Gene doping is next frontier of performance enhancers in sports (2008, May 11)

Gene doping is next frontier of performance enhancers in sportsBy SAM MELLINGER The Kansas City Star S cientists have seen the future of sport. It involves mice that can lift three times the average, humans who can run 90-minute marathons, and ligament tears that can be fixed by injection.

It is genetic engineering, therapy and doping, and it is the arrival of the bionic athlete. At the extreme, this is either the advancement or end of the human race. At the minimum, it is the unavoidable change to the way our sports — baseball, football, the Olympics, you name it — are played.

They used to talk about this in whispered tones, with only the occasional mention in mainstream media. Five years ago, the experts said gene doping wouldn’t be a concern for another five years. More and more, that sci-fi, futuristic threat is now.

“The upcoming Olympics,” says Ron Evans, a genetics professor at the Salk Institute, “it’s probable that right now, someone is training on this.”

Evans knows. He led a team of geneticists who created “the marathon mouse,” a rodent that ran twice as long as normal mice with one-third of the weight gain.

The goal of Evans’ work is to cure obesity, diabetes, certain kinds of heart disease, and all sorts of noble endeavors. But you know who calls him? Athletes. Coaches. Even a horse trainer.

A couple of snapshots:

A German track coach charged with supplying steroids to underage athletes is proven in court to have the knowledge and desire to purchase Repoxygen, a substance that activates a gene that stimulates the body’s production of red blood cells. One cell biologist refers to this as the “crossing of the Rubicon” into the world of gene doping.

China holds science fairs in which it shows off rabbits with human ears, and a mutant fish that matures into adulthood in half the time, setting off alarms around the globe about what else that country may be up to.

This is not the apocalypse of life as we know it. Genetic engineering’s base is in saving lives, which it has done already. Children suffering severe anemia have already benefited from still-risky experimental treatments that injected genes to boost red blood-cell production.

But this could be the apocalypse of sports as we know it. The abuse of this technology may forever change our games. This is real, experts say. It’s happening soon, if not already.

The competition may be drifting to labs in a way that could make BALCO look quaint. Gene doping has the potential to have much more impact on sports than steroids or HGH ever did.

“Absolutely,” says Gary Green, a UCLA physician who advises Major League Baseball on its drug policy. “It could really redefine everything we think about sports. You could end up with 10 different competitions, the genetically natural and the genetically unnatural. It’s a really dangerous thing.”

•••

Your local grocery store sells the benefits of gene therapy. Those greenhouse tomatoes, the ones that are smooth and plump and beautifully red even out of season? Yeah, they’ve been genetically altered.

The world of genetic engineering creates possibilities for all sorts of medical miracles. There are between 250,000 and 300,000 ACL injuries per year in America — the vast majority away from professional sports — and they may soon be treated with an injection that would heal the ligament. No more surgery.

Researchers at Baylor used genetic modification to boost the size of pigs by 20 percent while cutting down on fat and avoiding the debilitating side effects produced by more traditional treatments.

It’s not a huge leap to see the potential gold mine here for athletes.

“Whether it is promoting an endurance-enhancing gene or increasing muscle mass,” says Andy Miah, a Scottish doctor and expert in bioethics. “There are many applications, but no direct ways to test for it.”

To get an idea, consider the case of Eero Mantyranta, a three-time Olympic gold medalist for Finland in cross-country skiing in the 1960s.

He was accused of blood doping — even back then — but was proven to have a natural genetic mutation that gave him more red blood cells than the average person. More cells to carry oxygen from the lungs means more aerobic stamina.

Mantyranta’s case illustrates the difficulty of catching dopers, because some of these mutations can happen naturally. They can also happen through genetic alteration, giving athletes superhuman physical ability.

“You take a normal human,” says Theodore Friedmann, a board member for the World Anti-Doping Agency health medicine research committee, “and you make him better than normal.”

If confined to natural training, elite athletes are said to be now using 99 percent of their natural physical capacity, compared to just 75 percent in 1896, the year of the first modern Olympics. Given those parameters, academics say there would be no new world records after the year 2060.

But that’s in a world with no genetic engineering. Scientists think a series of gene-doping breakthroughs could boost endurance by up to 10 percent and, according to one study, allow a runner to complete a marathon in 90 minutes — more than a half-hour faster than the current world record.

Consider that your favorite basketball and football players could enhance their genes to become faster, stronger, even taller, avoid the natural slowing down that comes with age — and do it with virtually no risk of being caught by a drug test.

LeBron James could be dunking into his 50s, Josh Beckett dropping nasty curveballs 20 years from now, and Brett Favre making broadcasters coo in the year 2025.

Scott Rodeo is an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. His work centers on using gene therapy to treat the recovery of rotator cuff tears. His team has completed work on sheep, but if it goes where they hope, this is literally life-changing stuff for baseball pitchers everywhere.

“The healing between tendon and bone is a slow process,” Rodeo says. “What we’re doing, this could potentially hasten recovery time. You could certainly diminish the failure rates, which are distinct.”

•••

There is an unavoidable ethics question here. It’s the kind of thing that physicians and philosophers could spend days debating, with no consensus.

What if doctors say your child will grow to be 4 feet tall, but a genetic alteration could make your kid 5-2? Wouldn’t you take it? So how long before someone wants their 6-2 son to be 6-8 and play college ball?

Molecular genetic engineering holds the most promise in curing muscular dystrophy in children. So how long before those same effects are used by an athlete to accomplish what otherwise wouldn’t be possible?

We utilize all kinds of enhancement already, from pills that make us feel better to plastic surgery that makes us look better. Genetic alteration may provide the same benefits, only without the drugs or risk of surgery.

“If you’re a philosopher,” Friedmann says, “you might ask, ‘If we accept it through pills, why don’t we accept it through genes?’ And the answer isn’t absolutely clear to me.”

In the sporting world, there are plenty of examples of dependence on engineering: race cars, golf clubs, even baseball bats. Maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise that someday — today? — our athletes will be engineered, too.

The effects here go way past sports, straight into everyday life. Should parents be able to choose the sex of their baby? What about hair color? Eyes? Physical attributes like height and build?

Medical researchers have come to expect that their advancements, aimed at treating disease, will eventually be used for less-than-noble purposes. After all, AIDS patients sometimes sell their prescription HGH to bodybuilders.

But sports leagues and organizations are scrambling to come up with answers to how they can deal with a problem that is potentially more pervasive and less detectable than anything we’ve seen involving steroids and HGH.

“We’re going to have to start looking at patterns, rather than just what’s there at this present time,” says John Lombardo, a 30-year veteran of sports medicine and the NFL’s advisor on performance-enhancing drugs. “You look at what somebody’s pattern or profile does over years, then use that as a mechanism. Not just a positive test, but be able to say, ‘Well, this is altered and this doesn’t happen naturally.’ ”

•••

Nine Paris boys were diagnosed with the same fatal disease as the Texas Bubble Boy. Beginning in 1999, doctors experimented and gave each boy transplants of his own bone marrow cells corrected by a gene transfer.

All immediate indications were positive. After about three years, one had developed a leukemia-like disease. Three months after that, another. Both boys died, sending emergency halts to other gene therapy projects around the world.

So it doesn’t take Friedmann long to answer what the dangers are that we’re working with.

“Death,” he says. “Death is a danger. You don’t play with these methods.”

This is a dangerous spot we’re in right now, where there’s enough knowledge to mess with genes but not enough history to know what the effects will be. Experimentation right now could be fatal.

They say the technology is so immature that the only certainty here is that something will go wrong. Deaths are the price of progress when trying to treat fatal disease, but hardly justified when trying to improve athletic performance.

One experiment involved altering the genes of monkeys to boost their red blood cells, which allowed them to test off the charts in endurance tests. Unexpectedly, and without warning, the floor fell out of monkeys’ blood production and they eventually died of anemia.

There is no “off switch” in much of what these gene alterations do. Which is why one scientist warned athletes to only genetically enhance the muscles they don’t really want, so that the flesh could be cut out if it grows too big or too fast or both.

In time, genetic engineering may very well be safer than steroid or HGH use. But that time is not now, not yet.

“I think if athletes really paid attention to what it means to change a gene,” Lombardo says, “they’d be very hesitant to do it. At least the state of the art right now. Most of the studies have been done in medical conditions, and most of them haven’t been real successful.”

•••

The future of gene engineering is the future of sports, and vice versa. As Rodeo says, “you’re talking about the next frontier of doping.”

There is no way of knowing just where this is going, but already there are people trying to figure out how we’ll deal with it all once it’s here. Since there would be no drug to test for, some want in-depth DNA and gene readings done early on athletes to establish known baselines.

There are calls for strict governmental oversight, medical tags on gene alterations that would show up in tests, or just regulation — not prohibition.

Others say forget that, let’s create two divisions: the natural and the enhanced. Kind of like in bodybuilding.

“Athletes are already posthuman cyborgs and we celebrate this,” says Miah, the Scottish doctor. “It is likely that greater use of this technology will seep into other aspects of culture, as we begin to embrace more and more enhancements.

“Sports might soon become peculiar for resisting such developments and, in the meantime, will be placing athletes at greater risk by forcing them to enhance behind closed doors.”

