This happened
Viewing entries in
Speaking
I have been invited to speak at this meeting in September. The brochures came through the post the other week and it looks like an excellent meeeting. It covers a whole range of technological issues, which is precisely what I have argued for over the last few years. I'm not saying that I've influenced anything, but it's at least nice to go to a meeting with this range of approaches to the roles of technology in sport.
William Hurlbut and Erik Davis
Originally uploaded by andymiah.
I'm now at the Stanford meeting, which has a very good attendance. IT is particularly good to see the likes of Chris Gray here, bringing together the philosophy/law and the cultural studies of technology.
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.
In May this year, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies conference takes place at Stanford UniversityLaw School under the title indicated above. It is co-sponsored by the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences and Stanford Program in Ethics and Society.
I will talk here about the 'criminalisation of enhancement' re-acting to recent moves within the US and elsewhere to frame enhancement as a social deviant practice that ought to involve criminal action.
This month I speak at the spring meeting of BASEM. The title of the event is 'Novel Treatment Approaches in Sports Medicine' (26-27 April, The Belfry, Warwickshire) and I will discuss the related areas of bioethics, science communiation and media studies. Others on the programme include:
Dr Hakan Alfredson on Neovascularisation and its Management
Dr Jacque le Coz on Mesotherapy
Professor Strek on Cryo-Chamber treatment.
The brief for the event is 'to examine the evidence base underpinning some unusual and novel treatment approaches including mesotherapy, actovegan, traumeel, autologous blood injections, hyperbaric oxygen and the current status of stem cell research' The invitation to speak here arose out of a presentation I gave last year for UK Sport. It's great to have a presence on this programme, particularly as it seems to reflect the increasing interest in ethical debates within the biosciences.
Abstract of Presentation
Genetically Modified Athletes?: Bioethics, Science Communication and the Media By Dr Andy Miah, University of Paisley, UK
This paper examines dimensions of ethical debates surrounding novel treatment approaches to sports medicine. It argues that ethical problems must be situated in discussions surrounding science communication, which draw on a critical understanding of media structures. In this context, the paper argues for a ‘public engagement with ethics’ (Miah, 2005a) where this requires consideration of the theoretical and pedagogical foundations of the biosciences and biomedicine.
To explore this thesis, the novel treatment of gene transfer is considered in some depth. The application of gene transfer to elite sports performance has a particularly rich recent history for this purpose. The subject of ‘gene doping’ has generated considerable amounts of debate within ethical, policy and science spheres (Miah, 2004). Moreover, the subject area exists within a recurrent media structure – the prospect of the ‘genetically modified athlete’. To this extent, it is comparable to other major topics in the biomedical sciences, such as human cloning, which similarly has generated recurrent news stories and which also lacks an established evidence base. Questions concerning the ethical issues surrounding novel treatments are of particular relevance given the recent launch of a governmental inquiry into ‘Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport’ (March, 2006). Of particular significance is understanding whether novel treatments can be easily categorised as therapeutic within policy and, if not, what implications this has for their use within elite sport. The paper concludes with some suggestions for informing this inquiring, based on a critique of anti-doping policy (Miah, 2005b).
References
Miah, A. (2004). Genetically Modified Athletes: Biomedical Ethics, Gene Doping and Sport. London and New York, Routledge. Miah, A. (2005a). "Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics?" Public Understanding of Science 14(4): 409-421.
Miah, A. (2005b). "From anti-doping to a 'performance policy': sport technology, being human, and doing ethics." European Journal of Sport Science 5(1): 51-57.
Science and Technology Select Committee (2006, March 1). New Inquiry: Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport. Select Committee for Science and Technology, British Government.
I have created a flickr photo set from the meeting.
Here I am at the Oxford meeting, which is one of the most exciting and interesting I have attended. Major names are here from all kinds of disciplinary perspectives, philosophy, sociology, natural science. The sun is even shining here! The level of the debate is high and many issues exciting. I have already had conversations with Joel Garreu, James Hughes, Julian Savulescu, William Sims Bainbridge, Lee Silver and a representative from the House of Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology. My session on 'rethinking enhancement in sport' was lively and I got the felt that these issues are just beginning for us all. There's a great deal left to be done.
I even signed a couple of copies of 'Genetically Modified Athletes', which happened to be in the Blackwell book stand!
Mary Douglas is now up to speak!
The conference is still undeway here and we are now in a session on credibility in science, a big issue for this meeting.The photo here is from my session yesterday, which I shared with Professor Julian Savulescu, from Oxford. Great meeting.
Here I am sitting with 3 students from the GSA talking about the merits of wordpress and how it can provide many more facilities compared with other blogs. Kris, you have convinced me that this is worthwhile and I even went pro with Flick and I even talked about your work in the lecture. How much more of a rock star does that make you feel?
