Journal Editor

Co-Editor of JournalCulture at the Olympics: Issues, Trends and Perspectives. Online: http://www.culturalolympics.org.uk [ISSN: 1747-4698].

Co-Editor of Forthcoming Refereed Journal Special Edition (with Drake, P.) (2010) The Cultural Politics of Celebrity, Cultural Politics (Berg).

Co-Editor of Refereed Journal, Special Book Edition (with Eassom, S.B. & Mitcham, C.) (Eds.) (2002) Sport Technology: Philosophy, History and Policy. Special Edition of Research in Philosophy and Technology, 21, Oxford: Elsevier Science [ISBN: 0-7623-0880-X; ISSN: 0161-7249].

Encyclopedia

Miah, A. & Jones, J. (2010) Virtual Worlds, in Barnett, George  & Golson, J. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Social Networking. SAGE. Miah, A. & Adi, A. (2010) Yahoo!, in Barnett, George  & Golson, J. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Social Networking. SAGE.

Miah, A. (2010) Ethical and Policy Issues In Bouchard, C. & Hoffman, E. Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine, Genetic and Molecular Aspects of Sport Performance. Lausanne, International Olympic Committee,

Miah, A. (2005) Sport Technology, Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics. London: Macmillan.

Miah, A. (2001) Ice Boating, International Encyclopedia of Women and Sport. London: Macmillan, pp.142-143 [ISBN: 0-02-864954-0].

Human Futures (2008)

Human Futures (2008)

Encounters with the future occur via a series of provocations in artistic endeavour, design interactions and cultural imaginations, which seek to consider the social impact of technology for humanity. The manifestation of these visions, as technological artefacts and social processes, infuses and reconstitutes our minds, bodies and world. This book brings together diverse voices to articulate the various areas of inquiry that orbit this futurological landscape. It portrays how the visual and textual culture of technological innovation is made and remade through bioculturally diverse forms of consumption. This is achieved by presenting innovative works from internationally renowned artists, writers and designers to stimulate new forms of interaction with the future, in ways that transcend the borders between the physical, virtual, biological and digital.

Human Futures addresses such issues as:

•    the convergence of the NBIC (nano-, bio-, info-, cogno-) sciences; •    the ethics and aesthetics of human enhancement; •    the future of biological migration and transgressions; •    the emergence of systems and synthetic biology; •    the prospect of emotional and networked intelligence; •    ecosystem responsibility.

It is essential reading for scholars interested in the range of perspectives that inform inquiries into the future of humanity. It consists of scholarly essays, images, interviews, design products, artistic artefacts, original quotations and creative writing.

These symbiotic nodes are interwoven with and stimulated by material from the Human Futures programme at the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, which took place during Liverpool’s year as 2008 European Capital of Culture. Together, they interrogate the expectations and actualities of human futures, as they emerge within the social sphere.

BUY THE BOOK

Don't miss out on getting your copy of Human Futures, a limited edition, designer product with chapters from 25 leading public intellectuals and over 35 internationally renowned artists and designers.

200+ colour illustrations

For institutional or book shop purchases, HF comes in a set of 4 colours:

Human Futures - Buy the Set of 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Edited by Andy MIAH

0.1 Foreword

Sir Drummond BONE

0.2 Life in the 21st Century: Practice-based Research & the Application of Art

Mike STUBBS & Laura SILLARS

0.3 Introduction

Andy MIAH

VISIONS

1.1 The Future is Divine: A History of Human God-Playing

Steve FULLER

1.2 BIOplay: Bacteria Cultures

Jennifer WILLET

1.3 Embracing the Unknown Future: In Defence of New Technology

Russell BLACKFORD

1.4 Will Human Enhancement Make Us Better? Ethical reflections on the enhancement of human capacities by means of biomedical technologies

Ruud ter MEULEN

1.5 Our Faith in Technology

Richard A.L. JONES

1.6 Evidence Dolls: Detecting Undesirable Genes

Anthony DUNNE, Fiona RABY & Andy MIAH

CONTESTED BODIES

2.1 Shaping the Human: The New Aesthetic

Sandra KEMP

2.2 Bioterror and 'Bioart' - 'a plage o' both your houses'

George J. ANNAS

2.3 One World, One Olympics: Governing Human Ability, Ableism & Disablism in an Era of Bodily Enhancements

Gregor WOLBRING

2.4 Flesh to Data/Subject to Data: Examining Processes of Translation

Marilène OLIVER

2.5 Eduardo Kac: A Conversation with the Artist

Simone OSTHOFF

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE FUTURE

3.1 Fragments of Creative Cloning: Time, Money and Relationships

Kate O'RIORDAN

3.2 Global Governance and Emerging Technologies: The Need for a Mainstream Policy Debate on Modifying Human Capacities

Nigel CAMERON

3.3 Will Public Engagement Lead to a Marriage between Science and Society?

Duncan DALLAS

[Material Beliefs]

3.4 Once Upon a Space Age: How the dream was lost (and how we get it back again)

Nicola TRISCOTT

3.5 The Narrative Tradition of Posthuman Rights

Pramod K. NAYAR

3.6 How Science Fiction Lost its Innocence - And Now Nano?

David BENNETT

CREATIVE F(R)ICTIONS

4.1 Our Most Important Product

George J. ANNAS

4.2 Sorrel

Heather BRADSHAW

4.3 Letter to a Supernatural Being

Catullus

[Double Happiness Jeans – 6 Steps To Your Very Own Virtual Sweatshop!]

4.4 The Fragmented Orchestra: Minds, Music and Memory

Jane GRANT, John MATTHIAS & Nick RYAN

4.5 The Future is a Fantasy

Ann WHITEHURST

4.6 Notes on the History of the Present

Norman M.  KLEIN

4.7 Artists and Scientists: A Symbiotic Relationship?

Oron CATTS & Laura SILLARS

4.8 Mission Eternity

etoy.CORPORATION

END MATTER

5. 1 Author Biographies

5.2 Index

BOOK LAUNCH

On 30 October 2008, a preview of the book took place in FACT, Liverpool, bringing together many of the contributors. This was its programme.

10.00-10.10    Why Human Futures? Mike Stubbs

10.10-11.30    Envisioning the Future,

Visions of humanity’s future are present throughout the history of science and science fiction. Their journeys articulate humanity’s aspiration to transcend known boundaries. Our Visions session interrogates the capacity to assert visions about the future of humanity. Russell Blackford is a leading science fiction writer and philosopher from Melbourne Australia, author of many of the Terminator chronicles and pioneering voice within the transhuman community. Norman M. Klein is an internationally renowned cultural critic based in Los Angeles. Together they consider how we should approach visionaries and imaginations of the future for humanity.

Chair: Steve Fuller

10.10-10.30    An Ethics of the Unknown, Russell Blackford    AUS 10.30-10.50    The Human/Machine/Divinity Thing Justina Robson UK 10.50-11.10 Notes Towards the History of the Present, Norman M Klein    USA 11.10-11.30    Questions & Answers, Discussion

11.30-11.45 Tea and Coffee

11.45-13.15    Designs on the Future,

How does design affect our relationship with the world around us? What can design bring to debates about the ethics of emerging technologies? This session gathers designers from the Royal College of Art whose work provokes people morally about technology. Through their artefacts and ideas, the aesthetic of future technology is brought into existence, the parameters of moral debate are drawn and the conditions of our commercial transaction with new technologies are established. Our speakers consider such questions as, how can we understand what choices people will make about genetic selection? What will be our relationship to animals in an era when we require them for sustaining human life? What does the science of nanotechnology mean for our own use of lifestyle body modifications?

Chair: Andy Miah

11.45-12.15    Design for Debate, Fiona Raby    UK 12.15-12.30    Enhanced Humans as Super-Organisms, Michael Burton     UK 12.30-12.45    Natural Kingdoms and the Post-Biological World, Revital Cohen    UK 12.45-13.15    Questions & Answers

13.15-14.15 Lunch

14.15-15.15    Life after death in the 21st century,

etoy.CORPORATION (since 1994) is art and invests all resources in the production of more art. The Swiss based shareholder company represents the core and code of the corporate sculpture. etoy intends to reinvest all financial earnings in art - the final link in the value chain. In this session, key pioneers in the exploration of art and science discuss the latest work of etoy.CORPORATION, Mission Eternity. In a time when scientists are beginning to find ways of extending life beyond its known limits, the prospect of immortality comes under greater scrutiny. What does it mean to remember people, things, events? etoy invite our consideration of this question and, in so doing, resist the idea that questions of immortality reside solely in the sciences of cloning, life-extension and so on. Their immortality is personal, collaborative and intimate.

Chair: Ernest Edmonds    UK

14.15-1435    Mission Eternity, etoy.CORPORATION    SWITZ 14.35-15.15    Discussants: Paul Brown, Linda Candy, Mike Stubbs

15.15-16.15    Unsustainable Futures? FACT in 2009 ,

We exist in a world of tremendous technological development, but also of looming economic crisis. What is the future for humanity given these seemingly incompatible trends? Looking towards FACT’s programme in 2009, panel members from both sides of the Atlantic consider what are the compelling issues of our time, drawing together ideas presented throughout the day. Should we spend time investing into the exploration of outer space when basic energy requirements are becoming unsustainable on present-day technology? How can our investment into nanotechnology or the new science of synthetic biology translate into greater optimism for those who benefit least from high-technology?

