If it’s public information that you’re at high risk for an expensive disease, employers might not want to hire you because we run health insurance through employers. Employers also might not want to train you if they knew you were likely to get a debilitating condition. (Perhaps an astronaut-training program would want to screen out people with heart problems)
From a utilitarian point of view, why is this a bad thing?
From a personal point of view it is a bad thing. Mary, who is trying to decide whether to get sequenced, doesn’t want to become less employable.
From a utilitarian point of view it would be bad if everyone decided that making their genetic data public was too dangerous and so medical science advanced more slowly. This is some of the reasoning behind GINA.
Mary, who is trying to decide whether to get sequenced, doesn’t want to become less employable.
Assuming she doesn’t know anything about problems with her DNA before getting sequence, the expected effect (in the sense of expected value) of her getting sequenced on her employment prospects is zero. This is a fairly strait forward consequence of the law of conservation of expected evidence.
In our society I expect most uses of DNA findings to be as negative filters. Finding out that someone has a propensity for bad condition X might make them less employable, but people with clean records and people with no records could be treated the same.
You’re relying on other people using the law of conservation of evidence.
From a utilitarian point of view, why is this a bad thing?
From a personal point of view it is a bad thing. Mary, who is trying to decide whether to get sequenced, doesn’t want to become less employable.
From a utilitarian point of view it would be bad if everyone decided that making their genetic data public was too dangerous and so medical science advanced more slowly. This is some of the reasoning behind GINA.
Assuming she doesn’t know anything about problems with her DNA before getting sequence, the expected effect (in the sense of expected value) of her getting sequenced on her employment prospects is zero. This is a fairly strait forward consequence of the law of conservation of expected evidence.
In our society I expect most uses of DNA findings to be as negative filters. Finding out that someone has a propensity for bad condition X might make them less employable, but people with clean records and people with no records could be treated the same.
You’re relying on other people using the law of conservation of evidence.