Sport Enhancement's Biggest Fan

Sport Enhancement's Biggest Fan [GMA mention] (2005, 4 Apr) by Simon Smith [link] "This—the practical impossibility of enforcing gene doping bans—is just one strike against prohibition. Miah raises many more issues. For example: Would people born with genetic modifications be allowed to play sports? Should gene therapy be used to equalize genetic constitutions so that competition is based more on skill and training than the genetic lottery? Would gene therapies that help athletes hasten healing also be banned under blanket prohibition?"

Taking the Magic Out of Sport

Taking the Magic Out of Sport(2005, Mar 28) by Bill Walton, ESPN

"Ready or not, here it comes. Genetic testing of children to determine athletic traits is at the door. Much like the trend to ever-younger talent eschewing the traditional path of education and collegiate sports, there is no stopping this next wave. Our challenge is to use this new technology, information and tool in the best and most ethical manner possible"

Baby, you're the greatest

Baby, you're the greatest(2005, Aug 25) ESPN.com by tom Farrey [link]

Of mighty mice and super men

Of mighty mice and super men(2005, Mar 20) News Day (NYC), by Michael Dobie

The Sweeeney mice lead this article, along with the requests from athletes and coaches for gene enhancement. Predictions are also made that Beijing in 2008 willl be the first 'gene games', though Gary Wadler indicates 2012 is more likely. Lee Sweeney admits that we cannot know for certain that no GM athletes took part in Athens and Brian Corrigen, former head of the Australian Sports Drug Agency is quoted stating it is already here. WADA President, quite rightly, states that if it's against the rules, it is unethical, but also acknowledges that the rules couldd change.

Beyond Steroids: Designer Genes

Beyond Steroids: Designer Genes (2005, 17 Mar) Washington Post, by Paul Farhi [link]

Article pitched on the congressional hearing of US baseball stars. Ted Friedmann predicts a 'genetic version of BALCO' is just around the corner and the possibility of detection is discussed. Sweeney predicts a problem in another decade, but these sorts of predictions are really unreliable. They vary considerably depending on who is making the claim and what political agenda is assumed.

Friedmann does, as usual, raise the more challenging question about where society draws the line on using genetic technology, though it would seem that his interest is to preserve enhancement-free sport.

He says he would 'like to admire an achievement without wondering whose achievement it really is'. Well, too late! You need already wonder. Athletes are parts of a system, not machines, but not isolated either.

War on drugs isn't just being lost, it's about over

War on drugs isn't just being lost, it's about over (2004, 25 Feb) by Jim Litke, Associated Press Litke begins by pointing out that our knowledge about THG was the result of somebody's good intentions to expose the situation, rather than the successfulness of anti-doping. Michael Sokolove's feature in the New York Times leads this piece, which discusses Lee Sweeney's 'mightmice'. Gary Wadler is also quoted, stating that, whatever is out there on the market, will find its way into sport. Sweeney states that the anti-doping struggle is surely going to come to an end as it no longer becomes feasible to expect to catch the enhanced athletes. He sets a time limit of about twenty years before it all has to end.

The article conccludes referencing the 'unscientific' poll on USA Today's website, which found that around 50% of people did not care much whether athletes used drugs to compete. Perhaps not the assumed culture of sport spectatorship. Maybe the values of anti-doping are no longer consistent with how sports have changed in our society. However, this does not mean that athletes are particularly enthused about the prospect of having to modify themselves.

Steroids old news for edge seekers

Steroids old news for edge seekers (2005, 19 Feb) The Seattle Post, by Ted Miller [link]

'Gene-doping, myostatin inhibitors and germ-line therapy' are the focus for this article. The author touches on the usual examples - Schwarzengger/Marathon mice, the 'Wonder Baby' German boy, and Lee Sweeney's work. The article is generally suspicious about these prospects, though acccepts that the technological imperative is likely to render all conversations about testing rather redundant.

Experts: Genetic 'doping' looms for sports

Experts: Genetic 'doping' looms for sports (2005, 12 Feb) Associated Press, by William McCall

This article emerges from the Portland State University and Gene Forum public debate on genetic enhancement and sport. Mehlman begins by asking whether it can be prevented at all. If not, then some alternate strategies need to be developed.

Gene doping looms as next sports edge

Gene doping looms as next sports edge (2005, Jan 16) The Baltimore Sun, by Kevin van Vallkenburg [link]

With Barry Bonds and Marion Jones taking centre stage in the BALCO scandals, this article wonders what might be the future for the enhanced athlete. Theodore Friedmann is the lead for this piece and there are further predictions about the imminent use of gene doping.

Steven Ungerleider, a sports psych discusses the 'East German Doping Machine' as an indication that scientific possibilities will lead to abuse. The difficulty of detecting gene modificaiton will be of particular significance.

Gene test for child's sporting chance

Gene test for child's sporting chance(2004, Dec 20) The Times (London), by Jemma Chapman [link]

This article discusses research which aims to identify performance capacity using genetic tests. The science emerges from the Australian Institute of Sport and relates to the ACTN3 gene. The article questions whether this sort of test should be used with children. Comments are offered from myself and Prof. Julian Savulescu, who recently published an article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine on the ethics of doping.

gene doping: sport at the cellular level

gene doping: sport at the cellular level(2004, Nov 19) Drug War Chronicle by Steve Beitler [link]

While I do not know much about this website or magazine, it does seem to have considerable support. The article discusses a couple of perspectives challenging the dominant anti-doping discourses in the world of sport. IGF-1 is the focus and Norman Fost's comments are also used. Fost has spoken openly against the anti-doping movement for some time and offers some argument for its weaknesses.