Miah has studied the trend of performance enhancers in sports and says one of the favorite lines of leagues and sports organizations is to acknowledge a pending threat, but say it’s still down the road.

That’s essentially what Green and Lombardo — the doctors working with MLB and the NFL, respectively — said in separate interviews for this story.

Evans and other experts say the future is closer to now, if it hasn’t already arrived. Evans has been approached too many times by too many people in sports to think it isn’t possible that a gene-altering version of BALCO is up and operating somewhere, working to unleash a new generation of superior athletes.

Parents, coaches and athletes themselves want to know as much as they can about the process and the benefits and the risks. Knowing that gene alteration is still — at best — in its adolescence and potentially fatal doesn’t seem to scare anyone.

After a recent speech, Evans was approached by a college basketball player he didn’t want to identify. These weren’t surface, just-to-understand-better questions, either. And this athlete is not alone in his curiosity and willingness.

“They’re not embarrassed by asking,” Evans says. “If they think someone’s cheating, and they have to race against that person, that’s a decision they have to make. And it’s not an obvious decision for athletes.

“Look, it’s definitely early. But the games are on. Athletes are emerging in their awareness.”


How gene doping works Experts say gene doping is the next great threat to professional sports, and that the impact could far outweigh what we’ve seen with steroids and HGH. Here are three ways doctors say athletes could abuse the technology:

Injection of a gene to boost production of the hormone erythropoietin, known as EPO. This increases red blood cell production, which increases aerobic capacity. The procedure is meant for patients who suffer severe anemia, but could also benefit healthy athletes — and is why some predict a 90-minute marathon.

Insertion of muscle-building genes into muscle cells. This is the method designed for those with conditions like muscular dystrophy but, again, can be abused by healthy athletes to target specific muscles they want to enhance. Like a sprinter’s legs, a linebacker’s chest or a pitcher’s arm.

Insertion of genes to grow new blood vessels. This treatment is mostly for elderly people with arterial disease. The new gene would boost production of new vessels, which would provide more oxygen and other nutrients to the tissues of athletes. This is the part that would give muscles, lungs and the heart more stamina, both in the short and long term.

To reach Sam Mellinger, sports reporter for The Star, call 816-234-4365 or send e-mail to smellinger@kcstar.com <mailto:smellinger@kcstar.com> | Sam Mellinger, smellinger@kcstar.com <mailto:smellinger@kcstar.com>

One club wants to use a gene-test to spot the new Ronaldo. Is this football's future? (2008, April 26)

One club wants to use a gene-test to spot the new Ronaldo. Is this football's future? Screening could help teams looking for talent · UK Sport has 'no power' to prevent use of technique

Matt Scott <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mattscott>  and Paul Kelso <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/paulkelso> The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian> , Saturday April 26 2008

This article appeared in the Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian>  on Saturday April 26 2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/apr/26>  on p3 of the Top stories <http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/apr/26/mainsection/topstories>  section. It was last updated at 00:37 on April 26 2008.

For decades the task of identifying emerging football talent has been considered an art rather than a science, exclusively the preserve of wise old pros and sharp-eyed scouts and dependent on a large slice of luck. Now, however, it seems leading football clubs are turning to cutting edge laboratory techniques to aid their search for the next David Beckham. According to a leading sports scientist, at least one football club has explored the possibility of using genetic screening to separate prospective Ronaldos from those destined to join the Sunday morning hackers on Hackney Marshes.

Dr Henning Wackerhage of the school of medical sciences at Aberdeen University told the Guardian that a professional club had made contact with him about the possibility of screening players to discover whether they have a genetic predisposition to athletic excellence.

Wackerhage prepared an academic paper earlier this year highlighting experiments that had produced enhanced physical performance in mice and rats, and the possibilities offered by gene doping and screening for enhanced athletic performance. He has since suggested that it might be possible to produce the human equivalent of a formula one car by using genetic mutations. His research was picked up by the unnamed club, which got in touch hoping to exploit nascent gene-screening technology, already freely available in Australia, which tests athletes for a number of genes considered indicative of top-level performance.

"A football club was interested in doing genetic testing of athletes," he said. "It was a genetic performance test. My advice was that there are questions of legality with an employer doing genetic tests on its employees. They wanted to conduct a test that is specific to genetics."

Australian company Genetic Technologies offers a A$100 (£47) test that claims to identify whether customers have the fast-twitch muscle function gene ACTN3, which is found in leading sprinters.

There are other genes associated with athletic ability including PPARdelta, which governs slow-twitch muscle growth; IGF-1, which controls human growth; and genes that regulate erythropoietin, a hormone that affects the production of red blood cells.

Finding and developing players who will help clubs win titles and reap large profits on the transfer market is the holy grail of football development. Manchester United's achievement in developing half a team of international players in the shape of Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Nicky Butt and Gary and Phil Neville is the benchmark for talent identification, and English professional clubs spend £50m a year trying to achieve similar success.

Wackerhage said he was not in favour of using the screening method but said the technology had potential. He also gave a speech earlier this month suggesting that genetic modification could reduce the world record for the marathon, currently just over two hours, to 90 minutes.

"The aim of the talk was to highlight the fact of genetic research on mice and humans. It shows why there are different natural variations in sporting ability," he said. "The mice are made to be different because their DNA is changed. Sometimes it doesn't cause disease but leads to fitter specimens, better storage of glycogens, a massive heart etc. The idea of the talk was as a thought experiment that would consider combining all the mutations to see if you got a superathlete."

Huw Jennings, youth development manager at the FA Premier League, said screening could have a role to play in identifying athletic talent but was unlikely to establish whether youngsters would make the grade as professional footballers.

"While you may be able to identify athletic ability, the road from promising youngster to top professional is far from smooth, and it doesn't necessarily follow that talented athletes will become talented footballers," he said.

UK Sport, the body that governs drug testing in Britain, said it had no power to prevent clubs using genetic screening on players as it was not prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Doping for a cause (2008, April 4)

Doping for a cause: Brain-enhancing drug use by academics could improve research - as long as it doesn't lead to unfair competitionBy: Christina Domenico

Will academics be the baseball players of tomorrow, testifying on Capitol Hill about their alleged performance-enhancing drug use?

That's the question right now, as "brain doping" becomes the sister buzzword to "human growth hormone" and "anabolic steroid," - words popularized by the doping scandals that plague the sports world. Some neuroscientists believe that academia is about to enter an era of drug-induced brain enhancement.

But unlike baseball, in which a batter facing Roger Clemens' over-inflated shoulder can claim that the game's unfair, academia - and society as a whole - can benefit from the use of cognition-enhancing drugs.

As Stanford law professor Henry Greely points out, sports are a zero-sum game - when someone gets better, someone else gets worse - and players who have enhanced themselves with the use of drugs tip that balance in their favor.

Academia, however, doesn't work that way. One researcher's success is not hampered by another's performance. Greely added that "it's rare to have head-to-head competition" among academics - so the sports analogy doesn't hold up.

Cognitive-enhancing drugs such as Adderall and Provigil can affect a user's mental abilities by allowing them to concentrate completely on one task or giving them a period of alertness. There's also already a widely-used drug out there that produces similar effects - it's the caffeine you consumed in your morning cup (or two) of coffee.

Many researchers and students enjoy a daily caffeine fix to help keep them alert.

So, as Arthur Caplan, director of the Penn Center for Bioethics, pointed out in an e-mail, "if it is OK to drink three Red Bulls or six cups of coffee or tea to stay awake to get a paper written or corrected, why is it inherently wrong to do so with a pill?"

There are legitimate concerns, of course. Greely noted that the most pressing issues are safety, fairness and coercion. If the drugs have negative health effects, it's a bad thing. If they harm hiring practices or foster competition and inequality between universities, it's a bad thing. If an employee is forced to take them to work better, it's a bad thing.

But if an academic decides to give himself a boost by taking Adderall and consequently produces better research - well, that's a good thing. In essence, it's no different than stopping by Starbucks for a triple-shot latte, no foam.

Their use can improve the ability of academics to discover new things about the world. And that's the main goal of research.

And if academic research gets better, there's a social benefit attached to it. "The idea of doing things that lead to better research and the production of knowledge is a good thing, with all other things being equal," Greely told me.

I'm not saying that cognition-enhancing drugs are a necessity in any case. Rather, it's an individual's choice to use them, and we shouldn't be so quick to shout out against something that can yield such positive results.

If the era of "brain doping" really is on the horizon, there naturally will be concern about its future and consequences. And rightly so, as with any new trend. But unlike in the sports world, improving the ability of scientists and researchers to do their job effectively betters the world we live in.

If one day, a researcher whose heightened mental ability because of a pill finds a cure for AIDS, are we really going to sit him down in front of a Senate committee to question him about how he achieved such an incredible feat?

I would hope the answer to that question is a resounding "no."

Christina Domenico is a College junior from North Wildwood, N.J. Her e-mail is domenico@dailypennsylvanian.com. The Undersized Undergrad appears on Fridays. © Copyright 2008 The Daily Pennsylvanian

Building better bodies (2008, March 22)

Building better bodiesSome athletes willing to use untested therapies that scientists are developing for patients

Curtis Eichelberger Bloomberg News

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Chris Rosa has spent 26 years in a wheelchair awaiting a treatment for his muscular dystrophy. Within the next five years, even before new drugs are approved for him, athletes may try using them to cheat, sports doping authorities and scientists say.

