The next sporting scandal

The next sporting scandal(2000, Sept 18) The Wall Street Journal, by S. Moore and A.C. Copetas [link] IOC Medical Director Dr. Patrick Schamasch is quoted as saying 'gene dopping will be the next issue' and comments on the challenge of staying ahead of the athletes. But how does the public perception of genetic technology change, as it is described as cheating and undermining what is valuable about being human? Might this encourage people to avoid genetic technology, precisely because it is seen as cheating human nature? This would be unfortunate where medical science is looking to genetics to solve health problems.

Fair and foul

Fair and foul(2000, Nov 21) The Star, by G. Woolsey

This article begins by referring to genetic reserach that took place on flies and delves into an analogy to the movie, The Fly. Predictions are made by Bengt Saltin that gene doping is likely to be present at Athens, which is always a tricky thing to state. I actually wrote a piece where I allude to The Fly as well, though, contrary to what might be assumed, that paper does not imply that I am (or am not) a transhumanist. I am not rejecting the label, but just clarifying that the paper makes no such position.

Enter the Superkid

Enter the Superkid(2000, Feb 5) New Scientist, by Andy Miah

This article gives a brief response to Christie Ascwanden's article that also appeared in New Scientist titled 'Gene Cheats'. Some questions I asked about this topic included:

• Does a parent have the right to enhance their child in any way they see fit?
• What kind of enhancement would be valuable and worthwhile to choose?
• How would governing bodies of sport react to those who are genetically enhanced from birth given that we could not call the athlete a cheat since he/she will have done anything themselves?
• What rights does an athlete have to keep his/her genetic information private when competing with other athletes?

I happen to think that many of these questions remain unanswered and that they should be a priority for discussions on this topic.

Gene Cheats

Gene cheats (2000, Jan 15) New Scientist, by C. Aschwanden [link]

Christie Aschwanden provides a well-researched piece related to the possibile emergence of 'gene cheat'. This article is also re-produced on her own website and it discusses a ranger of examples where gene doping might appear. Ascwanden discusses Eero Maentyranta the genetic super-freak of the 1964 Winter Olympics. She also mentioned Jeffrey Leiden's work, who used an adenovirus to deliver the epo gene to mice and monkeys. The findings suggest a boost to the hematocrit levels of both species. Don Catlin is quoted for saying that detection will not be easy, which remains uncertain in the scientific world.

The article concludes with a quote from Charles Yesalis, who notes that it is unlikely that anti-doping testers will be able to keep up with the users. This same concern has been around for many years, which seems a good reason to re-question the value of the anti-doping strategy. Perhaps the re-conceptualisation of doping would yield a preferable situation in competitive sport. If the interest is to protect athletes, then why not make it legal?

Gene doping

Gene doping (2000, Sep 19) ACF News Source [link]

ACF consider the possibility of oxygen-enhancing gene technology, as a basis for modifying athletic performance. One of the major concerns of this article is that gene doping might not be possible to detect. This remains contentious, though it is certainly not clear that it will be impossible. However, even if detection is possible, it is likely that the costs to implement such methods of doping control and the burden this would place on research funding, might be to high. In the end, the priority of 'cheating' in sport is not particularly high, when research funding is sought for other forms of medical science.This article cites a number of experts in this area, including Larry Bowers (USADA executive) Don Catlin (UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory), Garry Nolan (Stanford University), John Hoberman (historian of doping) and David Joyner (USOC Sports Medicine Committee). Also, the article published in New Scientist by Christie Aschwanden is mentioned along with Lamsam et al. (1997)

Morphing the human body

Morphing the human body(2000, Jan 20) ESPN, by T. Farrey [link]

This article begins with the intriguingly benal question about whether it would be interesting to clone an athlete. Presumably, this question has more meaning in sport, at least because there seems some meaningful and (more) obvious connection between the career of an athlete and their genes. In contrast, wondering whether it would be valuable to clone, say, John Lennon, would be uninteresting just because the link between musical capcity and genetics is less persuasive.

