Viewing entries in
Sport

International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (2003)

IAPS 2003 Notes Annual meeting, 1030am, sat

Andrew Edgar Sport as Performative Contradiction

Apel, cannot critique ethics, because requires employing an ethical discourse to do so.

Gunnar Brievik Is Base Jumping Morally Justifiable?

Are risk sports valuable, representing  good values?

Method

Present prima facie arguments Intuitive No ethical theory Testby rational analytical tools Bring in some theoretical aspects towards end

Risk sports

High-risk Reckon with possibility of serious injury or death by doing sport Medium risk – may happen, but under unfortunate circumstances Low-risk – almost impossible to get serious injury

Arguments – expense for rescuing jumpers

Should be prohibited? Paternalist: base jumpers do not know what they are doing Moralist: persons are egotistic and selfish

Require 200 jumps from plane before you can jump from a cliff!

If prohibit base jumping, then must prohibit many others

What kind of people are involved in basejumping? -    academics, doctors, family people -    control freaks -    standing at edge: scared to death

Ivo Jirasek Ontology of Experience and Extreme Sports

Friday 1030am TC201 Dewey and competitive

Democracy and community for Dewey are necessarily intertwined

Charlene Weaving The Hooker: analogy between prostitution in sport Julia Roberts in sport Nussbaum: prostitution should be decriminalised -    people against it support inequality

Keith Thompson Sport and Utopia

Henri Rousseau ‘the Footballers’ – Guggenheim NYC -    utopian, since nothing of conflict within it -    they are playing about, not playing o    in Thompson’s utopia, must be the latter

what seems ideal is totally boring -    ideal of completing a round of golf in 18 strokes -    challenge is only a challenge if you can fail to meet it

concept of utopia implodes and we are well rid of it

replace  utopia for intrinsica

Simon Eassom for the IOC, distinction between natural and unnatural is necessary distinction on which the condemnation of technology is based

Ray Williams – Nature problematic concept – Materials of Culture

Nature as absence of man’s influence

We possess a nature and behave according to these ways

HN does not mean that we participate in a nature

We are precisely designating those features.

Notion of our having a nature carries similar …. As saying that animals do not have one

Exclude modes of conduct that do not conform to animal norms

Sport is one remaining arena where natural is threatened by unnatural (e.g. homoerotica)

Authenticity corrupted by cultural progress (unnatural)

Sport schizonphrenic: primativity of play, cyborgian culture

Enlightenment: development of art, science, cult part of project of rediscovering  value of being human

Point is not to return to previous primitivity

Gould vs. Dawkins -    Gould rails human chauvinism in definitions of progress -    Dawkins: progress as tendency to improve human….

Drug user in sport is denaturalised by media, etc

Frankenstein’s monster as ugly

Male athlete not re-sexed by de-sexed Female athlete loses reproductive  integrity

Historicity of nature -    ME: but this is not an argument for rejecting the natural, but rejecting a particular conception of the natural

Andrew Courtwright Objections to Maxim -    could rethink to use: e.g. When I believe my muscle are not getting enough oxygen, will use epo to boost -    motivation for doping: usually a competitive argument, not to get more oxygen to muscles o    ME: not sure I accept this, but even if it is true, if I want to do it for that reason, can I?

Final objection -    Imagine someone faster than anyone else o    If she uses drug, does not seem to be to gain a competitive edge o    Depends on how good an athlete you are

Not surprising that Formula of Universal Law generates these objections

Formula of Humanity -    Treating someone as means not acceptable (Respect for persons argument) -    Treat someone in a way that they cannot consent, not just that they would not consent -    By using PE drugs, are treating other competitors as means o    But: if develop a technique that others do not have. This seems impermissible. But need to distinguish this from doping.

Kingdom of Ends Formula -    indiv agent as part of community of agents -    what sorts of maxims are rationally acceptable to community of agents -    FKE resembles Rawls’ original position

Not all PE drugs are dangerous, but majority are in the way in which athletes use them. Conclusion: Athletes who dope are performing a wrong action. -    Presuming the motivation is to gain a competitive advantage -    modify: athletes who dope, just to gain a competitive advantage, are performing a wrong action.

