Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Nazi Racial Politics Posters. The second is against people with disabilities.

“From 1933 to 1945, Nazi Germany’s government led by Adolf Hitler promoted a nationalism that combined territorial expansion, claims of the biological superiority of an “Aryan master race,” and virulent antisemitism. Driven by a racist ideology legitimized by German scientists, the Nazis attempted to eliminate all of Europe’s Jews, ultimately killing six million in the Holocaust. Many other people also became victims of persecution and murder in the Nazis’ campaign to cleanse German society of individuals viewed as threats to the “health” of the nation.

“Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked….Our objectives are entirely different: we must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world.”
—Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, 1938“ See: “DEADLY MEDICINE: CREATING THE MASTER RACE” https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deadly-medicine-creating-the-master-race

“Putin allocated almost $2 billion toward genetic research in 2018 and decreed last year that all Russians be assigned “genetic passports” by 2025.”

“Putin’s rumored daughter, endocrinologist Maria Vorontsova, has been reported to be supervising the work of Rosneft’s genetic research center that plans to sequence and analyze its 350,000 employees.” (See: “Russia Is a ‘Distinct Civilization,’ Putin Says” May 18, 2020 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/18/russia-is-a-distinct-civilization-putin-says-a70295 )

This really hints at Nazi-like eugenics, as Russia is a visible mix of all sorts of peoples who were run over by the expansionistic Russian Empire. Putin doesn’t need very many people because his wealth comes out of the ground from oil, gas, and mining, so he could do Nazi style eugenics. Sending poor people from the Russian Far East to kill and be killed in Ukraine is a sort of eugenics.

“Genomics is the study of all of a person’s genes (the genome), including interactions of those genes with each other and with the person’s environment.” https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/A-Brief-Guide-to-Genomics

“In Russia the Decree of the President dated 11 March 2019 No. 97 outlined fundamental objectives for state policy concerning chemical and biological security. One of them was to monitor chemical and biological risks by conducting genomic certification of the population in order to form a genetic profile of it while at the same time respecting the legal framework that protects personal genetic information [1].

That is, the country is considering the human genome from the viewpoint of national security, and far-reaching measures are planned by 2025 to collect and compile genetic information on Russians.

However, this legal act does mention in passing the risks involved in collecting genetic information. Information on the human genome is a concern for labour law in protecting personal information as well as in prohibiting discrimination in employment, and both of these aspects are inextricably linked. The greatest practical impact of collecting information on the human genome would come from detecting a person’s genetic predisposition to various illnesses. Requests for genetic information are already quite common, and that information is then used to reach very significant conclusions about people. This practice has been applied most intensively in insurance (chiefly health insurance) and employment relations. Potential employers may require job candidates to submit genetic information that will inform the decision about a particular worker’s suitability for employment…” (N L Lyutov (2021) Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation “Genetic discrimination and protection of personal genetic data: Adapting legal standards to advances in genetics, MEGASCIENCE-2021 – See article below)

“Russians To Hold Genetic Passports By 2025” by Staff Writer May 16, 2021 in Nation https://web.archive.org/web/20210621093406/https://taarifa.rw/russians-to-hold-genetic-passports-by-2025/

“Russian Military Seeks Upper Hand With ‘Genetic Passport’ for Soldiers, Top Scientist Says” June 7, 2019 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/07/russian-military-seeks-upper-hand-with-genetic-passport-for-soldiers-top-scientist-says-a65927

“Russia covers the greatest land mass of any nation in the world and it is home to hundreds of ethnic and racial groups from a wide variety of European and Asian backgrounds. Not to mention more recent immigrants.” (See: “Is Putin’s Fascination With Genetics Just Eugenics in Disguise? ‘Biodefense’ is the buzzword around the Kremlin. But is that about defending the Russian bio-tech industry, or the genetic ‘purity’ of the Russian people? Or both?” By Anna Nemtsova Published May. 30, 2019 5:15AM https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-putins-fascination-with-genetics-just-eugenics-in-disguise