One of the other interesting aspects of this article is the contextualising genetics in a broader technologisation of sport, which includes developments in cybernetics. the bionic athlete is described more through these technologies than genetics. Indeed, this is useful to note since it is more persuasive that, if any Frankensteian being should become manifest through technology, then it is much less likely that it will be through genetics. Rather, it will be through the cosmetic sculpting of our bodies that will produce distorted humans, but all for the better I think. As a species, we lack the necessary level of diversity that would make difference seem unimportant in terms of how we evaluate each other.

Genetic testing beckons

Genetic testing beckons(2000, Jan 20) ESPN, by T. Farrey [link]

Genetic testing promises to yield information about who will be the likely elite athletes of the future. It is perhaps one of the central ethical problems related to genetics in sport in our immediate future. Yet, very few people seem to be concerned about it. In 2003, the Australian Law Reforms Commissionn published a report on possible implications of genetic information for sport, though still it is widely untheorised.

This article consults the expertise of geneticist Lee Silver who speaks about the power of the human Genome Project.

Sport's brave new world

Sport's brave new world(2000, Jan 24) ESPN, by T. Farrey [link]

a brief article with interesting links to prophecies about sport in 2010, 2050, and 2100. I like Tom Farrey's articles and there have been a few in the last few years that have been published in ESPN.

The genetically engineered athlete, The Guardian (1999, Dec 15)

The genetically engineered athlete(1999, Dec 15) The Guardian, by M. Butcher [link]

This article begins by recognising gene doping as a misuse of genetic technology and paints the picture of a couple who are about to illegally modify their prospective child, to ensure that it is going to be a world-winning athlete. The article is loaded with allusions to Frankenstein, deviant behaviour and describes this future as horrific. Yet, it does very little to explain what it is that has been compromised by this 'abuse' of medical technology.

The assumption is that this kind of performance enhancement would necessarily (and obviously) be illegal. Indeed, it is assumed that gene doping is comparable to other kinds of doping rather than, say, comparable to more legal methods of performance modification.

It is possible to construct a diffferent picture of this genetically modified future. Imagine a couple who, with the help (and potentially, legal requirement) have discovered a genetic defect in their prospective child. With the aid of genetic technology it is possible to correct this dysfunction and even make the child more resilient to disease. An unintended consequence of this would be that the child will most likely be a more competent athlete, should (s)he decide to take such a career path.

These two different constructions of the way in which gene transfer technology might be used to create super-athletes are quite different. Very often, the kind of dystopian (and, often, criminal) connotations of this technology obscure the way in which it could be used for the benefit of human kind, which includes enhancing the capacities of athletes.

Sporty types (1998, New Scientist)

Sporty types(1998) New Scientist, by A. Cogan [link]

This is one of the earlier pieces on the ACE gene and might not be online any longer. It is one of the first articles to discuss the possibilities of creating sporting champions and refers to research related to the endurance capacities of mountaineers and soldiers.

High-tech cheating (2000, Oct 2, WebMD)

High-tech cheating(2000, Oct 2) WedMD, by M.J. Maltin [link]

A surprising and important venue for this topic, raising some comments from people who cannot be found in any of the other news articles on this topic. Inder Verma from the American Society of Gene Therapy is quoted as recognising that gene doping is possible. Verma also notes that detection is going to be difficult. The article doesn't go much further, though it is very useful information and no short cuts are made on the scientific detail.

Sports threat: Gene transferring (2001, Jan 25, Wired Magazine)

Sports threat: Gene transferring(2001, Jan 25) Wired, by Associated Press

This article preceded the intial dates for the Cold Spring Harbour meeting in New York. The main thrust is that the meeting will bring some very different people together to discuss this matter. This article does not offer much more than the usual quotes, though it is clearly an important venue for the topic to have been discussed. It seems important that the Cold Spring meeting is seen as a platform for wider discussions, though it is not clear whether this has yet happened much.

Procycling Magazine

Interview for this month's (June) edition of Procycling Magazine. a large feature on gene doping written by Daniel Friebe.

