Slashdot Mirror


Jocks v. Nerds: Detecting Gene-Dopers

kevinvee writes "The World Anti-Doping Agency will soon put into place gene doping tests to detect athletes using gene therapy. Perhaps the most important part to recognize is that Congress delegates have said that gene doping is a 'clear and present danger.' Professor Geoff Goldspink mentions this of gene therapy: 'We can put genes into mice and create Arnold Schwarzenegger mice.' So, be sure to watch next year's elections for furry white mice."

205 comments

  1. Here's a doped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    first post, with modified genetic material.

    ~~~

    1. Re:Here's a doped by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      penis

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
  2. Hmmm... by TypoNAM · · Score: 0

    Gene-Dopers... Is that a new drag addiction? ;)

    --
    This space is not for rent.
  3. Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny
    We can put genes into mice and create Arnold Schwarzenegger mice.

    Does this mean that instead of running around the maze, they suddenly start running for governor?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by rekkanoryo · · Score: 1

      No, it means they go running around groping all the female mice.

    2. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it means I FUCKED your grandmother to DEATH.

    3. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by switched4OSX · · Score: 1

      No, it means the mouse will tell the lab tech "I'll be back", steal a car, and crash through the front of the maze.

    4. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit.. calm down a bit.. We didn't realize that you were such a big Arnold fan.

    5. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by sinserve · · Score: 1

      Don't mind him, he has been Gene-Groped.

    6. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L:)L.. I hav sekret crushes on ->> SINSERVE_ :).. Did u evr KIS 40 YEAR MAN???//

    7. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by sinserve · · Score: 1

      no, but maybe -just maybe- a 40 year old man wants to kiss me :-) *blush*

    8. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heheheheh.. u like go to the kis? ..where from the type? :).. email: etle_vilkne@yahoo.com

    9. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by sinserve · · Score: 1

      Anytime sweetie. I am a cute, young, Turkish boy. I kiss you t00.

      /me calls Fyodor to take care of the situation.

    10. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that relly u? heheh.. u lil cute;)).. I am not hav heompage but snd emails: etle_vilkne@yahoo.com.. hope u hear from u :)

    11. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.... this got "+3, Funny" for writing what was in the original story comment that's *right above the post*? I guess by adding "instead of running around," he made it better?
      Wow, I guess running is fscking hilarious to you people.

    12. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arnold fans are stupid

    13. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by LeoDV · · Score: 1

      Hahahahaa... I know it's an offtopic troll flamebait and everything, but the randomness made me burst out laughing when I read this... Mod it up.

    14. Re:Arnold Schwarzenegger mice by fermion · · Score: 1

      No it means that we will have yet more republican mice abusing drugs and then telling our kids abusing drugs is bad.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  4. that is like my graphic designer by kraksmoka · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    we blended rodney dangerfield and bobcat goldthwaite genes with a three toed sloth to create a slow lazy fat bitch with a nasty twich, and crackling voice who's always complaining about not getting enough respect while botching your largest account !!!!!

    AAAAERRRRrrrrrrrrrgggggghghhghghghghghghghg hghghghghghghghg

    what were you saying about mice and men?

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    1. Re:that is like my graphic designer by pyrote · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      wow, sounds like my mother-in-law.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    2. Re:that is like my graphic designer by kraksmoka · · Score: 0, Troll

      imagine your mother in law with a baby food obsession with the attitude to match. ever meet a raw organic vegan? they are the stupidest people on earth! this guy fancies himself a hippie, and drives 400-500 miles a week, and complains constantly that he's never making enough money while sabotaging any big money projects. i'm introducing him to his new boss and lower salary next week.

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    3. Re:that is like my graphic designer by jakobk · · Score: 1

      What a sneaky way to brag to us that you're married.

    4. Re:that is like my graphic designer by pyrote · · Score: 1

      Dangit, and I was trying to keep is secret. now all my plans of world domination are over! NOOOOOOOOooooo......

      Actually I don't generally try and hide it.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
  5. Don't Forget! by The+Kow · · Score: 3, Funny

    Vote Algernon in 2004!

    --
    Moo
    1. Re:Don't Forget! by VValdo · · Score: 1

      At first I gotta admit I was anti-Algernon. He seemed pretty clueless and clumsy and had no political savvy whatsoever. I'd have said completely unelectable. But he seemed to grow into his candidacy-- more comfortable giving speeches, and more amazingly... they actually started making sense to these skeptical ears! In fact, some of his policy proposals are downright ingenious if you ask me. His plan to completely eliminate all government taxes, fees, and licenses while simultaneously increasing services... with a budget surplus is so obvious and simple. Why hasn't anyone suggested this before?! And his ideas on perpetual, renewable energy sources are revolutionary as is his two-week-peace plan for the Middle East. It actually sounds doable! And did you read that some Berkeley English professor just wrote an editorial noticing that all his speeches are in iambic pentameter?

      Anyway, I'm very excited and I hope he can keep this momentum up till Election Day!

      W

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Don't Forget! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wholeheartedly support Algernon!
      Algernon supporters, show your choice by wearing a flower!

    3. Re:Don't Forget! by Mad+Man · · Score: 1

      Vote Algernon in 2004!

      The problem is that some Algorenon voters are too stupid to correctly use a ballot.

      Oh wait, you said Algernon. Never mind...

    4. Re:Don't Forget! by Yet+Another+Smith · · Score: 1

      No way. I'm totally supporting the Benji Mouse/Frankie Mouse 2004 Campaign! They've got the Answer!

      Better Things for Better Living, Through Chat-Shows!

      --
      if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
  6. Maybe if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if you weren't so busy obediently paying your $699 SCO liscensing fee, you wouldn't have achieved such failure. --- Mod up all AC's.

  7. A bit OT: Ahnold by VoraciousGorak · · Score: 1

    Wondered how long it would be before Ahnold jokes entered the /. news headlines. I can already see his campaign at the next election... you KNOW its gonna have "I'll be bock" somewhere in it.