Doping rules are set up to exclude pharma from sport, while other scientists can make a lot of money

Question: based upon your argument, it would seem that iff the motivation is not to gain a competitive edge and is, perhaps, an expression of our ‘posthumanness’, then you do not wish to prevent me from doing this. The problem is, that is the position of international sport.

Saturday 915am shouler@optonline.net If my life is finite, why am I watching this damned game?

Genetics and Sport (2003, Sept 30, Geneva)

Genes in Sport, Geneva, Sept 30 2003 GATTACA -    crucial point in film where two brothers are swimming against each other and the GM brother says to his brother ‘we cant see the shore, we have to turn back’. This moment is very  interesting because it reveals the relative importance of that contest in comparison to their broader dispute (which was what gave rise to the contest). -    Hero is not merely the ‘natural’ athlete, but also the benevolent and ‘injured’ GM athlete.

Bengt

Bob Goldman (1984) – if take drugs, big success, then death, would you =52% said yes

Lane, T. 2003 Jan A future of jocks, genes and jingoism.  www.theage.com

Veronique L. Bilat Why do Kenyans run so well?

Wolfarth, B. Genes and sports performance: what do we know today, what will we know tomorrow?

GENATHLETE study

ACE and Performance

NOS3 and Performance

Aerobic performance and trainability -    which genes are involved -    what are major intermediate phenotypes for aerobic performance and regulation? -    Poss to predict aerobic performance and trainability levels using genetic markers?

ACEII (not a strong candidate gene) -    cardiac contractility -    cardiac and vascular hypertrophy -    vasoconstriction -    Rigat, B. et al NAR20: 1433, 1992 -    Inertion-/Deletion -    Montgomery, HE Nature (1998) -    ACE in the HERITAGE study o    Cannot support concept that ACE locus plays a contribution to training

No difference between genotypes of trained and untrained athletes, with respect to ACE I/D –polymorphism.

Outside of sport related research (e.g. hypertension), similar findings

ACE I/D also asso with left ventricular hypertrophy -    Landry et al JAMA 1985 254, 1 -    Kupari, 1994, Am J Physio -    Montgomery (1997, Circulation, 96(3) 741-747

Material and Methods LVM (Left ventricular mass)

LVM and LVMI of different ACE I/D genotypes and allele carriers -    any differences between genotypes and carriers? o    No overall association between ACE I/D and LVMI •    But new studies using higher sample o    For carrier status, a small significant difference between I carriers and D carriers •    But I carriers had higher mass (Montgomery concluded that D is responsible for training)

NOS (Nitric oxide synthase) -    REF: McAllister, RM Med Sci sport Exercise, 27 -    Nadaud et al, 1994, -    Nakayama et al 199 – hypertension and left ventric hypertrophy o    Found link between patients with hypertension and left ventric hypertrophy had allele o    Perhaps play a role in endurance o    4 polymorphisms in NOS3 genes analysed o    no different between EEA and SC o    no signif in overall distribution o    but higher proportion for 164 base pair allele •    why? Not sure yet. Might be marker  for variant in surrounding genes, need to screen gene for variants

Perusse, tankinen, Rauramaa, migual rivera, wolfarth, bouchard Human gene map for performance and health related fitness phenotypes: the 2002 update, Med Sci Sport Exercise , Vol 35, no.8

Sandro Rusconi Dept of Medicine, Biochemistry, Uni of Fribourg

Basic understanding of genes -    what is a gene, molecular biology dogma, genetic diseases, environmental factors, ageing

Essential concepts

DNA – RNA - Protein 100000 genes, more than 300000 functions

no such thing as a genetic disease, except for monogenic ones, e.g. muscular dystrophy, where genetic component is dominant

other conditions are significantly environmental and bahvioural -    Familiar breask cncer, poradic breast cancer, lung cancer, obesity, atherosclerosis, alzhiemers, parkinsons, dru abuse, homosexuality

Genes important but cannot define them because they are multi-functional

Science-grade material can be prepared easily Clinical-grade material is more difficult (i.e. GNP prepared vectors for patients) Millilitre of XX is 1franc, for GNP is 10000Francs (safety measures)

