Genetic Power to the People:
An Interview with Tony Mazzocchi

by Terri Goldberg

In commemoration of the Council for Responsible Genetics’ twentieth anniversary, each issue of GeneWatch in 2003 will feature an article of undiminished relevance from our first year of publication.

We are proud to begin this retrospective with a selection from our very first issue in November/December of 1983, when CRG Director Terri Goldberg spoke with legendary labor leader and political activist Anthony Mazzocchi. Instrumental to the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and founder of the Labor Party, Mr. Mazzocchi was also a founding member of CRG.

CRG: What is your position on genetic screening?

Tony Mazzocchi: I wouldn’t question genetic screening as a scientific device. The problem with any screening and surveillance program is that it depends upon who controls it and who administers it. In a perfect world genetic screening might be a very adequate surveillance measure — it could be used to protect people. However, this is not a perfect world. If genetic screening is introduced unilaterally by the employer, which can be done now (you can take blood from workers without telling them what you intend to do with it), and a worker is removed because he or she had genetic diseases, you’re creating a situation where people face a choice between a job or good health. (That’s supposing there is some validity to the concept that certain genetic markers make one susceptible to disease.)

If an individual is removed from a job because they have some genetic trait, it is like putting a genetic scarlet letter on their forehead. You’re dooming them and all their offspring from meaningful work.

Have any unions developed policies on genetic testing? Have there been any organized efforts within the unions around these issues?

Genetic testing and genetic screening is a new development and unions aren’t aware of whether it’s being conducted or not. We have no way of knowing. The industry claims they’re not doing it; therefore, the level of consciousness among unions is extremely low.

I see it as a device for the immediate future. It is part of the whole industry move to blame the victim for their situation. Companies are focusing on lifestyle [...] instead of occupational health. Management is attempting to create a situation where the workers feel that it’s their fault if they get sick from exposure to something on the job.

Do you see this as part of an attempt by companies to circumvent guidelines instituted to maintain safe working conditions?

Well, I don’t quite see it that way because management has paid very little attention to occupational and environmental health laws. I think management benefits from genetic screening because it creates a public consciousness that says: it’s not the polluted workplace that’s to blame for occupational health problems, it’s the makeup of the workers.

Right now workers are resistant to genetic screening because it would be used as a method to screen them, perhaps forever, from obtaining meaningful work. They are also concerned because the whole emphasis is on changing the worker instead of the workplace. Genetic screening may be a valid device — I doubt it — but my emphasis is on creating workplaces that are free from hazards.

What can be done to prevent the implementation of these programs?

Simply, workers have to have total control of industrial hygienic, medical, and all other scientific capability at the point of production.

That would involve having the employer pay for these health services as a cost of doing business. They would contribute to a separate fund — the same as we do for pensions and health insurance — which would be the entity that would hire the appropriate scientific capability. Then we could use genetic screening and innovative scientific methods to research occupational health problems. People would not be fearful of losing their jobs because they would have control of their individual data. The community, the union, and the company would be privy to all the results.

This kind of program would generate all sorts of innovative research. And it would be an opportunity to employ thousands of scientists from every major discipline to address major work environment questions. Worker control could be a liberating influence on the scientific community. We could accumulate vast epidemiological data, and we could cover all the work sites rather than a few as exists today. You could have the workplace as a marvelous ongoing scientific experiment. If we had such a program we wouldn’t even be discussing whether we should apply genetic screening. It might be something we could institute and have its scientific application discussed by scientists and workers. What is fundamental to the introduction of any new techniques is who controls it — workers should have control.

Are there any specific things that you think the readers of this article could be doing right now?

I think we all have to understand the politics of science in its workplace applications. That’s the first step. Secondly, we should begin a political discussion about the need for workers to control scientific capabilities so that ultimately we can legislate this concept into reality.

[....] If we’re going to change the public perception of these questions, we need more participation. When one gets into questions of genetic screening, which is such an esoteric subject, the public and workers feel overwhelmed. They need more advocates.