If “the Russian government” submitted a bill to parliament, this seems to mean Putin’s government: “Russia to Introduce Vaccine Passports Amid Record Virus Surge” By AFP Updated: Nov. 15, 2021 The Russian government said Friday it had submitted to parliament two bills that will introduce mandatory health passes to access restaurants and public transport, amid a new wave of coronavirus cases…”https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/11/12/russia-to-introduce-vaccine-passports-amid-record-virus-surge-a75551

Russia’s had internal passports since Tsarist times to keep the serfs in their place. Serfs were bound to the land/estate, and sold with it, unlike slaves which could be sold separately from the land/estate. Russia is slowly replacing paper passports with a plastic “digital passport” of a credit card size. Putin apparently wants this internal passport to contain genetic information.

Pro-Putin propagandists didn’t announce Russia’s genetic passports on so-called “alternative”media! When pro-Putin “alternative media” comes up with something crazy that the United States or Europe is allegedly going to do to its people, you can be 99% sure that the idea was inspired by something happening in Russia. And, that whatever the US or Europe is doing, that Russia’s doing something worse. So, while pro-Putin media decry a scary sounding “digital ID” (i.e. fed into a computer data base) in the United States, Putin’s planning digital genetic ID. Of course US drivers licenses and ID cards are in a computer database! This has been the case since records have become computerized. There is also this US law, which aims to standardize drivers licenses and ID cards to board airplanes or enter government facilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

Unlike Russia, the US does NOT have an internal passport.
“The Internal Russian passport (officially in Russian: Паспорт гражданина Российской Федерации pasport grazhdanina Rossiyskoy Federatsii, “Passport (for) Citizen of the Russian Federation”, commonly referred to as внутренний паспорт vnutrenniy pasport, “internal passport”, or общегражданский паспорт obshchegrazhdanskiy pasport, “general passport”) is a mandatory identity document for all Russian citizens residing in Russia who are aged 14 or over. The Internal Russian passport is an internal passport used for travel and identification purposes within Russia, which is distinct from the International Russian passport used by Russian citizens to travel in and out of Russian borders. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Soviet Union internal passport continued to be issued until 1997, when a new regulating decree was adopted by the government and when it was replaced by the Russian internal passport.[1] The current Russian internal passports were first issued in 2007.[2] The Russian government is planning to replace the Internal Passport with a biometric, credit card size card. The Universal electronic card issued between 2013 and 2016 was planned to replace the Russian Internal passport as the sole national identity document for Russian citizens but was scrapped in early 2017.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport_of_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_passport

“Russian Interior Ministry to cancel paper passports when issuing digital IDs
According to the ministry, Russian nationals over the age of 14 will be able to receive digital passports on a voluntary basis”, Jan 2, 2022, TASS https://web.archive.org/web/20220102135439/https://tass.com/society/1383469

“Russians To Hold Genetic Passports By 2025” by Staff Writer May 16, 2021 in Nation https://web.archive.org/web/20210621093406/https://taarifa.rw/russians-to-hold-genetic-passports-by-2025/

“Russia Is a ‘Distinct Civilization,’ Putin Says” May 18, 2020 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/18/russia-is-a-distinct-civilization-putin-says-a70295

“Oil Chief Asks Putin to Exempt Genetic Tech Funding From Taxes
May 15, 2020 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/05/15/oil-chief-asks-putin-to-exempt-genetic-tech-funding-from-taxes-a70280

“Genetic discrimination and protection of personal genetic data: Adapting legal standards to advances in genetics” By N L Lyutov
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation
MEGASCIENCE-2021 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2210 (2022) 012001
IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2210/1/012001

“Abstract.