Molecular medicine -    prevention, diagnosis, therapy

Four eras of molecular medicine -    eighties: genes as probes (pre-natal diagnosis) -    nineties: genes as factories (isolate gene and put back to work into cells, e.g. yeast, growth factors, pharma products, many of which save lives) -    Y2K: genes as drugs – inject gene into body to correct -    Post-Y2K: post-genomic era

If we live long enough we all get Alzeimers and Cancer! -    these are part of ageing process

Somatic gene transfer

Definition of FT – use of genes as drugs (correcting disorders by somatic gene transfer

Chronic, acute, preventive Hereditary and acquired disorders Loss of function, gain of function

Why somatic? -    somatic gene transfer is a post-natal treatment aiming at somatic cells o    does not led to a hereditary transmission of genetic alteration •    Is not a Genetic selection

Four fundamental questions -    efficiency -    specificity (which kind of tissue to address) -    persistence (acute or rapid treatment) -    toxicity (how toxic is treatment)

Pharmacological considerations

Classical drugs -    synthetically prepared, rapid diffusion,oral delivery poss, cellular delivery, can be delivered as soluble molecules, rapidly reversible treatment

Protein drugs -    e.g EPO -    biggermolecules -    cannot enter into cells -    act exocellary -    if stop using, effect will go away

Nucleic acids -    larger -    biologicall prepared -    slow diffusion -    oral delivery inconceivable -    cellular dlivery: no membrane, no nuclear, no biological import -    must be delvered as complex carrier particles -    slowly or not reversible

therapy with nucleic acids -    reqs particularted -    more complex -    different degrees of reversibility

3 classes of physio gene delivery -    exvivo (bone marrow, liver cells, skin cells) -    invivo (topical delivery) e.g. brain, muscle, eye, joints, tumours) -    invivo (systemic delivery) intravenous,inttra arterial, intra peritoneal o    bigger implications

2 classes of gene transfer -    non viral transfer (transfection) Nuclear envelope barrier, see Nature Biotech, Dec 2001 -    Viral gene transfer (infection)

Popular vectors -    Adenovirus o    No persistence o    Limimited packaging toxicity -    adeno-associated Very -    retrovirus (include. Hiv) o    limited package, random insertion,

Gene Therapy in Clinic -    cancers main

A of Sept 2002, 599 registered protocols, 4000 treated patients -    86% phase I -    13% phase II -    1% phase III

Genetic milestone -    gives overview of recent science -    all experimental

(Road runner cartoon, cayote on drugs)

currently, side effects would and should ethically limit science

3 levels of doping

possible treatments -    Before the competition anabolic enhancers -    During competition – performance enhancers -    After competition – repair enhancers

Anti-TNF factor, BMPs

Current limitations Viral gene transfer (immune problems, limited readmin, gen toxicity Nonviral (inefficient Strategy-indep (laborious, long term different to control, irreversible

Side effects -    short – mid term, autoimmunity, hyperimmunity, toxic shock -    long term: fibrosis cancer, inaccessibility to other interventions

Intrinsic to reckless apliaction (problem biggest danger) -    malpractice (unsuitable vector administration route) -    non-clinical grade material (pathogens or allergens)

Detection -    antibody detection (viral antigens) -    r-nucleic acids

Anatomoically difficult to detect

Need muscle biopsy -    before permit, need strong suspician!

Gene based doping versus drug or protein based doping -    drug protein is most possible -    gene doping detection is difficult or impossible

odds speak against adoption of gene-based doping -    b tu this applies to common-sense clinical practice and this aspect is not guaranteed in doping field

entire  sector of sport where doping is not rigorously controlled

major risk is with premature application

5-10 yrs before effects has been a lot of bad science and Stock market crash has got rid of bad scientist -    follow this up!

Alex Mauron Gene Doping

Ethics of human gene manipulation Convention vs gene doping, ethical differences? Doping and ethics of sport Doping and ethics of human enhancement

Gene therapy: initial ethical debate 1980s -    somatic, and therapeutic OK -    germ-line and enhancement, NOT OK

enhancement is called doping -    not correct: non-medical therapy is characterised as enhancement. That’s all.

