2. 考研
  3. It’s wonderful how everyone agrees (or fears to disagree) that genetic discrimination is a bad thing. Your genes are beyond your

It’s wonderful how everyone agrees (or fears to disagree) that genetic discrimination is a bad thing. Your genes are beyond your

admin2011-03-14  74
问题     It’s wonderful how everyone agrees (or fears to disagree) that genetic discrimination is a bad thing. Your genes are beyond your control. Why should you be punished for them? Unfortunately, genetic discrimination is universal, inevitable and, in some ways, essential. Leaving aside the hot issue of intelligence, consider clearly genetic traits such as musical or athletic talent. Practice, practice will get you to Carnegie Hall, but only if you’re born on the right bus. The notion of not discriminating on the basis of inborn talent is not even an abstract ideal, the world would be a poorer place if it did not distinguish between me and Yo-Yo Ma in doling out opportunities to be a concert cellist.
    As we learn more about the human genome, we’ll learn that more and more of the traits we reward have a genetic component. Martin Luther King said we should all be judged on "the content of our character." But if a disposition to hard work or courage or creative imagination turns out to have a large genetic component, should we still judge people based on these qualities? Then, too, the world discriminates on the basis of clearly genetic traits, such as physical beauty, that are irrelevant in most circumstances. Occasionally, some zealot proposes to ban this kind of discrimination, too. But it will never happen.
    So what is the limiting principle on banning genetic discrimination? Where do we stop? Right now, the universal consensus makes a distinction between the results of genetic tests and genetic traits that reveal themselves in some other way. It seems unfair and arbitrary that your fate in life should be determined in any important way by what a drop of your blood reveals under a microscope; but logically, there is no difference between this and letting your fate be determined by how tall or musically gifted you are. A Juilliard tryout is, in part, a genetic test. If there were a blood test for musical talent, as there may be some day, it would do the same thing more efficiently. A blood test might even be fairer than the crude substitutes we use instead to judge and choose among people: It would zero in on the trait we really need to discriminate about and reduce discrimination on the basis of traits that are irrelevant.
    Some people say the danger is that genetic testing will encourage irrelevant discrimination; employers will overreact and refuse to hire you even though your actual likelihood of getting Alzheimer’s before your retirement is minuscule. But discriminationby mistake will often bring its own punishment, like any business misjudgment. The real problem is discrimination that makes perfect sense. A health insurer is not crazy or stupid to want to keep people out of its insurance pool if they’re more likely to get sick. Nor is the company evil to do this if the law allows it. The idea of insurance is to protect against unpredictable costs. Ignoring predictable costs, when your competitors aren’t required to do the same, is a recipe for bankruptcy.
If an employee gets Alzheimer’s, he is likely to be discriminated by his colleagues.
选项 A、True
B、False
答案B
解析 根据文章最后一段第一句可知，员工的疾病基因报告会让雇主产生过激反应，与员工同事无关。  
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/Dksa777K
本试题收录于： MBA联考（英语）题库专业硕士分类
0

MBA联考（英语）

专业硕士

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)