Genetics has advanced to the point where genetic data on an individual could mark them as predisposed to hereditary illness or unsuitable for certain kinds of jobs. There is widespread apprehension that workers with ‘problematic’ genetics will be singled out by employers and insurance companies for treatment as second-class citizens with restrictions placed on their rights. The article takes up the legal issues involved in defining the concept of genetic data, in regulating genetic information as a type of personal information, and in applying genetic antidiscrimination laws in various countries. Legal restraints on genetic information must be more extensive than on other personal information about a worker because genetic data has implications for their biological relatives. Protection against genetic discrimination must therefore begin with barring employers from collecting genetic information on workers unless it is necessary to prevent hazards to people’s lives or health.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd

1. Introduction

The information now available about the human genome is becoming much more significant as the technical and scientific potential of deciphering and applying it for medical and other purposes increases.

In Russia the Decree of the President dated 11 March 2019 No. 97 outlined fundamental objectives for state policy concerning chemical and biological security. One of them was to monitor chemical and biological risks by conducting genomic certification of the population in order to form a genetic profile of it while at the same time respecting the legal framework that protects personal genetic information [1].

That is, the country is considering the human genome from the viewpoint of national security, and far-reaching measures are planned by 2025 to collect and compile genetic information on Russians.

However, this legal act does mention in passing the risks involved in collecting genetic information. Information on the human genome is a concern for labour law in protecting personal information as well as in prohibiting discrimination in employment, and both of these aspects are inextricably linked. The greatest practical impact of collecting information on the human genome would come from detecting a person’s genetic predisposition to various illnesses. Requests for genetic information are already quite common, and that information is then used to reach very significant conclusions about people. This practice has been applied most intensively in insurance (chiefly health insurance) and employment relations. Potential employers may require job candidates to submit genetic information that will inform the decision about a particular worker’s suitability for employment. There are already studies that regard

MEGASCIENCE-2021 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2210 (2022) 012001 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2210/1/012001
2
the collection of genetic data on workers and job candidates primarily in terms of its effectiveness for recruiting personnel and increasing labour productivity [2]. For labour law, however, the risks presented by collecting, processing, and storing workers’ genetic data are of overriding importance. The state, trade unions, and law enforcement agencies have become concerned about problems arising from discrimination based on the new factor of a worker’s genetic data not because the data might be used to evaluate a worker’s performance after they are already under contract, but instead because the data might reveal increased risk of hereditary illnesses that would impair job performance or present some hypothetical threat to employees themselves or to others in their vicinity. Even though a job candidate is not suffering from any illness, the fear is that their unrealized genetic predisposition would be used unfairly to deny them employment.

2. The concept of genetic data

Genetic information presents a problem that is in essence both legal and ethical when it comes to protecting personal data. As a special class of personal data, genetic information not only directly identifies a person who has certain genetic features but may also identify their relatives by birth. Therefore, the consent of the immediate subject of genetic personal data is not always sufficient to justify collecting, processing and disseminating it [2, 3]. A variety of legal acts exhibit differing approaches to the very concept of genetic information or genetic data, and these formulations diverge not merely in certain ancillary features but frequently in their most important elements. As one example, the concept from the UNESCO International Declaration on Human Genetic Data adopted in 2003 is expressed as “information about heritable characteristics of individuals obtained by analysis of nucleic acids or by other scientific analysis” [5]. The Council of Europe’s Recommendations on the Protection of Medical Data, however, emphasizes a concept of genetic data which distinguishes an individual as part of a hereditary group [6]. The concept of genomic information in Russian legislation is found in the Federal Law ‘On state genomic registration in the Russian Federation’ of 2008, which indicates that this information does not specify a person’s physiological characteristics [7]. Russia’s internal legal doctrine has not reached a consensus that combines the varying views about the concept of genetic information or its attributes [8]. A draft law in 2019 was submitted for consideration by the Federation Council of the State Duma of the Russian Federation in order to revise Article 11 of the Federal Law ‘On personal data’ [9]. It would place a person’s distinctive genetic features in the same category as personal biometric data and under the same protections, and the statute proposed was quite brief and straightforward. Article 11(1) of that law states that information describing physiological and biological distinguishing features which can then be used to establish personal identity (biometric personal data) may be subjected to processing only with the consent of the subject. The proposal was to broaden this provision’s guidance by specifying that biometric data impinges on human genetic distinguishing features. The second part of the same article, which describes exceptional circumstances in which biometric personal data may be processed without consent of the subject was to be amended in analogous fashion to indicate that the exceptions would also apply to genetic information. The draft was adopted on the first reading in October 2019, but at the second reading it was tabled. The discussion at the first reading reached the general conclusion that some suitable standards were needed, and the issue of clarifying the conceptual framework came up. In particular, the term ‘human genetic distinguishing features’ as employed in the Federal Law ‘On state genomic registration in the Russian Federation’ would need to be reconciled with the term ‘genomic information’ [9]. Apparently, the difficulty in determining what would count as genetic information brought progress toward final adoption of standards to a halt.

