DNA 'edge creates new sports worry: Scientists concerned about 'gene doping'

DNA 'edge creates new sports worry: Scientists concerned about 'gene doping'(2002, Feb 10) The Baltimore Sun, by M. Stroh

One of the interesting aspects of this article is the recognition that gene therapy for humans has been terribly limited. A number of commentators on this reality have noted that there is more to this than merely the inadequacy of science. RAther, there has been a tumultuous history to the development of genetic science, which has stalled and prohibited important barriers from being overcome.

While it is important to be realistic about what has been achieved so far, there does seem to be good evidence to be optimistic about the potential of genetic science to produce meaningful and significant alterations to how we understand humanness.

Following the gene map

Following the gene map(2002, Jan 29) American Statesman, by J. Maher

Lee Sweeney's work progresses to canine experiments to better understand how IGF-1 is related to muscle growth. Sweeney is not really interested in sport, though acknowledges that his work could offer ways for athletes to 'cheat' sporting structures. Larry Bowers from USADA also notes that the situation in world sport is that it could do nothing to prevent the effective bypassing of testing procedures, if athletes were able to use genetic modification right now. Johann Olav Koss, triple Olympic Gold medalist and IOC medical commission member also states that he thinks gene doping has already started.

It is interesting to note how this article refers back to the Ben Johnson example, as if he is representative of an entirely different era of sport doping. Yet, with the designer steroid THG making its way into the anti-doping agenda, it would appear that genetics is but one example of further challenges for anti-doping policy makers.

This article also notes that the origin of reseacrh that could be applied to sport, begins as research for medically therapeutic ends.

Genetically engineering athletes before birth is also presented as a 'scary' prospect, though the article de-contextualises such choices entirely. Effectively, we are asked to imagine Frankenstein's monster, rather than to imagine a genetically different human being.

Gene Doping

Gene Doping(2001, Dec 7) The Sports Factor, Radio Transcript [link]

This programme inteviews Simon Eassom from England, who updates the previous interview with me on the state of gene doping.

Exercising your genes

Exercising your genes(2001, Dec 3) Nature Science Update, by John Whitfield [link]

Nature's science update is a useful way into some of the articles found in this journal. This article follows the UCL seminar on 'Genes in Sport' in 2001 referring to Hugh Montgomery's work on the ACE gene. Montgomery admits that it might be possible to use genetic screening to discover prospective athletes, but that the most effective methods will remain observational. Perhaps more could be said about the way in which the language of genes has infiltrated society will have some bearing on their importance given by prospective athletes and related persons. While genetic screening alone would not be much use, it is possible that an inceasing amount of value will be given to this new knowledge.

Another way in which this knowledge might be interpreted is that it can reveal what kinds of activities we are most suited for, genetically. For example, it might be the case that certain individuals are better predisposed for endurance rather than explosive events. Again, this is not a straightforward benefit, since this information does not determine how good we will be at any specific sport.

Drugs in Sport: cheats could inject genes to beat system

Drugs in Sport: cheats could inject genes to beat system(2001, Dec 3) The Daily Telegraph, by S. Wallace [link]

One of the controversial (and perhaps superficial) claims in this paper is how the completion of the Human Genome Project will yield information that will make it even more possible to create genetically enhanced athletes. This is quite unclear though it is intriguing that a link has been made - as if the Human Genome Project is related to identifying performance genes or anything that could tell us about performance genes. Of course, the implication is that the knowledge will lead to other possibilities, even if the completion itself says nothing about performance genes. Yet, there is quite a gap between these two things and the Telegraph could be criticised for linking two quite different projects. Arguably, one of the concerns about this is that it monstrises the HGP, as if it is reflective of technology going out of control.

Dick Pound notes that the era of genetically modified athletes willl make examples of doping such as Ben Johnson seem lik an 'ancient rock painting'. There is something misleading in this analogy. Both genetic modification and steroids are example of unknown technologies, which have been disruptive because the surprise they have created. In this sense, they are similar. Of course, Pound does say that we will look back on Johnson and feel this in a hundred years. Of course, most things will look primitive in one hundred years, so I am not sure this tells us very much about the uniqueness of gene doping or, indeed, the primitiveness of steroids.

Gene genie casts ominous shadow

Gene genie casts ominous shadow(2001, Dec 3) The Daily Telegraph, by P. Hamlyn

Peter Hamlyn is consultant neurosurgeon at St Bartholomew's and the Royal London Hospital, which is not necessarily an indication of his knowledge on molecular biology, though certainly valuable that somebody in this position would write an article on this topic.

