Meanwhile in Canada, the House voted to ban genetic discrimination, over the objections of the Cabinet (who believe this should be a provincial issue and not a federal one). http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/genetic-testing-bill-vo...
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.
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…
It's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.
Nope, he's correct, and his synopsis would make a great episode of "How it Should Have Ended". The protagonist wasn't an idiot, but the rest of that is accurate.
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…
Is there a reason why you decided to completely overlook the aspects in the film around discrimination and segregation of the labour force?
Except that no amount of scrubbing should make you undetectable.
The trick was he overwhelmed his real traces with fake ones from Jude Law's character. Vaccuuming out his keyboard and then dumping in somebody else's skin and hair. Traces of the janitor would be reasonable to expect, right?
> Traces of the janitor would be reasonable to expect, right?
It's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.
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.
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.
Not seeing anything about any penalties in the bill. These wellness programs are voluntary with the premise of the employee getting some sort of benefits for participating. So the only way I can think of where this can be presented as a "penalty" is if a company establishes a wellness program and the only way to get the benefits is to comply with the rules of the said program, of which dna testing can legally become…
The companies can charge you higher premiums for opting out. I think 30% higher.
You don't have to participate in their coverage though, so even if that was the case (which I personally never encountered this - the programs I've seen were centered around gym membership discounts, free cholesterol level testing, some small monetary compensation - like $100 - $300/yr type deal for partaking in some kind of a "weight loss challenge" etc) - the whole thing is not mandatory.
It's been a long while since I saw that movie, but I'm fairly certain that it was way more complicated than your synopsis.
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
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.
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?
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…
Is there a reason why you decided to completely overlook the aspects in the film around discrimination and segregation of the labour force?
That's all in the background, whereas what I described is the main plot. The movie tries to make a point against testing, but the main plot rather wrecks it.
The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?
See my other question below. If there were a 10% chance that children who were exposed to your presence might sicken and die from a toxic reaction to your sweat, would you take steps to avoid any such contact? Would it be wrong to prevent you from working in schools?
A 10% incidence rate is different from a 10% increase in incidence rate.