"I get angry about it," said Dr. Se-Jin Lee, the Johns Hopkins University scientist who discovered a protein being developed for diseases including muscular dystrophy. "The scientific potential to make people's lives vastly improved is incredible. And all we talk about is whether some athlete can use it to hit a baseball farther."

Wyeth, Amgen Inc. and closely held Acceleron Pharma Inc. are experimenting with spurring muscle growth by suppressing a chemical called myostatin, found by Lee in 1997. Doing so would reverse atrophy caused by wasting illnesses and aging -- and create a hard-to-detect, non-steroid shortcut for increasing the size of healthy tissues.

Agencies that police sports for performance-enhancing substances say myostatin blockers may reach athletes as soon as this year's Olympics and certainly by 2012. The World Anti- Doping Agency has banned them even before they have been fully tested. Meanwhile, that group and sports organizations including Major League Baseball are monitoring other treatments known as gene doping, in which cells are reprogrammed to enlarge muscles.

The Montreal-based anti-doping group, created in 1999, has already spent $6.5 million on finding ways to detect athletes using gene-altering technologies. The group plans to work with companies making myostatin inhibitors when trials are more advanced, according to Olivier Rabin, the agency's science director.

"We have to prepare ourselves for misuse in sport soon," Rabin said in a telephone interview. Some athletes might try to use the new muscle-building medicines as soon as the 2012 Olympic Games in London, he said.

The new drugs may be particularly difficult to detect because they are injected directly into the targeted tissues and could be designed not to show up in urine and blood tests, researchers say.

As a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee probed the use of steroids in professional sports, witnesses at hearings in January and February warned that next-generation drugs may enable athletes to rewrite record books.

"When we think we have a problem solved, there are chemists creating new problems," said Bud Selig, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, told the House panel Jan. 15. Baseball "hired the best experts that we can" on gene doping, he said. Selig didn't address myostatin blockers.

Drugs to inhibit myostatin are being developed to help patients like Rosa, 40, who is the director of student affairs at City University of New York. He was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at age 14. He remembers spending childhood summers playing stickball in the shadows of New York's Shea Stadium and the winters emulating St. John's basketball player Chris Mullin.

"I can't dream about my future without worrying about how this disease might skew my life expectancy," Rosa says.

In healthy people, muscle mass is determined by need. As exercise tears fibers, the cells instruct the tissues to rebuild themselves bigger and stronger to handle increased workload.

Patients like Rosa lose muscle and never rebuild it. The same process affects people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, after the New York Yankees Hall of Fame baseball player whose career it ended. Others lose muscle as they age, affecting stability when walking.

In 1997, Lee at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore created mice lacking a gene to make the protein myostatin and showed that they developed more muscle. He and other scientists later showed that the substance regulates growth of the tissues. Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg LP, is a former chairman of the Johns Hopkins board of trustees, and the university's school of public health is named for him.

Wyeth, based in Madison, New Jersey, and Amgen, based in Thousand Oaks, California, are testing myostatin blockers in humans. Neither company would discuss the drugs' potential for abuse by athletes. "Amgen's mission is to serve patients," said spokeswoman Anne McNickle.

Wyeth, the fifth-largest U.S. drugmaker, is developing MYO- 029, an antibody molecule that attaches specifically to myostatin and blocks the signal instructing muscles to stop growing. The results of an early study, with more than 100 patients in the U.S. and the U.K., will be published this year, said Michael Lampe, a Wyeth spokesman.

Amgen, the world's largest biotechnology company, has started a safety trial for a myostatin blocker called AMG-745. McNickle declined to how say many patients are participating.

Acceleron, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, will begin safety trials this year for its myostatin treatment, ACE-031, said Steven Ertel, vice president of corporate development. Acceleron has reported that rodents given the substance had a 60-per-cent increase in muscle growth and primates, at least 10 per cent.

"What I care about are the five-year-old children diagnosed with muscular dystrophy who will be in a wheelchair by 12 and oftentimes dead by their early 20s," said John Knopf, Acceleron's chief executive officer."The focus here isn't on athletes."

Nonetheless, participants in sports are following the development of myostatin inhibitors. Lee, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine molecular scientist, recalls putting down a test tube one day about two years ago to take a phone call from a Brazilian bodybuilder who had e-mailed for weeks with questions about the substances.

"I was explaining that we were still in the testing phases and that a drug Wyeth has in trials, and he interrupted me and said, 'MYO-029?' " Lee said during an interview at his laboratory. "He said, 'I have some right here. I just want to know if it's safe to take.' "

"I warned him against taking something that hadn't been thoroughly tested," Lee said. "It was a shocking conversation."

Geneticists Lee and Alexandra McPherron discovered myostatin when they were studying how cells send signals to each other. The material was one of the communicating molecules they identified. Lee later found that while the protein plays a predominant role in controlling muscle growth in mice, it is just one of many regulators in humans, and might not even be the most important, he says.

In Philadelphia, Dr. Lee Sweeney is developing a different, gene-based approach to increasing muscle mass. Sweeney, the chairman of the physiology department at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Medicine, recalls watching his grandmother struggle with muscular atrophy in her final years, until she was unable to care for herself.

In the late 1990s, he injected mice with a synthetic gene that produced IGF-1, for insulin-like growth factor 1, and saw a 30 percent gain in muscle. Later, rodents were genetically engineered to overproduce IGF-1 in their skeletal muscle. These sedentary mice experienced increased muscle mass of as much as 50 percent. The substance instructs the tissues to grow.

U.S. newspapers and magazines picked up on medical journal reports of his work, and football coaches started calling, Sweeney says. One offered his own athletes as test subjects.

"I kept telling them that my research had only been done on mice and that it could potentially kill a person," Sweeney said. "I finally had to hang up on some of them."

Sweeney's research has graduated to dogs from mice. It's a big step, because the dog's immune system is more similar to that of a human, he says. Treatments that safely alter the muscle mass of a mouse might trigger a canine's immune system to attack tissues injected with new genetic instructions.

That's why the medicines aren't yet safe enough for athletes or anyone else to try, Sweeney says. He worries that a rogue lab could be built for as little as $500,000 to turn out untested materials to meet athletes' demands, he says.

"You have athletes out there who want to become champions so badly that they are willing to risk their health and their lives," Sweeney says.

Designing Improved Humans (2008, March 16)

Designing Improved Humans Playing Cat and Mouse with Genetic “Enhancement”

Henry I. Miller, M.D.

The well-publicized use by athletes of performance-enhancing drugs including androgenic steroids and human growth hormone has gotten more people than ever before thinking and talking about the subject. But the issue is neither new nor limited to a small number of people.

Few of us are strangers to using chemicals to enhance our mental state. No, I don’t mean alcohol or marijuana—just good old No-Doz caffeine tablets and coffee to stay awake while cramming for a final exam or driving late at night.  Medicine has also made great advances in the use of cognition-enhancing drugs, which doctors prescribe to treat cognitive disabilities and improve the quality of life for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders and brain injury. These prescription drugs are now being used more widely, including for shift workers and for jet lag. The ethical issues and risk-benefit considerations are the subject of a commentary published in December in Nature.

Technology will soon offer even more extreme possibilities for enhancement. Scientists, using gene therapy to increase the levels of a single enzyme, recently created a strain of mice with increased physical abilities by genetically altering a gene that affects metabolism. By injecting an active form of the gene PEPCK-C into an embryo, the scientists found that the mouse more efficiently burns body fat for energy and produces less lactic acid during exercise.

These “mighty mice” run much faster and longer than their nongenetically engineered cohorts. “They are metabolically similar to Lance Armstrong biking up the Pyrenees,” said Richard W. Hanson, Ph.D., the Case Western University biochemist who directed the research. Although the mice eat 60% more food than controls, they remain fitter and trimmer and live and breed longer than mice in a control group. (Humans share the same gene.)

The appearance of these mice represents a sort of laboratory-created evolutionary balancing act, following by several years, the creation of enhanced cats. (The good news for rodents is that the felines aren’t smarter or faster but they are less allergenic to humans.)

These experiments have reinvigorated a long-running debate about the ethics of creating designer humans. “We’re in an era when breakthroughs in biology and intelligence are outpacing the culture’s capacity to deal with the ethics,” said Joe Tsien, Ph.D., the Princeton University molecular biologist who directed the development of a “smart mouse” almost a decade ago. “There will be issues of access and who can afford it and whether the social wealthy class will have the intellectual advantage over poor people.” As though attending M.I.T. instead of Florida A&M doesn’t confer an intellectual advantage.

Molecular biologist Lee Silver, Ph.D., of Princeton University has written thoughtfully about these issues. He speculates about the emergence of two biological classes, the “Gen Rich” and “Naturals.”  Comprising perhaps 10% of the population, the Gen Rich will include businessmen, musicians, artists, athletes, and intellectuals, all of whom have been enhanced with specific synthetic genes that allow them to perform at levels not possible for those who have access only to nature’s lottery. They might be thought of as the logical successors to Mark McGwire and Marion Jones, who were able to use only crude chemical means to enhance their athletic prowess.

