Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Gene Doping: Genetically Engineered Athletes 393

Posted by michael from the mickey-mouse-olympics dept.
securitas writes "With the Athens 2004 Summer Olympics about to begin, games officials are on the lookout for the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes who want to gain an edge over their competitors. Scientific American's H. Lee Sweeney reports on sports officials who are looking to the near future with fear, anticipating a new, undetectable kind of doping that threatens to transform the fundamental nature of sports: gene doping (single-page view). The technology uses new 'therapies that give patients a synthetic gene, which can last for years, producing high amounts of naturally occurring muscle-building chemicals. The chemicals are indistinguishable from their natural counterparts and are only generated locally in the muscle tissue .... so officials will have nothing to detect in a blood or urine test.' The article from the July 2004 issue includes diagrams by Jen Christiansen on the importance of skeletal muscles that provide athletes' power and how gene doping works. Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gene Doping: Genetically Engineered Athletes More

Gene Doping: Genetically Engineered Athletes

Comments Filter:

  • Cybernectics and sports (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jinxidoru ( 743428 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:39PM (#9962223) Homepage
    I was speaking with a friend the other day about doping and the olympics. We started talking about the effect cybernectics and genetic engineering will have to the future of the olympics and all sports for that example. Eventually, when cybernectics are more common and people starting embedding electronics in themselves, what will we do? Will we restrict games to only people who haven't had their genes tampered with and those who are chip-free. Or will we just get tired of watching normal sports because Unreal Tournament has become a live person event?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Just blanket the olympics in high levels of EM radiation and you'll spot the cyborgs easily. As a bonus, those /. spectators present will be protected via their tinfoil hats.
    • Well, if it goes far enough, we may end up with leagues for "natural" and "enhanced" humans. We'll see. Once a football team fields a goalie the exact height and width of the goal, we may see some outcry.
    • We started talking about the effect cybernectics and genetic engineering will have to the future of the olympics and all sports for that example. Eventually, when cybernectics are more common and people starting embedding electronics in themselves, what will we do?

      Me? I'll probably just ignore the games like I always do. What's the problem?
      • This is /. afterall.

        I'm the kind of nerd that goes to the jon at work and hopes that someone leaves any part of the newspaper other than the sports section. Today I was of course disapointed yet again.

        Seriously though I could care less if someone dopes or not. It's between the athlete and the governing body. I don't see how it effects my life in any way. Which is why I lost alot of repect for W when he mentioned doping at during one the State of the Union address. all the problems in thsi world and we bot
        • I was almost onboard with that argument until my wife pointed out that, if you let this sort of thing go, then pretty soon athletes will be expected to dope up to make the team. That's one thing in professional sports, which is commercial and the athletes get paid to risk themselves. But it wouldn't be long before it got into college sports, then high school. There's too much opportunity for kids to make bad decisions, the effects of which might not show up for twenty or more years, on the premise that t
        • Which is why I lost alot of repect for W when he mentioned doping at during one the State of the Union address.

          Yeah, because his administration has been otherwise impeccable...

          Seriously, the only dope problem this country has is the one in the White House.
    • When everyone is raised to a higher set of genetic standards, the winners will rely on some other 'attribute' to fall back on.

      Even the best athletes of all times had something going on for them naturally. In other words, they were 'lucky' enough to be a part of natural mutation in their favor (as against gene-doping which is artificial). And of course, after being naturally gifted, they had to work their ass off to get to where they reached.

      Lance Armstrong for example has a heart size almost three tim
    • Why restrict olympic games at all?
      There's no significant difference between gene tampering, doping, and selective breeding.
      It's not like keeping it natural is going to make it so that almost anyone could get there if they only tried hard enough.
      To make the games interesting the contestants should be chosen at random from the general population.
      Rather than determining if our best is better than their best we could try to determine if our average Joe is better than theirs...

    • Re:Cybernectics and sports (Score:4, Insightful)

      by daeley ( 126313 ) * on Friday August 13, 2004 @03:01PM (#9962499) Homepage
      Will we restrict games to only people who haven't had their genes tampered with and those who are chip-free.

