That is really disturbing. While I suppose it makes sense to make extra sure that you aren’t hiring criminals for your police force (does that really happen very often?), I don’t think the link between specific genetic variants and behavior is understood well enough to use it as a predictive test. It’s scary to think that you could be rejected from a job because you carry an allele that makes you statistically only slightly more likely to get cancer or show aggression.

Informed consent is required in the US and the UK for genetic testing for medical purposes, research purposes and I think, paternity. Do the Victoria Police and any employer requiring or considering requiring DNA testing of applicants intend to provide informed consent? Considering what the testing could be used for, they need to do it just as much, if not more so, than these other purposes!

Hsien,
Very interesting…and I’m not sure if it’s a good or bad “interesting.” I can see, as Peggy says, a “pro” side would be making sure criminals don’t get hired for police and security jobs. However, DNA used for employment and other aspects of our life might infer “Big Brother is Watching You.”

Have you thought about the collection of DNA to rule out contamination at a crime seen or by the people collecting forensic evidence. I’m a forensic nurse and at some point I know I’ll be asked for a DNA sample to rule out contamination when they find a DNA sample they can’t identify. BUT to demand a DNA sample for employment purposes NO chance. I had to undergo a drug screening test (which was sprung on me) when I got the forensic nurse job. The employer didn’t want to hire someone who used and/or abused drugs. If I had known about the drug test before I took the job, I would not have taken it even though I was actively recruited and I love my work.

Hsien,
I don’t like the idea of giving a DNA sample. But if the DNA is required to prove that I did not contaminate evidence during collection then yes I would give it. If I was working for a hospital, a government agency or a private business that just wanted it, then no I would not give them a DNA sample. There needs to be a very good, defendable reason such as to prove I did not contaminate evidence for me to give a DNA sample.
I would have walked away from the forensic nursing job I took when they wanted to test me for drugs except that I had already committed to job after they had gone out of their way to recruit me and arrange the entire training schedule around my schedule. The boss was a close friend.
I have walked away from jobs when I was told that they required pre-employment drug testing. I don’t take drugs and I dislike the assumption of guilt until proven innocent. Given that, it is a hard call for anyone who has to work for a living. When you have children to feed and clothe you may deside that their well-being is worth being publically humiliated/called a criminal and being forced to prove your innocence.
Quite frankly, I believe that drug testing or the giving of a DNA sample prior to or after employment should be illegal unless the employer can prove to a jury that there is a safety issue which only a drug test or a DNA sample can guarantee public safety. Given the political climate this will never become law.
Each day we give just a little of our freedom away to those who say we must and we will ignore those who tell us not to until we have given all of our freedom away. Then we will cry and ask why no one told us this would happen. We will demand that someone else fight die for us to give us back the freedom who so willingly gave away.

[...] For more on genetic discrimination against job applicants, see my previous post - Want a job? Submit your DNA. [...]

[...] been a lot of news recently about personal genetic testing, along the lines of 23andMe. A post from Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei, though, raises some of the ethical questions that could arise from DNA testing, particularly in [...]