Chair: Nicola Triscott

15.15-15.25    Overiew & Summary, Nicola Triscott    UK

Rapporteurs:

15.25-15.40    Steve Fuller 15.40-15.55    Heather Bradshaw 15.55-16.10    Ernest Edmonds 16.10-16.25    Laura Sillars

16.25-16.45  ISEA 2009 Presentation by Karen Fleming

17.05-18.00    Book Preview Reception with Speeches

Mike Stubbs - Human Futures: The Programme

Andy Miah   - Human Futures: The Book

QUOTES FROM THE BOOK

“Questions on the societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology will permeate every policy discussion of the 21st century and create whole new kinds of policy dilemma, and we are ill-prepared to provide good answers” (Cameron, 2008). “…are the Olympic competitions a mechanism for evaluating athletes with a ‘normal biological body’? Can the body structure, as such, be used as a basis to justify the separation between different kinds of –lympics?” (Wolbring, 2008b:119)

Check out the films from the 30 October event:

FILMS FROM THE DAY

Envisioning the Future

Life After Death in the 21st Century

Unsustainable Futures?

Human Futures & Unsustainability

MEDIA COVERAGE

2009.02.15 The Times Andy Miah profiled, features book content.

2009.01.29 review in Nature

2008.12.15 BBC Radio 4 Start the Week with Andrew Marr Andy Miah appeared to discuss the book

2008.11.29 The Scotsman 2-page profile piece on Andy, features content from the book

2008.11 Digicult Feature

2008.10 The Independent Andy Miah included in Visionaries for the 21st Century supplement, byline

AUTHORS

George J. Annas

George is the Edward R. Utley Professor and Chair of the Department of Health Law, Bioethics & Human Rights of Boston University School of Public Health, and Professor in the Boston University School of Medicine, and School of Law. He is the co-founder of Global Lawyers and Physicians, a transnational professional association of lawyers and physicians working together to promote human rights and health. He is the author or editor of 17 books on health law and bioethics, including American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries (2005), The Rights of Patients (3rd ed. 2004), Some Choice: Law, Medicine, and the Market (1999), Standard of Care: The Law of American Bioethics (l993), and Judging Medicine (1987), and a play entitled Shelley’s Brain. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a member of the Institute of Medicine, and co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Health Rights and Bioethics (Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section).

William Sims Bainbridge (aka Catullus) William has published 14 books, 4 textbook-software packages, and 200 articles on technology, information science and culture. After editing The Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction (2004), he wrote God from the Machine (2006), Across the Secular Abyss (2007) and Nanoconvergence (2007). He has served on five advanced technology initiatives: High Performance Computing and Communications, Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, Digital Libraries, Information Technology Research, and Nanotechnology.

David J. Bennett David has a PhD in biochemical genetics and an MA in science policy studies with long-term experience, activities and interests in the relations between science, industry, government, education, law, the public and the media. He works with the European Commission, government departments, companies, universities, public interest organizations and the media in these areas, having worked in universities and companies in the UK, USA, Australia and, most recently, The Netherlands. He is a member of numerous international organizations and committees in biotechnology and nanobiotechnology, and for the last nearly twenty years has coordinated and managed many European Commission projects in this field. He is now a Visitor to the Senior Combination Room at St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, Guest at the Kluyver Laboratory for Biotechnology of the Delft University of Technology, Secretary of the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) Task Group on Public Perceptions of Biotechnology and Director of Cambridge Biomedical Consultants Ltd.

Russell Blackford Russell teaches in the School of Philosophy and Bioethics at Monash University, where he is completing his second PhD. He is a Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and editor-in-chief of The Journal of Evolution and Technology.

Heather Bradshaw Heather is working on a thesis on enhancement and disability at the Centre for Ethics in Medicine at the University of Bristol. She is a staffer at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, where she is currently managing the editing and publication of a collection of essays on wisdom in Western and East-Asian culture. She recently published a short story in Nature.

Nigel Cameron Nigel is President of the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies in Washington, DC, and Research Professor in the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), where he has been Director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society and co-founded the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future. His books include The New Medicine: Life and Death after Hippocrates (1991), and he has edited Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century (2007). He has been a visiting scholar at UBS Wolfsberg in Switzerland, and a featured speaker at the Aspen Ideas Festival. He serves on the advisory boards of Nanotechnology Law and Business, the Converging Technologies Bar Association, and the World Healthcare Innovation and Technology Congress. He chaired the Technosapiens process that brought together leading liberals, conservatives, and technology leaders with transhumanists, and gave a keynote address at the 2006 Stanford Law School conference on enhancement technologies and human rights. Nigel has represented the United States on delegations to the United Nations General Assembly and UNESCO, and testified before the European Parliament and the US Congress..

Catullus Catullus is a level 70 Blood Elf priest, a member of the Alea Iacta Est guild, and chief sponsor of the first scientific conference to be held inside World of Warcraft. Several times a week, this hero undertakes fully a dozen advanced quests in rapid succession, a real labour of Hercules, to earn gold for the costs of the conference. Having been thoroughly educated, from Silvermoon to the Sunwell, mastering fully six professions, and having completed many advanced research projects, his publishing career is ready to begin. Although the Gnomes and the Draenei have scientific pretensions, the Blood Elves are of course the most scientifically advanced of the ten races, and Catullus is the most brilliant of them all.

Oron Catts Oron is an artist, researcher and curator and co-founder and Director of SymbioticA, School of Anatomy & Human Biology, University of Western Australia. SymbioticA- –The Centre of Excellence in Biological Arts is dedicated to the research, learning and critique of the life sciences and enables artists to engage in wet biology practices in biological laboratories. SymbioticA was awarded the inaugural Prix Ars Electronica Golden Nica in Hybrid Art (2007). Oron was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School. He exhibited and presented his award-winning work (mostly under the banner of The Tissue Culture & Art Project) and SymbioticA’s research internationally at institutions including NY MoMA, Ars Electronica, National Gallery of Vitoria, Tate Modern and elsewhere. Oron also runs workshops and is a sought-after speaker in international forums and symposia.

Duncan Dallas Duncan gained a degree in chemistry from Oxford University before joining the BBC in 1964. He then moved over to Yorkshire Television (YTV) in 1968, and became the Head of Science and Features. In 1992 he left YTV and started an independent production company, XYTV, which produced science programmes for the BBC, Channel 4 and ZDF in Germany. In 1998 he created the concept of Café Scientifique in a wine bar in Leeds, advertising it as: ‘a place where, for the price of a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, people can meet to discuss the latest ideas of science and technology which are changing our lives’. In 2001 he won an Impact Award from The Wellcome Trust to set up Café Scientifiques in cities throughout the UK, and there are currently 36 ‘Cafés’ across the UK and over 250 worldwide.

Anthony Dunne Anthony is Professor and head of the Design Interactions department at the Royal College of Art in London. He studied Industrial Design at the RCA before working at Sony Design in Tokyo. On returning to London he completed a PhD in Computer Related Design at the RCA. He was a founding member of the CRD Research Studio where he worked as a Senior Research Fellow(1996-2001). He also taught in Design Products where he jointly led Platform 3 between 1998 - 2004. Dunne & Raby was established in 1994. Their projects have been exhibited and published internationally and are in the permanent collection of several museums including the MOMA, New York, FRAC, FNAC and the V&A Museum, London. Dunne & Raby have worked with Sony UK, National Panasonic, France Telecom and The Science Museum. They have published two books: Design Noir; The secret life of electronic products (Princeton Architectural Press) and Hertzian Tales (The MIT Press).

etoy.CORPORATION etoy.CORPORATION (since 1994) is art and invests all resources in the production of more art. The shareholder company represents the core and code of the corporate sculpture. It controls, protects, shares, and exploits the cultural substance (intellectual property / etoy trademarks) and the etoy.ART-COLLECTION. etoy intends to reinvest all financial earnings in art - the final link in the value chain.

Steve Fuller Steve is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. He is best-known for his work in the field of ‘social epistemology’, which addresses normative philosophical questions about organized knowledge by historical and social scientific means. His most recent work has focused on the future of the public intellectual and the university, as well as the biological challenge to the social sciences, especially as it bears on the future of ‘humanity’ as a category in terms of which we define ourselves. Fuller is the author of 15 books, including The Knowledge Book: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Science and Culture (Acumen and McGill-Queens, 2007), New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies (Polity, 2007), Science vs Religion? (Polity, 2007) and Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism (Icon, 2008). He is the UK partner of the European Union’s Sixth Framework Project on the ‘Knowledge Politics of Converging Technologies’. Jane Grant Jane is an artist who works with film/video, sound, installation and drawing. She works both individually and collaboratively with scientists and musicians. She has been working with neurological time patterns and the human voice for a some time and was awarded an AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council) grant to make work which merges firing patterns of artificial spiking neurons with the human voice and breath. This work forms the audio part of the film and sound installation entitled Threshold shown in Just World Order at Artsway, UK. Recent exhibited works have included Untitled (Room), with John Matthias, in the Sonic Arts Network Expo 2007 and Nothing is Further in the Voices III Festival in Plymouth 2008 and Running Piece in MUTICHANNEL at Artsway. She has exhibited widely including one-person shows at Spacex Gallery and Still at Chapter, Cardiff. Other exhibitions include Kissing the Dust at Walsall Museum and Art Gallery and Aufsteigen in Germany funded by the British Council.