      I suspect in that future time sports fans will look back on our current unenhanced sports period the same way we look back on 19th Century sports: with some nostalgia, but shaking our heads at the quaint rules and customs.
    • Part of the question is 'where do we draw the line?'

      Should we forbid eyeglasses? Contact lenses? Laser eye surgery? What about laser eye surgery to take someone from 20/20 vision to 20/10?

      We have been using vision correction for hundreds of years, so somehow, we generally view that as "fair". But is it?

      I don't have the answers. Argueably, no two athletic competetors are on equal ground except for identical twins/triplets/clones.

      (For the record, I am very nearsighted -- anything beyond about 8 inche

  • Ironic when you consider the ethos of the original (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GuyFawkes ( 729054 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:39PM (#9962228) Homepage Journal
    ...olympic games, which was pretty much anything goes and to the winner go the spoils.....

  • Strength (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Klar ( 522420 ) * <curchin@g m a i l .com> on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:40PM (#9962232) Homepage Journal
    I wonder how long until suppression of the myostatin protein [slashdot.org] becomes a viable way to increase olympic potential. If they made drugs that did this, could they even stop people who took them, cause they could clame that they had a mutation and it was natural?
  • the games have allready begun. Check your timetable.

    if you're reporting something, at least get the time right...

  • Use in MD? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by White Roses ( 211207 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:41PM (#9962245)
    Could the same "gene-doping" be used to combat muscular dystrophy? Sounds like this may have more than one use. Like steroids.
    • There's been some suggestion of that, re: myostatin inhibitors. They might be useful for various muscular dystrophies.

    • Re:Use in MD? (Score:3, Informative)

      by vondo ( 303621 ) *
      I heard a feature on this on NPR yesterday, and yes, the scientist they interviewed who was studying this was doing it for exactly this reason.
    • I'm curious if someone had a degenerative disease and was treated by such a therapy if they'd then be denied participation in the olympics.

      this is definately gonna be something people will be talking about before the next olympics.

    • Re:Use in MD? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by KefabiMe ( 730997 )

      The MDA (Muscular Dystrophy Association) has been doing a lot of research on using gene therapy for MD. (I only know this because one of my best friends was told when he was 12 that he'll prolly not live past 16 years of age. He made it to 18 before his body gave out.)

      It's been a number of years since I've read anything about it, but last I remember there were two issues with using gene therapy to treat MD.

      1. The gene needed to counter-act MD is pretty big. It is hard to fit the necessary genetic code into

      • The method of using viruses to introduce genetic changes has been troublesome up to this point. Viruses don't always take over the cell properly and if they don't then the splicing of genetic material causes errors which can lead to all manner of illnesses including toxic shock and cancer [usatoday.com]. Viruses look like a great way to introduce genetic changes until you realize the fight with the body makes it unpredictable and dangerous.

  • It'd be interesting if there were two sets of contests: One for 'natural' and one for 'enhanced' athletes.

    I think it would be a great benefit for society, because then the legalized genetic enhancements would become a highly lucrative legimate business that does controlled experiments only on willing participants. What better way of advancing biotech, growth hormone therepies, genetic engineering techniques than funding it with huge sports franchises and only using them on people who want to be using them.

    • What better way of advancing biotech, growth hormone therepies, genetic engineering techniques than funding it with huge sports franchises and only using them on people who want to be using them.

      It's a huge and complicated ethical issue.

      On the one hand, each person's body is his own and what he does with it is his own business. If he wants e.g. to be a superman at 25 and have major health problems by 35, that's his choice to make.

      On the other hand, consider some likely consequences of such an approach.

  • Conceptually breaking down the notion of "fair". (Score:4, Insightful)

    by etymxris ( 121288 ) * on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:43PM (#9962267)
    It's things like this that makes the whole notion of "natural" competition absurd. If what are essentially changes to the genes can result in an unfair advantage, then you have already been penalizing people who don't have these genes, and rewarding people who do.

