next »

[anthroid]

This is just nuts.  I know a couple of people who teach there (so luckily they'll escape this requirement); it must be a discouraging place to be right now, knowing that searches will contain many fewer applicants.

Maybe they'll all be ABD... (intertheaduality)

[spectacle]

Wow, barred_owl, thanks so much for the updated information!

I'm finding this whole thing really fascinating.  Like a trainwreck.

[alleyoxenfree]

Today your DNA.  Tomorrow your firstborn and a hefty bribe.

[prytania3]

I think DNA and genetics may do some good in the world, but I also think the bad will far outweigh the good.

And just wait until they start microchipping everyone.

Big Brother's got nothing on these new discoveries.

[kedves]

I wouldn't object to providing the sample, but sample collection, typing, and preservation aren't free.  I'll bet that the cost of this is coming out of employees' salaries one way or another.

[namazu]

In addition to the cost and likely harm to the university's ability to attract privacy-minded faculty, I have to imagine that such a database (or repository) could represent a huge, huge liability for the university.  I find it difficult to believe that this extremely intrusive measure would stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.  It seems like a terrible idea to me. 

I think there are some parallels to the Loyalty Oath issues in California and elsewhere, though I think this is even worse.

[prytania3]

In addition to the cost and likely harm to the university's ability to attract privacy-minded faculty, I have to imagine that such a database (or repository) could represent a huge, huge liability for the university.  I find it difficult to believe that this extremely intrusive measure would stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.  It seems like a terrible idea to me. 

I think there are some parallels to the Loyalty Oath issues in California and elsewhere, though I think this is even worse.

I'd take the loyalty oath. Hell, I have taken the loyalty oath when I was in VA, but so what. I'm loyal to my country and have absolutely no intention of overthrowing the government.

But give up DNA? For freaking what? Oh, and I've gone through fingerprinting, too. I'm a hoe. I'll do about anything for a job I want--but fork over DNA? No. It's crazy and no good can come of it.

And if we have to start forking over DNA just to work, then maybe it is time to overthrow the government.

[sciencephd]

I think DNA and genetics may do some good in the world, but I also think the bad will far outweigh the good.

They already have done a great deal of good for human disease. I addition, you couldn't live without them. 

The problem here is not "DNA and genetics".  It is adminstrators (ie non-scientists) being idiots.

[offthemarket]

When I saw the movie GATTACA, as a science student I was rather offended at its simplification of the issues.

But a couple years later, I realized how prescient it was.

[kaysixteen]

Existing methods are wholly adequate for a uni, or more or less any other employer, to verify that potential hires are not wanted criminals, convicted pedophiles, etc.  I am afraid I can see no additional advantage to the school in seeking DNA, esp. given the added expense of so doing, unless, of course, they do plan to use it, or potentially use it, for health insurance and other related genetic discrimination issues.

[prytania3]

Existing methods are wholly adequate for a uni, or more or less any other employer, to verify that potential hires are not wanted criminals, convicted pedophiles, etc.  I am afraid I can see no additional advantage to the school in seeking DNA, esp. given the added expense of so doing, unless, of course, they do plan to use it, or potentially use it, for health insurance and other related genetic discrimination issues.

You're absolutely right, Kay, which makes this whole thing all the more worrisome. What in the world are they planning with this DNA?

But Sciencephd, back to your point. Scientists don't have any control over their discoveries. Even the person who came up with the formula for Viagra (who won the Nobel Prize) said, "Look what they did to my drug!" It was supposed to be for the heart, not the, well, you know.

[magistra]

I think the best part is that current employees are grandfathered in.  Hired before 2009?  No problem!  Hired after?  Surely you must be a criminal -- who else would want to live in Akron but those on the lam?

I think this policy raises far more legal issues for the school than it (potentially) solves.

[anthroid]

What's even more chilling is the fact that this is a partnership with the Ohio State Police, if I read the article in the OP correctly.  Great.  Let's get a DNA database collected of all citizens, not just those convicted of serious crimes.  Yes, that's civil liberties writ large all right.

[barred_owl]

Yes--The Ohio Highway Patrol (state police) are developing a DNA database, and UA wants to be "ready," samples in hand, apparently, for when it is up and running.  Now, if I've read the background correctly, DNA cannot be collected from someone who has been arrested without conviction; it can be collected if there is a conviction following the arrest.  So, a convicted criminal (presumably a felon) will already have a paper record and fingerprints on file, plus--if a state chooses to do so--a DNA sample.  I would think that the paper record and fingerprints would be sufficient to "catch" applicants with criminal records, wouldn't they?

Here's the catch-22:  If someone with a criminal record, including felony conviction, applies at UA, according to the university's Office of General Counsel handbook (see the .pdf link in my earlier post on p.1 of this thread), that record/conviction does not necessarily preclude their employment at the university.  However, refusing to submit to the DNA sample submission IS grounds to preclude someone from employment there.

I find it disturbing that not one of the 5 lawyers on the 11-member board of trustees saw anything at all wrong with this new 'plan.'

[european]

But Sciencephd, back to your point. Scientists don't have any control over their discoveries. Even the person who came up with the formula for Viagra (who won the Nobel Prize) said, "Look what they did to my drug!" It was supposed to be for the heart, not the, well, you know.

Tell that to Murray Gell-Mann, John von Neumann, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr and Robert Oppenheimer.

Scientists do have control over their work. They can decide not to research particular subjects, or refuse to develop particular terrains. An interesting perspective on this is Philip Kitcher's Science, Truth and Democracy.