Richard A. L. Jones Richard was educated at Cambridge University, with a first degree and a PhD in physics. After postdoctoral work at Cornell University, he was appointed as a lecturer at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge University. In 1998 he moved to Sheffield University, where he is a Professor of Physics. In 2006 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. He lives in Derbyshire, is married and has two young children. He is an experimental physicist, whose research centres around the properties of polymer molecules at interfaces and ultrathin polymer films. He is currently the Senior Strategic Advisor for Nanotechnology for the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Sandra Kemp Sandra is Head of the London College of Communication, University of the Arts, London. She was formerly Director of Research at the Royal College of Art. She gained her B.A. and D.Phil at Oxford University, and has held senior research posts at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington and the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Sandra Kemp’s research has always explored the connections between individual identity and philosophical, cultural and aesthetic concerns. Her recent work investigated multiple readings of the face as a 3D barcode of identity and the impact of advances in science and technology on both appearance and identity. Her exhibition Future Face was shown at the Science Museum, London, from 2005-6, and toured Southeast Asia in 2006-7. Her current research continues her investigation of the cultural centrality of the human image and its extraordinary expressive repertoire through an exploration of the issues relating to human enhancement.

Norman M. Klein Norman is a cultural critic, and both an urban and media historian, as well as a novelist. His books include The History of Forgetting: Los Angeles and the Erasure of Memory, Seven Minutes: The Life and Death of the American Animated Cartoon, and the data/cinematic novel, Bleeding Through: Layers of Los Angeles, 1920–86 (DVD-ROM with book). His next book will be The Vatican to Vegas: The History of Special Effects (2003). His essays appear in anthologies, museum catalogues, newspapers, scholarly journals, on the WWW – symptoms of a polymath’s career, from European cultural history to animation and architectural studies, to LA studies, to fiction, media design and documentary film. His work (including museum shows) centres on the relationship between collective memory and power, from special effects to cinema to digital theory, usually set in urban spaces; and often on the thin line between fact and fiction; about erasure, forgetting, scripted spaces, the social imaginary.

John Matthias John is a composer, musician and physicist and is lecturer in Sonic Arts at the University of Plymouth. He has released three albums, Smalltown, Shining (Accidental Records 2001), Stories from the Watercooler (Ninja Tune/ Counter 2008) and Cortical Songs (with Nick Ryan) (Nonclassical 2008) and has worked with many recording artists including Radiohead, Matthew Herbert and Coldcut. He is the winner (with Jane Grant and Nick Ryan) of the 2008 PRS New Music Award and his research interests include the new subject of Neuronal Music Technology. He has also contributed as a violinist to the sound of many albums, television programmes and two feature films. He also plays in the band, Derailer with David and Andrew Prior.

Ruud ter Meulen Ruud is a psychologist and ethicist. He is Chair for Ethics of Medicine and Director of the Centre for Ethics in Medicine at the University of Bristol. He has been working on a broad range of issues in medical ethics, particularly issues of justice in healthcare, ethical issues of healthcare reform and health policy, ethics of evidence-based medicine, ethical issues of long-term care and ethics of research and research ethics committees. Ruud has directed several international projects and was principal co-ordinator of a range of European projects. He was the principal coordinator of the ENHANCE project, funded within the Sixth Framework Program of the European Commission, dealing with the ethical, philosophical and social issues of enhancement technologies.

Andy Miah Andy is Reader in New Media and Bioethics at the School of Media, Language and Music University of the West of Scotland, a Fellow at the Foundation for Art and Creative Technology (FACT) and a Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. He has a PhD in bioethics and cultural studies and a Masters degree in medical law. He is author of Genetically Modified Athletes (2004 Routledge) and co-author with Emma Rich of The Medicalization of Cyberspace (2008, Routledge). He is a Steering Committee member and Panel Co-Chair for ISEA 2009, Belfast.

Pramod K. Nayar Pramod teaches at the Department of English at the University of Hyderabad, India. He is the author of Virtual Worlds: Culture and Politics in the Age of Cybertechnology (Sage, 2004), Reading Culture: Theory, Praxis, Politics (Sage, 2006), besides work on colonial discourse (English Writing and India, 1600-1920: Colonizing Aesthetics, Routledge, 2008) and postcolonial literature (Postcolonial Literature: An Introduction, Pearson, 2008). Forthcoming work includes essays on human rights narratives from India, and books on celebrity culture, cultural studies and cyberculture. Marilène Oliver Marilène was born in the UK in 1977. Marilène has exhibited widely in the UK and Europe in both private and public galleries including the Victoria and Albert Museum, Royal Academy, Royal Institution, Science Museum (UK) and Frissarias Museum (Greece) and Kunsthalle Ahlen (Germany). She has had a number of solo shows in Europe. She was awarded the Royal Academy print prize in 2006 and the Printmaking Today prize in 2001. Her work is held in a number of private collections around the world as well as a number of public collections such as the Wellcome Trust and the Victoria and Albert Museum. Marilène is currently completing a practice-based MPhil in Fine Art Print at the Royal College of Art, London.

Simone Osthoff Simone is Associate Professor of Critical Studies at the Pennsylvania State University. She holds a Ph.D. in Media and Communications from the European Graduate School in Switzerland, an M.A. degree in Art History, Theory, and Criticism from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and an M.F.A. degree from the University of Maryland. She is a member of the Leonardo Review panel since 2000. Her many interviews, essays, and book chapters focusing upon contemporary art have been translated into eight languages and included in among others, various MIT Press and Routledge books as well as in international art magazines and web publications. She received a Fulbright Fellowship in 2003, and is a frequent lecturer in the United States and abroad having participated in dozens of conferences worldwide.

Kate O’Riordan Kate is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Media and Film at the University of Sussex, and co-director of the Centre for Digital Material Culture. She is also an affiliate member of the Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (CESAGEN), at Lancaster University. Her research is in cultural studies of science and technology, engaging with forms of mediation, and collective and individual identities. She has published widely in these areas, including Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to Science Practice (Routledge, 2007), and Queer Online: Media Technology and Sexuality (Peter Lang, 2007).

Fiona Raby Fiona is a partner in the design practice Dunne & Raby. She was a founding member of the CRD Research Studio at the Royal College of Art where she worked as a Senior Research Fellow (1996-2001). She taught in Architecture at the RCA from 1996-2005 where she led ADS04 with Gerrard O’Carroll. She currently teaches in Design Interactions. Dunne & Raby were established 1994. Their projects have been exhibited and published internationally and are in the permanent collection of several museums including the MOMA, New York, FRAC, FNAC and the V&A Museum, London. Dunne & Raby have worked with Sony UK, National Panasonic, France Telecom and The Science Museum.  Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Products (Princeton Architectural Press) was published in 2001. Nick Ryan Nick is a composer and sound designer. He holds major industry awards in technical and creative fields for his unique approach to sound and music in the context of multi-sensory experience. In 2006 Nick was invited by photographer Nick Knight and interaction designer Daniel Brown to sonify a still photograph of a Balenciaga garment [worn by Gemma Ward] and to create a multi-sensory interactive artwork. The work, Synaesthesia, which allows the user to touch a photograph and hear its texture, was launched on Showstudio website and performed by Nick Ryan at the MAK Building, Vienna, June 2007.

Laura Sillars Laura is Head of Programme at FACT. She leads FACT’s artistic programme and manages a team of curators and project managers to develop and deliver exhibitions, projects, education and collaboration programmes. Previously Senior Curator: Collaboration Programme at FACT, Curator: Public Programmes at Tate Liverpool and an Associate Lecturer for the Open University, she holds an MA in Art History from the Courtauld Institute of Art, a PGCE in Adult and Community Education from the Institute of Education and a BA from the University of York in History and History of Art. A member of the Liverpool John Moore’s Art and Design Academy Advisory Board, she is a Senior Research Fellow: Centre for Architecture and Visual Arts for the University of Liverpool, is a fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts and currently holds a Clore Leadership Fellowship.

Mike Stubbs Mike has been Director of FACT since May 2007. Previously he was Head of Exhibitions at the Australian Centre for Moving Image (ACMI), Senior Research Resident at Dundee University’s School of Television Imaging and was Founding Director at Hull Time Based Arts (HTBA). During his career, Mike has commissioned over 250 interactive, site-specific, performative, sonic and moving-image based artworks. Originally educated at the Royal College of Art and Cardiff College of Art, Mike’s own internationally commissioned artwork encompasses broadcast films, video art, large-scale public projections and new media installation.

Nicola Triscott Nicola is a cultural producer, working in the performing, interdisciplinary and visual arts. She founded The Arts Catalyst, the UK science-art agency, in 1993. As Director of The Arts Catalyst she has built alliances internationally between disciplines and commissioned more than 60 art projects over the last 15 years. Nicola writes and speaks regularly at international conferences on the interrelationships between art, science, technology and society, and cultural perspectives on space exploration. After studying physics at Imperial College and geography at University College London, Nicola worked in theatre and arts production, arts policy, arts centre management, and as a freelance arts consultant. Prior to setting up The Arts Catalyst, she was working and researching in southern, central and east Africa.

Ann Whitehurst Ann is one of the UK's leading multi-media artists and is also a theorist and thinker of great imagination, who challenges the various axioms of contemporary thought on otherness and difference. Ann, fullpainly alive, creates through her art work and her perceptions a milieu of understanding and threat to the hegemonies of the fictive dramas of normalcy. Ann is at the heart of www.outside-centre.org.uk; an agency which seeks to explore, instigate and challenge you. She writes, ‘My work is to challenge the very existence of the norm; challenge and so liberate the conforming and their limited and limiting understanding of life, politics and culture. Diversity in body, mind and spirit doesn't restrict it advances’. Ann’s 1993 piece “Wheelchairbound” was produced at a time when the social model of disability became a universally recognized concept thus influencing policy and the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.

