Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#71

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

lohengramm wrote: post #46
klenwell wrote: post #37

I interviewed a couple years ago with a startup that was a commercial and research leader in personalized medicine with a portfolio of patent-protected genetic tests. After a laughably bad interview, I looked a little deeper into their business model. A little Googling revealed the real business model was to convince doctors and medical groups to order these tests and pass the costs along to insurance companies and M…

Are 23andMe tests useless? Don't get me wrong, I am just curious about it.

Depends on the definition of "useless" :)

They used to be better until FDA cracked down and prohibited them from providing a detailed analysis of the DNA results where they would do a very decent breakdown of what kind of decease you might be predisposed to based on the results etc.

From what I understand they still do this in Canada though, also there are online services that can take your results and provide some sort of an extended analysis, never dealt with them though.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#72

Post by DashRattlesnake »

ta12mar17 wrote: post #39

If this had been required back when I got my first job, I would've learned that my wife and I are carriers of a rare genetic disorder, and it would've saved the sadness and pain of my wife having delivering stillborn twins. My wife is still dealing with medical issues years later because of this. The pain was indescribable. Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how on…

I'm sorry for your loss, but as I understanding it, employers are not currently forbidden from offering these genetic tests, they are only forbidden from incentivizing them or penalizing you if you refuse. That's to make sure the disclosure is entirely voluntary.

> Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.

> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A?

Not everyone is as nice as you. I can certainly imagine an employer terminating someone who tests "positive for XYZ Type A" because they don't want to pay the costs of treating the disease (though they may have to jump through some hoops to make it look kosher). Healthy employees are cheaper employees.

Also, keep in mind, not every employee is a developer-type that could be "leading a project." Think of all the other kinds of employees: phone reps, janitors, clerks, mechanics, etc. They're already treated as disposable, unlike a high skill developer.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#73

Post by barrkel »

mikeash wrote: post #50
guftagu wrote: post #4

Isn't this exactly the premise of the movie Gattaca? Great movie, BTW.

IMO Gattaca makes a great case for genetic testing. An idiot with a major heart condition bluffs his way onto a space mission where he's likely to die and endanger the rest of the crew. If the testing had been a bit more thorough (say, if the doctor in charge of testing had done his job) then the mission wouldn't have been endangered. It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of…

The conflict at the heart of the movie is between the rational vs the emotional. In so far as it makes an argument, it's a weak one; but the core it is in the discussion between the brothers about the race / rescue from the sea. It's rational to curtail ambitions; it's rational to give up if you see no hope of an endeavour succeeding. But Ethan Hawke's character didn't let his rational mental model limit what he could achieve; he tested himself by doing, and found that it was possible, and thus he was able to outswim his brother.

The swimming story is the inner story for the bigger outer story, but that's the heart of it. The bitter cripple who lends his blood points a very harsh light at rational disillusionment. Any system for genetic selection will impose a model of what ought and what ought not be; we should be wary of what it selects for, because it might not be what matters most.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#74

Post by Asparagirl »

lohengramm wrote: post #46
klenwell wrote: post #37

I interviewed a couple years ago with a startup that was a commercial and research leader in personalized medicine with a portfolio of patent-protected genetic tests. After a laughably bad interview, I looked a little deeper into their business model. A little Googling revealed the real business model was to convince doctors and medical groups to order these tests and pass the costs along to insurance companies and M…

Are 23andMe tests useless? Don't get me wrong, I am just curious about it.

23andMe saved my friend Lara's life. They discovered her BRCA mutation, which led to her getting an MRI rather than a normal mammogram (which she was too young for anyway and which missed the tumor). This caught her cancer in time.

Her blog about it: https://larasgenealogy.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-genealogy-sa...

Irony #1: Stupid and paternalistic laws meant she had to mail in her spit kit from another state, rather than Maryland, where she lives.

Irony #2: She got her diagnosis the day the FDA shut down 23andMe's ability to give people their medical test results.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#75

Post by dorfsmay »

Pxtl wrote: post #61
dorfsmay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the ability to live on native land based on genetic discrimination?

No. It's based on ancestry. While those are obviously tightly related, the distinction is important. There are no genes that are identified as "First Nations genes" for this purpose.

Is one more acceptable than the other?

I heard of stories where two kids are playing on a reserve, they go to the same school, share the same culture, both know the same amount of words from their ancestral language etc...

But when they turn 18 the one which is 40% native will have to leave the reserve, will suffer from racism inherent to "being native", and will have no special advantage while the other who is 60% native will be considered native and able to stay on the reserve.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#76

Post by kbenson »

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #54
Keverw wrote: post #40

Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them. Which some companies make you stand in front of someone watching you pee. When there's less invasive methods such as a spit or hair sample(Maybe they cost more to use or somthing?). Now they want to do genetic testing? Well my aunt's work does somthing like this, if you get your blood checked once a year you get a discount, but…

>> Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them. This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them. >>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also. It's not. Also, you're free to decline t…

From my experience it's not 2-3 times more, depending on your specific conditions and possibly region. For me, a male over 35 in not very great shape, it's maybe a 20-30% difference IIRC.

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#77

Post by mikeash »

Oletros wrote: post #67
mikeash wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a ton of other stuff in the movie that attempts to make the case against testing, but IMO it's all overshadowed by the main plot wherein a failure of testing likely results in a major problem for an important mission.

Perhaps that happened in Gattaca 2 because the movie ends at the launch and there is no problems

It's stated that his heart condition is likely to kill him before the mission is over.

This is like, "Perhaps that happened in Thelma & Louise 2, because the movie ends with them alive and in midair."

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#78

Post by neuronexmachina »

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #71
lohengramm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are 23andMe tests useless? Don't get me wrong, I am just curious about it.

Depends on the definition of "useless" :) They used to be better until FDA cracked down and prohibited them from providing a detailed analysis of the DNA results where they would do a very decent breakdown of what kind of decease you might be predisposed to based on the results etc. From what I understand they still do this in Canada though, also there are online services that can take your results and provide some s…

There's also several 3rd-party tools, like promethease, that can take the raw data from 23andme and produce much of the old detailed analysis: http://www.23andyou.com/3rdparty

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#79

Post by kbenson »

dorfsmay wrote: post #75
Pxtl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's based on ancestry. While those are obviously tightly related, the distinction is important. There are no genes that are identified as "First Nations genes" for this purpose.

Is one more acceptable than the other? I heard of stories where two kids are playing on a reserve, they go to the same school, share the same culture, both know the same amount of words from their ancestral language etc... But when they turn 18 the one which is 40% native will have to leave the reserve, will suffer from racism inherent to "being native", and will have no special advantage while the other who is 60% n…

In some places it's much more confusing than that, and highly political[1].

1: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/...

Re: Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

#80

Post by rosser »

mikeash wrote: post #68
rosser wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll have to remind of of the part in the movie where dude's presence on the mission is a problem for the mission. Or, wait, is that just your conjecture? Sorry. My bad.

He was the navigator. That seems kind of important. If it wasn't, why would they bother to bring him along?

You either missed or evaded my point, simply to re-state your own. (Also: nice shadow-edit.)
Post reply on HN