Hamlyn comments on the conference at UCL titled 'Genes in Sport' at which discussions took place on Kenyan runners and twin research conduted at St Thomas' Hospital.

An area that has yet to be discussed in any depth is the application of genetic science to horseracing, which has the potential to be a further way in which genetic technology infiltrates our cultural practices.

Hamlyn provides his own medic's view to advance the critique that the world is not yet prepared politically, legally or ethically to deal with genetics in culture.

The application of genetic technology to sport is considered as a downside to the potential fruitful consequences of genetic science. So, again, we see a willling rejection of such applications, yet, still, without any qualification of what makes this a problematic application of the technology. Hamlyn notes the potential challenge this raises, recognising that asking an athlete to sit through a muscle biopsy is quite a lot to ask.

The gene genie is out of the bottle

The gene genie is out of the bottle(2001, Dec 1) The Guardian, by J. Entine

Jon Entine is renowned for his book 'Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About it' which controversially attempts to answer questions about the success of different kinds of races in different sports. This newspaper article is one of a number Entine has written on genetic technology noting that it is possible that there will be genetically modified athletes at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. The basis for this claim is a little hard to ascertain, though this is not necessarily a criticism, since claims about what athletes are engaged with is largely speculative. The article is written after the UCL conference on 'Genes in Sport', which took place in Novemeber 2001.

The article is largely descriptive, though includes a number of quotes from international sports personalities. What is most useful about the article is the questioning of what distinguishes therapy from enahcnement or, as Entine describes it, between 'health restoration' and 'performance enhancement'.

Spectre of gene doping raises its head as athletes see possibilities

Spectre of gene doping raises its head as athletes see possibilities(2001) The Times, by D. Powell

This article made me smile when I was putting these pages together. It begins by relating to the claim for the first human clone - we've heard that a few time since haven't we. I even wrote a paper about it! This article arrives alongside the UCL meeting in 2001. The paper indicates that research wil arise out of a legitimate project to promote health. From this, I conclude that the bigger problems for sport arise, not from cheaters trying to undermine the system, but from people who have been modified just to be healthier.

Why I...Believe That Genetically Engineered Athletes Might Not Be Cheating

Why I...Believe That Genetically Engineered Athletes Might Not Be Cheating(2001, June 1) Times Higher Education Supplement, by Andy Miah

This article was published in the same week that the IOC Medical Commission met to discuss the implications of gene doping. The article focuses on what counts as cheating in sport, arguing that there are likely to be instances where athletes will be genetically enhanced, but will not be cheating, even if they have an advantage over other competitors. The article stresses the broader ethical conteext to genetics, recognising UNESCO's draft declaration on Human Rights and the Human Genome as a basis for thinking through this problem.

Pushing the limits

Pushing the limits(2001, Dec 1) The New York Times, by J. Longman [link]

This extensive article by Jere Longman is one of the better pieces of journalism on this topic. Longman characterises the doping problem in sport as 'chemical cat-and-mouse' where the takers have been far advanced of the testers. Here, the core concern for the health of athletes is made explicit by IOC member Jacque Rogge [then, not IOC President]. Some important ethical questions are posed in this article, such as the distinction between therapy and enhancement or, what happens once the technology is made safe. Longman also questions what would happen if a person is born with a genetic modification, which would amount to a genetic advantage in sport. Of course, some athletes already have a genetic advantage in sport and so it might be wondered why a different kind of manufacturing of this advantage through genetics is anything to worry about. The article mentions some of the recent research that too place on so-called 'Schwarzenegger mice' from the Sweeney labs.

Sports facing next problem after drug-takers - gene cheats

Sports facing next problem after drug-takers - gene cheats(2001) Bloomberg Press, by N. Morgan

Unfortunately, this article was never published in Bloomberg, but nevertheless was a terribly well-researched paper. One of the interesting observations of this paper is the way in which genetic science relates to other sport sciences. It is suggested by the exercise physiologists McArdle, Katch and Katch that future limits to athlete performance will be determined less by innate physiology and training and more by surgical enhancement and genetic modification.

Matt Ridley is also quoted as suggesting that it would be relatively easy to engineer a human embryo in a minor waythat could lead to the genetic potential to become a better athlete. However, this is challlenged by Thomas Murray who doubts the way in which genetics is reduced in much of the discourse surrounding its application.

Doping experts wary of gene manipulation

Doping experts wary of gene manipulation(2001, Jan 26) Associated Press, by S. Wilson

This article pre-empts the Cold Spring Harbour meeting, which eventually took place in March 2002. Ted Friedmann notes that the meeting will uniquely bring quite varied people together to discuss the topic and the usual commentators are brought in to 'warn' us about this prospect.