3. Prohibiting discrimination internationally and in Russia The international legal framework for prohibiting discrimination on criteria derived from genetic data is set out in Article 11 of the 1997 Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine [11] which prohibits any form of discrimination against a person on grounds of their genetic heritage.

MEGASCIENCE-2021 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2210 (2022) 012001 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2210/1/012001

3
Although Russia has not ratified this convention, it has incurred international obligations under a substantial number of other international agreements which pertain to human rights and include general prohibition of discrimination in employment for an open-ended list of reasons. Russia as yet has no special legal regulation or law enforcement practice to address genetic discrimination. There is a general prohibition against discrimination in employment, which is derived from the Constitution, international agreements that Russia has ratified, and Article 3 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation. From these sources it follows that discrimination is prohibited not only on the grounds explicitly mentioned in them, but also on any other grounds not related to the occupational capability of the worker (in the language of Article 3 of the Labour Code) or not based on the inherent requirements of a particular job, as it is phrased in Article 1(2) of the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111). Genetic data on a person, except in instances of illnesses that are already evident, has no bearing whatsoever on how well a person is performing a job, on their economic usefulness, or on their fitness for a job. It follows that Russian employers are already prohibited from using workers’ genetic data to reach decisions on employment, salaries, career advancement or termination. The effectiveness of this prohibition, however, is at present open to considerable doubt. Labour disputes about even such paradigmatic markers for discrimination as gender, age, nationality, race, and trade union membership very seldom end in a finding that the employer has engaged in discrimination. This is because there are no very practical ways of proving employment discrimination, little understanding by the judiciary of the concept of discrimination, and a murky conceptual framework along with other obstacles [12]. Cases of discrimination based on genetic data are hampered also by the relative novelty of the problem and by the lack of specialized legal regulations on such matters. The parties to employment relations, the trade unions, the employers’ associations, and the government show little awareness of the risks involved, and consequently no ways to minimize those risks have been worked out. As the experience of the USA shows, the challenges in defining genetic data do not end with passing a law on the topic (see below) because the courts have their own preferences for either broadening or restricting the interpretation of the concept [13].

4. International experience in prohibiting discrimination based on genetic data

Legal regulation to combat genetic discrimination in employment is still at the rudimentary stage for most countries probably because at this time discrimination based on genetic data seems rare and exotic [14]. While the standards applicable to genetic discrimination are still merely under discussion in the EU [15], the USA has already provided some definite legal groundwork concerning the problem with a view toward the near future. That the public was aware of the possibility of genetic discrimination is shown by ‘Gattaca’, a 1997 Hollywood film about a dystopian future in which the genetics of a new class of people have been ‘perfected’ in laboratories. The ordinary, genetically imperfect people are relegated to a second class that is deprived of social advantages. The visual style of the film alludes to the 1930s and ‘40s, and the looks of the people with perfected genes have clearly been modeled on the appearance of an idealized Nazi Aryan. After this film was released, the terms ‘geneism’ and ‘geneticism’ gained currency as analogues of ‘fascism’ [16]. These attitudes and fears are so widespread in industrially developed countries that sociological surveys indicate that workers believe information about their genetic data to be more sensitive and potentially dangerous than any other kind of medical information [17, 18, 19]. In 2008 the USA passed a special law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic information (the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or GINA) with respect to medical insurance and employment [20]. Governmental and public organisations there are engaged in preventing discrimination using genetic criteria, and special research is being devoted to the problem [21]. It might seem surprising that with so little background in genetic discrimination (prior to the adoption of GINA in 2008 only few cases on the topic had been heard in US courts [22]) a specialized law was