1990s many clinical trials of somatic gene therapy, often for polygenic diseases few successes ‘normalisation’ of somatic gene therapy, that is increasingly felt to be similar to any innoivative chemotherapy (paradigm of DNA medicine – A. Kahn) normal doesn’t mean harmless (the Gelsinger case)

Gelsinger case largely misunderstood -    reaction was ‘gene therapy is dangerous’ -    actually, clinical research is dangerous, not just genetics! (whenever system of ethical process breaks down, then it becomes dangerous)

still, messing with genes of humans remains highly controversial. Why?

Genomic metaphysics -    genome represents ontological hardcore of organism, determining both its individuality and species identity -    Mauron, Genomic metaphysics J Mol Biol, 219, 2002 -    Mauron, Is t genome t secular equivalent of soul, science, 2001, 291:831-832

Gene therapy debate concludes that somatic gene therapy is ethically similar to pharma therapy

Same relationship to gene doping and pharma doping

Therefore gene doping would be objectionable on same grounds as doping -    ME: not true: doping is typically associated with anti-social behaviours and a negative sporting culture. Gene doping doesn’t have that context, but if we make it illegal, then we imbue it with that framework

Back to therapy./enhanement distinction

In gene therapy, ethics just as in sport ethics, therapy ok, enhancement is not.

Standard ethics of sport -    let best win -    to bethe best, ought to result from virtuous combintion of innate talent of personal meirt and effort, plus some degree of luck -    chemistry or genetics represent moral shortcuts that substitute undeserved facility where there should be meritorious effort and excellece -    doping disturbs the ‘level playingfield’  need for a fair competition

doping is immemorial -    ME: this is reason to question the moral discourse running through it

Be it through genetics, drugs, or divine intervention, sports has always attracted cheating

Notion of level playing field may be an illusion -    talent: includes genetic differences -    first order capacities (muscultaion potential, bone structure, lung capacity, etc) -    second order capacities (somatopsychic, insentitivity to pain, endurance etc) -    such capacities are unequally distributed almost by definition real reason of prohibition has little to do with fairness, actually has to do with the threat to health of athletes (threatens it more severely than intensive sports training does) -    ME: how do we make this conclusion? -    Well I agree, but this is a partial reading of the situation. Anti-doping is poltically more entrenched than the health issue

What is the merit in sport?

What is merit in scientific training? -    ME: hmmm, it is not easy, as our first presentation indicated

Difference between sports and other competitive human activities -    ME: not sufficient

Our concepts of fairness and merits have been honed by other human activities, and have been applied to sports in appropriately

Conclusion

Enjoy the freaks, Mark Lawson, The Guardian, June 7, 2003.

European College of Sport Science (2003)

ECSS congress Roger Rees victory, violence and values

Rees@adelphi.edu

Ref lessons of the locker room

Game reasoning - bredemeier and shields - moral reasoning in sports more egotistical than everyday life

Playing with pain is part of fair play, but injuring otherwise is not

Norwegian Sport City Program Skille

Sport for All driving policy

Myths of Norway NOC Monopoly, autonomy, and rel bw them and sport for all

Wolfarth, genathlete Do not think that ACE gene has any role in endurance

Msse yearly fitmap update

Heritage study

Animal models

Need to examine other genes

Q. Genetic endowment or trained ability ? - studydoes not take account of trainability, but not convinced that this would be such a wide difc

What about sprinters? - need higher sample size also limit of his study

Shuichi Chakravarthy,J Biol Chem, 2000

How. Does IGF-1 lnfluence p27Kip1 protein IGF-1 inhibit p27Kip1 Forced expression of Fox01 increased p27Kip1 IGF-1 promoted phophorylation of Akt and Fox01 skeletal muscle

Fox01 implicated in aging

Matsakas, myostatin Inhibit  Myostatin promote muscles growth myostatin important for muscles growth through exercise

Volkwein, Distorted Body Image Eating disorders

Technology pushes sporting boundaries (25 March, 2007)

Interview by Australian Associated Press while in Brisbane last week. Here's the outcome:

Technology pushes sporting boundaries

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1035788

Dozens of leading professional golfers, including Tiger Woods, have had eye surgery to improve their vision. Some believe it gives them "better than perfect" eyesight and makes the tricky business of reading greens far easier.