Jennifer Willet Jennifer is an international artist specializing in performance, installation and reproductive (analogue/digital/biological) technologies. She is PhD candidate in the Interdisciplinary Humanities programme at Concordia University in Montreal, and an Assistant Professor in the School of Visual Arts at the University of Windsor in Canada. Between 2000 and 2007 she collaborated with Shawn Bailey on a bioart project called BIOTEKNICA.

Gregor Wolbring Gregor is an ability and ableism governance, science and technology governance, disability studies and health policy scholar, a bioethicist and a biochemist.He is an Assistant Professor, University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Community Health Sciences, Speciality in Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies. He is among others an affiliated scholar, Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University.  Part-time Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada, Adjunct Faculty Critical Disability udies York University Canada.

Here's an overview of what we've covered in the Human Futures book. These are actual page proofs of the Index:

Human Futures - Subject Index
Human Futures - Subject Index

Books

I have published 4 books since 2002, each of them is featured here in the submenu.

Jennifer Jones

I am delighted to welcome Jennifer Jones back to University of the West of Scotland as my new PhD student. Jennifer is an advanced new media user and will begin to look at how social media is utilized as an activist device around the Olympic Games.

Biography

"Jennifer Jones is a doctoral researcher in the School of Creative Industries at the University of the West of Scotland. Jennifer returned to the University after graduating with distinction from a Masters in New Media and Society at the University of Leicester. Her dissertation was on the construct of social media platforms and the user notions of sociality within them.

Jennifer works as a visiting lecturer at Birmingham City University, teaching classes in New Media, Media Theory and supervises web media and journalism dissertation students. She has conducted research into collecting, managing and analyzing social media outputsfrom formal events and  is currently working on projects relating to social network analysis and subversion of social media within traditional institutions. In June 2009, Jennifer organised a one-day event on the Uses and Abuses of Social Media, a paper-free seminar which brought together social media practice with theory.

email: jenniferjonesuws@gmail.com web: http://jennifr.net

Nature Debate

Nature debate at King's Place, where I appeared on a panel with Aubrey de Grey and Kevin Warwick

Human Enhancement

I gave two replies here at the Brocher Foundation, one to John Harris and a second to Paul Root Wolpe

Unique among unique. Is it genetically determined? (2008, Jul 28)

Unique among unique. Is it genetically determined? [Br J Sports Med. 2008] - PubMed Result <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662936?dopt=Abstract> Br J Sports Med. 2008 Jul 28. [Epub ahead of print]

Unique among unique. Is it genetically determined? Gonzalez-Freire M <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Gonzalez-Freire%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> , Santiago C <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Santiago%20C%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> , Verde Z <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Verde%20Z%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> , Lao JI <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Lao%20JI%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> , Oiivan J <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Oiivan%20J%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> , Gómez-Gallego F <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22G%C3%B3mez-Gallego%20F%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> , Lucia A <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Lucia%20A%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract> .

Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain.

The cross-country World championship is one of the best models to study characteristics needed to achieve top-level endurance athletic capacity. We report the genotype combination of a recent cross-country champion (12km race) in polymorphisms of seven genes that are candidates to influence endurance phenotype traits (ACTN3, ACE, PPARGC1A, AMPD1, CKMM, GDF8 (myostatin) and HFE). His data were compared with those of eight other runners (World class but not World champions). The only athlete with the theoretically more suited genotype for attaining World-class endurance running performance was the case study subject. A favourable genetic endowment, together with exceptional environmental factors (years of altitude living and training in this case) seems to be necessary to attain the highest possible level of running endurance performance.

Ethics @ Work: Let the 'Mutant Games' begin (2008, Apr 14)

Ethics @ Work: Let the 'Mutant Games' begin Aug. 14, 2008 Asher Meir , THE JERUSALEM POST We are fortunate that the sporting news from Beijing has come mainly from the playing field, and not from the laboratory. Cycling coverage is always a close race between the results from the course and the results of the drug policing, but following the disqualification of a number of Russian women athletes, doping has been pretty much out of the news at the Olympics. However, the reality of doping is always looming in the background, and the spectators are left wondering, does s/he or doesn't s/he? The assumption that doping is more or less pervasive, and that the vagaries of defining and detecting it will always make enforcement arbitrary, has led a number of observers to draw a fascinating parallel between today's prohibition on doping and the previous prohibition on professionalism. Nowadays the Olympics are all about money. The papers are filled with estimates of how much a gold medal costs in terms of the infrastructure needed to create champions (it's about $30 million) and much how one is worth in terms of endorsements (often seven figures for tennis players or track athletes, more like five or six for fencers or synchronized swimmers). It's hard to believe that as recently as the 1980s strict rules against professionalism were in place. Anyone who earned money from sport (this once applied even to teachers of sport), or anyone who competed against others who earned money from sport, was disqualified. The legendary American athlete Jim Thorpe, who won two Olympic gold medals in the 1912 Stockholm Olympics, had his medals stripped after it was revealed that he had played minor league baseball years before. Strict enforcement of the amateurism rules would have meant that only independently wealthy individuals would be able to compete. What happened instead was a cynical and arbitrary application of the rules. The Soviet bloc had athletes who were professionals in every sense, though their profession was usually listed as soldier or student, while the West had an elaborate system of under-the-table payments, "expense" payments, trust funds and so on. The system was a nightmare, since all athletes received money but only some were disqualified. Finally in the 1990s the system fell apart. The de facto professionalism of Soviet bloc athletes, which gave them an immense advantage in international competition, was a critical factor. The parallel to doping is expressed as follows: Just as it was practically impossible to compete on an international level in the 20th century without accepting money, so it is practically impossible to compete on an international level in the 21st century without using performance-enhancing substances. (This of course has not been proven.) The exact definition of doping is subject to dispute, just as the exact definition of professionalism is. Both can take place in secret, making enforcement necessarily arbitrary. The conclusion: Rules against doping should fall by the wayside just as rules against professionalism did. The counterargument is as follows: In the case of professionalism, almost all the athletes wanted to get money, and most of the spectators didn't mind if they did. In the case of doping, almost all of the athletes prefer not to take performance-enhancing substances, and almost all of the spectators also prefer that they don't. The athletes prefer no doping because doping regimens require a huge amount of effort and expense, and because many of the drugs are dangerous. For example, the endurance-enhancing drug EPO thickens the blood, and is the prime suspect in the sudden early deaths of a number of cyclists. Insiders tell of cyclists getting up in the middle of the night to exercise in order to get the blood moving to prevent their doped blood from killing them; obviously they would prefer getting a good night's sleep. The spectators prefer no doping because they don't care about outcomes, they only care about the competition - a level playing field. Women's tennis is nearly as popular as men's, even though the top women are no match for mediocre male players, because it is a fair and exciting game. The playing field is most level without doping. But what if it's not true? The same "arms race" hypothesis was advanced for professionalism in sport, and was proven false. Maybe the athletes want to push the envelope of the ultimate capabilities of the technology-aided human body, while the spectators want to see the tallest, fastest and strongest athletes science can provide! John Tierney of The New York Times has an interesting suggestion to test this idea: Set up an alternative "no-holds-barred" competition with no doping tests allowed. (He even gives some suggestions for names, including the "Mutant Games.") One must assume that the regular leagues will ban anyone who takes part in these competitions, even if they submit to the testing regimen, just as the amateur rules forbade not only professionals but also amateurs who competed against them. If the athletes are chafing at the testing regimen and the spectators want to see drug-aided competitors, then the new league will draw competitors and spectators; if not, then the "arms-race" hypothesis of doping will have been proven true. There is a slight problem with this test, due to the great prestige of the official events. Attempts to establish professional athletic competitions in the 20th century were unsuccessful, because athletes discovered they could make much more money in the more prestigious amateur leagues. Yet when the prestige events themselves allowed professionals, everyone was happy. I personally am strongly inclined to believe the received wisdom; that doping is a destructive arms race, and that everyone besides the undertakers would be happy to get rid of it. But Tierney's suggestion is an interesting way to see if the received wisdom is correct. ethics-at-work@besr.org Asher Meir is research director at the Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem (www.besr.org), an independent institute in the Jerusalem College of Technology.