Who then, should dictate when and how such procedures can be used? Economist Francis Fukuyama thinks the answer lies in greater government regulation. In Our Posthuman Future he writes: “The FDA is not set up to make politically sensitive decisions concerning the point at which selection for characteristics like intelligence and height ceases to be therapeutic and becomes enhancing or whether these characteristics can be considered therapeutic at all. The FDA can disapprove a procedure only on the grounds of effectiveness and safety, but there will be many safe and effective procedures that will nonetheless require [additional] regulatory scrutiny.”

Therefore, Fukuyama proposes “a new agency to oversee the approval of new medicines, procedures, and technologies for human health,” which would exert broader control than current regulation by including “other societal voices that are prepared to make judgments about the technology’s social and ethical implications.”

This additional interference with decisions that should be left to consumers and physicians smacks of antilibertarian nanny-statism of the worst kind. Moreover, it ignores the fact that our society now affords wide latitude to those who choose to enhance their appearance or health in other ways. For example, drugs are commonly tested and commercialized for relatively trivial indications such as modest obesity, stuffy nose, age spots, and baldness. The injectable drug Botox, widely used to treat nothing more ominous than wrinkles, is one of the best-selling drugs in the U.S., and there have been numerous clinical trials of appetite suppressants, memory- and performance-enhancing drugs, and human growth hormone for hormonally normal but short children.

Gene therapy is an extension of drug and surgical treatments and part of a continuum of medical interventions that introduce or modify DNA or modulate genes’ activity.  Among the therapies on the continuum are organ transplantation (for genetic-deficiency diseases), vaccination (which precipitates irreversible changes in white blood cells’ DNA, initiating the synthesis of antibodies), and drugs (to stimulate the activity of dormant genes in sickle-cell anemia, for example).

For over half a century, these therapies have raised many medical and ethical questions similar to those of gene therapy, and physicians, ethicists, patients, and society at large have had to confront them. Issues such as whether a patient suffers from a condition that warrants treatment, the kinds and magnitude of risks, and equal access to therapy are fundamentally no different for gene therapy than for other interventions. Therefore, even when used for enhancement, gene therapy should not be treated differently from other medical interventions.

Arguments against testing gene therapy for enhancement should be weighed against society’s permissiveness toward experimental medical and surgical interventions in general and those intended for nontherapeutic purposes in particular.

An array of entities at several levels of government regulates gene therapy. This intensive and highly duplicative oversight offers a stark contrast to the scrutiny of a radical new surgical procedure, for example, which might be completely unregulated or subject only to the approval of a hospital-based committee.

Patients’ psychological well-being and freedom to choose are also important considerations. “Mere” enhancement is not trivial to the adolescent boy who is six inches shorter than anyone else in his class or to many adults of either sex who suffer hair loss.  One need look no further than the huge societal demand for cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, tanning salons, and health clubs to know that people consider it  important to look and feel good.

In a 1992 editorial, The Economist posed the critical question, “What of genes that might make a good body better, rather than make a bad one good? Should people be able to retrofit themselves with extra neurotransmitters to enhance various mental powers? Or to change the color of their skin? Or to help them run faster, or lift heavier weights?” Its admirably libertarian answer: “Yes, they should. Within some limits, people have a right to make what they want of their lives.”

In view of what people want and what society permits in other realms, should not those limits be very wide?

Henry I. Miller, M.D., a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. From 1979 to 1994, he was an official at the FDA. E-mail: miller@hoover.stanford.edu.

Abandon Normal Devices

The AND festival of new cinema and digital culture kicks off next week and I'll be running the critical debates during the festival. Below is an overview of them, including biographies of our speakers. Lots of top notch contributors here, so try to get over to Liverpool for one of them. They are all free and open to everyone, but there is limited seating...

AND?

Dates: 24- 27 September, FACT Liverpool

Time: 12.00-1.30pm

Location: Chameleon (found at the rear entrance of FACT in Art House Square)

Featuring: CONTRACT: Charlie Beckett, James Wallman INFECT: Anders Sandberg, Dan Glaser; COMPETE: Natasha Vita-More, David James; DESIRE: Trudy Barber, Nina Wakeford

The AND? salons interrogate ideas about social justice, human rights and equality in a period of widespread, collective moral transgression. Our neglect of ethical considerations is intimately tied to subtle normalizing processes within social systems, which distract us from critical engagement. How are these devices imposed upon us and what systems of thought must we adopt to abandon them?

Using ethics as a broad foundation of thought, AND assesses the invisible social contracts we live by to open up questions integral to our time, from matters of biopolitics to our transition into a controlled and contested society, where our bodies, minds and communities are constantly under formal and informal devices of control. Split into four themes, Compete, Desire, Contract and Infect one fundamental question drives this inquiry: are we complicit in accepting normalization or do we seek to challenge?

Debates are Chaired by Professor Andy Miah, University of the West of Scotland &  FACT Fellow

CONTRACT | Thursday 24 September

Social contracts exist in various guises, though perhaps our most celebrated is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which aspires to guarantee fundamental freedoms. It emerged during a period of globalizing humanitarian movements, where promoting justice, peace processes and cooperation were apparent. Yet, in the last two decades, there has been a widespread state-wide erosion of citizenship by media monitoring, matched only by our own complicity in digital self-surveillance. What are the consequences of these transformations for how we think about liberal democracy and the future of an increasingly digital Britain? Are we really global now?

Discussants: Charlie Beckett, James Wallman

INFECT | Friday 25 September

Traditionally seen as an impairment to normal functioning, AND reads disease as an overarching state of disruption to social order. Our desire to transcend our biology is inextricable from the complex ways in which our own resilience can be suddenly brought into question, as manifested by the ‘swine flu’ pandemic, itself a new(s) virus. These moments draw society back into a state of primitive vulnerabilities. They question whether society can be ‘fixed’ or whether utopian projects are all merely processes of normality maintenance. Are we persistently drawn back into a maligned condition of existence?

Discussants: Anders Sandberg, Daniel Glaser

COMPETE | Saturday 26 September

‘Faster, Higher Stronger’; Today, we compete with ourselves, through self-augmentation and manipulation. Our biological apparatus is in flux, vulnerable, yet being re-imagined through technology. Looking specifically at what it means to be able bodied or disabled we consider how society will look in an era of genetically modified athletes and surgically sculpted children.

Discussants: Natasha Vita-More, David James

DESIRE | Sunday 27 September

How will sex and sexuality look in 2020? In the 1990s, in an era when HIV and AIDS reached public attention, digital sex was described as the solution, as it promised to free us from the biological burden of disease and infection. But what is the state of our cybersexuality today? What will we desire and will sex be further sanitized in the future? Have digital liaisons become our primary mechanism through which to learn or mis-learn about sex?

Discussants: Trudy Barber, Nina Wakeford.

Biographies

Dr Trudy Barber created an immersive VR Sex environment in 1992 as part of her BA Fine Art studies at Central Saint Martins College of Art. She went on to gain her PhD at the University of Kent with her thesis on Computer Fetishism and Sexual Futurology. She is currently Senior Lecturer in Media at the School of Creative Arts, Film and Media, University of Portsmouth. Current research interests include: human-computer-interaction; new media development and content; consumer generated content; online social networking; sexuality and sexual subcultures; science fiction, cyberpunk and the future; immersive and non-immersive virtuality (such as Second Life and gaming), the convergence and customisation of communication technologies and issues surrounding theory and creative digital practice. Further information see:

http://www.port.ac.uk/research/ceisr/members/title,69965,en.html

Charlie Beckett is the founding Director of Polis, the journalism think-tank at the Media and Communications Department at the London School of Economics. He is author of "SuperMedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save The World" (Wiley-Blackwell 2008). He was a film-maker and programme editor at the BBC on programmes like Panorama, On The Record and News 24 and spent 8 years at ITN's Channel 4 News before joining the LSE in 2006. He broadcasts and writes regularly on media and politics in the UK and International media and blogs at www.charliebeckett.org and can be followed as CharlieBeckett on Twitter. He specialises in Media Change issues and the way that journalism is transformed by digital technologies and Web 2.0 communications into a more networked and participatory practice. Beckett's work at Polis has also dealt with media matters as diverse as Media and Development, Political Reporting, Celebrity journalism and Financial Media. The Polis website is www.polismedia.org

Dr Daniel Glaser is Head of Special Projects in public engagement at the Wellcome Trust. His team directs activities with young people inside and outside school, considers education policy, engages with the broadcast media and examines interactions between scientists and non-scientists of all sorts. His scientific background involves the use of fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) to examine how experience, prejudice and expectation alter the way we see the world. He comes from an unusual academic background having studied maths and then English literature at Cambridge, doing a masters in cognitive science at Sussex University, and graduate work in neurobiology at the Weizmann Institute in Israel. In 2002 he was appointed ‘Scientist in Residence’ at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London. This was the first appointment of its kind at an arts institution. In 2005 he was in the first cohort to receive a Cultural Leadership Award from the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). As well as presenting a television series for the BBC on how science really works, he has made numerous appearances on national and local radio and has featured in articles in daily newspapers. He co-chairs the Café Scientifique at the Photographers’ Gallery which is the London branch of a national series providing a new way for scientists to interact with a general public

Dr David James is a Senior Lecturer in Sports Engineering at Sheffield Hallam University. He leads the University’s MSc in sports engineering and maintains a wide range of research interests. David is a leading science communicator and was recently awarded a prestigious Fellowship in Public Engagement from the Royal Academy of Engineering. David has a mechanical engineering background with a PhD from the University of Sheffield that focused on modelling the complex bounce of a cricket ball. He has been privileged to work in a world leading research centre for nine years and has published extensively in a range of sports engineering areas.  David’s team use fundamental research and the latest ‘cutting edge’ technologies to provide athletes with information and equipment to enhance their performance. Recent projects have included the development of elements of British Cycling’s highly successful Olympic track bike, and the creation of a complete mathematical model to explore the impact of technology on the game of tennis. David’s current research is focusing on the historical impact of technology in track and field events and the ethical considerations of an increasingly scientific sporting arena.