Hundreds of American major league baseball pitchers have had surgery to implant stronger tendons from elsewhere in their bodies into their elbows. Many of them testify that they can throw the ball harder and faster than they could before the operation.

Now the day may not be far away when athletes have microscopic-sized devices implanted in their brains to help them perform better.

According to Dr Andy Miah, a British bioethicist, the line between using technology to improve sporting equipment and using it to improve the bodies of its practitioners is becoming increasingly blurred.

"Sports are technologically enabled practises," Miah said.

"We are pushing the limits of the body technologically and creatively - and I think the relationship between those two is quite close.

"People are fascinated with what the body can do in various kinds of performances."

Miah, who was in Brisbane this week to address a conference organised by the Australian Sports Commission, said functional elective surgery in sport is a more immediate issue than the
long-feared emergence of genetically manipulated athletes.

While the World Anti-Doping Agency concentrates on performance-enhancing drugs and worries about so called "gene-doping", it has no provision in its code for surgically enhanced athletes.

Woods, who was so short-sighted his doctor said he could barely count fingers held in front of his face, wore contact lenses early in his career.

He had laser surgery on his eyes in late 1999. After the surgery, which gave him vision rated at 20-15, Woods said the hole looked bigger to him.

Whether or not the surgery had anything to do with it, Woods won seven of the next eight PGA tour events he played in. The following year he began the "Tiger Slam" in which he became the first man to hold all four Majors at the same time.

Woods' surgeon, Dr Mark Whitten, says the eyesight produced by surgically altering the shape of the cornea gives golfers an enhanced three-dimensional view of the shot confronting them. "It
may be better than normal vision," he says.

Others who have had the surgery include Retief Goosen, Vijay Singh, Scott Hoch, Jesper Parnevik, Lee Westwood and Mike Weir.

Around 10% of major league baseball pitchers in the US have had surgery to strengthen their elbows, which come under enormous strain from repeatedly hurling baseballs at 150 kilometres an hour.

The procedure, called ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCR), is widely know as Tommy John surgery after the pitcher who first had it done in 1974.

According to a report published in USA Today, it involves taking a tendon, usually from the wrist or leg, and grafting it into the elbow in a figure-of-eight pattern through tunnels drilled in the
humerus and ulna bones.

The surgery has saved the careers of hundreds of pitchers, and there is evidence that its success rate is encouraging younger pitchers with only minor elbow injuries to seek the surgery to help their careers.

Some pitchers say they come back better than ever.

"I hit my top speed (in pitch velocity) after the surgery," said Kerry Wood, who had the procedure five years ago and now pitches for the Chicago Cubs. "I'm throwing harder, consistently."

Miah believes there is now a new frontier in sporting technology, driven by the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science.

All of these have profound implications for technological and medical developments generally, as well as within sport.

"It seems likely to me that sports will confront the implications of this convergence quite soon.

"We can imagine nanotechnological devices being utilised by athletes to keep them fit ... these are molecular-sized devices that could be inserted into the brain to elicit certain kinds of
physiological modifications."

The technique has already been used to implant molecular-sized devices into the brains of people suffering from Parkinson's disease.

The implants alter the brain's electrical output to help cure the  uncontrollable shaking that is the main symptom of the disease.

Technology such as this could have implications in shooting, snooker, archery and other disciplines requiring steady aim.

Miah, who believes genetic manipulation of athletes is not necessarily a bad thing, says the march of technology is throwing up some crucial philosophical questions.

"The development of biotechnology, stem cell research, cloning technology and the like has provoked a kind of moral encounter with what it means to be human and what technology might be doing to alter that.

"If we can develop devices that make it difficult to say these are external to the body, if they're implantable into the body then it becomes much harder to say that they are artificial."

The Hastings Center (6-7 December, 2006)

Project meeting where I spoke about the ethics of genetic testing and selecting for enhancement. This work develops ideas that have arisen from a number of recent projects, including the paper I wrote with Emma Rich and my Master degree dissertation in Medical Law. The title of this presentation was 'Is Genetic Selection for Sport a Good idea?'

A link to the presentation powerpoint.

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. 

British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine (26-27, April 2006)

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.