New Genetic Test Asks Which Sport a Child Was Born to Play (2007, Nov 28)

New Genetic Test Asks Which Sport a Child Was Born to PlayBy JULIET MACUR <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/juliet_macur/index.html?inline=nyt-per> BOULDER, Colo. — When Donna Campiglia learned recently that a genetic test might be able to determine which sports suit the talents of her 2 ∏-year-old son, Noah, she instantly said, Where can I get it and how much does it cost? “I could see how some people might think the test would pigeonhole your child into doing fewer sports or being exposed to fewer things, but I still think it’s good to match them with the right activity,” Ms. Campiglia, 36, said as she watched a toddler class at Boulder Indoor Soccer in which Noah struggled to take direction from the coach between juice and potty breaks. “I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration,” she said. In health-conscious, sports-oriented Boulder, Atlas Sports Genetics <http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/specialtopic/genetics/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier>  is playing into the obsessions of parents by offering a $149 test that aims to predict a child’s natural athletic strengths. The process is simple. Swab inside the child’s cheek and along the gums to collect the DNA and return it to a lab for analysis of ACTN3, one gene among more than 20,000 in the human genome. The test’s goal is to determine whether a person would be best at speed and power sports like sprinting or football, or endurance sports like distance running, or a combination of the two. A 2003 study discovered the link between ACTN3 and those athletic abilities. In this era of genetic testing, DNA is being analyzed to determine predispositions to disease, but experts raise serious questions about marketing it as a first step in finding a child’s sports niche, which some parents consider the road to a college scholarship or a career as a professional athlete. Atlas executives acknowledge that their test has limitations but say that it could provide guidelines for placing youngsters in sports. The company is focused on testing children from infancy to about 8 years old because physical tests to gauge future sports performance at that age are, at best, unreliable. Some experts say ACTN3 testing in its infancy and virtually useless. Dr. Theodore Friedmann, the director of the University of California-San Diego Medical Center’s interdepartmental gene therapy program, called it “an opportunity to sell new versions of snake oil.” “This may or may not be quite that venal, but I would like to see a lot more research done before it is offered to the general public,” he said. “I don’t deny that these genes have a role in athletic success, but it’s not that black and white.” Stephen M. Roth, director of the functional genomics laboratory at the University of Maryland <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_maryland/index.html?inline=nyt-org> ’s School of Public Health who has studied ACTN3, said he thought the test would become popular. But he had reservations. “The idea that it will be one or two genes that are contributing to the Michael Phelpses or the Usain Bolts of the world I think is shortsighted because it’s much more complex than that,” he said, adding that athletic performance has been found to be affected by at least 200 genes. Dr. Roth called ACTN3 “one of the most exciting and eyebrow-raising genes out there in the sports-performance arena,” but he said that any test for the gene would be best used only on top athletes looking to tailor workouts to their body types. “It seems to be important at very elite levels of competition,” Dr. Roth said. “But is it going to affect little Johnny when he participates in soccer, or Suzy’s ability to perform sixth grade track and field? There’s very little evidence to suggest that.” The study that identified the connection between ACTN3 and elite athletic performance was published in 2003 by researchers primarily based in Australia. Those scientists looked at the gene’s combinations, one copy provided by each parent. The R variant of ACTN3 instructs the body to produce a protein, alpha-actinin-3, found specifically in fast-twitch muscles. Those muscles are capable of the forceful, quick contractions necessary in speed and power sports. The X variant prevents production of the protein. The ACTN3 study looked at 429 elite white athletes, including 50 Olympians, and found that 50 percent of the 107 sprint athletes had two copies of the R variant. Even more telling, no female elite sprinter had two copies of the X variant. All male Olympians in power sports had at least one copy of the R variant. Conversely, nearly 25 percent of the elite endurance athletes had two copies of the X variant — only slightly higher than the control group at 18 percent. That means people with two X copies are more likely to be suited for endurance sports. Still, some athletes prove science, and seemingly their genetics, wrong. Research on an Olympic long jumper from Spain showed that he had no copies of the R variant, demonstrating that athletic success is most likely affected by a combination of genes as well as factors like environment, work ethic, nutrition <http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/specialtopic/food-guide-pyramid/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier>  and luck. “Just think if that Spanish kid’s parents had done the test and said, ‘No, your genes show that you are going to be a bad long jumper, so we are going to make you a golfer,’ ” said Carl Foster, a co-author of the study, who is the director of the human performance laboratory at the University of Wisconsin <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_wisconsin/index.html?inline=nyt-org> -La Crosse. “Now look at him. He’s the springiest guy in Spain. He’s Tigger. We don’t yet understand what combination of genes creates that kind of explosiveness.” Dr. Foster suggested a better way to determine if a child will be good at sprint and power sports. “Just line them up with their classmates for a race and see which ones are the fastest,” he said. Kevin Reilly, the president of Atlas Sports Genetics and a former weight-lifting coach, expected the test to be controversial. He said some people were concerned that it would cause “a rebirth of eugenics, similar to what Hitler <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/adolf_hitler/index.html?inline=nyt-per>  did in trying to create this race of perfect athletes.” Mr. Reilly said he feared what he called misuse by parents who go overboard with the results and specialize their children too quickly and fervently. “I’m nervous about people who get back results that don’t match their expectations,” he said. “What will they do if their son would not be good at football? How will they mentally and emotionally deal with that?” Mr. Reilly insisted that the test is one tool of many that can help children realize their athletic potential. It may even keep an overzealous father from pushing his son to be a quarterback if his genes indicate otherwise, Mr. Reilly said. If ACTN3 suggests a child may be a great athlete, he said, parents should take a step back and nurture that potential Olympian or N.F.L. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_football_league/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  star with careful nutrition, coaching and planning. He also said they should hold off on placing a child in a competitive environment until about the age of 8 to avoid burnout. “Based on the test of a 5-year-old or a newborn, you are not going to see if you have the next Michael Johnson; that’s just not going to happen,” Mr. Reilly said. “But if you wait until high school or college to find out if you have a good athlete on your hands, by then it will be too late. We need to identify these kids from 1 and up, so we can give the parents some guidelines on where to go from there.” Boyd Epley, the strength and conditioning coach at the University of Nebraska <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_nebraska/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  from 1969 to 2003, said the next step would be a physical test he devised. Atlas plans to direct children to Epic Athletic Performance, a talent identification company that uses Mr. Epley’s index. He founded the company; Mr. Reilly is its president. China and Russia, Mr. Epley said, identify talent in the very young and whittle the pool of athletes until only the best remain for the national teams. “This is how we could stay competitive with the rest of the world,” Mr. Epley said of genetic and physical testing. “It could, at the very least, provide you with realistic goals for you and your children.” The ACTN3 test has been available through the Australian company Genetic Technologies since 2004. The company has marketed the test in Australia, Europe and Japan, but is now entering the United States through Atlas. The testing kit was scheduled to be available starting Monday through the Web site atlasgene.com <http://www.atlasgene.com> . The analysis takes two to three weeks, and the results arrive in the form of a certificate announcing Your Genetic Advantage, whether it is in sprint, power and strength sports; endurance sports; or activity sports (for those with one copy of each variant, and perhaps a combination of strengths). A packet of educational information suggests sports that are most appropriate and what paths to follow so the child reaches his or her potential. “I find it worrisome because I don’t think parents will be very clear-minded about this,” said William Morgan, an expert on the philosophy of ethics and sport and author of “Why Sports Morally Matter.” “This just contributes to the madness about sports because there are some parents who will just go nuts over the results. “The problem here is that the kids are not old enough to make rational autonomous decisions about their own life,” he said. Some parents will steer clear of the test for that reason. Dr. Ray Howe, a general practitioner in Denver, said he would rather see his 2-year-old, Joseph, find his own way in life and discover what sports he likes the best. Dr. Howe, a former professional cyclist, likened ACTN3 testing to gene testing for breast cancer <http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/breast-cancer/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier>  or other diseases. “You might be able to find those things out, but do you really want to know?” he said. Others, like Lori Lacy, 36, said genetic testing would be inevitable. Ms. Lacy, who lives in Broomfield, Colo., has three children ranging in age from 2 months to 5 years. “Parents will start to say, ‘I know one mom who’s doing the test on her son, so maybe we should do the test too,’ ” she said. “Peer pressure and curiosity would send people over the edge. What if my son could be a pro football player and I don’t know it?”

Gene doping in sport: fact or fiction? (2008, Dec 6)

Gene doping in sport: fact or fiction? Experts believe it is only a matter of time before athletes manipulate their genetic material to gain an unfair advantage despite the current lack of proven cases. A science journalist, who has published a novel on the theme, and a scientist working in the field of genetics talked to swissinfo about the likelihood and dangers of gene doping in sport.

Since the times of ancient Greece, a minority of athletes have employed a variety of potions to artificially boost their performance. More recently, amphetamines, anabolic steroids and hormones have been the drugs of choice.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has recently turned its attention to the threat of gene doping and officially banned the practice in 2003. There have already been suspicions of some athletes using the gene therapy Repoxygen to increase their red blood cell count and thereby allow the body to absorb more oxygen.

Professor Max Gassmann of Zurich University's Institute of Veterinary Physiology has manipulated the erythropoietin (EPO) gene of mice to produce more oxygen carrying red blood cells – a process that could eventually be transferred to humans.

Gassmann does not think gene doping has infiltrated sport at the moment but believes some people may already be testing its potential, just as beneficial gene therapy is currently undergoing clinical trials.

"I can hardly imagine that we had a gene doping cheat winning at the Beijing Olympics," he told swissinfo. "But there has been doping throughout history and if gene doping becomes viable then you cannot stop it, because people want to win." Fictional leap Author Beat Glogger has taken the theory a stage further by writing a thriller – "Run For My Life" – about genetically modified athletes. Glogger, also a science journalist, and Gassmann contributed to a Swiss sports ministry document warning about the risks of gene doping.

Scientists have already identified more than 150 genes that potentially influence performance in sports. These include genes that control muscle growth, muscle speed and the production of red blood cells.

"I take the next step into fiction by saying it is possible to manipulate the genes that control speed, power, endurance and even mental strength. These are the four key factors for athletic performance," Glogger told swissinfo.

There are many cases of people with naturally malfunctioning genes. Most of the time this results in health problems, such as muscular dystrophy, but the rare occurrence of a mutation can also bring benefits.