MEGASCIENCE-2021 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2210 (2022) 012001 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2210/1/012001

4
enacted. Nevertheless, surveys showed that 90% of US residents were concerned that insurance companies would use genetic information to increase premiums in response to increased risk of certain illnesses and that employers would avoid hiring a candidate for a job if there might be a risk of additional costs or incapacity to work [23]. Those fears have led people to opt out of research into the human genome, and that in turn is hampering the development of medical technologies in the field and slowing acceptance of modern treatments that already exist [24]. GINA was designed to allay those fears. Genetic information concerns not only its immediate subject but also others. One way it affects others has already been mentioned: the subject’s genetic information may have implications for their biological relatives. Another way would be in decisions about employment when genetic data indicates higher risks in performing certain kinds of jobs. For example, an elevated risk of sudden cardiac arrest for drivers, pilots and other operators of equipment may constitute a hazard to the life and health of other people. This has prompted debate among specialists in the USA about whether a distinction among workers based on their genetics should be made when it might avert real and grave threats to peoples’ lives and well-being [25]. However, this position has met resistance from other experts [26], and it has so far not gained traction either in legislation or judicial practice in the USA.

Legal doctrine in the USA generally recognizes two approaches toward antidiscrimination legislation: anticlassification and antisubordination. Anticlassification means that the employer should ignore any characteristics of workers, such as gender or race, that would be discriminatory. It follows that this is a way of establishing equal rights among workers or in other words arriving at ‘arithmetic equality’. Antisubordination does not require the employer to ignore discriminatory factors; on the contrary, they should reckon with them in order to protect potential victims of discrimination and to avoid any seemingly unbiassed actions that would nevertheless have discriminatory outcomes. This prohibition of discrimination is intended to create equal opportunities or what is termed ‘affirmative action’. It follows that substantive equality, meaning equal opportunities, may require arithmetic inequality and an unequal set of rights for different categories of people. Of course, this debate has many more aspects than fall within the scope of this article [27]. Regulations that are intended to establish equal opportunity in Russian legislation are usually called beneficial regulations (Rus. – “normy-l’goty”), which are intended to protect specific categories of vulnerable workers and reflect differentiation in legal regulations for employment, i.e. distinctions that by law are deemed nondiscriminatory. Although the boundary between discrimination and differentiation may seem fairly simple at the conceptual level, the actual legal regulations and doctrines that involve differentiation can themselves be considered discriminatory. In Russia this issue has prompted debate about the list of strenuous and hazardous occupations that are prohibited for women because it has a discriminatory impact on labour rights, on fixed-term employment contracts for older pensioners and more [28].

Passage of GINA in 2008 meant that classification was prohibited, and employers were in general barred from using genetic information as a basis for any decision about workers. However, soon after GINA was passed its usefulness was being questioned, and a shift to the more complex subordination standard was under consideration [29]. One of the weaknesses critics found in this law was that it prohibited only intentional discrimination. Other antidiscrimination laws in the USA [30] took a broader approach, which allowed plaintiffs to allege discrimination from apparently neutral policies that had discriminatory results even if the employer had not intended to discriminate [31]. This approach in the USA is usually directed at preventing what has been termed ‘disparate impact’. However, the regulations that extend the concept of discrimination to cover disparate impacts have traditionally been aimed at redress for historically disadvantaged workers, such as Blacks and women, but that concept of disparate impact has become much more fluid. In recent years, high-profile cases have been brought by white men alleging discrimination based on their race and gender [32]. Suits of that kind would scarcely have been conceivable during the second half of the twentieth century. Although the application of disparate impact is in flux, there is so far no entrenched traditional disadvantage for people with certain genetic characteristics. GINA itself had a clause requiring that, within six years after its passage, a special