Doping in Torino

I am writing from the Torino Media Centre within the City after having read and heard a lot more about Repoxygen. Over the last few days, there have been a number of journalists getting in touch wanting to find out about this. On Thursday, I interviewed for the Canadian Broadcast Corporation's evening news. I spoke with Tom Harrington, whom I first met in Toronto when Genetically Modified Athletes came out. It's so good to speak to Tom, as he is genuinely interested in the broader philosophical questions that the development in technology provokes. I am also interviewing for CBC's The Hour on Monday, which will take place at the Main Media Centre in Torino. From what I have seen, doping has been high on the news agenda for Torino. There still seems a lot of confusion about whether genetic doping is taking place and there are no confirmed cases. However, there does seem to be a lot of uncertainty about the circumstances here, which is quite different from Athens where nearly no discussions emerged during Games time about whether gene doping might be happening.

From what I have read, there is also less clarity about how best to deal with genetic doping. While WADA and others wish to treat it as just another form of doping, i believe that there is also a philosophical uncertainty about the future of doping and its bearing on humanity. This ambiguity relates to the broader changes within society through technology. In the end, we appear to live within a culture of enhancement and, in this environment, the relevance of prohibiting genetically modified athletes is weakened. All that remains is the medical interest to protect its integrity and the safety of athletes.

If any journalist would like to call me for interview while in Torino, I can be contacted on:

0034 6365 0302

Sport and Medicine, The Lancet

This week, the leading medical journal, The Lancet, Published a special supplement on sport and medicine. Its contents include a number of ethical commentaries including:

Essay: Prosthetics for athletes
McCarvill S
pages S10-S11

Feature: Gene doping
Pincock S
pages S18-S19

Viewpoint: Legalisation of performance-enhancing drugs
Kayser B, Mauron A, Miah A
page S21

Essay: Transsexual athletes—when is competition fair?
Ljungqvist A, Genel M
pages S42-S43

Making Sports Virtual

How long will it be before we ditch the sports arena and compete as athletes - or view as spectators - within an entirely virtual reality? This is the subject of a new book I am writing for The MIT Press, tentatively titled 'CyberSport: Digital Games, Ethics and Cultures'. It will be written with a colleague of mine in Australia, Dr Dennis Hemphill. The subject of this book will feature in a Sky One (television) production to be broadcast on December 2 in the United Kingdom. The programme is about sport and technology generally, and it rounds off with a segment about the prospect of making sports virtual.

This project develops some thoughts that have been hanging around for the last five years. An early example of how they work out can be found in this piece:

Miah, A. (2002) Immersion and Abstraction in Virtual Sport, Research in Philosophy and Technology, 21, 225-233

Andy MIah Sky One Documentary on Digital Technology and Sport (2005, Dec)

"Genetic Technologies Launches Sports Gene Test in Japan"

The launch of the SportsGeneTest in Japan was announced in the Washington Post in mid-September. Here is a quote from the press release: "GTG director, Professor Deon Venter, himself a former British Ironman Triathlon champion, attended the launch. Professor Venter commented, "Japan represents a significant market for the ACTN3 SportsGene Test(TM), with highly influential sporting and government bodies keen to explore the relationship between genetics and sporting performance. Japan is an extremely technologically-sophisticated country and is now taking a leadership position in the science of optimizing a person's sports potential according to their inherited genetic capabilities."

Doping & the Child

In April this year, I published a brief commentary about the American Academy of Pediatrics statement on performance-enhancing drugs in sport. This commentary was extended and published in the Sept 10 issue of The Lancet. Full reference as follows: Miah, A. (2005, Sept 10). "Doping and the child: an ethical policy for the vulnerable." The Lancet 366: 874-876.

Murderball & Cyborgs

I tread very carefully when discussing the use of technology by people with disabilities. I am skeptical of progressive transhumanist arguments associated with reparative technologies. However, this documentary seems to demand that very progressive argument. I am not sure that it lends itself to a cyborgian or posthuman discourse, unless we deal with those terms as simply the broadening of what it means to be human or, indeed, disabled.

