Kinsley is saying that precedent exists for testing, sorting, and selecting people by objective standards: a meritocracy. He says that genetic testing, in theory, is simply another possible objective standard.

Above, you say that’s unfair and site some fringe cases. I of course agree that your examples are unjust. Yet, I have yet to read a good argument why it is theoretically wrong if genetics is used as an objective standard to select people for services, employment, admission, etc. That good argument is not what you wrote.

(I know this is just a blog post; I’d love to read other work you’ve written or could recommend on the subject.)

I will read it first and then respond.

I take issue with Kinsley’s basic point that genetic discrimination does not require legal redress because, well, “life isn’t fair.” I’m saying that when someone is arbitrarily denied employment or insurance because of his/her genes, that is unjust. I would go further and say that if people are wary of genetic testing because they perceive they might be discriminated against, then a legislative solution like GINA, provided it doesn’t create an avalanche of frivolous litigation, is appropriate. 509 of 510 members of Congress seem to agree.

But I agree, and here’s why:

Employment: generally, most employment has little to do with the person. Let’s face it, given the training, resources, and morale, most people can do most jobs just fine. The problem is that people confuse probable with true.

Quick test: research shows that mutation X is strongly correlated with low intelligence. I am intelligent. I have mutation X. How smart am I?

Here’s the problem: how does society ever learn about intelligence? am I encouraged? trained? admitted to school? employed? will the guardian bureaucrats of society’s fine institutions be willing to risk their admission statistics and resources on me to learn how smart I could be?

Historically: NO.

Another example:

Many of my employees complain of condition X. I test their genes. The tests claim that the majority of the employees are:

…40% susceptible to that condition. I cast doubt on my employee’s testimonies because they were not genetically predisposed and thus am not liable.

…300% susceptible to that condition. I cast doubt on the claims environmental hazard claim because they were genetically predisposed and thus am not liable.

Further, health care, as it increasingly become preventive rather than interventive, is social infrastructure, not a private responsibility. The idea of “health insurance” is antiquated and increasingly nonsense outside fridge emergency treatment. However, if society is becoming more responsible for its health, then so too is the idea that anyone can create life irresponsibly —becoming irresponsible.

Sorry for the long comment. I’ll make this into a blog post for Think Gene.