The Future of Doping: What is next?

Gene doping is a hot topic that has been discussed, debated and challenged for years in regards to its use as a performance enhancing drug. Is it ethical, is it safe, and does it actually work are all questions that have been raised about this experimental technique. But what exactly does gene doping mean?

What is gene doping?

Gene doping is a by-product of gene therapy (Pray, 2008). The difference is that gene therapy involves injecting DNA into a person’s body for the purpose of restoring some function related to a damaged or missing gene and gene doping involves inserting DNA for the purpose of enhancing athletic performance (Pray, 2008).

What is the science behind it?

Gene doping discovery started by scientists experimenting with genes that produced insulin-growth factor one (IGF-1) which helps muscles grow and repair themselves (Custer, 2006). The gene stimulates muscle growth by producing more IGF-1 then the body would normally produce, and are carried into the body by a harmless virus (Custer, 2006). An important discovery for diseases of the metabolism, such as obesity and heart disease, but also has appealed to athletes looking to add muscle quickly and increase endurance (Custer, 2006).

For and against arguments:

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) opinion on gene doping is that “Gene doping represents a threat to the integrity of sport and the health of athletes” (World Anti-Doping Agency, 2020). Some people agree with this statement but others consider gene doping in a different manner. A professor of ethics at the University of Oxford, England, argues that “genetic enhancement is not against the spirit of sport; it is the spirit of sport” (Pray, 2008). Another argument is that gene doping could even make athletes healthier. A scientist, Lee Sweeney, at the University of Florida, believes it would be wrong to stop athletes having treatment like this (Page, 2020). In 2014, he gave this statement to BBC “I think its unethical to withhold something that would actually allow their muscles to be much healthier now and in the future” (Page, 2020). The topic of fairness is one that is often debated. Some argue that any kind of doping gives some competitors unfair advantages over others. While others believe that many athletes dope without being caught and therefore competitors that do not dope are at a disadvantage, but if the ban on doping was lifted and the choice to enhance performance using drugs was left up to the athletes then the sport would actually become fairer. There are strong arguments made around the harm doping methods can have on an athletes health and even risk of death (Loland, 2012). However, there are also arguments made that in elite sport performance enhancement strategies for training can be just as hazardous. Long term and intensive training pushes an athletes body to the limits towards overtraining and possibly injuries (Loland, 2012).

What do you think?

Let us know your opinion on gene doping in the comments below!

I hope you enjoyed this week’s blog post!We have a group blog post coming soon so be sure to keep an eye out on the blog for it!!

Eimear Ni Riain -18/02/2020

Bibliography

§ Pray, L. (2008). Gene Therapy in Sports: Gene Doping | Learn Science at Scitable. [online] Nature Education. Available at: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sports-gene-doping-and-wada-764/ [Accessed 15 Feb. 2020].

§ Custer, K. J. (2006). “From mice to men: genetic doping in international sports.” Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 30: 181.

§ World Anti-Doping Agency. (2020). Gene Doping. [online] Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/gene-doping [Accessed 16 Feb. 2020].

§ Page, M. (2020). Gene doping in sport could make the Olympics fairer and safer. [online] New Scientist. Available at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2100181-gene-doping-in-sport-could-make-the-olympics-fairer-and-safer/ [Accessed 16 Feb. 2020].

§ Loland, S. and H. Hoppeler (2012). “Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle and the biology of performance enhancement.” European Journal of Sport Science 12(4): 347–353.