I have only seen a trailer for the movie, but the director and actor/athletes talk about transforming the way in which athletes/people with a disability are perceived. In this sense, they are entering into a process of re-definition. I wonder whether they would see themselves as constitutiely technological as athletes. The chairs they use are quite different vehicles/ prosthetics to any that I have seen in other sports and their attitudes come across as deliberately and unapologetically aggresssive.

There is surely a paper waiting to be written about this both within sport studies and cultural studies of technology.

Sport, medicine, ethics, Sweden

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

Lance Armstrong's LIVESTRONG™

In the summer of 2004, Lance Armstrong worked his fan-base like no other athlete. He returned to competition, after beating testicular cancer and won another Tour de France. He also launched a charity cancer campaign and published another best selling autobiography. I first came across the LIVESTRONG™ campaign in a Nike town store in San Francisco. At the cash register, the LIVESTRONG™ rubber bands were there in handfuls. They cost only $1 and, at that moment, I thought that this seemed to be an interesting initiative: a charity marketed through the celebrity of someone who had all the characteristics of a hero, accompanied by an attention to style. However, I did not purchase one.

Over the course of the summer, LIVESTRONG™ mania caught on around the world. Even a year after they emerged, people can still be seen on the streets wearing them. My next encounter with these rubber bands occurred a month later at the NikeTown store in London, similarly stylish and rubber band aplenty. Accompanying them was a wide range of Lance Armstrong ‘yellow’ clothing. By this point – the end of July – he had won the Tour de France for yet another time. Feeling part of the vibe, I made my purchase proud that I was helping cancer research with my measly £1 (they are a little dearer in the UK, due to the currency conversion). Convincing oneself that cancer research is cool is so much easier when you don’t have to pin a ribbon to your designer jacket, not that I wear such lavish items. But, you see my point; LIVESTRONG™ appeals both on the level of celebrity endorsement and as a sufficiently subtle fashion accessory. Pins are just a little too much of a statement about beliefs, or too much of an inconvenience to wear.

A couple of weeks later, LIVESTRONG™ was most visible from the footage at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games, where a number of athletes wore these rubber bands around their wrists, which surely helped to raise the profile of the campaign. Back in the UK, subsequent weeks would demonstrate the aftermath of LIVESTRONG™. Young children could be seen wearing them, along with a range of similarly coloured counterfeits. The press coverage of LIVESTRONG™ had developed its own momentum. For example, Prince William can be seen wearing the band in a range of photographs about his impending adulthood.

An additional consequence, at least within the UK, has been the emergence of many other kinds of rubber band. We have a blue one that represents a stand against bullying, allegedly prohibited from schools because wearers were bullied! There is also a black and white set of bands – two intertwined – which represents opposition to racism (also a Nike initiative). Most recently, UK Prime Minster Tony Blair has been photographed wearing the ‘Make Poverty History’ blue band. The list goes on, to a point where some schools have banned students from wearing them, because children would have an arm full of rubber bands, which, like jewellery, is seen to be risky to wear in schools

First clone of champion racehorse revealed

New Scientist (among others) recently discussed the work of Italian scientist Cesare Galli, whose cloned horse might begin to cause problems for the world of horse racing:

However, it is not just the sports community that is concerned about this matter:

"William Allen, head of the team at the Equine Research Unit in Newmarket, UK, accuses the government of capitulating to animal welfare groups. Animal Aid, a British-based animal welfare lobby group, opposes cloning of horses on the grounds that cloned embryos are often deformed or grossly over-sized, and so should not be created for what they argue is a leisure activity."

What would be a good reason to clone an animal or a human, if not sport? Perhaps one might suggest that medical research is the only justified context, but only out of necessity. It is not that we want to clone anything at all, but doing so would be incredibly valuable to our understanding of biology and, specifically, disease. Indeed, this is the kind of argument used to defend animal research more broadly. If there were alternative means to advance research, then they would be used. While I don't think this is an adequate position, it might explain why 'leisure' is not important enough.

This news can be traced back to an earlier creation of Galli's team, discussed here:

Galli, C., I. Lagutina, et al. (2003). "A cloned foal born to its dam twin." Nature 424: 635.