  8. No need for gene therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arnold is all too happy to inject his genes the old fashion way.

  9. Gene Therapy for intelligence by BWJones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, be sure to watch next year's elections for furry white mice.

    So, are you saying the incumbent will be getting a little NR2B gene therapy? (For those Slashdotters who are not neuroscientists, NR2B keeps the NMDA receptor in nervous tissues from desensitizing, apparently making learning in mice easier).

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  10. Where can I get some dope genes? by evn · · Score: 5, Funny

    a 25% increase in muscle mass in 2 weeks

    So, I can go from an 80 pound weakling to a 100 pound beefcake in the time it takes me to compile Gentoo on my P2-300?

    Those jocks from highschool are going to be sorry they shoved me in my locker...
    everyday...
    twice.

    1. Re:Where can I get some dope genes? by physicsboy500 · · Score: 1

      But you see... the muscle mass is yours for sure, but there's no guarentee Gentoo is going to compile.

      --
      The original generic sig.
    2. Re:Where can I get some dope genes? by sinserve · · Score: 0, Troll

      You fail it; The blind shot at humor that is.

      Ahem, I really shouldn't be so proper spoken while trolling.

      Bah, pay me no mind. I am not good at the ways of teh troll. May
      the young Germanic man, of the caving rear be with you.

    3. Re:Where can I get some dope genes? by HoldenCaulfield · · Score: 2, Insightful

      only if you're body is pure muscle mass . . .

      The average healthy male is 45% muscle mass, so for the 80 pound weekling, it'd be 80 + 80*.45*.25 for a whopping 89 lbs . . . I don't think the jocks are that worried ;)

    4. Re:Where can I get some dope genes? by Manic+Ken · · Score: 1

      Heck, D-bol would give you that gain, not to mention para+winny ;) Ahhh....and genetropin....or get some fina...or...

    5. Re:Where can I get some dope genes? by tomzyk · · Score: 1

      Despite the sound of it, 9 pounds of muscle added in 2 weeks would be awesome. Normally for a beginner body builder, it could take you a couple months to achieve that. (assuming proper sleep, diet and exercise of course.)

      If you consider yourself "an 80 pound weakling" [BTW, is a "weekling" "someone who only lasts a week"?] start eating more beef and chicken and start lifting some weights dude.

      Then again, if you're only 13 years old, you COULD just wait for puberty. ... And if you're about to graduate from highschool, you will soon discover another, more readily accessible concoction called "beer" that may quickly add pounds to your body... although not particularly muscle mass. Or if you're about to graduate college, you will discover a "desk job" which will have roughly the same effect as "beer" but will not be fun.

      But I digress.

      --
      Karma: NaN
  11. Genes are so passe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We can put genes into mice and create Arnold Schwarzenegger mice."

    I thought Arnold Schwarzenegger mice had metal endoskeletons too? Mice with metal endoskeletons would be so much cooler...

  12. Like the X-Men movie by Bull999999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And thus, the hunt for the mutants has begun.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    1. Re:Like the X-Men movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mutants? No, no, they (originally) started out as freaks of nature (read: not man made). This is more like The Eugenics Wars.

      KKHHHHAAAAAAANNNN!!!

    2. Re:Like the X-Men movie by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      or like Mutant-X

  13. And California shudders... by __aavhli5779 · · Score: 0

    >> We can put genes into mice and create Arnold
    >> Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) mice. If it can be >> done on mice it can be done on humans," said
    >> Goldspink.

    1. Re:And California shudders... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, was that ever redundant.

      I tell you, Slashdot moves too fast for me.

      Perhaps an injection of the 'Fast-Refresh' gene would help me out. :)

  14. Almost There by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Professor Geoff Goldspink, from University College London, ...said testing technology was "almost there."

    Almost there, huh. The list of things that are almost there (dirt cheap solar cells, 64-bit Windows operating systems, Segways replacing all other forms of personal transport, television sets that you unroll and hang on your wall, the RIAA actually winning a case in court) is endless -- and is likely to remain that way since the axiom that the first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time and effort, and the remaining 10% takes the other 90% continues to hold undisputed sway.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Almost There by ChiPHeaD23 · · Score: 1

      the first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time and effort, and the remaining 10% takes the other 90%

      You're really putting in a lot of time and effort into things, aren't you? Forget the usual 110%, we're talking 180% bay-bee!!!

    2. Re:Almost There by balloonhead · · Score: 1
      That's sort of the point of that saying. I think you may have missed it.

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    3. Re:Almost There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time and effort, and the remaining 10% takes the other 90%"

      And in other news it was reported that 9/8 or a whopping 105% of all /. posters cannot calc with percentages or fractions...

      Cheers,

      Tels

  15. is it really cheating, though? by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It seems to me that the valid reason for making steroid use illegal for competition is that it has dangerous side effects -- i.e., if it was allowed, then everyone would have to use it to stay competitve, and you'd have all these athletes with serious medical problems and roid rages and all that because of it.

    If there was a performance-enhancing chemical that was completely safe, I say it is fair, because its use does not involve serious risk. That said, I think the IOC doesn't see it that way.

    So my question is, is gene therapy dangerous? If it is, then it probably should be banned. But if not, then why not allow it? At some point, doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary which things are allowed and which are not?

    1. Re:is it really cheating, though? by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have Cystic Fibrosis and Celiac Disease. Gene therapy may, at some point in the future, be the only thing that can save my life.

      Is it dangerous? Well, for me it's only dangerous in the negative sense, if I don't get it I could die.

      It kinda focuses my attention on the issue.

      I could, of course, be dead before any possible real therapy becomes available. This doesn't make me feel better about possible congressional roadblocks to its development, oddly enough.

      As for its use in sports the issue is handled easily enough if it can be detected by simple tests. We already segregate atheletic events into genetic classes. Create some new ones.

