Gene Doping: Future Direction
By Sarah Parker
Future direction of Gene Doping |
Current Concerns and Regulations
Current Concerns and Regulations
Gene doping is currently not allowed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). It is included with other illegal substances in the doping rules and regulations. WADA prohibits the use of both the EPO hormone and the IGF-1 protein and forbids the “non-therapeutic use of genes, genetic elements, and/or cells that have the capacity to enhance athletic performance” (WADA, 2004).
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/t1.asp
The IOC and WADA are primarily concerned about the promotion of “fair play” in sport and the “health and well being of athletes.” If an athlete’s health demands the use of an illegal substance or gene therapy, it may be allowed, but only after an extensive application process is completed to ensure that the illegal substance or procedure is indeed necessary. The IOC and WADA view gene doping as another means of cheating; they have no interest in “providing opportunities in elite sport, whereby persons of varying body types can become elite.” They state, as an example, that there is “no motivation for creating a form of volleyball with a lower net for individuals who are too short to excel in the sport at an elite level” (Miah, 2002).
In the United States, the President’s Council on Bioethics is “less concerned about sporting values and has less sympathy with protecting the alleged integrity of sport.” Their primary concern is the athlete’s “character,” appraised by the means by which achievements are gained. Although this is quite similar to ways of determining “integrity of sport,” it applies more to the individual athlete than the sporting community as a whole. The Council is also concerned that we don’t know enough about the risks of gene doping to condone it. They conclude that “genetic superiority cannot be used as a basis for concluding that [genetic enhancement] is legitimate” and that “ to allow its use would make it more difficult to appraise the capabilities of the athlete” (Miah, 2002).
The Australian Law Reforms Commission also professes not to be concerned so much about the purity of sport, but rather about “the legal implications of using genetic information.” For example, they state that “genetic testing may lead to discrimination against certain athletes,” an argument that has been used before against genetic testing in general. Overall, the ALRC is much more concerned about the individual athlete, enhanced or not, than about the sport (Miah, 2002).
Although gene doping is not considered possible by most people in the scientific community, some do acknowledge that there are probably athletes who are willing to try or who have already tried gene doping. This situation raises a series of ethical questions. It is clear that people do not want athletes using genetic enhancements. What should be done to prevent the abuse of gene therapy techniques? If certain methods of gene doping prove to be undetectable, should we “give up” and allow genetic enhancements to alter sports, or should we keep trying to invent means of detection? Should ordinary people be allowed access to genetic enhancements if athletes are denied them, or should genetic enhancements only be available to those who genuinely need them? Where do we draw the line? These are difficult questions that have not yet been answered conclusively, by international organizations, by scientists, or by Davidson College students.
For further discussion of ethical issues, click here.
Questions or Comments: Email Dr. Verna Case
Davidson College Biology Department
Davidson College
This web page was produced as an assignment for an undergraduate course at Davidson College.
Future direction of Gene Doping |