Genes and Jobs: U of Akron Tests the Testing Laws
The University of Akron (UA) has a policy that could require any candidate for employment to submit a DNA sample:
Applicants will be asked to submit fingerprints and at the discretion of The University of Akron may be asked to submit a DNA sample for the purpose of a federal criminal background check.
The policy was adopted in August but hit the headlines when an adjunct faculty member, Matt Williams, resigned in protest on October 24th. (He has set up a petition calling for the policy to be rescinded.) Declan McCullagh wrote about the case at length on a CBS blog, and from there it made it to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, Inside Higher Ed and even Nature, among others.
Literalists might think that the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA), which goes into full effect this month, prohibited such actions:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee ...
UA, however, seems to think that GINA only applies to health insurers. Much of the legislation does focus on insurance, but the language is unequivocal, as Jeremy Gruber of the Council of Responsible Genetics stressed:
"It does not draw a distinction about how the DNA sample could be or should be used. There is no exception under GINA for employers in this context at all."
The UA spokesperson insists that testing is not happening yet:
"The only reason the university has included this in the criminal background check policy is because the university feels that in the future, that's the way technology is going. The university wants to be on the beating edge. It wants to be prepared."
Also:
Nobody has to submit to [a background check]; you're always free to try to find other employment.
Public policy on genetic privacy is beginning to be defined legally, with appropriate limits; GINA is just the start. The controversy over criminal DNA databases is heating up. Civil rights activists, libertarians, and many others of all political persuasions are expressing concern about possible abuse of DNA data. But UA is preparing for a complete reversal of the trend.
UA seems to be the first employer other than the military (for battlefield ID) to demand DNA samples from job applicants. If their policy were to stand, does anyone think they would be the last?
Previously on Biopolitical Times:
.jpg){kind=link}