It is always a little strange- and even scary- when the worlds of high-tech science and professional basketball meet. Such a thing happened this month with Eddy Curry of the Chicago Bulls. It became clear last season that Curry suffered from a heart condition- which, one can imagine, is an especially risky thing for a man who makes his living running up and down a basketball court for hours each day.

During the negotiations on his contract this summer, the idea of using DNA screening to actually predict Curry's future health risks- and essentially his worthiness to be employed by the Bulls- came up. The Bulls sidestepped the possible legal mess of the whole thing and essentially traded Curry away to a team that was (probably foolishly) willing to take the risk without any DNA analysis.

The job security of a $65 Million professional basketball player aside- the concept of using DNA technology to profile individuals and predict things about them is moving out of the world of science fiction and into reality. The reaction to such a concept- which undoubtedly over the next few years will grow even louder- exposes some rather interesting flaws in the mix of our culture and our economy.

There is no doubt that the time will come in the very near future where DNA testing for the likelihood of all sorts of diseases (and even personality traits and lifestyle choices) will be affordable enough to be used on everyone from minimum wage workers on up to those under multi-million dollar contracts.

As a rather adamant believer in personal freedom and individual liberty I am all for it.

I know, I know. Usually one who claims to be "adamant about personal freedom", when asked about global workplace DNA testing, sides with the Brave New World, fear-of-machines-taking-over-the-world types. Yes, usually "individual liberty" is code for "I have a theory about a conspiracy between scientists and the military-industrial complex to stamp every worker with a number and slowly turn us into robots."

However, as with most scientific advances that knee-jerk reactionaries claim would render segments of our society absent of all that makes us human and free, we find that, in the end, the results are often much more beneficial- or, at worst, benign- to those very segments of society. I see no reason why the ability for the private sector to use DNA screening as part of the decision making process in hiring people will be any different. Using a little math, a little understanding of what science really is, and a healthy dose of "how things really unfold when you look at the total picture," we may find DNA testing to be the one thing that finally does bring equality to the workplace.

The most important thing, when discussing employment and the economy, is to understand one undisputable fact about the job market: the number of jobs available is a finite and specific number. Hiring practices never change this number, nor the quality of overall jobs available. If, for instance, I am hiring for two jobs, and I decide to refuse to hire women- two of the same jobs are still available. Certainly my rather unfair decision affects women, as well it affects the overall economy because potentially less qualified and productive people are getting jobs. But, in the end, two people are now employed.