Professor Andy Miah, BA, MPhil, PhD, FRSA, is Chair in Ethics and Emerging Technologies in the Faculty of Business & Creative Industries at the University of the West of Scotland, Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, USA and Fellow at FACT, the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, UK. He is author of ‘Genetically Modified Athletes’ (2004 Routledge) and co-author with Dr Emma Rich of ‘The Medicalization of Cyberspace’ (2008, Routledge) and Editor of ‘Human Futures: Art in an Age of Uncertainty’ (2008, Liverpool University Press and FACT).  For correspondence: email@andymiah.net

Dr Anders Sandberg is a researcher, science debater, futurist, transhumanist, and author. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Stockholm University in computational neuroscience, and is currently a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. Sandberg's research centres on societal and ethical issues surrounding human enhancement and new technology, as well as on assessing the capabilities and underlying science of future technologies. His recent contributions include work on cognitive enhancement [1] (methods, impacts, and policy analysis); a technical roadmap on whole brain emulation[2]; on neuroethics; and on global catastrophic risks, particularly on the question of how to take into account the subjective uncertainty in risk estimates of low-likelihood, high-consequence risk. He is well-known as a commentator and participant in the public debate about human enhancement internationally, as well as for his academic publications in neuroscience, ethics, and future studies. He is co-founder of and writer for the think tank Eudoxa. Between 1996 and 2000 he was Chairman of the Swedish Transhumanist Association. He was also the scientific producer for the neuroscience exhibition "Se Hjärnan!" ("Behold the Brain!"), organized by Swedish Travelling Exhibitions, the Swedish Research Council and the Knowledge Foundation, that was touring Sweden 2005–2006. In 2007 he was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, working on the EU-funded ENHANCE project on the ethics of human enhancement.

Dr Nina Wakeford is a Reader in Sociology and an ESRC Research Fellow 2007-2010 at Goldsmiths College, University of London. Her previous research projects include studies of internet cafes, women's discussions lists and the use of ethnography by new technology designers. Amongst her publications are papers on virtual methodologies, queer identities, digital communities and public internet access provision. Along with colleagues at INCITE she is interested in the ways in which collaborations can be forged between ethnographers and those from other disciplines, such as engineering and computer science. She is particularly concerned with the ways in which critical social and cultural theory can play a part in the design process, including the challenges which feminist and queer theories pose to collaborative projects between designers and sociologists, as well as technology studies.

Natasha Vita-More, media artist and theorist, is currently a Ph.D. Candidate, Planetary Collegium, University of Plymouth. Her research concerns transformative human enhancement and radical life extension, focusing on converging nanotechnology, robotics, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive and neuro sciences within electronic-based design and biological art practices. Natasha's future human design “Primo Posthuman” has been featured in Wired, Harper’s Bazaar, The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Net Business, LA Weekly, and Village Voice. She has appeared numerous televised documentaries on the future, and exhibited at National Centre for Contemporary Arts Brooks Memorial Museum, Institute of Contemporary Art, Women In Video, Telluride Film Festival, and Moscow's "Evolution Haute Couture: Art and Science in the Post-Biological Age". Natasha is a proponent of ethical means for human enhancement. She is published in Artifact, Technoetic Arts, D'ARS, Nanotechnology Perceptions, Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology, Death and Anti-Death. She has a bi-monthly column in Nanotechnology Now, and Guest Editor of The Global Spiral. Formerly president of Extropy Institute, Natasha is Visiting Scholar at Twenty-First Century Medicine, Advisor for LifeBoat Foundation, Fellow of Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and has been a consultant to IBM on the future of human performance.

James Wallman was formerly Senior Trends Analyst at The Future Laboratory, where he consulted for companies such as Absolut, BMW and Coors, and appeared on radio alongside Dylan Jones discussing the future of men. With an MA in classics from Oxford University and an MA in journalism from the London College of Communication (LCC), he now writes the futurology column for tech magazine T3, making entertaining sense of complex topics such as the future of money, augmented reality and synthetic biology. Recent movements he’s analysed and described include the shift to bionic humans, the new prohibition era and the technosexual revolution – for T3, The Future Laboratory and GQ. He gathers the insights he comes across at CollectedIntelligence.net.

Screening for Undesirable Genes (2009)

Screening for Undesirable Genes (2009)

i-visions_55-e1360000060386.png

Dunne, A., Raby, F. & Miah, A. (2008) Screening for Undesirable Genes: The Evidence Dolls Project, in Miah, A. (2008). Human Futures: Art in an Age of Uncertainty (Liverpool University Press & FACT).  

"How will dating change when DNA analysis can reveal the presence of undesirable genes? This question arises amidst the emergence of genetic screening and testing, which have already been debated in the context of paternity testing and sex selection (HFEA 2003; HGC 2006). The prospect of selecting desirable genes is also integral to debates about the legitimacy of selecting out genes that are, for various reasons, considered undesirable. Many debates in this area centre on the ethical and legal implications of such prospects, focusing on matters of discrimination and broader social divisions that might arise from such practices.

 

However, very little research has investigated how choices to select for non-health-related or aesthetic genetic characteristics might be made. In part, this lack of research is due to the absence of communities where such decisions have been taken. As yet, most choices to select for specific genetic characteristics remain exclusively restricted to cases where the aim is to avoid passing on serious illnesses, and even in these cases the liberty to undertake such procreative decision making is controversial. Moreover, it is not at all clear how people go about deciding what to do in such circumstances. To this end, understanding how people would make lifestyle decisions – such as who to date – on the basis of knowledge about various types of genetic characteristics is even further lacking in evidential support.

 

Debates about the morality of such decision-making occupy a contested space of scientific knowledge, where the notion of aesthetic genes is seen as dubious either because such characteristics are not possible to isolate, or because many of our phenotypic states are not easily divorced from some health-related claim. Thus, in the context of dating decisions, one might assert sexual attraction as a biological instinct that is informed by an implicit assumption we make about what constitutes a partner who will optimize our flourishing and, perhaps, that of our offspring. While one should not be too strict about this claim or divorce it from the cultural conditions within which human sexuality becomes manifest, the example serves to illustrate how supposed aesthetic choices might also be laden with health-related values.

 

Evidence Dolls is part of an ongoing investigation into how design can be used as a medium for public debate on the social, cultural and ethical impact of emerging technologies. It consists of 100 specially designed dolls used to provoke discussion among a group of young single women about the impact of genetic technology on their lifestyle. It caters for the young, female, heterosexual generation who want to take their time and sample many male specimens before making a serious commitment. With so much resting on the genetic compatibility of future offspring, and the pressure to create and maintain a wild, impulsive, sexually charged attractiveness, it becomes essential for the single girl to extract, preserve and collate essential bodily samples. This is critical not only for the purposes of accurate speculation, but also for fuelling romantic fantasies. This market continues to grow and the manufacturers can barely keep up with the demand for Evidence Dolls."

