A Photo Is Worth A Thousand Fears.

There are a people in Africa--the Maasai--who reportedly don't take kindly to having their photos taken. The reason? They believe cameras have the power to capture not merely an image of their exteriors, but a piece of their souls as well.

Does your favorite point-and-shoot truly possess

I would like to believe the answer to both questions is a resounding "no."

But such arguments probably would carry little weight with the Maasai. Given their beliefs, posing for a photo places them in an extremely vulnerable position--one in which a powerful, essential part of their being could be exposed and potentially exploited.

There is a strong parallel between the Maasai and our nation's labor force. Many of today's workers--and the groups who represent them--are deathly afraid that employers will conduct tests that capture a snapshot of the very core of their being: their genetic makeup.

It's easy to see where this fear originates. And it is hard to argue that it is not at least partly valid. You probably are besieged by junk mail and telemarketing calls at home--ongoing proof that once your personal information (such as name, address, phone number, age and approximate income) are made available to the world, you can never get them back. And you never know who is using them, or how.

But is it reasonable to fear a similar lack of privacy on the genetic level? Do employers truly have the know-how to peer into someone's genetic makeup? And if they could, would they do it? Would they be willing to take on the potential legal, administrative and other burdens required to obtain and make use of such data?

In general, you would guess that the answer would be "no." But fears of this sort aren't quelled by such imprecise caveats as "in general." A single instance where an employer attempts to peer into its workers' genetic makeup--such as the Burlington Northern case--adds so much fuel to the fear fire that most employers won't be able to easily douse it.

And that type of fear can drive people and organizations to extreme measures.

If you want to have a rational dialogue with someone, sometimes the first thing you have to do is put them at ease.

For the Maasai, this might entail putting your Nikon back in your ditty bag.

For employees, this might require a little more work, such as creating a statement or policy explaining that your company will not engage in genetic testing. Or, if your firm does conduct such tests, explaining in detail why they are being done, who will have access to the information and how the results will be used.

Most employers will be better off keeping their test tubes on the shelf, empty--not filled with employees' blood. But in some cases, employers have valid business reasons for conducting genetic tests--such as ensuring the health and safety of their workers. In these cases, employers that manage the fears of their workers will have much greater success, and far fewer problems.

But even then, expect resistance: Remember, not everyone likes having their picture taken.

For an in-depth look at genetic testing in the workplace, see Senior Writer Steve Bates' cover story on page 34.