After a fascinating series of presentations at the Stockholm meeting, we concluded proceednigs with a drafting of a declaration on gene doping. I think of particular interest was the stance taken on the use of genetic tests. This might raise a number of challenges for those who are already using them, though the declration does not forbid the use of such tests.
From 4-5 December, the World Anti-Doping Agency hosts its second Gene Doping symposium in Stockholm Sweden. They have already issues a press release for this meeting and, like the NYC meeting in 2002, the proceedings are closed to the media and by invitation only. At the meeting, I will give a reply to Dr Thomas H. Murray, President of The Hastings Center as part of a session on the ethics and policy implications of gene doping for sport.
One of the greatest catalysts for media coverage at the first meeting was Lee Sweeney's statement that he had been contacted by coaches and athletes who wish to enrol in gene therapy trials, in order to boost their performances. For the media and many other interested parties, this made the issue real and present.
It is likely that this meeting will present some advance on whether detection will be possible and I will argue for a re-definition of the ethics of sport based on a couple of recent pieces I have written. The first - published in the journal Public Understanding of Science - will advance a critique on the way in which gene doping has been discussed in society; the second - published in the European Journal of Sport Science - will argue that anti-doping policy should be replaced with a 'performance policy'.
Together, my conclusion will state that a rejection of gene transfer on the basis of current arguments implied and explicit within anti-doping policy is not justified. The two references are as follows:
Miah, A. (2005). "Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics?" Public Understanding of Science 14(4): 409-421.
Miah, A. (2005). "From anti-doping to a 'performance policy': sport technology, being human, and doing ethics." European Journal of Sport Science 5(1): 51-57.
Before this becomes incredibly out of date, I must mention the post-/trans- humanism session that took place at the conference on Ethics and Philosophy of Emerging Medical Technologies at Institut Borja de Bioetica, Universitat Ramon Llul, Barcelona, Spain in August 2005. The meeting was a joint annual meeting of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare and the European Association of Centres for Medical Ethics. I gave a paper on Posthuman Medicine and Imagined Ethics, which discussed a number of the futuristic scenarios posed by trans/post humanists, asking what legitmacy they have in critical, current debates on medicine and health care. It was particularly interesting to hear the term posthumanism in a number of papers, including Prof. Ruth Chadwick's keynote address on the definition and meaning of enhancement.
I do not think that posthumanism and transhumanism are informed by the same literature, nor are they speaking with the same intentions. I argued as much in my paper.
Other papers in my session, which itself was titled 'Transhumanism and Posthumanity" were:
F. torralba (Spain) What does posthumanity mean?
G. Weikert (Germany) Transhumanism - Hothouse of Mankind [this presenter did not attend]
We had a very engaging debate after the presentations, though I think there remains considerable skepticism for this proposed future, from within the medical community. Many doctors see the transformation of the human species within these terms, which is far from what they see as their role. This presents considerable challenges for advocates of technological enhancement; they have a considerable number of medical professionals to contend with.
Before I forget, I must mention something about the Barcelona meeting (Ethics and Philosophy of Emerging Medical Technologies, Institut Borja de Bioetica, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain), since sport appeared in a good handful of papers including: Keynote paper on Therapy and Enhancement Professor Ruth Chadwick
Argued in favour of the term 'improvement' rather than enhancement, as a basis for characterising the ethical issues arising from emerging technologies.
Ethical norms for research on biomedical enhancement susing human subjects Professor Max Mehlman
Max has written considerably on genetic enhancement and regularly uses sport as a case study in his work. The military was also a theme and there are some great analogies between sport and the military.
Honorary session for Lennart Nordernfelt
Thomas Schramme developed a case to inquire into the concept of 'health' the focus of this session and a tribute to Nordenfelt who gave an introduction and reply. Schramme's case discussed Lily, an athlete who wanted to jump 2m. He argued that Nordernfelt's work would argue that her inability to jump this high would qualify as failing to meet a vital goal and that, therefore, we could characterise it as an illness that should be alleviated by medicine. In short, we would characterise her less than healthy.
Schramme rejected the idea that this inability should be characterised as an illness and rejected the idea that the realisation of all vital goals falls within the proper role of medcine. Nordenfelt agreed with Schramme's conclusion, but did not accept that Lily's interest to jump 2m could be described as a vital goal. Being the best is not a reasonable expectation, but being good is.
Athlete or Guinea Pig? Sports and Enhancement Research Nancy M.P. King and Richard Robeson
Argued that medicine for the athlete should be characterised as enhancement research, but currently it is not. This led to some interesting debates about whether sport technology should go through a more rigorous liability check and whether this should be connected to anti-doping policy. I argue for this in my 2005 piece in the European Journal of Sport Science, though their emphasis is on medical procedures. I wonder whether blood spinning might fall within this category.