Genetic Doping in Sport

Genetic Doping in Sport: The Facts and the Future 1-day seminar 27 July 2006

Sydney Olympic Park

Course Overview

The prospect of a genetically engineered athlete is now a reality (Parisotto, 2006). Science has reached the stage where it is possible to determine an individual’s potential from their genetic make-up and we are seeing the increasing spectre of gene doping looming large in athletes and sporting contests.

This seminar will provide an in-depth analysis and understanding of the history, science, practice, policy and ethics of genetic doping in sport and what the future might hold.

Presenters*

Professor Peter Fricker, Director of the Australian Institute of Sport.

Dr Brian Sando Chief Medical Officer for the last five Olympic Games.

Dr Damien Abarno Research Geneticist, University of South Australia and Sport Knowledge Australia.

Mr Robin Parisotto Principal researcher for the AIS ‘EPO 2000 Project’ and author of the recent book “Blood Sports”

Benefits To Participants

You will learn about:

• the biology underpinning genetic doping effects on physiology
• genes that are currently linked to physiology and performance
• genetic testing for athlete potential - how it is done and some of the current testing being carried out
• gene doping - it’s origins, application and regulations.
• the extent of gene doping in international sports
• the testing and impact of genetics in sport at the club, national and international level.
• the ethical implications of genetic doping and testing in sports.

It promises to be an outstanding and unique opportunity to engage with the leading thinkers, practitioners and policy makers on this controversial but now very real issue.

Who Should Attend

• Scientists
• Sports organisations
• Coaches and managers
• Strength and conditioning coaches
• Government Departments of Sport and Health
• Sport Institutes
• Player Associations
• Professional Associations for sport science and medicine
• Pharmaceutical organizations
• Academics
• Media commentators

COST AU$495 (Incl GST)**DATE 27 July 2006 VENUE Sydney Olympic Park RSVP 21 July 2006 **The above cost includes morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea. 5% off for registrations made before 26 May 2006 For all courses offered by Sport Knowledge Australia, please visit http://www.sportedu.org Telephone + 61 2 9390 9390, Fax + 61 2 9390 9391, Email courses@sportedu.org Level 1, Building A - 1 Herb Elliott Ave - Sydney Olympic Park - NSW 2127 Australia

Chemically Enhanced

In February this year, the Financial Times ran an article about genetic doping in sport, where Professor Julian Savulescu was interviewed on his views. The article's author, David Owen, begins by carefully intimating his fascination for the Ben Johnson race and Savulescu voices doubt about the value of the current approach to doping. Also, Don Catlin is quoted as saying that the real smart athletes are perfectly able to avoid the doping tests. The Stockholm meeting is also mentioned.

Gene Doping

Following on from the previous post, I have just had a look at the Duke pages and they have a debate on the ethics of gene doping. On their poll, it is interesting to see a reasonably even split between the pro- and the anti- doping views. It's also good to see David Resnik (renowned bioethicist, someone I have referenced a lot and would like to meet) voicing his view: "I am inclined to say make it legal for some sporting activities and not for others. The bottom line here is fairness. If there is a sport that does not allow gene doping, and some people dope, they will have an unfair advantage. If a sport allows doping, then doping will not be an unfair advantage. Sports will have to decide whether to allow doping. David Resnik, NIEHS/NIH"

World Pro-Doping Agency

I happen to think that I have a relatively moderate view about performance enhancement in sport. My initial position is that the doping dilemma is a genuine ethical issue - one which lends itself to no clear resolution, because there are essentially contested concepts at stake. To this extent, I sympathise with many people involved within the anti-doping movement. I listen to their views, I take on board what they say. To this extent, I also do not shout too loud about the value of a pro-doping stance, even though I am characterised predominantly as advocating this view. For one thing, the doping issue is deeply political and, if one aims to do good philosophy, then taking this into account is critical. Debates surrounding any technological, regulatory issue must engage with the practical ethical problems they present. However, at times, I wonder whether I should be more radical and unforgiving about the case to be made on behalf of doping.

Yet another 'pro-doping' op ed piece passed across my desk today and it has provoked me to consider whether there should be some form of organisation of these disparate views. Perhaps we need to get all the 'pro-doping' views/people together to bring about some form of structured intervention. However, if I do this, I worry that this might compromise my integity by clearly aligning myself with one particular kind of conclusion when, as I say, this issue is more complex.

