There are good reasons why we don't want to consider these sorts of pseudo-scientific claims for employment or other important matters. Let's say we live in a

There are good reasons why we don't want to consider these sorts of pseudo-scientific claims for employment or other important matters. Let's say we live in a society with mandatory DNA testing with publicly available results. Your DNA shows that you have a genetic marker which indicates a tendency towards anti-social behavior. It's fine though; despite the increased risk, you're actually a very level-headed and agreeable person. You go apply for a job, and I apply for the same job. Perhaps your résumé is slightly stronger than mine, but the employer worries that you'll be difficult to get along with based not on your interview, but on your DNA test. I don't have the DNA markers for anti-social behavior that you have, though it turns out that I'm a bit of a jerk (not far-fetched; check my HN post history). This would be wildly unfair to you. While the DNA marker means there's an increased chance that you don't get along well with other people, it does not define you. You've just been denied a job based on a thing that you didn't choose, there's nothing you can do to change it, and is actually incorrect in your specific case. The good news is that we don't live in a world with mandatory public DNA testing. The bad news is that many minorities kind of do live in that world. They can't hide their ethnicity or sex. Just like how a DNA marker doesn't mean you're a jerk, it also doesn't mean you're less capable of being a good engineer. To make hiring decisions based on that kind of information would be horrifyingly immoral.