DNA Testing in the Hiring Process

Companies naturally wish to hire the best employees they possibly can, and avoid those that might harm or hinder their growth. In the past of the United States, many companies have taken these aspirations so far as to incite legislation intended to protect the rights of individuals from those of a business.Laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the U. S. Equal Opportunity laws both exist to ensure that Americans are generally not denied employment due to circumstances beyond their fault or control (United States Department of Labor, n. d.

). More recently, the idea of DNA screening has become a topic of interest in order for companies to use information gained from prospective employee’s genes to hire the best people for the job. To combat this idea, the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008 was established to prevent companies from taking advantage of science (and people) to further their own personal growth (U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n. d.

).It is because of our society’s way of thought and concepts of right and wrong that laws such as these have been accepted into the United States government. Other ways of thought are possible however, and many are used in the world today. Some may even openly accept the concept of eugenics and DNA screening as they do have some benefits to either businesses or individuals, and perhaps society as a whole. Such ways of thinking include Ethical Fundamentalism, Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Rawl’s Social Justice Theory, and Ethical Relativism.

Each society that follows one of these ideals would see the idea of DNA screening in a different way and possibly alter the outcome for businesses and individuals that utilize the results of these screenings. Utilitarianism From a Utilitarian point of view, every individual’s purpose in business and in life is to better society as a whole (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p. 12). A pure utilitarian would view a business as an ideal vessel to represent their ideas about society and how it should function.

In terms of hiring new employees, whether one is utilitarian or not, most businesses aspire to find the best additions to their staff.Due to this aspiration, many employers look for different ways to test the aptitude of their prospective employees. The hypothetical testing of prospective employees’ DNA to find potential genetic problems presents a complicated set of issues when approached from a utilitarian point of view. Since businesses would certainly adjust their hiring patterns based on these test results, these businesses, as well as their employees and society as a whole would experience different benefits and disadvantages if the DNA testing took place.Based on the current laws in the United States, DNA screening by employers would most likely be considered an illegal breach of privacy according to GINA, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (U.

S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n. d. ). However, in a pure utilitarian society, these shields of individual’s rights would certainly be overlooked if society could possibly benefit. The issue with DNA screening quickly becomes one of job-loss rather than privacy invasion in this hypothetical society.

It is not necessarily beneficial for all of society if a single business benefits from not hiring employees due to genetics.Those overlooked or fired because of their genes are then an un-tapped resource as they are unable to work at what they probably do best within their field. Again, from the viewpoint of the business and society, this screening would be seen more as a form of risk-management rather than an invasion of privacy. In order to justify this exploration into a person’s DNA, the utilitarian society must determine if it is beneficial for everyone, including the business, the individual, and society as a whole (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009, p 12).

The business would benefit immediately from this screening in several ways by “reducing occupational illness, maintaining a safe workplace, protecting public safety, reducing insurance and pension costs, and encouraging health awareness among employees (Pulver, 1993-1993 p 13). ” It is unlikely that these DNA searches would be infallible, but most likely employees will have fewer health problems and live longer, healthier lives if obvious problems are rooted out. An employee that lives longer, assuming e or she stays with the company, will keep that company from having to train green recruits and pay out higher premiums to insurance companies. In short, productivity would go up, and several expenses would decrease. An individual’s benefit from these screenings would vary much more so than the business’s. Naturally, a healthy individual with ideal genes and no health problems would be more successful in this utilitarian world.

Insurance companies would give discounted rates, and the companies these people work for would hire much faster.These eugenic individuals would also rely less on their talent or abilities, since their genes make them prime candidates. Conversely, one with poor genes will be much worse off in this society. Even a talented and skilled worker would be denied a job with a company since they have undesirable genes. If every company started screening potential employees’ DNA, then the “undesirables” would be limited to part-time employment, most likely outside of their field of expertise.

Those with poor genes would find little motivation to achieve anything, since they are not likely to be hired, and would likely skip college and work menial jobs for their entire lives. These individuals would become victims of negative genetic labeling, and an immeasurable effect of the DNA screening is the personal trauma that those with poor genes would undergo (Billings et al. , 1992, p 1-7). An entire group of people who are unable to achieve their dreams and ambitions would have an unknown negative effect on society as a whole.

In terms of a utilitarian way of thought, the main issue with screening DNA is if the results benefit society as a whole, rather than just a business or an individual. Regardless of the extent of this screening, whether it is just for one or two genetic issues or as many as are known today, it is sure that a group of people will be ostracized from the rest of society, impacting them severely. For example, if everyone with negative heart related genes were identified and marked by hiring companies, they would no longer be able to get a job how they want to, or receive affordable health insurance.Though the company may benefit financially from this decision, society as a whole would likely be harmed. Even if one person were affected by this screening, that person would be devastated for some period of time through health issues from the lack of insurance, or unemployment. The utilitarian ideals dictate that this one person’s problems are of little concern to society, but it is always unclear just how many people this one person’s problems will impact.

According Halbert & Ingulli it is difficult to quantify the emotional harm as well as the consequences others may face based on one person’s hardship (2009, p. 4).She may have a husband and several children who rely on her income, who are now desperate because she cannot get a job. Problems such as this may lead to her children (who may share her genetic “defect”) not leading productive or even useful lives in the eyes of society. Somewhere down the road, the number of people affected by DNA screening would start to eat away at the general productivity of society as a whole.

Despite potential immediate benefits, DNA screening in the hiring process will not result in the greatest good for society in the long run. Free market ethicFree market ethic theory is defined as prioritizing profitability in a business. This theory believes that managers should make the decision that would benefit the company and based on shareholders' best interest. According to Milton Friedman: In a free enterprise, private property system, a corporate executive is the employee of the owners of the business. He has a direct responsibility to his employers. Based on this theory, it is wrong to make a decision that benefit society in general.

Using company's resources to support other means beside shareholders' interest is wrong.In a free market, companies can apply this theory to maximized profit as long as it is legal. Knowing the free market ethic, we can apply this theory into the case of DNA testing as a requirement for pre-employment. First, from the ethic view point, require DNA testing before hiring decision could help companies cut cost. DNA testing could review a lot about a prospective employees' genetic information. From this information, employers can predict the risk of candidates' possible disease.

DNA could be used as a useful hiring tool to minimized risk. Cost of training a new employee is one of the greatest administrative expenses.Beside the cost of training, companies could also benefit from DNA testing through lower rate of health insurance. For example, two candidates with comparable qualification, but one with higher risk of being diabetic.

The company might be better of picking the healthier candidate. That way the company doesn’t have to deal with increase rates with the insurance company. Companies would also risk increasing cost of absentees due to sickness. From the business and the free market ethic standpoint, using DNA testing as one of the determining factor in hiring decision would greatly benefit the stockholders.As said, screening prospective employees by DNA result could hurt companies to some level due to the great uncertainties of possibilities that the person would actually becoming ill.

If companies make hiring decisions based on genetic information, they could potentially miss out on talented employees whom could bring in much profit for the company. Other way that pre-employment DNA testing could hurt companies' profitability is the expensive costs of lawsuit and settlement if applicants decide to pursue certain hiring decisions.