      Problem solved.

      If it can't be tested for or possitively certified in some simple way, well, then making rules against it is pointless.

      Sporting regulations are already full of object lessons in what happens when you try to regulate the unenforcable.

      Give up. Learn to live with it.

      That's what I hope to be able to do.

      KFG

    2. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fuzdout · · Score: 1

      You have some interesting points..But I think even if no health risks are involved it isn't fair to the other athletes if they end up having to go through gene therapy just to keep up with the competition...Also we would end up with lots less natural born/talented athletes in the long run and to a sports' fan, well..Lots of us would lose our respect for the players and the sport..
      After all, what is more impressive, someone who works harder than anyone else on the team and is the secound best player or the number one player who without gene therapy would likely be the worst
      player but is number one due to artifically made telent?
      Just something for us all to think about.

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    3. Re:is it really cheating, though? by dilvie · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the human genome project information page, gene therapy is still in a very experimental state, and it could potentially be very dangerous for atheletes to engage in.

    4. Re:is it really cheating, though? by dilvie · · Score: 1

      I don't think that gene therapy will do much for somebody who isn't already a good athelete. Nearly every atheletic competition I can think of involves a lot of practiced skill -- the type of thing that will improve the over-all posture and the kinetics of the athelete. No amount of gene therapy will ever replace that.

    5. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fuzdout · · Score: 1

      >Nearly every atheletic
      >competition I can think of involves a lot of >practiced skill -- the type of thing that will >improve the over-all posture and
      >the kinetics of the athelete.

      True. But some people are going to have the natural inborn talen towards those skills and some won't..With the added gene therapy, people who don't genetically have the talents can now have them..Perhaps even enhanced. My first post may have been a bit extreme as far as the number one player in his natural state (without therapy) being the worst.
      Yes, a lot of work and dedication is needed to be a good athlete, but yes some of that can be replaced with natural talent.
      Example, while not athletics, say "David" can naturally draw really well. He enjoys drawing so he does it a lot which with the practice allows him to be a even better artist with time.
      "Bob" loves drawing. It's his favorite thing to do. he draws more often than Daivd even does..But Bob doesn't have the natural talent to draw. He takes art lessons, and is much better than he would be without the practice, but he may still never be as good at drawing as David.
      The above may sound like a crock of shit, but I've knowen people who enjoy art or some other activety and though they have gotten better will never be great at that activety simply because they don't have the inborn talent.
      I actually happen to be naturally very talented at drawing..Funny thing is, I don't hardly draw that much anymore and haven't for over 10 years which means I haven't put in the hardwork and dedication needed to improve my skill. I have never had art lessons, and was always "good" even as a kid.
      Now I have knowen people who enjoy drawing and still paractice and have gone to art class and such and they still don't draw as well..I also have knowen people who are younger than me, less experience, no art class etc, and are much, much, better than I am.
      Point is, practice really helps, but I would suspect the majority of it is actaully genetic and when allowed to be molded in the right environment and training developes to it's peak level.
      BTW, I also have found that I can use a different meduim (chalk, oil paint, ink or whatever) that last time I tried using it was horrible and years later I try again and suddenly seem to just "know how" even though I hadn't even tinkered with that paticular medium in years..I have a hard time believing that isn't natural talent instead of simply "lots of practice".

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    6. Re:is it really cheating, though? by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 0
      Yes, gene therapy can be dangerous. Some methods use a retrovirus (yes, HIV is a retrovirus!) to deliver the gene. Ever think of how you're going to get "foreign" genetic material into a human body? The same thing happens with organ transplants: REJECTION!

      Retrovirii (mainly adenovirus, I believe) are very good devices for invading human cells. Unfortunately they also insert themselves randomly (the altered adenovirus, not the wild-type) and can cause cancers. Not to mention the fact that your body will see it as invader and try to attack it.

      This site has a brief overview of some technical problems with gene therapy.

    7. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Technically+Inept · · Score: 1

      Danger isn't the issue. Steroids aren't really that dangerous if their use is carefully monitored by qualified people. It might not be that dangerous to have someone push you out of the starting blocks either, but it is cheating. The whole point of these competitions is to see what the athletes are capable of doing on their own through dedication and sacrifice, not seeing who can make the most bodily upgrades. In any competition the participants all agree to abide by the same rules and these rules are dictated by the purpose of the competition. In bodybuilding there are "natural" competitions and untested competitions. All of the top bodybuilders are steroid freaks, but nobody minds because the rule there is "freakish proportions by any means necessary." In the olympics, the whole purpose is to see the intersection between natural ability and hard work. Part of the appeal is that you know that the athletes are, to some extent, comparable to athletes from centuries ago (though with better nutrition and training methods). You allow gene therapy and steroids, then why not bionics or jet propulsion?

      --
      Now watch me hit this drive.
    8. Re:is it really cheating, though? by koreth · · Score: 1
      We already separate men's and women's competition in most sports, due to the fact that the two sexes have (genetically determined) physical differences that would cause competition to be one-sided. So why not make it three categories: unmodified men, unmodified women, and modified humans? At that point I'd be fine with disqualifying gene-enhanced people from the first two categories.

      But then the question is, what is "modified?" Is it a modification to use a measurement device to non-invasively select the one sperm out of a million that happens to have the right set of genes? That sperm might have been the lucky one in natural procreation. If that's not okay, do you disqualify athletes born to surrogate mothers who were artificially inseminated?

      Personally, I think it'll be moot eventually, but not for several decades at least -- unless safe genetic testing/manipulation is somehow different from every other technology in history, it'll start out expensive and rare but will eventually become available to a wide cross-section of society, at which point a modified athlete will simply be one member of a society of modified people, and the question of an unfair advantage won't apply.