So, my proposal is to establish a World Pro-Doping Agency as a thought experiment. I wonder how many people would sign up. My first task will be to assemble all papers, people and institutions that have raised questions about the anti-doping movement. However, the end goal is one that seeks to present constructive proposals to the difficult problem of doping in sport. (Watch out for publications of mine using this title.)

American College of Sports Medicine (30May-3Jun, 2006)

The 42nd Annual meeting of the ACSM takes place in Denver (Colorado) this year. It will be the first ACSM meeting I have attended and I have been invited to be part of a symposium on 'gene doping'. The other panellists include Stephen Roth (Chair, U. of Maryland), Ted Friedmann (WADA), Olivier Rabin (WADA), and Gary Wadler (NYU). It should be an exciting event. 

Enhance Project

The website of the ENHANCE project launched earlier this month. It is a vast collaborative network covering all aspects of enhancement technologies, funded through the European 6th Framework programme. Watch that space!

Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport

The title of this entry is the same as that used in the new UK inquiry from the Science and Technology Select Committee in the UK Government. It's off to a good start already, avoiding the pejorative terminology of 'doping'. I am optimistic that it will broaden the debate and it's good to see it on the agenda. A representative from the Committee also attended the JMI meeting and our sport session yesterday. I reproduce their press release below:

Select Committee on Science and Technology

No. 24 of Session 2005-06

1 March 2006

NEW INQUIRY

HUMAN ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN SPORT

The Science and Technology Committee is to conduct an inquiry into the use of human enhancement technologies (HETs) in sport, with particular reference to technologies which are likely to impact on the 2012 Olympics.

The Committee is examining the opportunities and problems presented by the increasing availability of technologies capable of enhancing sporting performance and is inviting written evidence on:

 The potential for different HETs, including drugs, genetic modification and technological devices, to be used legally or otherwise for enhancing sporting performance, now and in the future;

 Steps that could be taken to minimise the use of illegal HETs at the 2012 Olympics;

 The case, both scientific and ethical, for allowing the use of different HETs in sport and the role of the public, Government and Parliament in influencing the regulatory framework for the use of HETs in sport; and

 The state of the UK research and skills base underpinning the development of new HETs, and technologies to facilitate their detection.

The Committee would welcome written evidence from interested organisations and individuals addressing these points. Evidence should be submitted by Monday 22 May 2006. Oral evidence sessions will begin in June.

Guidelines for the submission of evidence

Evidence should be submitted in Word format, and should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk . The body of the e-mail must include a contact name, telephone number and postal address. The e-mail should also make clear who the submission is from.

Submissions should be as brief as possible, and certainly no more than 3,000 words. Paragraphs should be numbered for ease of reference, and the document should include a brief executive summary. Those submitting evidence are reminded that evidence should be original work, not previously published or circulated elsewhere. Once submitted no public use should be made of it, but those wishing to publish their evidence before it is published by the Committee are invited to contact the Clerk of the Committee to obtain permission to do so. Guidance on the submission of evidence can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm

For further information please call Ana Ferreira, on 020 7219 2793. Previous press notices and publications are available on our website. www.parliament.uk/s&tcom

Notes to editors:

• Under the terms of Standing Order No. 152 the Science and Technology Committee is empowered to examine the “expenditure, policy and administration of the Office of Science and Technology and its associated public bodies”. The Committee was appointed on 19 July 2005.

Membership of the Committee

Mr Phil Willis (Lib Dem, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chairman) Adam Afriyie (Con, Windsor) Mr Robert Flello (Lab, Stoke-on-Trent South) Mr Jim Devine (Lab, Livingston) Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem, Oxford West & Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon (Lab, Bolton South East) Margaret Moran (Lab, Luton South) Mr Brooks Newmark (Con, Braintree) Anne Snelgrove (Lab/Co-op, South Swindon) Bob Spink (Con, Castle Point) Dr Desmond Turner (Lab, Brighton Kemptown)