Philosophy of Genetics

Employers not compliant with new GINA law

According to the New York Times:

The most important new antidiscrimination law in two decades — the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act — will take effect in the nation’s workplaces [on Nov 21, 2009], prohibiting employers from requesting genetic testing or considering someone’s genetic background in hiring, firing or promotions.

Furthermore:

“There’s an absolute ban on the use of genetic information to make any kind of decision about employment,” said Christopher Kuczynski, assistant legal counsel with the commission.

It's easy to see how the new law "prohibits employers and health insurers from asking employees to give their family medical histories", for example by "not promoting a 49-year-old to chief executive because it knew his father and grandfather died of heart attacks at age 50".

But what about more subtle forms of discrimination, where personality traits are used as genetic surrogates?  One of the most celebrated CEOs of the last 25 years, Jack Welch, openly sought and hired leaders who "exude energy”, are “able to inspire confidence”, and are “optimistic” and “comfortable in their own skin”.  He admitted that IQ, energy level, and charisma are probably innate (i.e. genetic).

Welch's approach is widely copied in corporations today.  Indeed, Performance vs Potential assessments make use of genetically-linked proxy traits to differentiate and promote high-potential employees.  Doesn't GINA make these tests illegal as well?

Motivation, Dopamine, and Schopenhauer

A recent article in the New York Times describes how a neurotransmitter in the brain, dopamine, "is less about pleasure and reward than about drive and motivation".

Furthermore:

People differ from one another at every juncture of the dopamine matrix, in the tonal background pace at which their dopamine neurons rhythmically fire, the avidity with which the cells spike in response to need or news.

In other words, no two people are alike, or motivated by the same things.  Yet despite the accumulating evidence of genetic differences among us (reported by Times science writers), this non-egalitarian, anti-Randian perspective has been difficult for most Times contributors to swallow and adopt into their own world-view.

Regarding free will, I think the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer had it about right.

We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will.

In other words, motivation is the key factor that innately differentiates us, but you can't choose your motivations.  If you're a born leader, then you'll wake up every morning with the "fire in the belly" to try to make it happen.  But if you're a born follower, you'll wake up every morning thinking of ways to please the boss.  Yet either way, these innate choices will feel like free will.  "Being a [leader/follower] is what I want to do, of my own free choice, based on who I am."  Unfortunately, people forget that "who I am" is the genetic part. Your genes determine what motivates you.  Leadership is innate.

Interestingly, dopamine itself is merely "a compact molecule, built of 22 atoms."  It's a small molecule, and doesn't hold any inherent motivation within it.  It simply unlocks the motivation circuitry we're born with.