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

111–119 of 119 posts

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

#111

Post by rz2k »

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…

I think it shows that their model had too few features, and was an excellent example of the streetlight effect of genetic testing. Because genetic results are so easy to obtain the signal is readily overweighted by people for decision making.

I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do that because I saw two instances in the movie of him out-performing his brother in feats of swimming endurance when under pressure.

His character is statistically more likely to die on the mission. Just to get a handle on the numbers let's say that with their filtering a 30 year old has about 1/20,000 chance of dying in a given month, and he might have a 1/1000 chance. We haven't seen anything about how he outperformed other candidates, but we can consider the respect of his peers and that he has succeeded in spite of appreciable time spent on establishing an identity and tracking down his DNA.

It probably doesn't matter if he dies on a routine mission. It is the rare mission with an anomaly where someone who is truly exceptional matters. If he is only 20 times more likely to provide the unusual solution that saves the mission, then it is a wash.

Anyway, my point is that one perspective on filling positions is to develop a long list of dis-qualifiers like health forecasts (and minimum competence). That is different than choosing the most extraordinary people possible (where negatives play a role in that determination). I know there is a tendency toward the former when choosing people for very selective and highly sought after roles, but it probably only appropriate when trying to fill out a large headcount with minimal resources for selecting the people. Those who can excel during crunch time are probably far more important for high level positions that are routine but punctuated requirements for extraordinary performance, than the people who look good to a hiring manager playing it safe and relying on clear but potentially less important signals.

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

#112

Post by lisper »

dredmorbius wrote: post #105
lisper wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All social constructs are myths, including the very idea of a corporation itself. When enough people believe the myth it becomes self-actualizing. The law itself is a self-actualizing myth, having power only because enough people believe that it has power. It is that shared belief that causes the law to have actual power in the real world. It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "m…

You're verging on, if not wholly embracing, a complete dispensing of the very concept of truth. The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law. Which is incorporated into law through jurisprudence, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v East, 81 S.W. 279 (Texas 1904), or Pierson v. Post, as examples. Cheers.

> The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law.

Wrong. The matter was definitively decided in 1916:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth.

You really should do your homework before you accuse someone of "dispensing of the very concept of truth."

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

#113

Post by dredmorbius »

lisper wrote: post #112
dredmorbius wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're verging on, if not wholly embracing, a complete dispensing of the very concept of truth. The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law. Which is incorporated into law through jurisprudence, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v East, 81 S.W. 279 (Texas 1904), or Pierson v. Post, as examples. Cheers.

> The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law. Wrong. The matter was definitively decided in 1916: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co . Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth. You rea…

Reading your own reference:

Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.

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

#114

Post by lisper »

dredmorbius wrote: post #113
lisper wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact remains that the legal obligation you claim exists does not. Not in statute. Not in jurisprudence. Not in common law. Wrong. The matter was definitively decided in 1916: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co . Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth. You rea…

Reading your own reference: Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.

You left out an important bit of context:

"However, ONE VIEW is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time." [Emphasis added.]

IMHO that view is wrong. The fact of the matter is that if, as an officer of the company, you do not act in the best interests of the shareholders you can be sued in all 50 states, and if your conduct was sufficiently egregious you will lose. The business judgement rules gives you a lot of wiggle room, but it does not change the basic underlying principle. Whether you call this a "legal mandate" or a "standard of conduct" is just quibbling over terminology.

In any case, your claim that fiduciary duty to shareholders is "a myth ... [c]reated from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman" is plainly flat-out false.

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

#115

Post by dredmorbius »

lisper wrote: post #114
dredmorbius wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading your own reference: Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.

You left out an important bit of context: "However, ONE VIEW is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time." [Emphasis added.] IMHO that view is wrong. The fact of the matter is that if, as an officer of the company, you do not act in the best interests of the shareholders you can be sued in all 50 states, and if your conduct was sufficiently egregious you will lose. The busines…

I concede the point. It is a myth to which Friedman cannot even claim originality.

Stout has more to add: https://works.bepress.com/lynn_stout/3/

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

#116

Post by mikeash »

rz2k wrote: post #111
mikeash wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it shows that their model had too few features, and was an excellent example of the streetlight effect of genetic testing. Because genetic results are so easy to obtain the signal is readily overweighted by people for decision making. I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do tha…

Does this just come down to a difference in the assessment of the protagonists chances? I came away from the movie thinking there was a ~75% chance he'd die en route.

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

#117

Post by rz2k »

mikeash wrote: post #116
rz2k wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shows that their model had too few features, and was an excellent example of the streetlight effect of genetic testing. Because genetic results are so easy to obtain the signal is readily overweighted by people for decision making. I would far rather have Ethan Hawke's character as a coast guard swimmer rescuing me in a storm than his brother, even if his brother had no similar heart defect. I would do tha…

Does this just come down to a difference in the assessment of the protagonists chances? I came away from the movie thinking there was a ~75% chance he'd die en route.

It must, because I'd feel different if the actual likelihood of him dying were that high. I haven't watched the movie in a while, but was it hyperbole and were they using statistics as a figure of speech? With intellectual laziness being the defining characteristic of the movie's society, exaggerating risks as post hoc justifications of biases against "in-valids" seems possible.

DNA makes more sense than, let's say, blood type or astrological sign for hiring decisions, since there is a conceivable mechanism for determining future job performance. However, I wonder if the permission society that they lived in was capable of doing good analysis.

How would they cope with the relative weight of environment or even gut flora when DNA practically part of a civic religion with people being randomly tested on the street? Given a situation like the declining accuracy of Google Flu Trends over time, would they insist that the predictions were right, and the indicators of inaccuracy were wrong?

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

#118

Post by astrange »

ghaff wrote: post #89
astrange wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which seems like an obviously good idea, but research has shown that in practice it doesn't save money or lives. Why don't they?

A number of reasons. -- Most healthcare monies are spent on the sickest individuals and they're least likely to participate in a wellness program. And the most motivated participants in lifestyle change sort of program would probably have been the most motivated to make changes outside of a program. -- Many chronic illnesses and other expensive medical conditions/procedures are not prevented by wellness programs, get…

> -- A lot of programs are pretty superficial. (Discounted gym memberships and the like.)

A discounted gym membership sounds like it'd save me money though. Is that what people are having problems with?

I thought this was about the question I get in open enrollment if I'm a smoker or not, or the forced yearly checkup other countries' employers have.

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

#119

Post by aplomb »

jfoutz wrote: post #82
aplomb wrote: post #38

People with poor genetic dispositions are significant cost to our socialized healthcare systems - this is the end game and always will be when costs are shared or mostly paid by someone that is not you. In the benefactor's view there are a few actors crashing their cars everyday and others who have never had a ticket - currently they're all paying the same.

Yeah, what the hell has Stephen hawking ever done for us? Socialized medicine supports the guy, and we get nothing in return.

I wasn't questioning right or wrong of socialized medicine, just calling out what ultimately happens and the viewpoint of those who truly control/manage the system
Post reply on HN