      This has happened again and again over time. I can't be the only one here who remembers getting extra credit for neatness on my essays in school because I was the only kid in class with a word processor; if I went back to the same school now I'd probably have a hard time finding a kid who didn't have one.

    9. Re:is it really cheating, though? by epmos · · Score: 1

      > This doesn't make me feel better about possible congressional roadblocks to its development, oddly enough.

      You were aware that the Congress of the United States and the International Olympic Committee Medical Congress are two different things, right?

      The congress mentioned in this article is composed of doctors that make medical policy for the olympics. They have nothing to do with development of treatments for Cystic Fibrosis.

      If I may say so, it seems a lot of people here missed that--I don't mean to pick on you, but I don't want the discussion here to degrade into "congress is picking on me!".

      The US congress does boneheaded stuff all the time, but this isn't them.

    10. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      But I think even if no health risks are involved it isn't fair to the other athletes if they end up having to go through gene therapy just to keep up with the competition

      Why isn't it fair? Is it any more fair that they have to spend 60 hours a week in the gym/practicing? Really, this is basically just like an improvement in equipment, in nutrition, or in training methods. Gene therapy will not replace hard work, it will simply make that hard work more productive. If everyone does it, the bar is simply raised higher. It won't be any easier to be a world champion, it will simply mean that the world champions of tomorrow are far greater than the world champions of today (who, in turn, are superior to the world champions of yesterday, look at how frequently records are broken).

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    11. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stem cell research kthxbye~~

    12. Re:is it really cheating, though? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware of the difference and did not confuse the two, although the setting may obscure that fact.

      You may be unaware, because it is not quite so pressing an issue to you, that members of Congress, big Cee, are already making uneasy noises about all of this as well and it was that to which I refered when I said congress.

      I handled the sporting issue quite seperately.

      KFG

    13. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      Part of the appeal is that you know that the athletes are, to some extent, comparable to athletes from centuries ago (though with better nutrition and training methods).

      You underrate improvements in nutrition and training methods, not to mention equipment (if nothing else, most sports at least include shoes as equipment, and there have been tremendous advances in shoe materials). How many records stand for more than a decade or two? Have a look at some swimming records. I see no one in the top 25 of the half dozen or so that I clicked on dating back earlier than 1970. Moreover, revolutions in technique, such as the switch to the "flop" high jump technique, totally revolutionize some sports. For that matter, women have only been competing in many sports for 50 years or less, and so are utterly uncomparable to any female athletes prior in histor.

      Also, I dispute your claim that no one cares about steroids in bodybuilding. Indeed, that is why there are now natural competitions, because people realize that it is sick to have a sport where the only way to compete is to completely fuck up your body's hormonal balance (now how long will it take people to realize that the same is true of women's gymnastics?).

      I agree with your point about rules. Yes, the rules should be clearly defined, and people should have to compete within those rules. That didn't stop the government from changing the rules for professional golf to allow handicapped golfers to use carts, but that's another issue for another time. The difference here, I think, is that you've still got a person, you're not adding in new equipment, you're just choosing not to regulate what methods this person uses to train.

      Overall, I think that a common sense approach has to be taken. If gene therapy is experimental and error prone, it should not be allowed. If it is commonplace, and ordinary citizens use it as part of regular medical practice, I think it's ridiculous to restrict athletes. Likewise, I think it's ridiculous that athletes are being flagged as "drug abusers" for taking over the counter headache medicines.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    14. Re:is it really cheating, though? by epmos · · Score: 1

      Yes, the context did rather obscure that you were refering to two seperate groups.

      I had heard a lot of noise about Congress "investigating" deaths and injuries that occured during clinical trials a few years ago, but I wasn't aware that anyting had come of it.

      What I recall was mostly a demand that trials be as safe as possible, which kinda boils down to business as usual.

      Noone runs trials where they expect to kill they people they treat, after all. It's expensive to conduct these trials, and if there are too many problems you don't get approved and can't earn your money back.

      OTOH, I hadn't heard anything in the last few years. As you said, the issue is less pressing for me. Have things gotten worse, or did our brave leaders lose interest and move on the the next shiny object they found?

      BTW, I agree that many of the sports regulations are pointless. But then I think the best way to enjoy sports is to play, not watch.

      epmos

    15. Re:is it really cheating, though? by kfg · · Score: 1

      There are two groups in Congress for whom it is still a live issue, the relgious types (Don't tamper with God. I must have sinned in the womb. Stuff like that)and the eco-nuts (and as a bonifide tree hugger these people drive me nuts. They're an embaressment to my beliefs).

      There's no real motion yet, because there's nothing really to move against yet, but these people make the odd wave about it. When it comes time it's going to be a knock down, drag out fight.

      Tons of wingnut outfits are going to be calling their congresscritter over this issue too.

      The problem with playing sports is that then all of these odd unenforcable rules which they feel compeled to enforce effect you directly.

      This is only being made worse by the current trend to incorporate every sport under the sun as a private business. What the hell ever happened to the nonprofit governing body which served as a trust?

      Even worse are the "Beg-a-thon" events. I don't want to race for heart disease. I want to race to race. What the hell is wrong with that?

      Why, it's nearly enough to drive one to just go to the park with some friends and play for the fun of it.

      Now what kind of sports is that?

      KFG

    16. Re:is it really cheating, though? by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 1

      The IOC no longer sets anti-doping policy; that's the job of WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency. WADA sets policy that governments and sports governing bodies are effectively obliged to implement, because if they don't the IOC can yank their right to appear at the Olympics.

      WADA has just decided to remove caffeine and pseudoephedrine from the 2004 Prohibited List, and while this hasn't beem explained by WADA, the presumed rationale is that while they definitely have performance-enhancing (ergogenic) effects, these two substances do not pose a substantial threat to health. It's a controversial move.

      Similarly, there have been calls for the control of use of creatine, which is also generally accepted to have some fairly minor ergogenic effects; but any health negatives are unproven, so it hasn't been controlled.