Olympic drug testers seek upper hand in gene therapy

lympic drug testers seek upper hand in gene therapy(2001) The Sport Server, by S. Wilson Here, Wilson quotes IOC Medical Director Patrick Schamasch who notes that there need to be links with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Schamasch also alludes to Orwell and Big Brother, which certianly puts the issue into context. However, I am not sure the analogy works to his favour. Who is Big Brother here exactly? I am not sure the IOC would be too happy with this proposal. Perhaps he meant Big Brother the TV show and if you were unfortunate enough to see 'The Games' on UK tv towards the end of 2003, then you will know why this is far more abhorrent than drug-induced athletes (this is not the Ozzie 'The Games', which is VERY worth seeing and hilarious.)

Gene cheats aim to conquer Olympics

Gene cheats aim to conquer Olympics(2001, May 13) The Guardian, by R. McKie and D. MacKay [link]

One of the questions raised by this article is whether gene doping will undermine other aspects of the sporting 'struggle'. More must be said about this struggle to be clear why tihis question is important and whether it is a valid concern. Few experts would argue that doping of any kind provides a sure way to gold medals or world records. At most, it provides an edge to competition, though frequently by allowing an athlete to work harder. If this is the case and if we can imagine gene doping in a similar way, then it would not detract from the struggle an athlete encounters. Rather, it would provide the means to achieve a greater level of excellence in their performance.

The way in which drug cheats have been demonised in the press requires much more careful scrutiny. there is good reason to believe that the concern about such alterations is tied up with a cultural discourse surrounding the unknown, monstrous or other rather than a genuine concern for what is ethical in sport.

New crisis facing sport

New crisis facing sport(2001, Nov 19) The Times, by D. Walsh

The controversial sport scientist Alessandro Donati from the Italian Olympic Committee is quoted for his concern about the state of doping and the prospect of gene doping. A tacit commitment is made that authorities know human growth hormone to be enhancing performance, ubt there's nothing they can do about it. Bengt Saltin is also quoted in a speech, where he cites genetic research that has enhanced the flight muscles of flies by 300%. Donati's book 'Campioni Senza Valore' (Worthless Champions, 1989) details his struggle, though the book was strangely withdrawn. This article alleges that Nebiolo was behind this. A very unusual and interesting article

Chilling new world

Chilling new world(2001, Jan 26) International Herald Tribune, by C. Clarey

Clarey begins by asking 'How far away are engineered stars?', which would not seem to require an answer that discusses gene doping at all. Athletes have always been engineered and this is what makes them special. Clarey's articles on sport tend often to pose interesting and difficult questions and this is no exception. Yet, still more must be said about the alleged clarity of the moral issues.

While cheating might appear to be obviously wrong in sport, what counts as cheating is often not clear at all. As well, the seemingly obvious illegality of gene doping is contingent on it being banned (on its use being an example of cheating). Though, again, one can question what it is that is trying to be avoided by prohibiting gene doping. Presumably, it is not genetic difference that matters to us, since sports competitions have always been premised on the existence of genetic difference. Potentially, it is an unnatural difference that alarms us, though this requires us to explain what we mean by natural, which is no easy task. If it is an unfair advantage, then we might make gene doping legal and then everybody has access to it. So, far from being clear cut, there are many further questions that must be asked about ethics concerning performance enhancement in sport before we can conclude that gene doping is unethical.

Sports threat: Gene transferring

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

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.

Engineering athleticism

Engineering athleticism(2000, Apr 28) The Sports Factor, radio transcript [link]

While I was in Sydney, I met Amanda Smith, who was then presenter for this excellent sports show. The transcripts of every show are all online and a very useful resource. I hope they don't disappear.

High-tech cheating

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.

Gene cheat' athletes could escape detection

Gene cheat' athletes could escape detection(2000, Oct 2) BBCThe hope of scientists to create therapeutic treatments through genetics is juxtaposed against the trivial and immoral application of the same science to sport. Very rarely is this distinction problematised. While it is reasonable to claim that individuals suffering from genetic dysfunction are in a worse position than those who are genetically 'functional' and who want to 'enhance' themselves, this does not necessarily mean that the latter is unacceptable. At most, it might be an argument to distribute resources in favour of the former. Yet, this is not a reason to prohibit people from selecting genetic enhancement, for sport or other pursuits. Indeed, this latter point - the application of genetics to other careers - is not really discussed. Would our evaluation of genetically modified musicians be similarly unfavorable, as it is for the prospect of GM athletes? We often revel in the glory of the drug-induced rock star or poet, so why does the athlete suffer our harsh judgement?