Finnish cross-country skiing legend Eero Mäntyranta won race after race in the 1960s because of a natural genetic mutation that helped his blood absorb large amounts of oxygen. It would be very hard in future to determine if such a case was caused by nature or gene manipulation, according to Glogger.

"If, after the introduction of the relevant genes, the body produces more EPO or testosterone by itself then you cannot detect it - it looks like you are a natural," he said. To die for However, athletes run a high risk of developing serious diseases such as cancer or even dying if they submit to gene manipulation that is still in the early days of scientific development.

Gassmann's genetically modified mice live only half as long as other mice. Scientists know how to modify genes and introduce them into the body, but not how to control the behaviour of such genes once they have been implanted.

"Whatever you put into the body is hard to control. If you realise it is no good then it is almost impossible to stop, and that is what could happen with gene cheating athletes," Gassmann said. "It is easy to switch on a light but much more complicated to dim it."

One method of controlling modified genes is to develop drugs that act like on and off switches, but this process is still in its infancy.

"Gene doping could be undetectable and it could improve performance but you could also die," Glogger warned. Just like the characters in his book.

swissinfo, Matthew Allen in Zurich

European sport ministers discuss ethics, gene doping (2008, Dec 19)

European sport ministers discuss ethics, gene dopingPublished: Friday 19 December 2008 Ministers and other stakeholders acknowledge that there are corruption, match-fixing and illegal betting problems in sport and have asked the Council of Europe to tackle these and other emerging ethical challenges in sport, such as gene doping. Sport representatives gathered for a Council of Europe conference on 12 December, adopted a package of three resolutions, including measures to address sports ethics.

The ministers "acknowledge that there is a problem of corruption, match fixing and illegal betting in sport and invite sports organisations to investigate the situation and, where appropriate, identify the problems".

The Council of Europe is invited to draw up a draft recommendation which could form the basis of a new convention on these issues and help increase integrity controls.

In particular, the ministers ask the Council of Europe to address emerging challenges such as genetic engineering in sport.

Doping refers to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, which is forbidden by organisations that regulate sport competitions. It is widely seen as unethical by most international sports organisations as it damages health and undermines the equality of opportunity of athletes.

A major new ethical challenge in the fight against doping is the use of genetic engineering, declares the resolution.

Gene doping can enhance athletic performance without being detected in blood and urine tests. The issue is currently being addressed in bioethical debates about human enhancement. "One of our main priorities should be well prepared to react quickly to new ethical challenges,” agreed Birgitta Kervinen, president of the European Non-Governmental Sports Organisation (ENGSO).

The resolution on pan-European sport cooperation invites the Council of Europe to consider ways of increasing its cooperation with the European Union.

"I believe that it is the clear interest of EU members and non-members alike to avoid any developments which would introduce duplication and weaken pan-European arrangements for a better and healthier sport across the continent and beyond," said Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, deputy secretary-general of the Council of Europe.

The resolution on autonomy and sport reflects concerns that stakeholders have over the growing commercialisation of sport and the effects it has on the autonomy of sports movements.

Couch-Potato Drugs Are WADA’s First Banned for Gene-Doping Ties (2009, Jan 14)

Couch-Potato Drugs Are WADA’s First Banned for Gene-Doping Ties By Mason Levinson Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Two drugs that activate genetic switches, fooling the body into believing it has exercised, are the first to be added to the Olympic sports prohibited list for their ties to gene doping. The drugs, whose effects were first disclosed in a report published online by the journal Cell on July 31, were added to the nine-page list issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency under the “Gene Doping” classification as of Jan. 1. It’s a category that is likely to grow over the next five to 10 years, said Dr.Gary Wadler , who heads WADA’s Prohibited List Committee, as gene therapy becomes “part of the matrix of what physicians have to treat patients.” “There’s gene-therapy stuff going on in research labs everywhere in the world,” Wadler said in an interview at his Manhasset, New York, office. “I think they’re going to cause breakthroughs, and those breakthroughs, if they have any application to enhance athletic performance, then you’ll ultimately see it banned.” One of the drugs is a synthetic protein called Aicar that, when given to mice, improved endurance by 44 percent after four weeks, even without exercise. The other is an experimental medicine made by GlaxoSmithKline Plc , GW1516, which remodeled the mice’s skeletal muscle and raised their endurance levels by 75 percent when the animals also ran on a treadmill. WADA ’s 2009 prohibited list includes nearly 70 anabolic steroids; about 60 stimulants; hormones; diuretics and other masking agents; blood-doping methods; and several narcotics. The Montreal-based agency oversees anti-drug programs for Olympic- level sports. 2002 Prediction Wadler said he “predicted the future” when in 2002 he wrote a chapter on emerging science and technologies for the textbook “Performance Enhancing Substances in Sport and Exercise.” In it, he discussed the implications of the U.S. Human Genome Project, which was launched in 1990, and examined gene transfer therapy. “The dissection of the human genetic code not only opened a Pandora’s box of diagnostic tools and methods; it has significantly paved the way for an array of therapeutic interventions never conceived before and has spawned the field of pharmacogenetics,” he wrote at the time. WADA held a gene-doping workshop for scientists, ethicists, athletes and representatives from the Olympic movement in March 2002 and again in December 2005 and June 2008. It formed its expert panel on gene doping in 2004. ‘Couch Potato’ Last July, a news release , titled “Exercise in a Pill,” announced the results of the study by the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego that detailed the effects of Aicar, which it called the “ultimate couch-potato experiment,” as well as the effects of GW1516. The findings may lead to the development of obesity and muscle-wasting-disease treatments, and has implications for the treatment of diabetes and lipid disorders. By activating different genetic switches with the two drugs, the scientists were able to increase fat burning and the mice showed major transformation of skeletal muscle fibers. In giving the mice GW1516 and a regular exercise regimen, for example, they saw a 38 percent increase in “slow twitch” muscle fibers, which relate to a muscle’s endurance. “They have the capacity of changing the patterns of gene expression in cells and tissues, so our view is that that’s a form of gene manipulation,” Theodore Friedmann , chairman of WADA’s Gene Doping Panel, said in a telephone interview. “I don’t think that list is going to shrink. It’s probably going to increase markedly over the years.” Test Procedures Ronald Evans , who is a professor in the Salk Institute’s Gene Expression Laboratory and led the research into the use of Aicar and GW1516 to manipulate signaling pathways, also developed a test to readily detect the drugs in blood and urine, and is working with WADA to enact its implementation. While these drugs can be easily detected, other gene- therapy methods are much more problematic for WADA, and in turn sports associations and leagues. These involve the use of genetic techniques to bring doping substances to muscle tissue and other targets without passing through blood and urine, thereby confounding testing efforts. “It’s better for patients, but it also makes it more challenging because of doping,” Wadler said. Friedmann, who runs a gene-therapy laboratory at the University of California, San Diego, said WADA has mounted a major research program to develop ways to find evidence of gene manipulation. Drug’s Effect “WADA is very forward-looking into designing new forms of doping detection based on the new principle that you don’t look for the drug itself, you look for the effect of the drug,” said Friedmann. In February, the committee will begin reviewing the 2009 list, assessing research and what they’ve learned about doping through everything from medical journals to police investigations. They’ll then tweak the list and turn it over to WADA’s Executive Committee for final approval Oct. 1, giving sports organizations three months to adopt new regulations and understand the changes. To contact the reporter on this story: Mason Levinson in New York atmlevinson@bloomberg.net .

The World’s First GM Human Embryo Could Dramatically Alter the Future (2009, March 20)