The Beam in Your Eye - LASIK

Here is an news article about the use of laser-eye surgery on athletes, in this case the golfer Tiger Woods. The basic premise of this piece is that laser eye surgery is also a performance enhancement for athletes, but it is not banned. why not? "A week ago, Tiger Woods was celebrated for winning golf's biggest tournament, the Masters, with the help of superior vision he acquired through laser surgery." (link)

Here is an extract from an article I have written on this theme, which will be published in a Dutch book on gene doping (edited by Bernike Pasveer and Ivo Van Hilvoorde):

"To articulate the differences between the various uses of medical technology for sport, one can draw three categories of human modification: therapy, non-therapy, and enhancement. To understand the conceptual differences between these categories, it is useful to consider an example of medical intervention where these boundaries appear to be blurred. Laser eye surgery is a medical intervention intended to relieve the deterioration of eyesight. If this technique is applied to someone who has severe or even mild eyesight problems, then it can be considered therapeutic, since it will rectify any imperfection that might inhibit vision. In this capacity, it is tempting (and usual) to describe this as a ‘therapeutic’ medical intervention. It also matters that the definition is underwritten by the existence of a physician’s authority here. Yet, what are the defining characteristics of this ‘therapeutic’ guise? Is it important that the individual’s eyesight is being restored to a previous level of vision? If this were true, then we might wonder about the relevance of this conclusion. How would we feel if the intervention were applied to a person who was born without eyesight? The surgery would not return the individual to any previous state and, in that sense, s(he) would not be restored. In this case, the person would be restored only in the sense that there exists some species-typical state of function, where the treatment is characterised as therapeutic based on some typical functionality that a given species should possess. It could be said that humans have evolved to utilise the capacity for vision. This could also account for an individual who is born with partial vision – for whom we might also argue that restoration to perfect human vision is justified on account of a species-typical level of functioning to which we are comparing the said capability.

Each of these methods of intervention is generally considered acceptable. While there is some disagreement about the legitimacy of interventions that appear to suggest certain ways of being human are preferable over others, let us assume for the moment that eliminating dysfunction, however troubling we might find its definition, is ideologically sound. So, the interest to ensure deafness is corrected is defended on account of it offering an ‘open future’ (Feinberg, 1980), where this entails maximising the possibilities any individual might encounter (for further elaboration see Savulescu, 2001 and Shakespeare, 2001). These examples can be contrasted with an intervention that would raise the level of capability beyond both an individual and species-typical level of normal or even perfect function. So, if laser eye surgery leads to better than perfect vision, we might have quite different concerns and feelings about it.

Yet, it is also possible to think of circumstances where there is not much resistance to such super-human capacities. For example, there do not seem to be particularly strong moral convictions about the use of binoculars, telescopes, magnifying glasses, or even satellites and cameras, which radically re-define our capacity to see beyond our physical constraints. Yet, how would we feel about super-human vision? What if laser eye surgery could enable humans to enjoy the vision of, say, birds of prey. Alternatively, what if it enabled some additional functionality, such as a zoom capability? What should be our moral stance to such modifications and would such modifications be accepted in competitive sporting cultures? (FN: while not specifically tied to a sporting example, ‘super vision’ has been discussed in the context of sport recently (Alderson, 2001))

In the world of sport, the ethical reaction to such innovations would be clearly expressed by a certain moral community, which argues that the ‘natural’ athlete must prevail in sports contests. Where a modification places an athlete over and above their natural level of functioning or some species-typical level of functioning, this constitutes doping and is considered to be unacceptable because it provides an enhancement of the natural. On one level, it is possible to understand why anti-doping exists and why some would seek to justify such rules on the basis of naturalness. In some sports, an athlete with the capacity to ‘zoom’ their vision would be at a considerable advantage to an athlete who does not have such capacity (though in others it might actually be an inconvenience and a skill to be able to modify one’s eyesight to optimise performance). In one very important sense, a contest between two athletes would not be of much interest where one of them has super-vision, since the enhanced athlete will be more successful. However, from another perspective, sport intends to reveal the most capable human. An athlete born with some ‘zoom’ capability is, in one very important sense, the most capable human. Why should an athlete not receive their gold medal, if they are the most capable? These matters raise questions about what is just in sport and the legitimacy of enhanced capabilities."

LifeWaves - Not Doping?

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!?

From BALCO to Bioethics, Harvard

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.