IN the midst of the negative headlines surrounding Russia’s systematic doping of their athletes, a significant anti-doping development has been buried: a test for gene doping has been developed and it could be in place for the Rio Olympics later this summer.
When it comes to doping in sport, the spotlight shines far brighter on performance-enhancing drugs than it does on gene doping, but this is most likely because taking drugs is a far more clear-cut matter. In simple terms, gene doping is the practice of altering the genetic make-up of a human being but in practice, it is far more complex than this.
The World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) defines gene doping as the “nontherapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to enhance performance”. The practice has been banned within sport since 2003 and WADA has been keen to develop a test to detect its occurrence ever since. In the past week, it was confirmed that an Australian scientist, Anna Baoutina, has developed a test which can detect gene doping and it has been hailed as something of a breakthrough in the field of anti-doping. WADA has revealed that it is working closely with the scientists involved as well as the drug testers in Rio to have the test ready for use this summer. This development is so significant, it has been labelled the biggest breakthrough since the test for Erythropoietin (EPO) – the drug which helps the body to produce more red blood cells – was established in 1999.
Gene doping is used within medicine – a synthetic genome is added to a patient’s natural genome and basically acts like a medicine. It is still a relatively rare practice but its use is increasing all the time and the variety of diseases this procedure is being used to treat is also expanding. There are a couple of ways in which athletes could benefit from gene doping: in the medical sphere, it is used to treat diseases which cause muscles to deteriorate – which could potentially benefit athletes; and scientists hope that they can develop a method which would deliver the gene for EPO meaning that rather than administering synthetic EPO to the patient, the individual would produce their own. If this method is successfully developed, it could have huge ramifications for sport.
It is well-known just how beneficial EPO can be for endurance athletes but the improvement of anti-doping testing over the past decade has made taking synthetic EPO extremely difficult, particularly in-competition. So an alternative method of receiving the benefits of EPO is likely to be a hugely attractive prospect for many athletes who are looking to gain an edge over their rivals. This is why the EPO gene is considered by experts to be a potential candidate for gene doping.
WADA considers the practice unethical, which is why it was banned in 2003, but despite the anti-doping body never giving a definitive answer, it seems that there has not been a test for the practice. Until now. The development of this new gene doping test, however, raises the question of whether it should be banned at all. There is undoubtedly the question of safety: currently, there are no assurances that gene doping is a safe practice and there have even been suggestions that it could be potentially fatal if administered incorrectly.
But once the safety issue is solved, the question arises over whether it should be banned and tested for at all.
If athletes are able to buy a substance that prolongs their career or speeds up their return from injury, then is that so wrong? The arguments against particular methods of doping are often ethical but would it be ethical to ban a practice that makes athletes and their muscles healthier?
It is clear when watching some of the world’s top athletes that their genetic advantages have much to do with their supremacy: Usain Bolt’s height, Novak Djokovic’s flexibility and Serena Williams’ power gives them advantages over the field. It is indisputable that their genetic make-up is better suited to their sport than some of their rivals, but would they be quite so mesmerising if we knew that they had artificially developed their genes which gave them such an advantage?
For the moment, it seems that the prevalence of gene doping within sport is still limited considering that its development is still in its infancy. Having said that, we all know how far some athletes are willing to go in pursuit of an Olympic gold medal.
If this gene doping test is used in Rio, as WADA hopes it will be, we will have a clearer picture of just how prevalent it is. And then the not insignificant question of whether it should be banned at all must be considered.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here