The World’s First GM Human Embryo Could Dramatically Alter the Future “The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress.” ~Isaac Asimov, famous thinker and sci-fi writer Cornell University researchers in New York revealed that they had produced what is believed to be the world’s first genetically altered human embryo—an ironic twist considering all the criticism the US has heaped on South Korea over the past several years for going “too far” with its genetic research programs. The Cornell team, led by Nikica Zaninovic, used a virus to add a green fluorescent protein gene, to a human embryo left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure. The research was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine last year, but details have emerged only after new controversy has emerged over the ethics and science of genetically modifying humans. Zaninovic has pointed out that in order to be sure that the new gene had been inserted and the embryo had been genetically modified, scientists would ideally want to keep growing the embryo and carry out further tests. However, the Cornell team did not get permission to keep the embryo alive. The GM embryos created could theoretically have become the world’s first genetically altered man or woman, but it was destroyed after five days. British regulators form the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), have warned that such controversial experiments cause “large ethical and public interest issues”. Much of the debate stems from the fact that the effects of genetically altering an embryo would be generational and permanent. In other words, if we create a mutant baby and it grows up to have children of it’s own—they’ll all be mutant gene carriers too. Genes injected into embryos and reproductive cells, such as sperm, affect every cells in the body and would be passed on to future generations. Critics say current humans don’t have the right to tamper with the gene pool of future generations. On the other hand, proponents of such technology say that this science could potentially erase diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia and even cancer. In theory, any “good” gene could be added to embryos to offset any “bad” genes they are currently carrying. That could potentially mean the difference between life and death for many children. John Harris, the Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics at Manchester University, takes it a step further. He believes that as parents, citizens, and scientists, we are morally obliged to do whatever we can genetically to make life better and longer for our children and ourselves. Society currently devotes so much energy and resources towards saving lives, which, in reality, is simply postponing death, he notes. If it is right to save life, Harris reasons, then it should also be right to postpone death by stemming the flow of diseases that carry us to the grave. For Harris, having the ability to improve our species lot in life but refusing to do so, makes little sense. He has a difficult time understanding why some people are so insistent that we shouldn’t try to improve upon human evolution. “Can you imagine our ape ancestors getting together and saying, ‘this is pretty good, guys. Let’s stop it right here!’. That’s the equivalent of what people say today.” Ethicists, however, warn that genetically modifying embryos will lead to designer babies preloaded with socially desirable traits involving height, intelligence and coloring. Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, warns, “This is the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies and a new eugenics.” Harris, however, doesn’t support that argument. He says it’s not about “beauty” it’s about health, and what parent wouldn’t want a healthy child, he asks. “Certainly, sometimes we want competitive advantage [for our children], but for the enhancements I talk about, the competitive advantage is not the prime motive. I didn’t give my son a good diet in the hope that others eat a bad diet and die prematurely. I’m happy if everyone has a good diet. The moral imperative should be that enhancements are generally available because they are good for everyone.” The only other route to equality, he says, is to level down so that everyone is as uneducated, unhealthy and unenhanced as the lowest in society – which would be much more unethical in his opinion. Even though we can’t offer a liver transplant to all who need them, he says, we still carry them out for the lucky few. “Much better to try to raise the baseline, even if some are left behind.” The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in currently under consideration in Britain will likely make it legal to create GM embryos in that country, but only for research—implantation in the womb will still be banned—at least for now. However, ethicists believe that the legislation could easily be relaxed even further in the future. People who believe that genetically modified humans is something way into the future might want to consider that many experts are worried that some forms of it are already happening in the sports world. Faster, bigger, better, stronger—in theory, the single most effective way to radically alter your physical capacities is to manipulate your genes. Athletes are beginning to take notice. Now that we’ve mapped out the human genome and identified exactly which genes make you buff, tough and rough—experts are concerned about the future of genetic doping. Gene doping could spawn athletes capable of out-running, out-jumping and out-cycling even the world’s greatest champions. However, researchers at the University of Florida are attempting to prevent that from happening by detecting the first cases of gene doping in professional athletes before the practice becomes mainstream. Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), responsible for monitoring the conduct of athletes, is working with investigators around the globe to develop testing to identify competitors who have injected themselves with genetic material that is capable of enhancing muscle mass or heightening endurance. “If an athlete injects himself in the muscle with DNA, would we be able to detect that?” asked one of France’s leading gene therapy researchers, Philippe Moullier, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Gene Therapy Laboratory at the Universite de Nantes in France. Right now, he says the answer is clearly “no”. But that may soon change. The UF scientists are among several groups collaborating with national and global anti-doping organizations to develop a test that can detect evidence of “doped” DNA. “WADA has had a research program in place for some years now, to try to develop tests for gene-based doping,” said Theodore Friedmann, M.D., head of the agency’s panel on genetic doping and director of the gene therapy program at the University of California, San Diego. Nearly every day now we are inundated with new genetic discoveries. Scientists can now pinpoint many specific genes including being lean, living a long life, improved self-healing, thrill seeking behavior, and having an improved memory among many other incredible traits. Many believe that these genes can be manipulated in ordinary humans, in effect creating Super-Mutants. Theoretically, options are nearly limitless. Even a gene that exists in another species could be brought over to a human cell. Imagine some of the incredible traits of the animal kingdom that some humans don’t possess such as night vision, amazing agility, or the ability to breath underwater. The precedence for these types of radical changes is already in place. Experimental mice, for example, were successfully given the human ability to see in color. If animals can be engineered to have human traits, then humans can certainly be mutated to have desirable animal traits. It is even thought possible to so drastically alter human genomes that a type of superhuman species could emerge. The fear with germline engineering is that since it is inheritable, offspring and all succeeding generations would carry the modified traits. This is one reason why this type of engineering is currently banned- it could lead to irreversible alteration of the entire human species. Ethics, not scientific limitations, is the real brick wall. Most scientists believe manipulating genes in order to make an individual healthy is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. Some are against even that notion, arguing that historically amazing individuals have sometimes been plagued by genetic mental and physical disorders, which inadvertently shaped the greatness of their lives. Should we rob the human race of character shaping frailty? Very few scientists would dare to publicly endorse the idea of using genetic engineering to make a normal, healthy individuals somehow superior to the rest of the human race. “The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature,” said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. However, would it be so bad if the human race were slightly improved? What if a relatively simple procedure could make an individual and his or her offspring resistant to cancer? After all, Nature isn’t always right. Nature has naturally selected many people to carry the burden of uncomfortable and often lethal genetic disorders. If nature knows best, then shouldn’t we quit trying to “improve” upon nature by “curing” people of genetic conditions we consider inferior? Many say we shouldn’t change human genetics, UNLESS it’s the RIGHT thing to do. Who gets to decide where the line is between righteous endeavor and the corruption of nature? These are the questions facing our generation. Posted by Rebecca Sato Related Galaxy posts: Can Humans Live to 1,000? Some Experts Claim We Can — Others Want to Prevent That The "Mickey Mouse" Experiment -Mice with Human Eyes Enhancing Evolution: Do Humans have a Moral and Ethical Duty to Improve the Human Race? Are We Close to Creating Super-Mutant Humans? The Story of a Biologist & the Extension of the Human Life Span Scientists Bio-engineer a Virus that Destroys Cancer Cells "Mind Children": Transhumanism & the Search For Genetic Perfection Sources & Related Stories: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000E7ACE-5686-10CF-94EB83414B7F0000 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3908516.ece http://www.andhranews.net/Health/2008/May/11-Scientists-create-first-44379.asp http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8480.html

WADA eyes research on gene doping (2009, Jan 16)

WADA eyes research on gene dopingDANIA BOGLE, Observer staff reporter bogled@jamaicaobserver.com Friday, January 16, 2009

THE World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is investing lots of money and resources into conducting research into how to detect gene doping as it continues its fight against cheating in sport.

WADA programmes development manager, Tom May, made the revelation at the panel discussion on Drug Free Sport during the Jamaica Anti-Doping Agency's two-day Symposium which wrapped up yesterday at the Knutsford Court Hotel in Kingston.

May spoke to advances in science which have already developed the ability to clone animals and possible future advances which might help dishonest athletes cheat.

Gene therapy already allows for the alteration of DNA to help the body fight certain diseases.

May explained that through gene doping an athlete could manipulate the body to grow bigger muscles or help them develop at a faster rate.

"We don't think it's quite in place but we don't think we can wait for it to occur," he said.

The WADA has already pumped close to US$8 million into the gene doping research.

Meanwhile, International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) Medical and Doping Commission member, Dr Herb Elliott, also noted that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and IAAF were also collaborating on a number of projects on the subject, including one at the Royal Caroline Institute in Sweden.

He discouraged the use of doping in sport, saying, "Doping Kills", adding that the dangers or using anabolic steroids included developing liver, heart, and kidney disease as well as epilepsy.

"It's one way of killing yourself by degrees," Elliott said. He added that in men, impotence and low sperm count were among the dangers, and mentioned the case of a female Bulgarian athlete who became pregnant while doping. The child, he said, was now a virtual 'vegetable' needing to visit the hospital at least once per week.

"Young ladies, don't take any foolishness it you wish to become a mother someday," Elliott implored.

The JADCO Symposium was part funded by GraceKennedy and UNESCO and involved athletes and officials from all national sporting associations.

Genetic Engineering Limits—A Planet Responds (2008, Dec 22)

Genetic Engineering Limits—A Planet RespondsRichard Hayes December 22nd 2008 Cutting Edge Genetics Analyst Over the past half century, the world has been transformed through rapid developments in communications, transportation, weaponry, and trade. A vast infrastructure of intergovernmental institutions has been established to help ensure that these and related developments generate more benefit than they do harm. These include global institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank, regional groups such as the European Union and the African Union, and those with issue-specific agendas such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Health Organization. Although the record of these institutions is far from perfect, a world without them would be fraught with even more risk than it is today. The rapid development of powerful new human biotechnologies raises precisely the sort of questions that such intergovernmental institutions are positioned to address. If developed wisely, these technologies could help prevent and cure diseases that have afflicted humanity for millennia; if misapplied, they could pose new and profoundly consequential risks. Detailed knowledge of the human genome might lead to improved medical diagnostics, but could also lead to a Gattaca-like world in which affluent couples genetically modify their embryos in an attempt to create “designer babies.” The creation of clonal human embryos gives researchers tools to help investigate the developmental origin of congenital diseases, but brings us closer to the day when rogue scientists might attempt to create live-born human clones. Genetic interventions intended to help those suffering from degenerative muscular diseases could be used by athletes to illicitly enhance their strength and endurance. Many countries are adopting comprehensive national policies that establish guidelines, regulations, and laws stipulating which applications of the new human biotechnologies are permitted and which are not. But the greater majority of the world’s countries have not adopted policies regarding these technologies. Intergovernmental institutions are in a position to play major leadership roles in ensuring the proper use of the new human biotechnologies. They can promote greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks that these technologies pose; develop statements of principles to guide national policies; prepare model national legislation; and take the lead in negotiating binding multilateral treaties and conventions.