MEGASCIENCE-2021 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2210 (2022) 012001 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2210/1/012001

5
Congressional commission would consider revision to allow disparate impact claims, although that has not yet taken place. Canada has adopted an approach much like the USA’s. In 2017 a Canadian Human Rights Act included a person’s genetic characteristics among criteria that are discriminatory [33]. That law also stipulated that discrimination on grounds of refusing genetic testing or not disclosing its results would be considered equivalent to discrimination based on genetic characteristics. The Canada Labour Code likewise states that workers are entitled to refuse genetic testing [34]. Genetic testing is understood as tests that analyze a worker’s DNA, RNA or chromosomes in order to predict illnesses or assess the likelihood of their hereditary transmission, or to conduct monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis. The employer is not entitled to impose any penalty or threat of penalty or a reduction in pay for workers who refuse genetic testing or refuse to give their employer access to testing or its results. The employer is also barred from collecting and using results of a worker’s genetic testing or divulging its results to a third party without the worker’s consent in writing. One problem with prohibiting genetic discrimination in employment is that to date genetics has not been the basis for establishing a social group or any kind of genetically defined identity [35]. Antisubordination legislation has been designed to protect groups already discriminated against rather than those that are still difficult to identify. Informed opinion nevertheless sees the potential for stigmas based on genetics that would follow along the same path as other forms of discrimination in the past [29]. A stigma, which is discriminatory labelling of certain kinds of people, usually proceeds in definite stages: some sort of marker is detected, then an association (correctly or falsely) is established between that marker and certain undesirable consequences, and finally people bearing that marker are subjected to discrimination. Avoiding that potential problem would mean devising measures that rely on quotas and similar regulations to promote genetic diversity in the workplace.

5. Conclusion

An adequate first response to the fresh challenges for labour law and medical insurance from the advance of genetic technologies should include specific and direct measures to control how employers and insurance companies may access genetic data, as well as an explicit prohibition of discrimination based on genetic factors. Measures of this kind have already been proposed by the community of specialists on the topic [36, 37]. It should be obvious that this task requires input from experts in genetics to clarify the concept of genetic information itself and that this is not a simple matter. The next stage in adapting the Russian legal system to these technological challenges should be to identify the kinds of genetic data that may indicate something potentially unfavourable or hazardous about a person’s state of health or ability to perform certain jobs, or the data may show that a person’s health is vulnerable in certain specific ways. To the extent possible, the principle of ‘reasonable accommodation’ should be followed for people in these genetic categories along with a prohibition of discrimination in employment analogous to that for persons with disabilities [38, 39]. If genetic testing becomes inexpensive and commonly available, creating socially vulnerable groups based on genetic handicaps will be inevitable unless there are policies in place to prevent it; and those groups will be at a disadvantage in the labour market compared to ‘genetically well-endowed’ workers, just as in the dystopia depicted by the film ‘Gattaca’. In that event, it will be necessary to consider beneficial regulations to ensure equal opportunities for those vulnerable workers. For now, it would be premature to enact such regulations because there is still not sufficient evidence that a genetically vulnerable class of workers will be formed. To protect personal data associated with the human genome, it would be reasonable to have a legal prohibition on receiving and processing such data even with consent from the worker because that information may have consequences for others, such as the worker’s biological relatives [40]. Exceptions should be made when an employer’s access to genetic information would prevent risks to workers themselves or to third parties (such as passengers) in occupations that have been specially listed as exceptions agreed by the trade unions, the employers’ associations, and the government based on occupational health research.

