Stronger Hiring Practices and Genetics

[rskr]

I wonder if we will ever see stronger regulations for genetics in hiring practices. As it is genetics can't be used as a basis for hiring decisions(though nepotism is sometimes illegal), in the future it could be possible to legislate that a disproportionate narrow pool of genes be illegal. Conceivable for example ncbi could be tested to see if there were an excessive number of Russians, or if there is a lack of overall diversity, based on a genetic test. The test could resemble something like a BLAST test where the null hypothesis is that the genetic variation at organization was drawn from the population at random, and rejecting the hypothesis would conclude that the genes were not drawn randomly, therefore there was some bias.

[mgogol]

I think this is pretty unlikely.

Maybe you should write a short story about it, though. If an organization was found to be enriched for a certain group, what would happen? Randomized firings?

[rskr]

Originally Posted by mgogol

I think this is pretty unlikely.

Maybe you should write a short story about it, though. If an organization was found to be enriched for a certain group, what would happen? Randomized firings?

Maybe a genetic purity tax could be levied in the private domain, which would work itself out naturally. For public employees, it could be complicated, I suppose since most of the employees are sub contractors working for private staffing companies, so they don't actually have to hire people at the federal level, the the tax could also be easily applied, though the number of staffing companies is very complex, so you wouldn't necessarily have everyone in a department be hired through the same staffing company, so something else would have to be done to bring a department in line.

[Jeremy]

I doubt a genetic profile will ever tell you more than a CV and references from previous employers could about someone's work performance, there are too many environmental factors.
I hope it is never legislated that a company needs that much diversity, that could lead to many more cases of the most qualified person not getting the job simply because they would lead to decreased diversity among the staff, this is already a problem (according to some) when there is a requirement for a certain proportion of male to female staff.

Your question reminds me of the movie gattaca, while I doubt we will ever get that extreme with using genetic profile to choose career options, I can imagine genetic profiles being used to determine eligibility for some jobs: fighter pilot, astronaut etc. where there is a large cost (using taxpayer money) for training involved.

[rskr]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I doubt a genetic profile will ever tell you more than a CV and references from previous employers could about someone's work performance, there are too many environmental factors.
I hope it is never legislated that a company needs that much diversity, that could lead to many more cases of the most qualified person not getting the job simply because they would lead to decreased diversity among the staff, this is already a problem (according to some) when there is a requirement for a certain proportion of male to female staff.

For most positions the difference between the top candidates is negligible, that's why bias is so pervasive, if there is any perceived problem with diversity then it must be a problem with the organizations core values.

[rskr]

I guess they really just can't find Americans to do it that cheaply.

http://hh.ru/vacancy/7096038?utm_con...ampaign=Indeed

[dpryan]

Originally Posted by rskr

I guess they really just can't find Americans to do it that cheaply.

http://hh.ru/vacancy/7096038?utm_con...ampaign=Indeed

Wow, you're not joking. Any CS major could do that job, there's no other reason to hire an H1B.

[mgogol]

I do think institutions and society as a whole benefit from reasonable attempts to overcome the bias everyone has for hiring/promoting people similar to themselves. Or to rate male applicants as more competant / pay them more.

Diversity of experience in life often leads to diverse approaches to problem solving or new ideas.

[mikesh]

Originally Posted by rskr

I wonder if we will ever see stronger regulations for genetics in hiring practices. As it is genetics can't be used as a basis for hiring decisions(though nepotism is sometimes illegal), in the future it could be possible to legislate that a disproportionate narrow pool of genes be illegal. Conceivable for example ncbi could be tested to see if there were an excessive number of Russians, or if there is a lack of overall diversity, based on a genetic test. The test could resemble something like a BLAST test where the null hypothesis is that the genetic variation at organization was drawn from the population at random, and rejecting the hypothesis would conclude that the genes were not drawn randomly, therefore there was some bias.

As a Russian, I would like to ask you to explain, what do you mean under "excessive number of Russians in NCBI". I would like to note that there are 185 ethnic groups in Russian Federation today (and even more for people born in former USSR). It will be quite hard sometimes, even for me, to tell e.g. a Russian from someone from Belarus or Ukraine. Or you're talking about disproportion for people from former USSR, which (not considering all its controversies), had quite a strong scientific school while scientists were forced to immigrate due to really poor life conditions? But the latter is like telling that people from a given institute (e.g. Harvard) tend to collaborate more with people from the same institute, which is a completely other story.

[rskr]

Originally Posted by mikesh

As a Russian, I would like to ask you to explain, what do you mean under "excessive number of Russians in NCBI". I would like to note that there are 185 ethnic groups in Russian Federation today (and even more for people born in former USSR). It will be quite hard sometimes, even for me, to tell e.g. a Russian from someone from Belarus or Ukraine. Or you're talking about disproportion for people from former USSR, which (not considering all its controversies), had quite a strong scientific school while scientists were forced to immigrate due to really poor life conditions? But the latter is like telling that people from a given institute (e.g. Harvard) tend to collaborate more with people from the same institute, which is a completely other story.

Thats all fine and good except its only three months after a government shutdown, and less than a year after significant reduction in budget called a sequester, and during an ongoing hiring freeze. Seems like the overall message it is sending is that Russian scientists at the NIH are incapable or unwilling to work with non-Russian scientists, who are already here in the US, or that for whatever reason the NIH is unwilling to pay the going rate for computer scientists, and are depending on indentured servants to depress the wages.