It will not be an easy task to come to formal agreement on even a minimal set of international principles and policies. These technologies are new and the issues involved are complex. But the encouraging news is that many key intergovernmental institutions have already begun taking steps to address the new human biotechnologies, and broad areas of at least implicit agreement are evident. The United Nations In 2001 France and Germany proposed a binding UN treaty calling for a prohibition on human reproductive cloning. An early procedural vote suggested unanimous support for this measure. A significant number of countries subsequently expressed opposition to banning reproductive cloning without simultaneously banning the use of cloning for research purposes. This led to extended controversy, and the debate became, essentially, a debate over the acceptability of research cloning. By 2003 it became clear that a consensus concerning research cloning could not be achieved. In 2005 a non-binding declaration opposing both research cloning and reproductive cloning was introduced and received a plurality of votes (46 percent), which under UN rules makes it the official UN position. However, the lack of a clear consensus rendered moot any proposals to promote this position further. In the absence of a formal global treaty, individual countries have proceeded to adopt their own policies addressing human cloning. By 2007 human reproductive cloning had been banned by 59 countries—including the great majority of those with robust biomedical research sectors—and approved by none. In 2007 scholars associated with the United Nations University noted that the prohibition of reproductive cloning might be considered to have attained the status of customary international law. This was not the case for cloning for research purposes, however, as policies adopted by individual countries varied widely. UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations working to promote international collaboration through education, science, and culture. In 1993 UNESCO established a Bioethics Programme within its Division of the Ethics of Science and Technology. The Programme is led by the International Bioethics Committee (IBC), consisting of 36 outside experts, and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC), consisting of representatives from 36 member states. The Bioethics Programme has sponsored three major nonbinding international agreements. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights was adopted unanimously by the UNESCO General Conference in 1997 and ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1998. The declaration calls for member states to undertake specific actions, including the prohibition of "practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings." It also calls on the IBC to study "practices that could be contrary to human dignity, such as germline interventions." The International Declaration on Human Genetic Data was adopted in 2003. The declaration is intended "to ensure the respect of human dignity and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the collection, processing, use and storage of human genetic and proteomic data, and of the biological samples from which they are derived, in keeping with the requirements of equality, justice and solidarity, while giving due consideration to freedom of thought and expression, including freedom of research." The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights was adopted in 2005. The declaration used a human rights framework to establish normative principles in fifteen areas, including human dignity and human rights; equality, justice, and equity; and protecting future generations. These principles cover a wider range of issues than did the previous two bioethics declarations. UNESCO took the lead in negotiating the International Convention Against Doping in Sports in collaboration with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which had been established earlier by the International Olympic Committee. The Convention includes language banning the use of genetic technology to enhance athletic performance in official athletic events, referred to as "gene-doping." It entered into force on February 1, 2007, and has been ratified by 86 countries. The earlier Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport has been signed by 192 countries. Council of Europe The Council of Europe is an international organization of 47 member countries working to foster democracy and human rights. It maintains a Bioethics Division, guided by a Steering Committee on Bioethics. The Council's Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights was opened for signatures in 1997 and went into force in 1998. As of March 2008 it had been signed or ratified by 34 countries. It explicitly prohibits inheritable genetic modification, somatic genetic modification for enhancement purposes, social sex selection, and the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes. The Convention is perhaps the single most well-developed intergovernmental agreement extant addressing the new human biotechnologies, banning human reproductive cloning through an Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, which went into force in 1998. European Union With 27 member states, the European Union and its constituent bodies play a major and growing role in European policy integration. Article 3 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, entitled "Rights to the Integrity of the Person," prohibits human reproductive cloning, "eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons," and "making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain." Importantly, the EU disburses some $5 to 6 billion U.S. every seven years for biomedical and health-related research, and sets policies on the use of these funds. Under the current programme, which runs from 2007 to 2013, these funds cannot be used for research that involves human reproductive cloning, inheritable genetic modification, the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes, or the destruction of human embryos.

African Union The African Union (AU) is an intergovernmental organization consisting of most African nations. At its 1996 Assembly of Heads of State, the AU (then called the Organization of African Unity) approved a Resolution on Bioethics that affirmed "the inviolability of the human body and the genetic heritage of the human species" and called for "supervision of research facilities to obviate selective eugenic by-products, particularly those relating to sex considerations." World Health Organization The World Health Organization (WHO) and its governing body, the World Health Assembly, are specialized agencies of the United Nations that address issues of international public health. In 1997 the WHO called for a global ban on human reproductive cloning. In 1999 a Consultation on Ethical Issues in Genetics, Cloning and Biotechnology was held to help assess future directions for the WHO. The draft guidelines prepared as part of this consultation, Medical Genetics and Biotechnology: Implications for Public Health, called for a global ban on inheritable genetic modification. In 2000 WHO Director-General Dr, Gro Harlem Brundtland reiterated opposition to human reproductive cloning. In September 2001 the WHO convened a meeting to review and assess "recent technical developments in medically assisted procreation and their ethical and social implications." The review covered, among other items, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and cryopreservation of gametes and embryos. In February 2002 the WHO repeated its opposition to human reproductive cloning and cautioned against banning cloning techniques for medical research. In October 2002 the WHO established a Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade, and Human Rights to coordinate activities addressing bioethical issues. Group of Eight The Group of Eight (G-8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It convenes annual summits to consider issues of common concern, typically of an economic or military nature. At its June 1997 summit in Denver, Colorado, the G-8 called for a worldwide ban on human reproductive cloning. According to the Final Communique of the Denver Summit of the Eight, the leaders of the G-8 nations agreed "on the need for appropriate domestic measures and close international cooperation to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a child." The Consensus There appears to be broad support for applications intended to prevent or cure disease, but strong opposition to applications that involve selecting or modifying the genes of future generations for non-medical purposes. There is wide opposition as well as to human reproductive cloning and to non-medical genetic modification, including athletic “gene doping.” The one practice for which a consensus does not appear to be in the cards is medical research involving human embryos. Some intergovernmental institutions explicitly support this and others oppose it. Real opportunities exist for one or more respected intergovernmental institutions to mount a global initiative to clarify, codify and promote—indeed, to universalize—those human biotech policies about which broad agreement exists, while agreeing to disagree on the fewer number about which disagreements persist. Such an initiative would go a long way towards ensuring that these powerful new technologies are used in the best interests of all humanity. Cutting Edge Genetic Analyst Richard Hayes is executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society and can be found at www.geneticsandsociety.org. This article draws on an appendix of an article published by Science Progress, and on data compiled on CGS's BioPolicyWiki.

For a full account of the state of policies among individual countries see The Quest for Global Consensus on Human Biotechnology in The Cutting Edge News Nov 24, 2008.

Gene doping in sport: fact or fiction? (2008, Dec 6)

Gene doping in sport: fact or fiction?Experts believe it is only a matter of time before athletes manipulate their genetic material to gain an unfair advantage despite the current lack of proven cases. A science journalist, who has published a novel on the theme, and a scientist working in the field of genetics talked to swissinfo about the likelihood and dangers of gene doping in sport. Since the times of ancient Greece, a minority of athletes have employed a variety of potions to artificially boost their performance. More recently, amphetamines, anabolic steroids and hormones have been the drugs of choice. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has recently turned its attention to the threat of gene doping and officially banned the practice in 2003. There have already been suspicions of some athletes using the gene therapy Repoxygen to increase their red blood cell count and thereby allow the body to absorb more oxygen. Professor Max Gassmann of Zurich University's Institute of Veterinary Physiology has manipulated the erythropoietin (EPO) gene of mice to produce more oxygen carrying red blood cells – a process that could eventually be transferred to humans. Gassmann does not think gene doping has infiltrated sport at the moment but believes some people may already be testing its potential, just as beneficial gene therapy is currently undergoing clinical trials. "I can hardly imagine that we had a gene doping cheat winning at the Beijing Olympics," he told swissinfo. "But there has been doping throughout history and if gene doping becomes viable then you cannot stop it, because people want to win." Fictional leap Author Beat Glogger has taken the theory a stage further by writing a thriller – "Run For My Life" – about genetically modified athletes. Glogger, also a science journalist, and Gassmann contributed to a Swiss sports ministry document warning about the risks of gene doping. Scientists have already identified more than 150 genes that potentially influence performance in sports. These include genes that control muscle growth, muscle speed and the production of red blood cells. "I take the next step into fiction by saying it is possible to manipulate the genes that control speed, power, endurance and even mental strength. These are the four key factors for athletic performance," Glogger told swissinfo. There are many cases of people with naturally malfunctioning genes. Most of the time this results in health problems, such as muscular dystrophy, but the rare occurrence of a mutation can also bring benefits. Finnish cross-country skiing legend Eero Mäntyranta won race after race in the 1960s because of a natural genetic mutation that helped his blood absorb large amounts of oxygen. It would be very hard in future to determine if such a case was caused by nature or gene manipulation, according to Glogger. "If, after the introduction of the relevant genes, the body produces more EPO or testosterone by itself then you cannot detect it - it looks like you are a natural," he said. To die for However, athletes run a high risk of developing serious diseases such as cancer or even dying if they submit to gene manipulation that is still in the early days of scientific development. Gassmann's genetically modified mice live only half as long as other mice. Scientists know how to modify genes and introduce them into the body, but not how to control the behaviour of such genes once they have been implanted. "Whatever you put into the body is hard to control. If you realise it is no good then it is almost impossible to stop, and that is what could happen with gene cheating athletes," Gassmann said. "It is easy to switch on a light but much more complicated to dim it." One method of controlling modified genes is to develop drugs that act like on and off switches, but this process is still in its infancy. "Gene doping could be undetectable and it could improve performance but you could also die," Glogger warned. Just like the characters in his book. swissinfo, Matthew Allen in Zurich