    Ideally, olympics should be about who has the most perseverance, dedication, and talent. But this exposes the olympics as essentially rewarding people for having the right genes. Why don't we just examine the genes aka Gattaca and declare the winner beforehand? I realize that reaching a competitive level takes quite a bit of effort, but if genes turn out to be the determining factor, we may as well be just testing DNA.
    • Its having the right genes and having the drive and dedication to use them.

      How many kids on the playground today have the potential genes to become another Michael Jordan, but lack the desire and drive to get there.
    • Genetic musclular/coordination potential, as determined by ones genetic composition, is only one part of what makes a champion. The other factors, training, coaching and drilling on technique, mental toughness (How nutured/mentored), opportunity and desire also contribute. Some of these are totaly random but all contribute to the outcome. Fail to have anyone of them, and even if you have a superior gene map, you won't win.
    • Performance enhancing drugs injure and even kill people - look at the number of NFL linemen who keel over at 40. So if you allow them in competition you are condoning the injuring and killing of people to gain success.

      And don't imagine its just an issue of personal choice. That it is not is perfectly clear in team sports where players are asked to "take one for the team" but even in individual sports the pressures to perform make it very hard for individuals to make informed choices.

      In an individual spo

  • Somehow, the first thing that comes to my mind is how the gene modding could be used to create ultra-mega-super-models. mmmmmmmmmm, ultra-mega-super-models I suppose the athletes will have to just be honest then. No more "vitamines and nutritional supplaments".

  • WOW! (Score:2, Funny)

    by aelbric ( 145391 )
    A whole other class of improve your [insert attribute here] spam on the way!
  • The body itself is full of "performance enhancing drugs" which we use whenever we are in a situation requiring above-normal abilities. Genetic differences will undoubtedly mean that different people will be able to utilise these chemicals to different amounts (and that's ignoring things like lung capacity and so on that are also genetic). So already certain people have a greater ability to compete in athletic events - there is no such thing as a truly level playing field!

    So what are performance enhancing

  • Seems very detectable to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:44PM (#9962290)
    I doubt that gene doping does a good job of inserting exactly one copy of the foreign gene in all cells of an athletes' body. Doing a genetic tests of a sample of cells and discovering that only x% (where X is not near 0% or near 100%) would show that the athlete is a chimera. A bit more study would then prove that the individual is not a naturally occurring in utero chimera, and thus must be an artificially created one. And if the tests show multiple copies of the gene in some cells, then that cinches the finding of being a GMA (genetically modified athlete). The only issue is cost, which might be a bit steep at first.

  • from the way it looks... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spangineer ( 764167 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:44PM (#9962293) Homepage
    Even now, before this kind of thing is readily available, people pass blood tests and yet get derided as using something that allows to succeed. Lance Armstrong is the classic example - here's a guy who's an amazing athlete, and who has been able to stay on top of his game for longer than anyone else. Makes sense that he would be using drugs, right? Well, he's passed every test he's taken.

    In my opinion, he's clean, and is being unfairly accused. But in the future, in 20 years, will there be another Lance Armstrong who refuses to take performance enhancing drugs but yet surpasses all of his or her opponents? What will happen to him or her if s/he is accused of gene therapy? What will happen to the incredibly successful athletes who also happen to be honest?
    • It's funny that you bring up Lance Armstrong - no doubt a great athlete, and a man of strong character yet abysmal public relations - as there is some speculation as to his performance and how it might relate to :
      - his having had cancer
      - his fighting cancer
      - his rehabilituation after the cancer

      I don't know the facts, so this is entirely speculation based on what other people have said - so don't take this as fact, accusation, or anything else, please - it'll lead up to a more generic question ;)

      What if hi
      • You're posing a lot of the same questions a lot of other people have re: Armstrong and his comeback from cancer.