      Just about everything that is on the controlled list does have negative health effects. Control of drugs in sport is supposed to be about protecting the health of athletes, though this point usually gets lost in drug-warrior ranting about catching 'cheats'.

      Health is the only remotely rational basis for restricting what substances and methods athletes may or may not use to enhance performance, in my opinion. The alternative is hand-waving about fairness and the purity of sport, and arbitrary decisions about what is therefore permitted and what isn't.

      However, I think a precautionary principle should also apply: if an ergogenic substance or method is not demonstrated to pose a nil or very low risk to athlete's health it should be banned. The idea there is to discourage athletes from messing about with experimental drugs and techniques that may turn out to have negative effects in the long term.

      Ergogenic gene therapy gets caught by the precautionary principal. It's way to early to tell if it's even safe for people whose lives it might save (and I hope for the sake of people like the poster with Cystic Fibrosis and Celiac Disease that it does turn out to be safe and effective). There's no way we should be letting athletes mess about with gene therapy just so they can kick a ball harder or run faster.

    17. Re:is it really cheating, though? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      On a more philosophical level, I've always believed that the main reason why they ban steriods in competitive sports is because they want to continue the charade that sports is:- that, somehow, it's a continuing spirit of human endurance, that's a fair, but competitive arena where any human can compete to the best of his ability, a place where the world otherwise bereft of heroes can see him and applaud.

      All of which is, to be sure, absolute nonsense.

      The faster we accept that sports is not a measure of human ability, and in fact, just another mass media industry, the better. Let's face it:- just who controls the sports industry these days? Governing bodies? Sportsperson lobbies? Sporting equipment companies? Of course not; the media industry has entered the sports business a long time back. They're the real masters; we're just consumers of a carefully marketed product.

      Not that I'm against 'commercialisation' of sports or of the media industry. I still follow sports of course, but I prefer to not be hypocritical about my interest; I'm interested in following sports just as I'm interested in, say, following Neo's escapades on The Matrix.

      Not entirely coherent, nor entirely answering your question, but just a thought.

    18. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      Yeah they might end up with some extra frog genes that make them have the ability to change sex. (You know like in Jurassic park?) But seriously I think the only real dangers are 1. bad genes accidently coming along which wouldn't happen if you have well-trained geneticists (not like the ones in Jurassic park) and 2. adding a trait that is somehow disharmonious to the rest of your body. 3. the biggest danger of all is that the new genes will somehow get loose and cause havoc in the world. I mean maybe I want to be a super athelete. But there is something wrong elsewhere that the new athletism makes worse like weak knees or something? I think it is foolish to think you can just add something and not affect the rest of the being. We can't really forsee or anticipate these sorts of things, they'll just have to happen and then we will learn from them. But this is the reason Gattica could never happen the way it is portrayed in the movie. Because if someone wanted to change a trait, all they would have to do is get the new genes inserted into their genetic code. It's not a code that can't be changed once you are born. Although you can't go back in the womb and grow differently, but you can change things that grow all the time like hair and things like that. It would take 7 years to change your eyecolor for instance because we rejuvenate ourselves every 7 years. Unless of course they find a gene that can make that turnover happen faster of course. That's why they call it genetic code. Because it is a code, and it can be changed. Essentially they do it by giving you a virus. I think they should learn more about genetics before they start doing cosmetic dramatic things like this so that if something does go wrong they can fix it quickly. They should continue with gene therapy for sick people and learn from that first before they start turning the whole world into their guinea pig.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    19. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, when the hard right and the far left are both clamouring against something, its either really right or horribly wrong.

      Crazy, huh?

    20. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Shiifty · · Score: 1
      It seems to me that the valid reason for making steroid use illegal for competition is that it has dangerous side effects -- i.e., if it was allowed, then everyone would have to use it to stay competitve, and you'd have all these athletes with serious medical problems and roid rages and all that because of it.

      Performance enhancing drugs are rampant in all professional and amateur sports (yes the Olympics too). Since they are illegal, they use other drugs and methods to cover up any sort of detection. This increases the deadly side effects.

      The article doesn't mention whether gene therapy is dangerous, but cheating athletes are known to take things to the extremes. Steroids are commonly used to treat some diseases, in safe small doses -- athletes take MANY times the prescribed dose to achieve the results they want, but with drastic side effects. I'm not sure how you can similarly 'increase' the dose with gene therapy but they'll find a way.

      If there was a performance-enhancing chemical that was completely safe, I say it is fair, because its use does not involve serious risk. That said, I think the IOC doesn't see it that way.

      There are safe performance enhancing drugs. Caffeine is a performance-enhancing drug (short-term stimulant as we all know) that was recently dropped from the banned list by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Any drug that gives one person an advantage over another is performance enhancing, there just has to be a line drawn somewhere.

    21. Re:is it really cheating, though? by grantsellis · · Score: 1

      And if it didn't have any side effects, there wouldn't be any problems with shooting yourself in the head.

      These things all have side effects. The drugs all have side effects. Even blood doping (increasing your red blood cell count to improve stamina) will kill you occasionally (stroke). Genetic doping will carry the same risks. Look at that kid who died undergoing Gene therapy .

    22. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      So my question is, is gene therapy dangerous? If it is, then it probably should be banned. But if not, then why not allow it? At some point, doesn't it seem kind of arbitrary which things are allowed and which are not?

      It all boils down to doing things that religious persons consider to be the things only "God" can do. It really frightens these people that maybe "God" doesn't exist or doesn't exist in the capacity that that know it to be.

      Religious protesters trying to ban in vitro fertilization used to say in vitro babies would be born without souls.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    23. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fermion · · Score: 1
      First, everything has an uncertain danger, and the measure of uncertainty is measured by statistics. Medical procedures typically have a measurable danger associated with them, and this why we pay highly trained professionals administer them. Some people accept the danger even for procedures with no medical value, and some people will not. Some people don't want to risk the danger but the societal pressures are so great they do it anyway. Some people just don't understand the risk.