Acknowledgments This study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research within the framework of Research Project No. 18-29- 16126”
MEGASCIENCE-2021 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2210 (2022) 012001 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2210/1/012001

References

[1] Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 11 March 2019 No. 97 ‘On the fundamentals of Russian Federation state policy for ensuring chemical and biological safety through 2025 and beyond’, paragraph 8, point 13.
[2] Belyakov V I and Povarov Y S 2020 Legal and biological bases for use of genetic technologies in selecting athletes and determining their activities Law and Business: Legal Accommodation of Business Development in Russia (vol 4) ed S D Mogilevskiy and Y G Leskova et al (Moscow: Prospekt) pp 81–91
[3] Belyakov V I 2020 Potential applications of the concept of a genetic passport for an occupational selection system: legal, medical and biological aspects Law and Business: Legal Accommodation of Business Development in Russia (vol 4) ed S D Mogilevskiy and Y G Leskova et al (Moscow: Prospekt) pp 92–103
[4] Rassolov I M, Chubukova S G and Mykurova I V 2019 Biometrics in the context of personal data and genetic information: legal problems Lex Russica 1 pp 114–5
[5] International Declaration on Human Genetic Data artice 2 (i).
[6] Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (97) 5 on the Protection of Medical Data (February 13, 1997) article 1.
[7] Federal Law dated 3 December 2008 No. 242-FZ article 1 (3) ‘On state genomic registration in the Russian Federation’
[8] Minbaleyev A V 2020 Protection of the rights of the subjects of genetic information within a constitutional state as the informaiton community develops The rule-of-law state: theory and practice 2 60 pp 60-61
[9] Draft law No. 744029-7 ‘On amending Article 11 of the Federal Law “On personal data” including processing of biometric personal data’
[10] Discussion on the Videoparliament Beta database. On draft FZ No. 744029-7 ‘On amending Article 11 of the Federal Law “On personal data” including processing of biometric personal data’
[11] Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 1997 CETS-164
[12] Lyutov N L 2016 Russian law on discrimination in employment: can it be compatible with international labor standards? Russian Law Journal 4 3 pp 23-8
[13] Suter S M 2018 GINA at 10 years; the battle over ‘genetic information’ continues in court Journal of Law and the Biosciences 5 3 pp 495-526
[14] Bernstein G 2006 The paradoxes of techno-logical diffusion: genetic discrimination and internet privacy Connecticutt Law Review 39 pp 241-5
[15] Genetic Discrimination: Tranatlantic Perspectives on the Case for a European Level Legal Response 2014 ed Quinn G, de Poor A and Blanck P (London: Routledge)
[16] Wolf S M 2005 Beyond ‘genetic discrimination’: toward the broader harm of geneticism Genetics and Gene Therapy ed McLean Sh A M (London: Routledge) pp 159-67
[17] Roberts L W, Barry L K and Warner T D 2011 Potential workplace discrimination based on genetic predisposition: views of workers AJOB Primary Research 2 3 pp 1-12
[18] Lemke T, Liebsch K, Eißing T, Hoeltie B, Manz U and Plümecke T 2013 Genetische diskriminierung in deutschland? Erfahrungen von andersbehandlung und benachteiligung