Finally, there was my wee paper
Posthuman Medicine & Imagined Ethics Developed posthuman theory in relation to transhumanism and cyborgology and subsequently argued for the need to consider imagined ethical issues. Used the gene doping case as an example of an 'imagined ethical' debate.
I have just returned from Belgrade, where I presented a paper in an invited symposium at the 10th European College of Sport Science meeting. The title of the paper was 'Ban Drugs, Permit Gene Transfer'. Upon my return, I was updating the GMathletes website and discovered the SportsGeneTest website.
To my knowledge, this is the first site to indicate commercial tests for athletic performance. I noticed they have a policy statement, but it is only in German. If anyone can read German, perhaps you would tell me if it is an interesting statement or not!
More information is available through the Australian site 'Genetic Technologies'. In fact, at this page, the 'ethical tell' is a little clearer from their advice for coaches. I quote:
"It is important to note:
So, it would seem they are concerned about:
1. These tests being used too early in a competitors life. Perhaps parents might wish to try them on their kids first, as a means of deciding whether it is worthwhile for them to play sport. 2. Genetic determinism - coaches/parents might conclude that the test result is the dominant predictor of performance capacity. 3. Tests might be imposed upon (young) athletes - though notably, they do not demonstrate a concern for adults being tested.
Well, I cover some of these issues in GMA, so perhaps no need to go over old ground. Still, genetic testing has yet to really hit home in the world of sport. It seems to be seen as merely an extension of talent identification, though I am not convinced that the principles are the same.
Last friday, I participated in a symposium by this title. The co-presenters were Professor Wendy Hall and Professor Neil Burgess. It was hosted by the Royal Institution of Great Britain and was part of the EPSRC Futures series. The Chair of the debate and Director of the series was Dr Dan Glaser, who did a first class jobs. Chairs rarely get credit, but Dan was really superb. He has had a lot of experience with public engagement and his management of this session made it very enjoyable.
A number of possible futures were discussed and questions were asked about the use of metaphors and analogies when imagining what constitutes our memories. Movies came up a lot as well, particularly a compendium of Jim Carrey films (Bruce Almighty, Truman Show, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Memento was also mentioned. I think we could have spent the whole evening just talking about film.
Prof. Neil Burgess also described some work on recollection that uses virtual reality environments as a means of evaluating how much people remember. Yet another example of computer game technology infiltrating the sphere of science. Last November, I learned of similar uses within surgery.
My paper attempted a socio-ethical take on the future of memory, wondering about how we might alter memories and on what basis we justify memory enhancement. Paralells are made with debates related specifically to neuroethics (recent edition of the AJOB has a number of papers about this) and the use of cognitive enhancers. It seems that the future indicates the potential to develop a refined knowledge hierarchy where some forms of knowledge will become more important than others. So, perhaps through sophisticated digital support systems, the importance of remembering factual information will be less. This could have radical implications for how we evaluate capacity and intellect.
Again, the emphasis I wish to make is that becoming posthuman need not imply radical, futuristic technologies such as memory erasure. Rather, the integration of digitisation alone into our daily lives transforms what it means to be human. A good indication of this is the use of community photograph sites, such as flickr, where your images become part of a collective memory of an event or moment.
Blurb on the Symposium Continuing our innovative look at what the future holds for us, the second in our series of ‘Futures’ debates will ask how will we use our memory in the future and how much we will rely on technology to do it for us. This reliance has already begun – consider how many phone numbers you can remember now that you can store them on your mobile phone – and looks set to continue with projects such as ‘Memories for life’. This is one of the grand challenges in the computing world, and its aim is to develop a system to both store and protect our individual memories while being sophisticated enough to allow us to sort through them. But what effects will this have on individuals and society as our ability to access information, and our dependence on external devices, increases? How can mass-storage devices be designed to interface with people and their brains so that more and more can be retrieved with less and less reliance on biological memory? And could this help people with memory impairments? Join Neil Burgess (University College London), Wendy Hall (University of Southampton) and Andy Miah (University of Paisley) as they look at the potential of future computer systems and ask should we be embracing or resisting this move towards an age when digital and physical activities not only coexist but co-operate. (Link to Royal Institution of Great Britain website).
Today UK Sport launched a new anti-doping campaign in London. Among the guests were Tessa Jowell MP, David Howman (WADA), Craig Reedie (IOC), and athletes Stephen Parry and Nicola Cooke. The debate was recorded for broadcast on Radio 5 Live and was definitely one of the healthier debates i have had on this subject. A promising development I think.
