Really? You're telling me that knowing that an emp...

2008-06-02T17:45:00.000-04:00

Really? You're telling me that knowing that an employee had the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation would be meaningless? Obviously the science backing some genes' link to diseases is more solid than others, but it's a mistake to call all of them "grossly lacking."

That said, it doesn't matter how strong or weak the link is. I refer you to my first paragraph: No matter what the science, it is the right of the employer who creates the job to decide who gets it, on whatever reasons he wishes, whether those reasons make sense or not. If his reasons are rational, then he will benefit from his choices. If his reasons are irrational, he will suffer by his own hand because he won't have hired the best person he could have for the job. Either way, it's immoral and should be illegal to restrict an employer's freedom in that manner.

You ignore the fact that the science behind these ...

2008-06-02T17:41:00.000-04:00

You ignore the fact that the science behind these genetic tests are grossly lacking. The thousands of markers are meaningless and don't predict actual health risks -- their sole benefit would be for discrimination.

Comments on ReasonPharm: Whose right is it anyway?

Really? You're telling me that knowing that an emp...

You ignore the fact that the science behind these ...