        The thing is, before Armstrong had cancer, his body type was radically different -- broader shoulders, heavier upper body. Chemo destroyed most of his muscle mass, and as a result, when he rebuilt himself, he was able to focus on the muscle groups necessary to win Tours de France. Look at him now and he's got a scrawny upper body compared to the past. That translates into a HUGE advantage in t

      • Re:Lance Armstrong, cancer, rehabilitation, specul (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @03:33PM (#9962892) Journal
        Then his body would be trained specifically for, and 're-developed' for, this one goal - cycling.

        To a large extent, that is what happened. He used to be a triathlete, and had a strong upper body that was good for swimming but mostly dead weight on the bike. When chemotherapy stripped him down to his bones, he built himself back up as a pure cyclist.

        Also, while a lot of the European cycling fans and journalists grumble that Lance never shows visible pain during races and is therefore less likable -- if you've seen the clips of him riding just after getting out of chemo, bald, with a hole cut in his skull, you get the impression that he's simply redefined his whole scale of what real suffering is.

  • It will make the Industrial Revolution (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...look like a statistical blip. Once prospective parents can replace defective genes and "improve" existing ones, we'll have medical ethicists and philosophers agonizing over what it means to be human -- to no avail, since the revolution will sweep them aside before they can come to a conclusion.

    Forget the atomic bomb -- if a totalitarian country like North Korea starts fiddling with the genome, the rest of the world will have to follow suit or risk being turned into an irrelevancy. In one hundred years,
  • I think they should have a modified class olympics where you can do anything you want to enhance the human body - drugs, gene manipulation, steriods, you name it is legal. You could call it the X Olympics.

    One problem I could see is that the women sports categories would populated with some very ugly hairy looking women.

  • Why not just add this stuff to water supply?

  • Mickey Mouse Olympics (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ruprecht the Monkeyb ( 680597 ) * on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:47PM (#9962324)
    There was a story published in Omni magazine in '79 called 'The Mickey Mouse Olympics' by Thomas Sullivan. The Soviet and USA Olympic teams consisted of genetically engineered freaks that the respective teams tried to sneak past the judges. There was a swimmer with a blowhole who didn't have to lift his head out of the water to breathe, a wrestler with alligator skin ('just a really bad case of eczema'), etc.
  • I wonder if they can do the same for IQ or concentration? This would be handy for the chess competitors... And for me... I could complete my world domination scheme... hmmmm...

    KHHHAAAAAANNNNNNN!

  • "Threatens to transform?" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:51PM (#9962374)
    I always take issue with that phrase. Why is transformation necessarily a "threat?"

    Wake up. As our technology advances, life is going to change, sometimes in increments that are uncomfortable to bear. Debates of morality and ethics will constantly shift and evolve. And guess what -- none of this is a "threat."

  • You know, I was interested in this when I read the blurb. Still am. But I can't help being put off when the first thing that I check out, this page [sciam.com] from SciAm, starts out with the following sentence:

    "Skeletal muscle accounts for more than a third of an average healthy 30-year-old's body mass, but its cells are unlike most human tissues."

    Think about that. Thirty five percent of your body is unlike the other sixty five percent. I'd hazard a guess that that would be a true statement for almost any given

  • If it were safe and avalible, why not get it done? How much healthier would we all be if we were given extra lean muscle, improved joints, stronger bones? And I mean normal people, not just those with disease.

  • what is the differance?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?"

    Isn't the present and past of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes???

    I mean why is genetic engineering though evolution better then consciouse design??

    stendec@gmail.com

  • New rule. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:55PM (#9962432)
    If you can't detect it, it should be legal.

    Caveat; If you die of 'natural' causes within 5 years after winning the games, ya gotta give the gold back. Fair? Fair!

    Like lots of people on this board, I think the whole idea of 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' competition is a little odd. Why is someone who 'naturally' produces more testosterone more ethical than someone who injects it? Shoud certain hormones be restricted to a normal range? Or do we just say 'its gotta be organic.'

    Probably at the heart of all this is the question "what's the Olympics about, exactly?"
    Doing as well as you can? Testing the limits of human endurance? Then allow modifications.

