This Is Only a Test

Galton’s concerns would be a great starting place for this discussion about Eugenics. He was very troubled by the possibility that there was a growing demographic imbalance that would have profound genetic effects on future generations. His concerns carried some validity, but they were also accompanied by a great deal of irony as well. The aristocracy of England at that point in time were more than likely just, if not more than, as ignorant as the masses that troubled Galton. A quick perusal of history reveals that while the aristocracy was, in large part, running the hounds, the “lesser folk” were learning to read, or being read to. The material being read, ironically enough, was the Bible and The Pilgrim’s Progress (Jackson, 2009).

Genetic testing raises so many questions, and can pit friend against friend, and even family member against family member. The first “big” issue that comes to mind is that of privacy. Testing on the genetic level has the potential to expose the most private information of those being tested. Informed consent, on the surface is fine, but implied inform consent is a dangerous area. However, does even having informed consent, implied or not, lessen the dangers? Take achievement testing in schools for example. There is implied consent, but the outcomes can be used to discriminate based on test taking ability rather than cognitive functioning or raw knowledge. Court mandated testing is also an area of concern. That could be seen as “big brother” coercion.

There is one assumption that seems to be a reoccurring theme. That is the assumption that all tests contain some type of bias that favors of one group or another.

From a purely genetic view, if there is the ability to test for propensity to abuse drugs, how would someone who had those genetic markers be treated in a work situation in which testing was a prerequisite of employment? What if they had never used drugs, had grown up in an environment devoid of the influence of drug abuse, and lived an otherwise healthy life? Is the genetic test result for that person a valid reason to deny employment? This is a huge concern, and it should make people think twice before submitting to such testing.

Let’s take it a step further. Genetic testing can provide information about a person’s future propensity for illness. What would be the outcome of this information falling into the wrong hands? For that matter, what about falling into hands that may not be wrong, but could be detrimental? Information about someone having the genetic markers for an illness falling into the hands of an insurance company, or a federal government database could lead to people not being eligible for insurance coverage. Surely, this could be considered discrimination based on the fact that they do not now have, but one day might have some serious illness. Note the following, “insurers may require applicants for insurance to be tested to determine their susceptibility to genetic disorders” (Mehlman, 1998). Having a background in the insurance business, I could attest to the fact that having genetic information about clients would lead to very questionable business decisions about who gets insurance, and how much they will pay.

As genetic testing becomes more prevalent there will be legal and ethical questions too numerous to count. Genetic testing can be a useful tool for many purposes, but to test people in order to control populations and try to determine socioeconomic outcomes will always be a tricky situation at best, and an evil abuse of power at worst.

Works Cited

Jackson, T. M. (2009). Francis Galton. Paris.

Mehlman, M. J. (1998). Access to the Genome:The Challenge to Equality. Washington: Georgetown University Press.