2. 职称英语
  3. In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a ne

In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a ne

游客2024-02-20  54
问题     In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a new kind of discrimination claim: she charged that she had been fired because she carries genes that make her more likely to get cancer. Fink quickly became the public face for the cutting edge of civil rights: genetic discrimination.
    The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) , which was passed out of concern for just such cases in the wake of huge advances in genetics testing, took effect in late 2009. GINA, as it is known, makes it illegal for employers to fire or refuse to hire workers based on their " genetic information"—including genetic tests and family history of disease. When Congress issued GINA in 2008, the House of Representatives supported it 414-1, and the whole Senate backed it.
    There are two major reasons that so many people—even congressional Republicans who are highly doubtful of civil rights laws—like GINA. First, there is the kind of discrimination it is aimed at: penalizing people for DNA and RNA that they inherited from their parents through no fault of their own. In general, our society has decided to protect people for qualities that are "immutable"—that is, something about them that is impossible or, at least, very difficult to change. So we make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, skin color and sex. Genes are a classic immutable characteristic : outside of some complicated medical procedures, we’re pretty much stuck with the genes we were bom with.
    The second major reason genetic-discrimination laws are popular is that this is a kind of bias everyone feels they could be exposed to. None of us has perfect genes—and for the most part, we have no idea what is hiding in our DNA and RNA. Our genes are complex enough that we all have some negative information—and none of us wants to lose a job or be denied insurance over it. When juries begin to hear these cases, they are far more likely to identify with the accusers than with the companies that discriminate. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be plenty of companies looking to benefit from genetic information , but if they use it, they may well have to pay. [br] What is probably the attitude of juries towards accusers of genetic-discrimination cases?
选项 A、Indignant.
B、Impartial.
C、Indifferent.
D、Supportive.
答案 D
解析 推理判断题。本题考查陪审团在基因歧视案件中的态度。定位句中的identify with意为“同情”。由定位句可知，当陪审团审理这些基因歧视案件时，他们非常有可能同情原告而不是歧视原告的公司。由此推断，D)“支持的”正确。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3466076.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)