    Overcoming disability? Lets penalize those folks with fewer disabilites, then!

    The problem with technology is that it blurs natural boundaries and makes us ask silly philosophical questions like "what does a person have to do to qualify as a human."

    The original olympics wasn't about all of this silly ethical garbage. It was about muscular naked men manhandling one another in front of a large audience. I, for one, think we should honor this spirit and seek to preserve it.

    Amen.

  • Lance Armstrong losing his 6th Tour de France... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ransak ( 548582 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:55PM (#9962436) Homepage Journal
    It was reported that Lance Armstrong is about to have his 6th Tour de France title taken away as recent advances in France have lead to the ability to detect banned substances via new testing procedures. The tests revealed three banned substances illegal in France on Armstrong...

    ...toothpaste, deoderant, and soap.

  • Maybe sporting events should be broken down by category of modification like in car racing. Let's see there's street legal, stock modified, some more and then unlimited.

  • Am I alone in not giving a damn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:56PM (#9962446) Journal
    The entire idea of the olympics is a joke anyway. Peace and mutual understanding through sports? HA. Yeah then please explain to me why each countries media only focusses on their own athletes and on how many medals they will win. It is just a giant ego contest.

    Then you got tiny countries competing with giants, some of who can afford to spend huge sums of money on training and some who can't. Add events that some countries just can't train, bit hard to learn to sail in a landlocked desert, and what is the point.

    Open up the drugs and lets see what we can do to the human body eh? Doctors have to be very carefull in human testing of new drugs but here you got a bunch of idiots^H^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteers who happily pump themselves full of the latest medicine. Most of these performance enhancing drugs can be used in real medicine.

    Lets try muscle building medicine in those without social value ehm, in athletes and if it works we can use it in people struck with disease.

    The games ain't fair anyway, if they are all pumped up at least that bit balances out.

    • Yeah then please explain to me why each countries media only focusses on their own athletes and on how many medals they will win. It is just a giant ego contest.

      From what I've seen, nowhere else comes close to doing this as much as the USA does. If an American doesn't stand a good chance of winning, chances are there'll be no coverage at all. That's an exaggeration, but honestly not much of one. Very sad.
  • Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?"

    According to "Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers", yes but they will be banned because they make things boring. The point of no return comes when you get goalies who exactly fill the goal.

    • According to "Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers", yes but they will be banned because they make things boring. The point of no return comes when you get goalies who exactly fill the goal.

      Although IIRC then even that won't work for Scotland, who will still manage to lose 2-0.
  • Why not just have a set of games where there are no restrictions on performance enhancing technologies? We'll keep the Olympics all-natural, but have a parallel event where anything goes.

  • Oh. Great. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hadriven ( 670847 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @02:59PM (#9962478)

    I do hope people at the Olympic Commitee realize that their games are slowly shifting from sport to engineering?

    The question is, once the Olympic Games, as well as a whole other lot of various sports - look at the Tour de France - become a dangerous arena where everything, legal or not, is done to upgrade the athletes to a victory which is the only, absolute goal since we've come to entertain a deeply sick fetishism for any kind of winner, no matter if it was in a fair competition and if he/she deserved it, once sports in general, and the Olympic Games in particular become the field of a elite crew of genetically engineered humans, what will then be the point for such games? Aren't sports from the Olympic perspective a way of celebrating and uniting humanity in competitions that are meant to be fair?
    If the athletes become better than normal human beings, not because of training but because of biological engineering, will humanity still identify itself to its champions who would have unnaturally bulky muscles, a blood that could carry insane amounts of oxygen and tightly-controlled metabolisms?
    How would these athletes be different from machines, engineered with a precise purpose - and discarded, left out to die afterwards (damn, look at what happened to Marco Pantani)...

    Worshipping winners instead of reverring competition in itself is having us slide along a slippery and very dangerous slope, IMO.
    At least, if those victory-obsessed were tinkering with cybernetic bodies or something close - replaceable, tweakable at will... But no, they're playing with their own lives. All that for a victory which means nothing but insane amounts of money.

