The Island of Dr. Mirones

Some thoughts…

The field of genomics and genetic discrimination has always interested me. As a founder of 161 US patents myself, the discovery of new knowledge in a progressive field such as genetics is quite fascinating. As interesting as pleiotropy and the numerous conflagrations between loci and alleles are to me, I am much more fascinated with the moral side of genomics. It really wasn’t until 1993, when the ELSI, or Ethical, Legal and Social Implications group within the human genome project released its first paper that I became truly interested. In their report, “Genetic Information and Health Insurance,” the fine people at ELSI essentially tried to convince Congress that no matter the medical status of any individual, past, present or future records should not be included in applications for health insurance. I thought the article was well thought out, they had clearly gathered enough evidence to present a point. With scholars from all walks of life, it seems the report was comprehensive enough to cover the entire American populous. Unfortunately, I had a lot of problems with that report, which I will outline in this blog.

In my day, I was called a technocrat. If there were any technology questions or decisions about management in the company, I was there. I had learned how to standardize everything, making it possible for me to see how my company policies were reflected in the people that worked for me. I remember an article in the February 29 Detroit Free Press article in 1935. I had written a letter to Matt Woll, the VP of the American Federation of Labor in Washington, D.C. He had written me a few weeks before, asking me whether or not I wanted to lower wages at Ford. Thousands of businesses were lowering wages across the country, hoping to survive the awful Depression. I was easily able to answer his question for a number of reasons. First, you must understand something about Fordism. It has been described in a number of ways, socially and professionally. In a managerial setting, it has been used to describe assembly-line economics. An individual adding one and the same piece at a time is easier for a bigger group, and much more expedient. Up until the 1980s, nobody understood how Fordism could be applied purely and scientifically economically. Mr. Woll approached me with a problem, and using my economic knowledge in a scientific manner I was able to solve it.

The way I kept business running at Ford is simple. I recognized the variable in my money making equation very quickly. Purchasing power. Sure, I could produce hundreds of cars of day, but if nobody was there to buy them, what was the point? Today, purchasing power, or retail sales, make up about 65-70% of the gross national product. Back in the Thirties, by charging fairly low prices for automobiles and making loans readily available to consumers, I was able to generate buyers no matter what. By applying a science I understood to a problem, I could easily answer his question. Lowering wages in my company would result in less purchasing power. If my supply schedule remained the same, but paying less to many of the workers who buy my product, my demand schedule will go down. If my demand is less than the supply, I am out of luck. Higher wages do tend to bring lower costs in the end, as more money can flow in and out of the wonderful thing we call the economy. The article that was published detailed my response to Woll, and I was met with jubilation from my employees at work the next day. Keeping wages high not only pleased my employees and made them work harder, but also improved our relationship.

You may be wondering what my scientific economic theory has to do with genetic discrimination. Over the past decade, insurance providers and employers have known that genetic testing is available to them. Unfortunately, they are not legally allowed to pressure potential employees into these tests. I am going to quickly explain to you the answer to this problem, applying my theory of Fordism. First, you must look at the goals of the insurance provider. They must be able to alleviate financial concerns for all of their clients when these individuals are placed in a situation when they need help. However, the return on the fees charged by the company to their clients each year must be greater than the money put out to support these individuals in times of need. Usually this works, more people have health insurance than actually need it every year.

Now we must identify the variable in the insurance company’s equation that brings them more money. In this case, it is healthy people. The more healthy people, the less money they have to put out. The less healthy people, the company will spend more money than they get back. A bit different from my discussion of lowering wages, the demand schedule increases with more sick people, while the supply schedule remains static. This of course, might lead to problems. Therefore, I would contend that genetic discrimination is necessary for the survival of health insurance companies. The survival of health insurance companies is integral in my very own, as well as many others existence. Therefore, it seems logical that genetic discrimination is necessary for my very existence. I understand that there are certain social boundaries that are crossed during the testing. A humanitarian myself, I recognize the value of the individual. I remember sitting in my Highland Park plant, lounging in the rafters as thousands of new immigrant workers below me learned English, flocking to my factories because of the lucrative five dollar work days. I looked across each individual’s face, and wondered where he had come from. Sitting in those rafters, I feel asleep thinking about their places of origin. I dreamt of overstuffed trains, the dry heat of the morning that many felt as they walked the decks of the junkers that came over from Europe. I slept that entire day, and missed 2 appointments. One of the appointments was with a man who wanted to sell me 512 acres of land in Mississippi.

Eventually, that land was bought up and quite a successful mall was built. I lost the opportunity to earn money I could have potentially gained. From that day forward, I swore to never get caught up in the men who worked my machinery at Ford. I must treat them as means to an end.
Frankly, I don’t see how my stance on genetic discrimination could be called illogical. If someone offered me a wrench with a screw missing, I certainly would not take it. If I gave all my employees wrenches with one screw, I would be in the poor house. Why should insurance companies take clients with one screw?

Regards,

H. Ford