Bioethics Research at The Hastings Center

The Hastings Center and AAAS launch a new collaboration with a Capitol Hill briefing examining the science, ethics, and policy implications of gene doping and gene testing for sports and other non-medical uses

Testing for performance genes in sport highlights unregulated field with dangerous potential for misuse

Briefing panelists Ted Friedmann, Tom Murray, Mark Rothstein, and John Feinstein

The Hastings Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science launched a collaboration at a co-sponsored briefing in the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing Room on Capitol Hill on October 22 called “The Genetically Supercharged Athlete: Gene-Doping, Gene Testing and the Future of Sport.” The expert panel at the well-attended briefing considered such questions as: Are there genes for performance and, if so, can they be tested for and manipulated? Is such genetic enhancement different than other types of performance boosters, such as diet or steroids—and where should society draw the line and say it is cheating? What about screening for other non-medical traits, such as intelligence and beauty?

The conclusions: Despite tests purportedly screening for performance genes that are already on the market, genetic testing and manipulation for non-medical characteristics are not ready for prime time. However, they are on the horizon, and society needs to recognize the dangers of non-medical genetic screening and treatment and control its use, particularly in children.

Scientist Theodore Friedmann, MD, Director of the Center for Molecular Genetics at UCSD School of Medicine and immediate past president of the American Society of Gene Therapy, laid the scientific groundwork. “Gene therapy tries to fix something that is broken,” he said. However, science is just at the beginning of the learning curve when it comes to gene therapy, and the treatments available are experimental and pose serious risks . Describing the discovery of several genes that affect performance, Friedman warned that the tools for medical therapy are not appropriate for sports or other sorts of enhancement. “Not only is athletic ability a mix of genetic and environmental advantages, the risks of manipulating genes are not acceptable in athletes or healthy people,” he said.

Ethicist Tom Murray, PhD, President of The Hastings Center and Chair of the Ethical Issues Review Panel of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said that gene doping for sports is not here yet—it won’t affect the 2008 Olympics, for example—but predicted that it is on the horizon. Murray noted that genetic manipulation for sports is unethical for the same reasons that drug doping is, because it corrupts the meaning of competition.

However, screening for performance genes raises new and troubling issues, particularly when it involves children, according to Murray. “There are no powerful, predictive tests for these complex traits,” he said, “though dubious tests are already on the market.” One, offered by the Australian company Genetic Technologies Limited, provides an AU$110 kit for taking a swab of DNA from inside one’s cheek which the company will test for ACTN3, a gene associated with muscle function. “The test is the first of a gathering stream of genetic tests for a limitless variety of traits, from performance to cosmetic to cognitive,” said Murray. “People need to be protected from making foolish and potentially dangerous choices affecting their children.”

“Tests for performance-enhancing genes offer a window onto the larger realm of genetic screening for non-medical purposes,” said legal analyst Mark Rothstein, JD, Chair of Law & Medicine and Director of the Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Rothstein said the United States is woefully behind in establishing policy on the use of such genetic screens. He warned of the potential for misuse of these tests by the educational system for placement; employers for hiring decisions; insurers; and even parents. Currently, there are no regulations preventing such applications. Yet, entrepreneurs are jumping in, with “nutra-genomic” companies purportedly evaluating one’s nutritional needs (and selling supplements and dietary advice) and “cosmetic-genomic” companies testing genes for skin and hair qualities to market shampoos and makeup.

National Public Radio sports commentator and Washington Post columnist John Feinstein noted that more than 5 percent of junior high school athletes reportedly take steroids. “The message kids get is that cheating pays, and so is worth the risk,” he said. This message needs to change, particularly when it comes to genetic manipulation, Feinstein said. “This risk is not worth it.”

Mark Frankel, PhD, Director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program at AAAS, who moderated the panel, called genetics a “tantalizing enabler” to athletes and coaches.

The briefing launched a new collaboration between AAAS and The Hastings Center, which will feature a number of such events in Washington, DC to reach out to the media and policy-makers to promote informed dialogue on important issues in science and bioethics. The Hastings Center has established a Washington, DC office at AAAS.

For further information on gene screening and manipulation in sport, please see:

A Conversation with Thomas H. Murray: Olympian Talent, and a Little Artificial Help (The New York Times, August 3, 2004)

Good, Better, Best: The Human Quest for Enhancement (Report from AAAS’s Science, Freedom and Law Program, June 2006)

President’s Council on Bioethics: Potential for Genetic Enhancements in Sports (testimony by Dr. Ted Friedmann, July 11, 2002)

Human Genetics Society of Australia Position Statement: Genetic Testing and Sport Performance (May 2007)

Scientists Seek Test To Detect Gene Doping In Athletes (ScienceDaily, August 8, 2007)

Hot Topic: Outlaw DNA (The New York Times, June 3, 2007)

Last Updated: 31 October 2007