    - Hadriven
  • We welcome our new genetically enchanced overlords.

  • Trials in Humans Without MD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @03:13PM (#9962636)
    Maybe I'm just dreaming here, but if this drug turns out not to encourage the growth of cancer cells (currently the main concern and only known side effect), I think it could seriously improve the quality of life of the average person. People don't exercise because it's hard. It's hard because people don't exercise. Quite an unhealthy cycle. However, this treatment, while immensely promising for muscle degenerative diseases, could really help overweight people break their unhealthy cycle.

    I'll go out and say it: I'm overweight. And yes, it is my fault. I could get out and exercise a ton, I could eat less, etc, but I find the struggle unrewarding and difficult. In the month of July, I spent most of the month creating a 3D game with another guy my age. He had an average build. As an experiment on top of our research, we decided to try something. He didn't believe me that my being overweight was not a result of my eating more and exercising less than he did. So we equalized our days. We ate all meals together and ate items of equal nutritional value. We also followed identical exercise routines (I can run a few miles no problem, I just don't seem to lose weight unless I run them every day while starving myself). By the end of 3 and a half weeks, I had GAINED 10 pounds and he stayed the same. He was shocked. I was not amused. The routine we settled on was probably was less active than what I do normally to maintain.

    I don't want to say I have a slow metabolism or any of those other shitty fat people excuses but I can't help but feel like I was dealt a poor hand by genetics. Muscle is expensive for the body to maintain. If I could have more muscle and have it break down less quickly, it could just help my body eat away at my apparently conserved energy being stored as fat. At the same time, it would make exercising easier by increasing my strength by a third or so. I know I'm interested.
    • However, this treatment, while immensely promising for muscle degenerative diseases, could really help overweight people break their unhealthy cycle.

      Umm... how exactly a lot of muscle mass will help overweight people?

      People, generally speaking, get overweight because of problems with their metabolism, problems with their hungry/satiated signals that the body sends to the brain, or psychological problems. None of these problems will be helped by growing more muscles.

      I don't want to say I have a slow met
      • Umm... how exactly a [will] lot of muscle mass help overweight people?

        People, generally speaking, get overweight because of problems with their metabolism, [...]. None of these problems will be helped by growing more muscles.

        Actually, if you do a little research about weight gain, muscle training, and fat burning, you'll learn that increased muscle mass actually results in an increased metabolism, which burns fat. Muscle is "metabolically active," which means it is burning calories even when you're not

  • Why bother? Human growth hormone (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @03:21PM (#9962732) Journal
    They cant prove if you've injected it artificially, or if it's a natural disorder.

    Andre the Giant had it, people who suffer from it get those facial features, pronounced brow and nose, etc.

    I watched some documentary about it, they showed lots of photos of russian athletes from the cold war era, most of whom shared striking facial similarities with Andre. Beating americans at all costs was the mantra of the Soviet athletic program.

    In soviet russia, hormones produce you!

    Who cares about the olympics anyways. The IOC is so frigging corrupt it's a joke. They openly accept bribes (hell, demand them!) when chosing cities to host the games.

    Its all a corporate jack-fest, like so much these days. McDonalds, the official hamburger of the american olympic team. Come on, how many finely tuned athletes eat Big Macs on a regular basis?
  • I was listening to an interview on the CBC (can't remeber details), but it was pointed out that this technology already exists.

    That means if an athlete is willing to pay someone who can and will do it... then there could (in theory) be genetically enhanced athletes in this olypics.
  • Absolutely it's the future of atheletics. Just like it'll be the future of everything else. A world where everyone is genetically modified into an idea of "perfection" and we all connect our brains into an advanced stage of the internet to have instant access to all "knowledge". A future where everyone knows and can do everything like everyone else, where all culture is sterilised. Not like it hasn't already happened essentially...