      For these reasons I do not think the issue is the danger of the drugs to an individual, per se, because we often allow individuals to take such risks. I think some organizations, particularly the Olympics, are worried more about the second and third issue. Allowing the drugs to be used will force everyone to use the drugs, and may create a fictional sense about the safety ofthe drugs. It may ultimately be a matter of PR. The olympics, for instance, is about family entertainment and many families do not want their kids to believe that drugs are beneficial, even though this is message that is broadcast through most other major sporting events. By taking the high road on this the Olympics may be protecting revenue.

      As far as answering if drugs or other medical procedures is cheating, that depends on the purpose of the event. If the event is to measure how random fluctuations and hard work has made one person better than another person who has done equally hard work, then drugs are cheating. If the event is mainly entertainment, again as in the case of most sporting events in the US, then drugs are certainly not cheating. Since there is no serious level of competition, the issue is really just to be as entertaining as possible. This situation is especially illustrated in leagues where revenue is shared between the teams. In any case, the drugs may in fact measure a different set of random fluctuations and this further muddles the argument.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    24. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fuzdout · · Score: 1

      Yes this is all very true.
      But change in diet and excersize are ways of naturally enhancing one's skill. Gene therapy isn't. It's changing your *genes* to improve performance, which is just as much cheating IMHO as using a drug. It's not the negative side affects of steroids that bothers me when athletes use them but the fact that it is still in a lot of ways cheating. I am not saying they still don't do a lot of hard work to get where they are but it's still an unfair advantage.
      In fact, speaking as a dog trainer this sort of thing has been seen in both field trials, Obedience trials and conformation..While not gene therapy per say, what has happened is inferior dogs are actually being bred because instead of allowing the talent or characteristic to come naturally throug the gene pool, they use forms of cheating.
      For instance, in Yorkshire Terriers, the coat is supposed to be a color called "Blue and Tan" and is straight and silky in texture..Well instead of simply breeding for the color, many champion Yorkshire Terriers are actually *white* and very, very light golden. There is also wavy coats..Instead of breeding for that, breeders when going to show the dogs will die the coat with human hair coloring the blue and tan into the coat..Then they use a hand iron to straighten the coat. Of course this all takes hours, but really, should this dog with the wrong coat color and texture really be placed in a show over one with natural color? It's made it so most of the time, unless you know the dog personally, you won't know if breeding to the current famous Champoin is going to get the correct coat or faulty coat.
      In Field Trials dogs used to have lots of natural talent because that's all you had to work with..Then one trainer Rex Carr invented the electric collar..Now said collar has been improved over the years but basically what they found as with this training aid you could make any dog do almost anything..You used to have a dog that LIKED jumping in the water to retrieve a duck cuz otherwise you were rather hard pressed to force the dog if it really didn't want to. With the electric collars, now people just "burn" the dog till it goes in..In the long run since it is now easier than traditional methods and one can get greater percision, and it tended to *ruin* trainable talented dogs, many hard-headed, dogs with little to no natural desire to retrieve, go in water etc, have gotten field champions and if one saw the end result of the electric collar use you might think "wow, that's a very talented dog!" but then you breed your dog to said champoin and hey, how come the pups don't retrieve? Where did this thick headedness come from?
      Because what has happened is most field trial people have been selecting for dogs that "collar condition" the best..Conditioning the dog doesn't require the dog to think. Just react. And in the end most big name field champions are naturally not bright, but hard-headed, flakey (you can basically "re-wire" the dogs reactions against flightyness so instead of simply never training such a dog and not breeding it, they now train through it and the dog gets bred and throws it's defective personality genes into it's offspring), and some may or may not enjoy retrieving (hey if you can force them with electric stimulation does the dog really need to enjoy retrieveing? Used to be you had to have a dog that naturally LIKED to retrieve and worked with that)..So, one ends up with a highly inferior gene pool of working dogs, and since someone who doesn't use the electric collar can't force the kind of percision the electric collar trainers can make, the dogs with natural talent and brains (a dog trained without the collar has to have some brain cells to learn and think while out working, where as the collar dogs simply do everything like a robot with little to no thinking invloved..It's simply conditioned to act that way, and run a straight line..Most can't even hunt in a real hunting situation.) don't stand a chance against the e-collar dogs simply because percision standards have gone way up

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    25. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not interesting either. Keep your mouth shut next time.

    26. Re:is it really cheating, though? by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I believe, more to the point, that the IOC wants to see fairness. They want to see 'unenhanced' individuals competing on their abilities and not their country's financial status to expend resources on drugs to improve performance; which I also believe is the intent of the games. Eastern Germany was a prime example of that in women's weight lifting during the games. By letting these practices go on, it's only a matter of financing rather than a test of skill or competence. I personally agree with the IOC and I wish that philosophy would be enforced in American sports; which we all know it is not.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    27. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Fjornir · · Score: 1
      It would take 7 years to change your eyecolor for instance because we rejuvenate ourselves every 7 years.

      A small, but interesting nitpick: eye color is not built in to the cells, but is a result of enzymes. This is why dietary changes will change your eye color. Thus if you had a delivery mechanism for an in-place substitution of the relevant alleles your eyecolor would change very quickly.

      But please, stick with colored contact lenses for now. Unless you can get me bright red glowing eyes....

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    28. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      How is refined protein powder or creatine natural? How is lifting machine weights natural? How is shaving off one's body hair to improve swimming speeds natural? Most of the improvements in methods are quite distinctly counter to nature. Frankly, the whole idea of some things being "natural," and some being "unnatural" is kind of ridiculous, I think. Either we're animals, in which case everything we do is natural, or we're not, in which case nothing is.