 

Interspecies – artists collaborating with animals

Interspecies – artists collaborating with animals An exhibition, live event, symposia and family day at A Foundation London, Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES 2-4 October 2009, open 11am-7pm admission and all events free www.artscatalyst.org <http://www.artscatalyst.org> for details and booking How do humans and animals relate to each other? In The Arts Catalysts’ Interspecies exhibition and event, seven international artists have created a range of work that explores this complex relationship. From live experiments that allow visitors to communicate with fish to a video work that explores the age-old affiliation between falconer and falcon, Interspecies brings together a number of artists working with animals and explores the boundaries of our interaction. Curious about the animal’s point of view, the artists challenge the dominant human viewpoint and aim to work in collaboration with other species. The family day on Sunday 4 October will give families a chance to see artists in contact with real animals - like performance artist Kira O'Reilly who will be Falling asleep with a pig, called Deliah, and Antony Hall whose Enki Experiment 4 invites visitors to communicate with an electric fish.  During the afternoon, parents and children can take part in a series of free events. Interspecies is organised by The Arts Catalyst in partnership with A Foundation. The Arts Catalyst commissions artists and curates exhibitions which explore contested issues in science and society www.artscatalyst.org <http://www.artscatalyst.org> Events Friday 2 October 6pm, Exhibition tour with curator Rob La Frenais 7–9pm, Symposium: Non-Human Primates with Patrick Munck, collaborator with Nicolas Primat, Rachel Mayeri and Sarah Jane Vick, primatologist. Limited spaces, please book online. Saturday 3 October 1-3pm and 3.30-5.30pm, Primate Cinema: How To Act Like An Animal. Two workshops with Rachel Mayeri for over 16s exploring the social dynamics of non-human primates through performance. Limited spaces, please book online. 2pm, Tour of ENKI experiment 4 with Antony Hall 3–6pm, Symposium: Animals, Humans and Power (BSL interpreted) with Antennae editor Giovanni Aloi, Photographer Karen Knorr, Helen Macdonald, writer of Falcon, Ruth Maclennan and Snæbjörnsdóttir/Wilson. Limited spaces, please book online. 6pm, How to Act Like An Animal performance Family Day – Sunday 4 October 2–4pm Becoming Bowerbirds. These intriguing birds show unusual creativity - they construct bowers which they decorate with found objects to attract females. Children and parents are invited to be a Bowerbird for the afternoon with artist Sally Hampson.  Advanced booking advisable at www.artscatalyst.org <http://www.artscatalyst.org/interspecies> (Children 5yrs or under need to be accompanied) 2pm, 3pm and 4pm, Interspecies Tales by poet and storyteller Shamim Azad.  Shamim's work uses aspects of the Asian folk and oral traditions, enlivening traditional stories with chant and body movement, poems, percussion instruments, tabla and songs. 4.30pm, Animal Handler’s Tales, broadcaster and trainer of the owls used in the first Harry Potter movie, James Mackay talks about his work as 'The Animal Man' with exhibition curator Rob La Frenais. Admission free to all events. Accompanied children and families welcome. Unfortunately, dogs cannot be permitted. Physical access to some parts of the exhibition and events is limited; please contact admin@artscatalyst.org for further information

Jo Fells www.artscatalyst.org <www.artscatalyst.org> Sign up here <https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Join/signupId:52540> for our e-bulletin round-up of international news, exhibitions and opportunities The Arts Catalyst Toynbee Studios 28 Commercial Street London  E1 6LS T: +44 (0)20 7375 3690

South Korea

  5 nights in Seoul and 5 nights in Daejeon. Recommended. If ever you go, the must do is the USO tour to the North/South Korean border. Under UN command for part of it. If you've never come close to military environments, it's an enlightening experience. I could live in Seoul.

Human Enhancement

  The Brocher Foundation, and the Universities of Oxford and Geneva are pleased to announce the Symposium:

Human Enhancement: What should be permitted? 20-21 October 2009, Brocher Centre, Geneva, Switzerland _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Biomedical science is increasingly yielding technologies that can be used to enhance the capacities of healthy people, as well as to treat disease. This two-day workshop will aim to advance the debate on the ethics of human enhancement by considering

(1) What enhancements are likely to become possible?

(2) What enhancements will be ethically permissible?

(3) What enhancements should be legally permitted?

(4) What criteria should be used to answer 2 and 3?

THE PROGRAMME WILL INCLUDE SESSIONS ON:

Enhancement in sport

Life extension

Neuro-enhancement

Enhancement in general

The full list of speakers/respondents is: Eric Juengst, Paul Root Wolpe, Hank Greely, John Harris, Tom Murray, Gaia Barazzetti, Aubrey de Grey, Mike McNamee, Andy Miah, Stella Reiter-Theil, Ilina Singh, Astrid Stuckelberger, Sigmund Loland, Nicole Vincent, Massimo Reichlin, Ingmar Persson, Margareta Baddeley, Julian Savulescu, Alex Mauron, Bengt Kayser, Verner Moller, Tom Douglas, Norm Fost (TBC).

ORGANISERS

Julian Savulescu, Alexandre Mauron, Bengt Kayser, Verner Moller, Tom Douglas

TO ATTEND THE EVENT,

you are kindly requested to fill in the registration form and to send it back to the Brocher Foundation by mail, e-mail or fax before 5 October 2009. Places are limited and will be allocated on a first come first served basis.

Fondation Brocher 471 rte d’Hermance, 1248 Hermance, Switzerland E-mail: scientificprog@brocher.ch Fax: 0041 22 751 93 91

Here are some notes from the day:

Enhancement in sport (chaired by Julian Savulescu, Oxford)

0930 – 1020: Anti-doping: Not the only matter of concern for elite sport

Bengt Kayser (Director, Institut des Sciences du Mouvement et de la Médecine du Sport, University of Geneva)

Discuses cases of enhancement use throughout life

-       21 med student uses ritalin

-       75 retired athlète

anti-doping leading to excessive surveillance in sport

more harm to society than it prevents

slippery slope

arg against doping – against rules

doping-like behaviour – conduite dopante

why anti-doping rule ?

-       fair play, health, rôle model, spirit of sport

thèse reasons for anti-doping are flawed

what is the objective ?

-       eradication?

  • no

-       decrease prevalence?

-       decrease prevalence in mass sport ?

-       decrease in society ?

talk about GPS tracking

-       to identify athlete’s whereabouts

for 2012 Olympic Games – condition of entry to search athletes

false negatives

false positives

why do people transges

new law in france (2008) – 5 yrs in prison and €75,000 for possession for trade

strict liability – presumption of guilt as reversal of justice

Article 6 (2) ECHR – presumed innocent until proven

Can anti-doping be successful?

-       illusion

-       shows signs of fantacism

side effects

-       public belief that doping works

-       hidden because illegal

-       criminalization

-       dangerous behaviour

increase in prevalence

other problems

-       other collateral damage

Respondent: Mike McNamee (Professor of Applied Ethics, Swansea University, Wales)

Privacy – public and private distinction – with internet now, why should this worry us particularly?

Why does cost of strict liability rule matter so much?

If someone forcibly injected with steroid, would not have been their fault.

If different syste and don't test, but only advise, is sports world culpable?

Clean sport and doped society

-       if likely, then still sport could claim desire to maintain freedom from these technologies

ME: if society accepts medicalization of enhancement, can sports prevent such freedoms?

Strict liability – not an attribution of guilt, but of negligence

Can never prove intentionality of doping behaviour

John harris: this debate is bedevilled by confusion about the debate – rules can be whatever people want them to be – prob comes when dress up anti-doping as if is an ethical issue – not an ethical issue, is a matter of the sport’s rules –

Julian Savulescu – test only for health thresholds – rules also often about making better spectacle – what makes sport more exciting?

1020 – 1110:                                     The Ethics of Sport Enhancement and the Meaning of Sport

Tom Murray (President of The Hastings Center)

Why baseball is the best game – john rawls

-       perfectly adjusted to human skills

Rawls – virtuous perfection of natural talents

Excellence in sports – 1) natural talents 2) virtuous perfection of those talents (that would be admirable for a variety of reasons)

ME: is it necessary for athletes to originate those things that they do as admirable? Of course, they replicate established knowledge

Are vaccines an enhancement – can protect against H1N1 but make us more

Enhanced interrogation – bush administration – ie. Torture – most would not regard as a morally valuable pursuit

Enhancement for what ends?

Implications for flourishing?

Individual and society concerns

Powerlifting (non-olympic) vs weight lifting (Olympic)

-       Jan Todd

Powerlifting as case study

-       use of drugs and shirts

fracturing of powerlifting movement

-       19 organizations in USA

Ernie Frantz – advert for the sport – no testing – but some countries do want to test

In drug free powerlifting association – likely that drug use is evident

Longhorn Open Championships  - award 109 trophies to 98 lifters competing

By 1985 – concerns that powerlifting had degenerated

Powerlifting – the shirts

-       assist in bench press – many layers of denim, Kevlar, etc

-       600pound benchpress in superheavyweight would be great in a raw event, but in powerlifting would not be competitive – shirts make the difference

system of justice – should be to accommodate whole system not just the athletes

claims of incoherency

line drawing problem – is any line going to be defensible

baseball 60ft and 6 inches

athletes we spoke to wanted effective doping control – reasonable assurance, not guarantee

non-trembling surgeon – point is not to demonstrate technical skill of surgeon

sport – point of practice?

reflective equilibrium

not the means

sport vs society

-       use of drugs in sport different from society

‘when you come to a fork in the road, take it’

-       if health is cited, isn’t it unjustified paternalism

-       would you ban low harm drugs?

-       Or permit all drugs?

Mehlman 2009 – handicapping of pure ability

-       but what about unearned adv due to pain tolerance?

How handicap?

-       how do you handicap for height?

In what spheres of practice do we insist that only unearned virtue prevail?

Far poorer world if we handicap people because they unfairly possess unearned advantages.

Respondent: Bennett Foddy (Postdoctoral Fellow in Bioethics, Princeton University)

If permit doping not right to say that choice to use harms other substances, when prefer to not use, cf. training hours

Coercive pressure in itself not a harm

If sport is about identifying most genetically talented performance, then why not count gender for eg?

-       ME: this isn’t what tom says

Admirable activities

-       why are enhancements less admirable comparing technologies?

Standardize equipment? Or remove it?

If about effort – then gender segregation can make sense.

Why not allow evening out of genetic differences

If about a close comp, why not handicap hard workers too?

Or award prize to biggest personal improvement?

