EMAIL THIS     PRINTABLE VERSION

Intro  |  High court challenge  |  Who should know — and how much? |  
A societal question

A societal question

MEDICALLY SCREENING employees is far from being a new business practice. Many private companies have engaged in random drug testing for decades. People now accept such testing as the norm, Pagnattaro said.

“Years ago, people would have been outraged about drug testing, but now employers want to know everything about their employees,” she said. “It’s amazing what people will accept.”

To demonstrate the potential problems, Pagnattaro offers Huntington’s disease as an example. A person with a genetic propensity for Huntington’s has a 50 percent chance of developing it. “They could be completely asymptomatic, but an employer could look at that and perceive it as a disability.” That information, she added, could lead to a rescinded job offer or failure to be promoted.

“You wouldn’t have even known about it if you didn’t do the genetic testing since there’s no physical manifestation of it at the point when the employment decision is made,” she said, adding that in half the cases, a “propensity” is all that ever develops.

The genetic age has ushered in a host of legal issues. Many of the long-term resolutions to these issues may be driven by science.

“It will depend on how readily available the genetic information is,” Pagnattaro said. “Right now, they can isolate certain genes, but it just depends on when they can isolate genes of particular interest to employers.

“Think of the insight it would give you into somebody’s potential,” she said. “On the other hand, consider the exclusionary abuses it could engender.”

An unnerving thought, Pagnattaro said, and one reason she sums up her research with a quotation from 16th century philosopher François Rabelais: “Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.”

Catherine Gianaro, a former editor of UGA’s Research Magazine, is now an award winning freelance writer based in Chicago.

EMAIL THIS     PRINTABLE VERSION