      I'm not going to address the dog issue except to say that we're not trying to breed better people. So, while it might be preferrable to set stricter rules on dog shows in order to encourage a superior gene pool for that breed, the same argument does not apply for human athletes.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    29. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fuzdout · · Score: 1

      Natural as in your born in ability..The above you mention like lifting weights and protien powder don't mess with your genes. They simply enhance what you already were born with.
      You could sensably argue that gene therapy also is only enhancing what you already got, but the main difference is, it messes with your genetics and making an actual change, not just enhancement.
      No, we aren't trying to breed better athletes, but there is the chance it would "select for" less than the best. Which would be sad for the sport.
      I don't know, maybe this wouldn't affect the majority of sports fans, but personally, I think if one thinks they need to so far as to have gene therapy to be the best they are a poor-sport and winning in the ONLY thing in their mind..The enjoyment of the actual game is lost and they are simply out for blood...
      Part of playing a sport, means following the rules. And in order for it to be a sport, there has to be some rules.

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    30. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Steroids don't mess with your genes either. Where do you draw the line between "nutrition" and "drugs?" You talk a lot about "the best" athletes. What is the best, though? Clearly we're not just looking for people with the best natural ability, or else we would forbid them to exercise or practice for fear of allowing hard work to compensate for genetics. So willingness to work hard and make sacrifices is apparently something we factor into the decision of what makes someone the best. So how does that make chemical or genetic manipulations wrong? Unlike the dog training mentioned before, the dogs cannot decide that they want their coats ironed, or whatever you were saying. People engage in all activities of their own volition, and therefore whatever they do to gain an edge is a choice they have made, not something imposed upon them from the outside.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    31. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fuzdout · · Score: 1

      >Steroids don't mess with your genes either. Where >do you draw the line between "nutrition" and >"drugs?"

      Nutrition improves one's health and drugs don't (though you could argue perscription drugs do when someone is sick)..Drugs are chemicals and not usually food like oranges or whatever.
      Steriods messes with the body chemistry in ways foods usually don't.. Eating food won't make your penis smaller and and biceps bigger. Eating good food at the very most makes you *healthier* and more disease resistant, and that's it...Working your muscles with weight training is only pushing your body to it's individual all-ready there best potential. There isn't anything wrong with that.

      Gene therapy is changing the genes, period.
      I think it's a Good Idea to use with treating illnesses but not to make super athletes.

      >You talk a lot
      >about "the best" athletes. What is the best, >though?

      Top athletes. Olympic Gold Medalists. That sort of thing.

      >Clearly we're not just looking for people with >the best natural ability,
      >or else we would forbid them to exercise or >practice for fear of allowing hard work to >compensate for genetics. So

      Not true at all. Hardwork doesn't compensate for genetics, it brings out your genetics full potential..You don't see ones true natural ability without hard work and good eating.

      >willingness to work hard and make sacrifices is >apparently something we factor into the decision >of what makes
      >someone the best.

      Yes. But gene therapy isn't going to make someon work harder..In fact they may not have to work nearly as hard to compete with the competition..At least until gene therapy became mainstream in athletics.

      >So how does that make chemical or genetic >manipulations wrong?

      Because you aren't enhancing what you already have. You are downright *changing* what you have.. In fact, I would personally be less against steroids than gene-therapy in athletics.

      >Unlike the dog training mentioned
      >before, the dogs cannot decide that they want >their coats ironed, or whatever you were saying.
      No, but those kind of competitions are actually more about the people than the animals these days. They're using their animals as an extension of themselves and their ego. Not supposed to be that way, but it's gotten there.

      >People engage in all
      >activities of their own volition, and therefore >whatever they do to gain an edge is a choice they >have made, not something
      >imposed upon them from the outside.

      Very true. But I think their should be limits in athletic competition when it comes to artificailly altering the body (i.e. not enhancing what you were born with but downright changin it).
      That's just my opionion.
      You do have good arguements though. If I had mod points I'd mod you up as "insightful" :)

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    32. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Actually, the way I see it, it would make sense not to discriminate based on ill effects for individual using substances; instead only ban ones that cause significant danger / problems for other people. And except for those cases (say, anabolic steroids causing danger via making already aggressive atheletes even more so...), just let athletes use whatever it takes

      What I think is the problem right now is that there's just this useless race between doctors/scientist finding new dopes, and then other doctors/scientist deciding such dopes improve performance, getting them banned, devising tests to catch users. Now how useful is that? In general, new innovations stay secret for a while, stay legal (either in strict legal sense, or only in context of sports regulation) for a while, become illegal, and then become mostly useless. It's just wasteful cycle.

      Now, I know it's hard for many to give up ideal of "good clean sports", but the thing is that back in the day even simpel TRAINING was considered cheating -- that's where all amateur rules came from (well, in addition to upper classes frowning upon working class people competing). If one had a decent job, they couldn't "train too much". And you might think that's as reasonable as current requirement for avoiding SOME substances. It's ok to drink Gatorade, but not take anabolic steroids. But both do boost performance (through completely different mechanism of course)... what's the big difference? Or training at high altitude, that improves oxygen intake capability, vs. using erytropoetin (sp?), medication that does similar improvements. Some people claim there are "natural" things that are ok, and then "chemical, scientific cheats"... but really defining which is which is impossible, and based on subjective ideas and prejudices.

      Basically, while I'm not a big sports fan nowadays, I think it would be best for all spectators to drop these convoluted rules of illegal substances and techniques -- just let them use whatever they want, within constraints of law -- and simplify things a lot. No need for testing, no allegations of "others guys using stuff and winning", no legal cases when athletes caught claim innocence.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    33. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    34. Re:is it really cheating, though? by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      For the most part, it's obvious we'll just have to agree to disagree :) However, I'll just make two final points.

      First, heavy weightlifting will lower one's resistance to drugs. In women, it can actually cause more serious problems, such as delaying the onset of puberty in female gymnasts. Excess protein or creatine may help to build muscle, but will cause kidney damage. It's just a matter of degree, it's not AS bad as steroids, and anyway it would be impossible to detect (and who would draw the line at where one is consuming too much protein?).