Swimsuit – changed to floating and paddling, rather than slicing through the water

Lasik for tiger woods

Tommy john’s surgery

1110 – 1140:                                    COFFEE

1140 – 1220:                    Genetics and Ethics in Sport

Sigmund Loland (Professor of Sport Philosophy, Norwegian University for Sport and Physical Education)

Genetic predisposition can be necessary, but not sufficient

In short, embrace value of phenotypic superiority

-       more reliable than genetic test

agree that crude fairness argument won’t work

we are interested in justification for breaking rules

no problem that different systems of justice in medicine and in sports

-       ME: but what about their intersection? The purpose of medicine is to support individuals in undertaking activity that will be detrimental to their health.

Relevant vs irrelevant risk

Sport not about equality, but perhaps equal opportunity

It is meritocratic and interested in inequality – but not any kind

Thin interpretations – do not link to thick ethical concepts

-       Fairness - prosthetics vs ordinary legs’ body ‘in tact’

-       Sociologically naïve – not grown up people entering sports, but are reliant on sport systems to protect – coerciveness is a concern too – don’t see what it adds to sport

ME: sports competitions measure natural talent, virtuous perfection and technological competition

Don’t want to measure inequality of equipment but skill of athlete

-       ME: skill is not separate from the use of technological means

ME: you develop your natural talent in combination with what Jacque Ellul would call ‘la technique’ the combined ways in which science imparts knowledge to create technological systems which remove performance inhibitors or

Scepticism to expert-administred biotechnological enhancements

-       ME: imagine a world where all athletes go through an educational system while competing – many do, many do sport science degrees – in what sense are they not experts in their own administration?

If enhancement becomes the norm, how can sport deal with this?

Father of serena Williams actively looked for partner who could produce optimal genetic composition for athletic performance

Germline no role in sport – ME: so what?

Question: since we are advancing claims about what sports are, I would want to add to your and tom’s natural talent and virtuous perfection through the exploration of a relationship with technology.

Psychological enhancements more important – ME: but the swim suit is the psychological

Empowered athlete

Respondent: Ingmar Persson (Professor of Practical Philosophy, Gothenburg University, Sweden)

1220 – 1300: Who Guard the Guardians? – A Critical Reflection on Recent  Developments in the Fight against Doping

Verner Moller (Professor, Department of Sport Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark)

if anti doping is corrupt, then debates about what should be permitted are irrelevant

anti-doping officials have sacrified prnciples upon which anti-doping was founded and have lost credibility

Michael Rasmussen case 2007-9 – was overall leader of the Tour de France – alleged that he received warnings for whereabouts  - presented by press as doping possibility – pressure built up around him –

Marshall mcluhan – government by news leak

Danish Cycling Federation – has code it thinks is higher than WADA Code

Tom Boonen – also removed from Tour because of cocaine positive test – which is not an out of competition substance – why was this leaked to the press?!

1300 – 1400:                                    LUNCH

Life-extension (chaired by Verner Moller, Geneva)

1400 – 1450: The Foreseeability of Real Anti-Aging Medicine: Focusing the Debate

Aubrey de Grey (Chief Science Officer, « SENS » Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)

Gerontology approach not sufficient – ie. To clean up metabolism

Instead, maintenance approach better

Do not interfere with metabolism

Longevity escape velocity (LEV)

-       rate at which rejuvenation

rate of progress

2 types of breakthroughs

radical vs incremental

e.g flight – 1903 aeroplanes, then rapid progress

Phonex and de Grey

Therapies double efficacy only every 42 years

Equity

-       would extending life widen the divide between haves and have nots?

-       Unlikely to be a problem – already v expensive to keep elderly alive

-       Correct precedent is not existing medicine, but basic education

-       Economically suicidal to not make available to everybody

Respondent: Gaia Barrazetti (Researcher, EPFL, University of Lausanne)

Translational process from research to implementation

Idea of life extension as ‘personal benefit’

Time for making a decision about reversing ageing process – as early as possible is ideal

-       ME: pre-embryonic?

Aubrey

-       It’s a question of too late, rather than too early – no point applying at age 20 or 30 as will not have accumulated much damage – better at around age of 60 when begun but not pathological

-       Distinguish between sociological and ethical

  • Sociologically, particularly difficult to implement.

Question: Life span vs expectancy

-       interventions have increase expectancy, but not span

suicide rate in elderly popuation highest

cell phone used to cost a lot, now available

ME: evidence that least affluent pay for the cutting edge technology

1450 – 1530: Anti-ageing: Results of a Swiss study

Astrid Stuckelberger (Institut de Médecine Sociale et Préventive, University of Geneva)

www.ta-swiss.ch

1950s – ageing as natural decline

1980s successful ageing

1990-2000

aging – failure of the

1530 – 1600:                                    COFFEE

1600 – 1650: Prevention and Life Extension

Eric Juengst (Professor of Medical Ethics, Oncology, and Philosophy of Science, Center for Biomedical Ethics, Case Western Reserve University)

Chloroplasties to prevent malnutrition

What doe ‘aging’ mean for us?

-       not simply getting older or wearing out

-       maturation  - growing older – progressing through developmental life cycle

case of my department chair at 65 – ‘I have the cv of a much younger man’

intervene in 11 yr old – freeze body in development so puberty postponed to allow cognitive development – would this view of promoting maturation fit in honouring life cycle – I think not

Beyond Therapy – cheating ourselves

The stages of life –

Dan Callahan – life cycle traditionalism

Respondent: Massimo Reichlin (Professor of Moral Philosophy, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milano)

International Olympic Academy

My lectures this year were broadly about applied ethical issues.

They  encompassed new media, environmental ethics, bioethics and human rights.

Lecture 1: Applied Ethics and the Olympic Movement

[slideshare id=1742934&doc=lecture1-ethicsolympics2009-090720034551-phpapp01]

Lecture 2: New Media Ethics and the Olympic Movement

[slideshare id=1750199&doc=lecture2-newmediaandolympics2009-090721150315-phpapp02]

Lecture 3: Environmental Ethics: An Inconvenient Olympics?

[slideshare id=1752033&doc=lecture3-environmentalethicsaolympics2009-090722024423-phpapp01]

Lecture 4: Bioethics and the Olympic Games

[slideshare id=1761254&doc=lecture4-bioethicsolympics2009-090723165154-phpapp01]

Lecture 5: Human Rights and the Olympic Movement

[slideshare id=1761428&doc=lecture5-humanrightsolympics2009-090723173450-phpapp02]

International Olympic Academy

 

The International Olympic Academy has a very special place in my life and is a lovely place to reflect on life and attain some quiet, while soaking up the energy and life stories of fascinating people. These shots don't do it justice, but it is the most important place in Olympic history, past and present.

London 2012

My first tour of the site. I published a piece about it in Culture @ the Olympics. Here's how it's looking...

KAIST

In August this year, I gave a lecture at KAIST in Daejeon on Ethical issues arising from nanotechnology. It was an awesome experience and there's such fantastic work happening there. If ever you have an opportunity visit the MIT of South Korea, then take it.

ICISTS-KAIST, one of the largest and most prestigious International Conference in Asia, would like to once again welcome you this summer. ICISTS-KAIST holds three workshops bound under our main theme of integration of science and technology into society. The delegates in each workshop will actively participate in team projects, debates, and various other programs after attending lectures by eminent orators. Q) What will the delegates do at ICISTS-KAIST 2009? #1. Sessions with prestigious lecturers We invite numerous great professionals from various fields of expertise. Last summer, we had the pleasure of welcoming Michael Pollitt, a twenty-seven-year-old CEO of the Shadow Robot Company; Steven Dubowsky, a professor at MIT; and Jim Dator, Director of the Hawaii Future Research Center, famous for being a futurist as well as being the partner of Alvin Toffler. You may look forward to meeting other great lecturers at ICISTS-KAIST 2009! #2. Integration of science and technology into society You will have gained an insightful opinion after having several in-depth discussions involving science and technology. The topics are carefully chosen from current science issues that have significant impact on our society. We guarantee that you will have broadened your view of the issues after the conference. #3. Interaction with an international student body At ICISTS-KAIST 2009, you will interact with students from almost 30 different countries, as well as Korean students from top universities in Korea, to form a world-wide human network. Social events include the Gala Night, the closing ceremony of ICISTS-KAIST when all delegates celebrate the end of our 4-day program. All delegates of the conference will share special memories and keep in touch even long after the close of the conference.

ICISTS-KAIST is an event in which you can develop an astute perspective and meet with international global leaders. In a world where science never ceases to undergo rapid development and affect society, students more educated and more concerned in the field of science and technology are needed. Attending lectures by eminent orators and interacting with other students, delegates will find what they were looking for at ICISTS-KAIST 2009.

This summer, ICISTS-KAIST 2009 awaits you!

<Goals of ICISTS-KAIST 2009> - Creating new points of view about current phenomena by communicating with professionals in various fields. - Offering opportunities for non-professionals to freely discuss about science and technology. - Formation of human networks among international students who have common interests. - Upbringing of global leaders with their unique visions on issues in science and technology.

