA tests and reject them if they show a genetic tendency towards molesting kids? What if DNA testing could determine a correlation with whether or not a person is likely to be physically abusive? Should the police be able to reject people with this genetic disposition? Should the state be allowed to take away custody from parents which exhibit such genes?
I think the large question for the second scenario is this: should we be allowed to proactively discriminate against people whose genetic disposition indicates that they have a high correlation with those who have harmed society in the past?
Tags: genes, privacy, science
Personally, I’m against anything where we judge someone “guilty” before they ever commit a crime (or “unfit” or whatever). However, I definitely think it is a useful question that you’re bringing up. For example, I saw someone who argued that if we require that insurance companies take everyone, then knowing more precisely what each person’s risks are could lower overall costs.
I tend to think that things like mandatory DNA testing are most useful on a personal level. As another example, I’ll first point out that in many places, it is mandatory to have tests done for common STDs before marriage. You could tack onto that a requirement for DNA testing so that both people are aware of potential medical issues their children might have. (I haven’t thought that one through yet so don’t quote me on it.)
Yea, there’s a lot of questions to be raised about individual liberty vs. the good of the community, I think.
For example, probably one of the best examples of a crude form of genetic testing is when states used to sterilize the mentally retarded. Now, many states have apologized for this practice. Intuitively, it seems like having less people with serious mental problems is better for society as a whole (i.e., they would typically need a lot of care from others, be relatively unproductive economically, and may cause harm to others due to their lack of moral reasoning skills). However, you greatly sacrifice the individual’s freedom and, it a way, play God.
Even more controversial, look at another form of crude genetic testing that is widely accepted today: outlawing marriage between close relatives. Obviously there’s a huge social stigma associated with this, but it is also justified by the good to society: closely related genes tend to disproportionately result in birth defects.
So, when is it aceptable to reduce individual liberty for the good of society?