Next week, I will give a paper in Sweden titled 'Designer Steroids, Cosmetic Surgery, & Wings'. The paper will explore a range of modifications and, for now, I am particularly intrigued by the use of surgery for sport performance. So far, I have spoken to a range of doping experts about this and, each time, they are perplexed. The first responses is 'Well, what kind of surgery would an athlete benefit from?'. A couple of weeks ago, I posted something about Tiger Woods and laser-eye surgery, but I am sure there are other examples worth thinking through. So, until I have an answer about this one, I thought I'd through it out there and ask 'Why don't athletes use elective cosmetic surgery to enhance their performance?'
By the way, I will also mention that such modification is NOT banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and I doubt that it could be.
(Maybe this relates a little to a paper I published a couple of years ago: Be Very Afraid: Cyborg Athletes, Transhuman Ideals & Posthumanity, Journal of Evolution & Technology, 2003)
Sport Medicine Ethics, 23-24 May, 2005
On Monday 23rd and Tuesday 24th of May 2005, the Stockholm Center for Bioethics, together with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Stockholm and the Oxford Centre for Applied Ethics will organize an international conference on sport medicine ethics, an area still undiscussed within the field of bioethics.
The conference site is Stockholm, and the title of the conference is
"Legitimate and illegitimate enhancements, where to draw the line?".
further details will be posted at the website of the Forum for the Analysis of Sport Technology
One of the questions at the Harvard symposium was about the ethical status of LifeWaves, the new technology that is designed to boost energy. There is no official WADA position on this one yet, but it is unlikely that it will be considered a method of doping. However ,it is performance enhancing and does offer a 'short-cut' to better performances. To that extent, one might argue (mistakenly) that is compromises the 'spirit of sport'. Here we have a further indication that there is a need for more joined-up thinking in the world of sport, about performance. In a paper I am due to have published in the Journal of Sport Sciences, I argue that it is necessary to ditch the anti-doping framework and replace it with a 'Performance Policy', which makes clear the connections between a range of technologies and how they challenge the ethical status of performance in sport. Here are some details about the LifeWave patches from The California Aggie:
"The product consists of two patches, which the company claims will boost energy by 20 to 40 percent, and contains a vague list of ingredients known as 'orthomolecular compounds.' The NCAA and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency tested the patches and found no illegal substances. The NCAA went a step further by announcing that the patches do not fall under the category of nutritional substances because nothing is ingested.
While LifeWave's patent is still pending, and no details can be given about the composition of the patches, it is important to note the overall trend that is taking place in sports: an increase in cases of performance-enhancing products or supplements on the market. The fact that athletes at the collegiate and professional levels are looking for any advantages they can gain over their opponents is a distressing sign.
Gone are the days when athletes gained their advantage by just working harder than their competitors. In today's era of sports, money and results are what matter and some athletes seem to be willing to accomplish their goals by any means necessary.
While very few collegiate athletes gain the notoriety that often accompanies professional sports, it is important to note that Davis youths admire UCD athletes. Youngsters often emulate what they see performers doing and it is not far-fetched to believe kids will start using supplements in their adolescent years when given their favorite athletes as examples of a product's success.
LifeWave seems to be the latest in a string of performance-enhancing products. With the rise of such products, athletes are often faced with the tough decision: losing the competitive edge or compromising their athletic integrity."
Of course, I totally reject the stance of this paper, but what's new!?
Details of a meeting where I will give a presentation on gene doping: Venue: Boston, USA: E.LaB Event Description
The Harvard Law School Ethics, Law & Biotechnology Society (E.LaB) in conjunction with the Harvard Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law (CSEL) & HL Central are proud to present “From BALCO to Bioethics: The Present and Future of Performance Enhancement in Sport.” The ongoing and highly publicized BALCO controversy has made the topic of performance enhancement among athletes one of substantial current interest and debate. While BALCO controls the headlines of today, and poses difficult questions for professional and amateur sports, we pause to speculate about what the future of performance enhancement in athletics may hold.
This panel discussion will feature Dr. Olivier Rabin, Director of Science for the World Anti-Doping Agency, Dr. Dan Brock, Director of the Division of Medical Ethics at Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Andy Miah, Lecturer in Media, Bioethics and Cyberculture at the University of Paisley, Scotland. The panel will be moderated by Dr. Gil Siegal, visiting professor and Medical Ethics Fellow at Harvard Medical School.
Please join us for an open dialogue about the present and future state of performance enhancement in sport.
Where: Harvard Law School, Langdell South Classroom
When: Monday April 11, 2005. 7-9pm.
Contact: Dan Vorhaus (dvorhaus@law.harvard.edu) for more information.