<Conference Outline> 1. Name: ICISTS-KAIST 2009 2. Date: August 20th – 23rd (Orientation on August 19th), 2009 3. Place: Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea 4. Contents: Workshop #1: Climate Change Workshop #2: Human-Computer Interaction Workshop #3: Nano-clinic (Choose one workshop among the three above) 5. Organized by: ICISTS Organizing Committee at KAIST 6. Target: University students around the world 7. Application: 1st application session: April 1st – May 16th, 2009 (discount in fees) 2nd application session: May 24th – June 30th, 2009 3rd application session: July 1st – July 31st, 2009

Please complete the application form and the essay on our homepage, http://www.icists.org

Our promotional brochures outlining the program can be found on: http://issuu.com/donggun/docs/p.b._2009_e (English) http://issuu.com/donggun/docs/p.b._2009_k (Korean) * If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at help@icists.org

Kira OReilly

Kira is performing as part of Marina Abramovic Presents, already a sell out for the MIF.

Kraftwerk, Manchester International Festival 2009

The start of the Manchester International Festival was awesome, with a one night only show by Kraftwerk at the Manchester Veldrome. Managed to get there, courtesy of Mike Stubbs, CEO at FACT, who got us a couple of tix. Awesome night. Next is Antony and the Johnsons, followed by a Sunday of, hopefully, Maria Abramovich, and more.

Kraftwerk (2009, July)

Mike Stubbs managed to get us some tickets to Kraftwerk as part of the Manchester International Festival.

Social Media

Social Media: Uses and Abuses Provisional Outline for the Day: Room: David Wilson Library, First floor, Seminar Room 1

PROGRAMME

10.00am    Session on Twitter (for those who want to set up on their laptop phone) – Jennifer Jones & Jake Fudge

10.30am     Registration opens (Tea and Coffee)

10.50am    Housekeeping, explanation of one-tweet initiative and details of blog. Participants will be asked to tweet once after every session – to round up thoughts and summarize discussion. This can be tagged #usesandabuses so that we can track conversation throughout the day. Can be followed on twitterfall.com (large screen) – or using online tools. Speakers will be asked to pose the audience one question to take away from their talk and to be discussed within the breakout sessions. - Jennifer Jones

11.00am     Welcome from Department of Media and Communications/University of Leicester Barrie Gunter

Iran Twitter 1 millionth word in eng language = web 2.0

11.15pm     Gillian Youngs Title of talk:  Social ‘Me’-dia: real-time connections and virtual identity

Gy4@le.ac.uk

Social media is not new. Sociospatial/geospatial realities

Beijing UN Women’s conference -

12.00pm     PhD Panel : 15 mins x participant. Jin Shang Title of talk: Jennifer Jones Title of talk: Tia Azulay (DMU – MA Online Writing) Title of talk:

Each participant finishes the presentation with a question to ask audience, which can be discussed during the breakout session.

12.45pm    Breakout session (which can continue whilst lunch is being served.) PhD panel will take a group each, alongside designated facilitators (to guide conversation) – discuss questions posed by speakers and summarise discussion by tweeting once

Jennifer Jones

Internet as an object vs social space Self-defined user

Creative Cuppa: Switch ON/OFF of ‘Digital Community’ Jin Shang

www.ceativecuppa.com

jks21@le.ac.uk

A Creative Writer Explores Social Media TiaTALK.WORDPRESS.COM www.Tiyal.com

Australiacouncil.gov/wriersguide/newwritinguniverse

Another perfec world – on 4od 1.00pm    Lunch

5 of top 10 novels in japan was written on a cell phone

twitterature – redoing the classics twitterarti

1.45pm    Andy Miah Title of talk: Details of talk: Q +A Question to ask audience for break session.

2.30pm     Toby Moores Title of talk: Details of talk: Q+A Question to ask audience for break session.

Quick, audioboo, 12seconds

Reuters event cast - bring in voices of informed public, who had become separate from media/political/celebrity

we can capture the voice that we hadn’t heard before (public)

content and conversation coming together

this is what we should be doing:

aggregation mediation augmentation

3.15pm    Breakout Session – discussion, leading into…

3.30pm        Tea and Coffee

3.45pm    Rachel Gibson Title of talk: Details of talk: Q+A: Question to ask audience for break session.

New Media and Barack Obama Before obama, feeling that not much change happening from perspective of politics

What did the Obama campaign do differently? - the obama website. Facebook, flickr, you tube, Mybarackobama.com website was the main thing - gave users control to affect

iphone application

Vote Different video on youtube

Components of campaign - hub: mybo - spokes: email, rss, sms, - 3rd party platform – blogosphere, social networking

reversal of professionalization – towards amateurization

Pew Internet and American Life 200 - campaign stats - 56% active online in relation to presidential campaign - 18% forward another’s commentary

4.30pm    Panel Discussion: Leicester Politics and Social Media Ross Grant Jamie Potter Keith Perch (TBC)

5.10pm    Break out session – speakers and facilitators

5.40pm    Round up of tweets from one tweet iniciative, information about follow up.

6.00pm     Close.

London 2012 Creative & Digital Industries (2009, June 19, Manchester)

London 2012 Creative & Digital IndustriesManchester, 2009.06.19

Paul Newman Media City

5 BBC depts., 1600 jobs BBC Five Live BBC Childrens BBC Sport

Local radio, comedy, some news and current affairs

Peter Salmon, BBC North -    chief commissioner of Media City

Anne Thompson NWDA, Sector Leader Sport

Scale of Olympics ME: numbers of media are inaccurate. These are the IOC and Organizing Committee accredited figures 13k broadcast, 7k print. But in Beijing, you had another 11000 media present and many more without accreditation from the official broadcasters.

CompeteFor -    main mechanism to receive contract opportunities -    must be registered and published

Claire Stocks (Editor, Olympics, Sport Interactive) & Tim Plyming, Chief Executive, Digital Olympics BBC Sport

Beijing 2008

Digital Olympics

4.5million visitors to website each day 2million of them looking at clips

2004 – Athens 2.5million live streams

2008 - Beijing 38-40 million live streams

Digital Olympics -    bring all parts of technical development to crecendo in 2012 last 3 Olympics have been described as a digital games, but nobody has really delivered this yet

we have a unique timing clash – switch off of analogue

Digital Britain provision of 2mbps broadband in every homoe by 2012 raise awareness of digital content

30% of population happy wth analogue signal

audience expectation -    extended choice, immediacy, interactivity

Beijing Tv – 74% Online – 31% Radio – 15% Mobile – 2%

aspiration for 70% online reach

nbc Beijing 2008 -    first time they developed rich video services -    Beijing was biggest event in us history -    But rich digital services were complimentary

Sold out advertising target within a week of Games

Hours BBC put in can at last games Sydney – 300hrs Athens – 1250hrs, 4000 HD Beijing, 2750hrs, 4000 HD London – 5000hrs, 5000 HD

How connect audiences across all platforms to this HD content?

3 phases towards 2012 1.    build up: news stories 2.    2011: countdown phase – cultural Olympics, torch relay, music festivals 3.    2012: programme of events leading to games time. ME: but what about Games time as a distinct phase? How can you integrate non-sporting dimensions?  How involved with non sport depts. Of bbc be with other content

Pulling all content together ME: but people don't want a distinct platform, they want you to allow them to pull it into something else, like Facebook

Legacy from Olympics – an integrated platform for post Games events

IPTV -    2012 first IPTV Olympics

Mobile -    in Beijing, followed live text commentary

ME:  what about street reporters?

Unless got a high end unlimited device, you’re not really using mobile for video

Audio might be the main story for mobile, not video

Radio (DAB)

Live Sites -    interactive services, interact with mobile, Bluetooth download zones

ME: are there plans to deliver navigation and orientation content to mobiles, rather than produce print material?

Alex Balfour

25% of world online by 2012 (+44%) 17 countries will have > 60% broadband penetration by 2012, uk 58% to 74%

people having conversations online Mobile trends: - mobile penetration 100% in Western Europe

early adoption 13.5% vs innovators 2.5%

8 yr cycle to get to 60% penetration

simple new media model 1.    new media products and services (help efficiency or cost effective) (eg. ticketing, education programme) 2.

put out on YouTube, Flickr

ME: if you are in the 2.5% of innovators, what platforms are you looking at for use in 2012? Is Twitter a clear commitment for instance? Are there others that you think people here should be working with, developing the applications, etc.

If not on Facebook, then we’re invisible.

ME: Can we engage people in Olympic park using digital? Eg. harnessing the Sponsors venues, which are the most prominent – or around pin trading, the other major games time cultural experience.

ME: how are you working with Olympic park infrastructure to make it more interesting?

Cultural Olympiad – artists taking the lead

ME: What are you not yet into, but which you have plans to be involved with?

Opportunities around venues, dressing buildings etc

Bring together digital content.

ME: you talk about dressing venues, have you found that you can talk to the individual sponsors who will be in the venue to build digital into their programmes?

My2012 -    technology platform and sponsor already -    channelled through social networks

Inspire Mark programme

Sponsors have expressed interest in digital

ME: Is digital the first way in history that sponsorship will enter Olympic venues?

To contact me: 200 word email

Debbi Lander

SKV Equivalent Advertising Cost

Q and A

www.londonolympics2012.com -    how can we get support?

Brand protection -    have been looked at and we’ve approved or raised questions