7
aufgrund genetischer krankheitsrisiken Soziale Welt 64 3 pp 269-90
[19] Sutton A L, Henderson A, Hurtado-De-Mendoza A, Tanner E, Khan M, Ouillin J and Sheppard V B 2019 Black women’s confidence in the genetic information nondiscrimination act International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16 24 article 5112 [20] U. S. Equal Employment Commission. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
[21] Chapman C R, Mehta K S, Parent B and Caplan A L 2019 Genetic discrimination: emerging ethical challenges in the context of advancing technology Journal of Law and the Biological Sciences 6 pp 1-23
[22] Roberts J L 2010 Preempting discrimination: lessons from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Vanderbilt Law Review 63 2 pp 442-51 [23] The Genetic Information Nondiscrmination Act: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. U. S. House of Representatives, one hundred tenth Congress, first session on H.R. 493, 8 March 2007 p 493 [24] Klitzman R 2010 Views of discrimination among individuals confronting genetic disease Journal of Genetic Counseling 19 pp.77-8 [25] Levin N 2013 A defense of genetic discrimination Hastings Center Report 43 2 pp 33-42 [26] Rothstein M A 2013 Discrimination in employment is indefensible Hastings Center Report 43 6 pp 3-4
[27] Foubert P 2014 Equality and prohibition of discrimination in employment Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies 11th edition ed R Blancpain (Alpen aan den Rjin: Wolters Kluwer) pp 422-9
[28] Actual problems of labour law, textbook for master’s degree students 2017 ed N L Lyutov (Moscow: Prospekt) pp 96-118
[29] Roberts J L 2011 The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act as an antidiscrimination law Notre Dame Law Review 86 2 pp 597-648 Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/1163/1/012003/pdf
[30] U. S. Equal Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
[31] Wagner J K 2018 Disparate impacts and GINA: Congress’s unfinished business Journal of Law and Biosciences 5 3 pp 527-49 [32] Lenta.ru website in Russian 2009 Whites are people too: the American Supreme Court defends the rights of the racial majority Retrieved from https://lenta.ru/articles/2009/06/30/firefighters [33] Canadian Human Rights Act R.S.C. 1985. Section 3(1), art. H-6 [34] Canada Labour Code R.S.C. 1985. Section 247.98, art. L-2 [35] Kim P T 2010 Regulating the use of genetic information; perspectives from the U.S. experience Comparative labour law and policy journal 31 4 p 698 [36] Bogdanova E E 2019 Legal problems and risks of the genetic revolution: genetic information and discrmination Lex russica 6 151 pp 18-29 [37] Chubukova S G 2020 Approaches to legal regulation of genetic testing in a rule-of-law state The Rule of Law: Theory and Practice 2 60 pp 153-4 DOI: 10.33184/pravgos-2020.2.13 [38] Dzharovnikov R N Reasonable accommodation as a way to determine the limits of employers’ obligation to create special work conditions for persons with disabilities Ways to Achieve a Programme of Decent Work and Decent Social Secutiry in Russia. St Andrew’s readings ed K N Gusov (Moscow: Prospekt) pp 610-5 [39] Waddington L 2007 Reasonable accommodation Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-discrimination ed D Schiek, L Waddington and M Bell (Oxford: Hart Publishing) pp 740-5 [40] Kubitovich S N 2017 DNA as a bearer of information about an unlimited circle of people Vestnik ekonomischeskoy bezopastnosti 4 pp 185-90” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350698703_Genomic_epidemiology_of_SARS-CoV-2_in_Russia_reveals_recurring_cross-border_transmission_throughout_2020/fulltext/606db393299bf1c911b1fa36/Genomic-epidemiology-of-SARS-CoV-2-in-Russia-reveals-recurring-cross-border-transmission-throughout-2020.pdf

“Deutsch: “Neues Volk 1938 Kalender des 85 Rpf.” Werbeplakat; Aquarell von Ludwig Hohlwein 1937; ” Arische ” Familie; NSDAP Propaganda.
English: “Neues Volk 1938 Kalender des Rassenpolitischen Amtes der NSDAP 85 Rpf.”. Poster advertising for a propaganda calender from the Nazi magazine Neues Volk (“A New People”) issued by the Nazi Party Office of Racial Policy; Water colour painting by Ludwig Hohlwein 1937; picture showing the idealised concept of a healthy German family as the core of the “Volksgemeinschaft”, a pure “Aryan” family, with Nazi ideal racial types (a blond father, mother, and young child), and a flying eagle in the background; No known copyright restrictions
Date 1937
The poster was designed by Ludwig Hohlwein, a German artist died 1949, and issued by NSDAP, an organisation in Nazi Germany ceased to exist in 1945, and the work has fallen into the public domain https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludwig_Hohlwein_NEUES_VOLK_1938_Kalender_des_Rassenpolitischen_Amtes_der_NSDAP_85_Rpf._Aquarell_1937_Arische_Familie_Nazi_Party_Office_of_Racial_Policy_propaganda_calendar_cover_Pure_Aryan_family_No_known_copyright_restrictions.jpg