Researchers cite dangers of gene doping in sport

Researchers cite dangers of gene doping in sport(2004, Nov 2) Los Angeles Times, by Alan Zarembo

'Pioneer' in genetic engineering, Jim Wilson offers the expert comment int his article. Olivier Rabin, Director of Science for WADA notes his concern for the abuse of gene threapy. However, it is also explained that there is no evidence of gene doping in sport. Wilson is part of the University of Pennsylvania, deeply involved with the Jesse Gelsinger tragedy. The article doesnt really consider sport specifically and is more about the therapeutic possibilities of gene therpay, though Wilson does state that athletes would be crazy to try this on themselves.

DNA May Soon Be in Play

DNA May Soon Be in Play (2004, Aug 27) LA Times, by Alan Zarembo

James Wilson's research on EPO begins this piece, another example of medical research applied to the alleged non-medical context of sport - though how sport performances can be conceived as non-medical is a little unclear. Olivier Rabin (WADA) acknowledges that 'abuse' is on the horizon, drawing attention to WADA's 2003 ban on gene doping. The article makes some useful connections to other science - particularly Jeese Gelsinger - and Leon Kass is quoted with an expected restrictive statement. Kass would prefer to cheer athletes and not chemists, but the illusion is that athletes currently get there without the science, when science is integral to our present appreciation of elite sports. They are already overwhelmingly technological.

Ronald Evans from the Salk Institute of Biological Studies in La Jolla is also referenced as being able to create more efficient and stronger hearts, which can translate into greater exercise capacity.

Finally, Zarembo referecnes Francoise Lasne at the French National anti-doping Laboratory, which claims that it is possible to detect modified EPO in the blood, though this is surely not the end of the story.

The promise and peril of playing with genes

The promise and peril of playing with genes (2004, Aug 26) International Herald Tribune, by Nicolas D. Kristof [link]

I like Kristof's work a lot and, while this is a brief piece, it does ask some of the bigger questions about how we are changing the human condition through technology. Kristof is both sceptical and cautious about the use of genetics, but this is a balanced piece. Eero Mantyranta of Finland - the genetically mutated skiier - makes it into the article, as does the NEJM article by Schuelke and Sweeney's work on IGf-1. Kristof concludes with a question: 'In what ways should we improve our genetic endowment?'. Not a bad question to begin this debate in sport, but we seem to get distracted with just catching cheats. The questions are all back to front, even if the testers believe they are ahead of the game.

Building Better Bodies

Building Better Bodies(2004, Aug 25) The New York Times , by Nicholas Kristof [link]

Kristof imagines the future of sport, drawing attention to the Belgian Blue bull as a model for humanity. The myostatin-less bulls have bulging muscles - yes, like Arnie, which begs the question as to whether this is really a futuristic claim. The better bodied athlete is desrcribed as a human mutant and H. Lee Sweeney's work and publication in Scientific American is referenced, as is the New England Journal of Medicine article on the 'muscular boy'.

The author asks the ethical question 'in what ways should we improve our genetic endowment?', but argues we are not yet ready to answer this.

BIOETHICS & CREATIVITY

BIOETHICS & CREATIVITYComing very soon: A 'Freak Olympics' (2004, Aug 22) San Francisco Chronicle, by David Ewing Duncan [link]

This author draws attention to the technological character of elite sport. He projects an 'enhanced olympics' and, while relatively sensational in its approach, does connect with some relevant science, specifically Lee Sweeney's article in Scientific American. The article feels like little more than a leader for his own publication and the title 'bioethics and creativity' is not connected to the article at all.

Tomorrow's doping scandal? It could be genetic enhancement

Tomorrow's doping scandal? It could be genetic enhancement(2004, Aug 12) Associated Press, by M. Crenson

On the eve of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, Crenson draws attention to mice and rats, whose muscles have been increased by up to 50%. Ted Friedmann is quoted, identifying the high risk of gene doping. Bioethicists are also cited as being concerned that 'unscrupulous trainers' will endeavour to enhance willing athletes. John Hoberman is also quoted, arguing that gene doping is indicative of our 'cultural crisis', though acknowledges that the situation is impossible to resolve satisfactorily.

How far away is Frankensprinter?

How far away is Frankensprinter?(2004, Aug 9) byK. Sherrington

Peter Weyand's research is the focus of the article. He suggests that athletes should all be tested and samples should be frozen and tested, once we have devised the tests necessary to show whether doping has taken place or not. He acknowledges that the doping debate is not straightforward - it is not clear whether prohibition is th best strategy, but there is a certain disgust for it and gene doping is used as the crisis point for modern sport.

Good for medicine, but bad for sport

Good for medicine, but bad for sport(2004, Aug 9) Houston Chronicle, by E.Berger

Barry Bonds, Jason Gambi and Lance Armstrong are described as constantly under suspicion for their sporting successes. John Eliot of Rice University is quoted, stating that gene doping is 'scary stuff' and Beijing 2008 is suggested as the most likely first occasion when it might be used. This article gives a nice explanation of the science of training and how gene modification is conecptually different. Comments aremade about IGF-1 studies and myostatin research at Johns Hopkins.

Ever farther, ever faster, ever higher?

Ever farther, ever faster, ever higher?(2004, Aug 5) The Economist [link]

Interiew with Norman Fost, among other commentators. Fost openly criticises the rational of anti-doping. Richard Pound also notes that muscle biopsies would be too invasive a procedure and so cannot be part of a testing strategy for gene doping.