  • What a weird, fucked up world... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @03:59PM (#9963142)
    We live in a world where it's acceptable to invest a million dollars into extremely detailed computer simulations of the aerodynamics of a particular kind of sprinting shoe in order to shave a hundredth of a second off somebody's time on the 400 meters. Where it's allowable to put an athlete on a treadmill and take 1000 frames per second of video for in-depth analysis of stride, balance, and efficiency.

    In other words, it's okay for rich countries like the US to use technology to optimize the performance of their athletes, to the detriment of those in poorer countries who do not have such advantages.

    And yet, it is considered sacriligious to "violate" the spirit of competition by taking a few performance-enhancing drugs here and there?

    • And don't forget that the athletes competing in the Olympics are supposed to be amateurs - i.e. not people who's job it is to train all day, every day, so that they excel in a particular event.

      So, here's my proposal - allow any given athlete to receive a certain amount of funding, but put an upper limit on it. Let them get contributions to allow them to buy decent equipment, and to travel to competitions, etc, but not allow them multi-million-dollar research facilities, and so on.

      Yeah, there's still potent

  • This just highlights the inherent meaninglessness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @04:39PM (#9963493) Homepage
    We take these competitions too seriously. If we're talking about gene manipulation to create extra amounts of naturally occuring chemicals, then we're talking situations that can arise naturally. In fact there was a story not long ago about some baby born with super-muscles.

    So what's the problem? Some people are born with genes that enable them to be better athletes. Now some people want to emulate that. Sure, it seems like cheating to me, but if someone has super muscles naturally that seems unfair as well. What the are we trying to test in the olympics anyways? Skill? Will? Natural genetic perfection? A combination of all three?

    Seems to me that the focus on superlatives (as opposed to just excellence), combined with globalization, has forced us into a corner. What is the point of superlatives, anyways? What do we really want to know?

    Also, I don't know if I think genetic manipulation is any less ethical than brainwashing children to devote their life to perfection in a single pursuit before they've had a chance to experience anything else.

    As far as I'm concerned, the whole Olympic thing is just a big commercial opportunity. I'm all for individuals being their best, and competing. But it's just so dirty now and it doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose.

    Just my take.

    Cheers.

    PS -- Speaking of testing will: I once broke my arm in an arm wrestling match. Seriously. This means I had the will and strength to torque my own humerus (with the help of an equally strong friend) until it spiral fractured. I don't know what it proved, but I would say it's the superlative of something ;)

  • It was just a matter of time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Donny Smith ( 567043 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @11:43PM (#9965594)
    It is interesting to consider parallels between bio-engineered doping and aesthetic surgery.

    Somewhere I read how one participant at a beauty contest admitted she'd fixed her looks and then other participants requested her disqualification.
    She was the only "enhanced" beauty - she was the only honest one.

    So what can we do? Can we draw a line?
    A corrective surgery disqualifies you but another emergency surgery to fix broken nose from a traffic accident doesn't?
    Or bar every one who's ever "went under the knife" from participation? Are braces illegal because they're used instead of corrective teeth surgery?

    The same is with sports - why can one individual have a mutated gene and I can't? Since it's not "natural" (as in "common"), why only him/her?

    One way to make it fair is to make everything allowed. Of course for many that will have bad consequences for their health, but so do current "enhancers" that cannot be detected. And ultimately it is up to the athlete to make a decision - as is now.
    Can they disallow that? It's undetectable and "natural" - unless they expand testing to athletes' parents and families there's no way they can detect if a gene or whatever is natural or mutated.

    Coaches should have criminal responsibility for providing athletes with dangerious/harmful substances to keep coaches in the check.
    While it's not easy to say what is just "bad for you" and what is really dangerous, but at least reasonable due dilligence would suffice.

    I do think the _current_ system is unfair - people with disabilities cannot compete at all, people with "normal" genes aren't (very) competitive. So the system is biased in favor of the few sprinkled with couple genetic anomalies (=improvements).

    And finally - bring the whole genetic performance enhancing idea to education - woooo hoooo!
    Since the society is powered by greed, most people will give their kids anything to make them better off...

    This is only the beginning...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close