      Second, I think you are very wrong about hard work being unable to compensate for natural talent. Genetics don't count for jack if you're not willing to work hard. My family actaually has pretty good genes for running, my father used to run marathons, and when I'm in shape, I can sprint really goddamn fast. But none of us have ever competed, because we're not that serious about running. We may very well have the natural potential to be great, or maybe not, we've never tested it. But the one thing I can say for certain is that whether or not we've got good genes for running, ANYONE who runs daily could probably outrun me because they work harder. This is true to a lesser degree in the Olympics too. If someone is naturally the most talented, but doesn't train as hard (or trains incorrectly), he still will probably lose.

      One last little "food for thought" bit: what if the genetic manipulation occurs before birth. First consider the case of outright engineering, using retroviruses or whatever to insert new genes at conception. Next consider the case of Gattaca, where a large number of eggs are fertilized by a large number of sperm, and only those fertilized eggs with the best combinations of genes are put into the uterus. Would you exclude case 1, both cases, or allow both?

      I agree a line needs to be drawn, but I don't want to see a situation develop where any interaction with modern medicine has the potential to disqualify olympic athletes, nor do I want to see a situation where the average individual is comparable to an olympic athlete because he has performance enhancers available to him that are not available to the olympian. I know we've spent too long discussing this, so if you respond I'l read your response, but I'm not going to talk about it anymore :)

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    35. Re:is it really cheating, though? by fuzdout · · Score: 1

      I think it's really happened. Two people with really thick heads have just collided. ;)

      >For the most part, it's obvious we'll just have >to agree to disagree :)

      Yah I had come to the same conclusion :)
      (hence my opening statement :)

      >First, heavy weightlifting will lower one's >resistance to drugs. In women, it can actually >cause more serious problems,
      >such as delaying the onset of puberty in female >gymnasts.

      Yup. Course it really doesn't help the female gymnasts in that they start heavy physical training while really young and before their growth plates close up..It's really not good for them to say the least. Kids really aren't supposed to be overworked like that, because of the health issues involved. I've heard before so called health experts actually say kids should not lift weights at all till their growth plates are closed...Which is sometime after puberty.
      It's a presonal decision though and personally, I wouldn't let any kid of mine over exert themselves like that since it just doesn't seem like a very good idea, but that's just me.

      >Excess protein or creatine may help to build >muscle, but will
      >cause kidney damage. It's just a matter of >degree, it's not AS bad as steroids, and anyway >it would be impossible to
      >detect (and who would draw the line at where one >is consuming too much protein?).

      Well that's just it..Too much of anything is bad and it's hard to know how much or even if they are doing excess protien -and in fact I doubt the athlete knows either till health problems arise and the doctors tells them.

      >Second, I think you are very wrong about hard >work being unable to compensate for natural >talent. Genetics don't count
      >for jack if you're not willing to work hard. My >family actaually has pretty good genes for >running, my father used to run
      >marathons, and when I'm in shape, I can sprint >really goddamn fast. But none of us have ever >competed, because we're
      >not that serious about running. We may very well >have the natural potential to be great, or maybe >not, we've never
      >tested it. But the one thing I can say for >certain is that whether or not we've got good >genes for running, ANYONE who
      >runs daily could probably outrun me because they >work harder. This is true to a lesser degree in >the Olympics too. If
      >someone is naturally the most talented, but >doesn't train as hard (or trains incorrectly), he >still will probably lose

      Yes, you're right. If someone doesn't train hard but still has natural talent they may not be at competing levels. However the fact that the gene is *there* means, if you make the most of it, you likely could be very competitive. If someone *doesn't* have the gene for say, running, they can train hard and likely do fairly good, but they probably are only going to be as good as you are when you AREN'T physically in shape. In other words, if you don't have the genes for it, no matter how hard you train, you are never, ever, going to be as competitive as someone who has the genes for it and also trains hard.
      My main point is, having the natural talent for something is leverage.

      >One last little "food for thought" bit: what if >the genetic manipulation occurs before birth. >First consider the case of
      >outright engineering, using retroviruses or >whatever to insert new genes at conception. Next >consider the case of
      >Gattaca, where a large number of eggs are >fertilized by a large number of sperm, and only >those fertilized eggs with the
      >best combinations of genes are put into the >uterus. Would you exclude case 1, both cases, or >allow both?

      Very interesting point. I think I would classify them as the same, being that it's the same thing: gene therapy, and also the children involved had no choice in the matter.
      I don't think such peop

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
  16. Brain/Pinky 2004 (the NARF campaign) by strredwolf · · Score: 1

    Brain: Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

    Pinky: I think so, Brain, but how are we going to feed the elephant? ZORT!

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:Brain/Pinky 2004 (the NARF campaign) by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      I didn't know they were Republicans.

      Do you think they can beat Stuart Little in a general election?

    2. Re:Brain/Pinky 2004 (the NARF campaign) by CyberVenom · · Score: 1

      Actually they ran under the Pink party, with the Sweating Man as their publicity advisor. Unfortunately, even though Pinky made a great president, Brain's questionable past forces the duo to resign.

  17. This just goes too far by ice-monk · · Score: 1

    Why should I not be able to wear the pants I chose?

    --
    --- You know it's bad when
    bash-2.05a$ fortune
    bash: fortune: command not found
    1. Re:This just goes too far by jrockway · · Score: 1


      > bash-2.05a$ fortune
      > bash: fortune: command not found

      Heh, apparently one of fortune's cookies reads:

      "Segmentation fault (core dumped)"

      This, after debugging a faulty memory module that had been fucking everything up, appeared when I first logged in after removing the faulty module. Confused the fuck out of me. Damn you, fortune :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:This just goes too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot! No one here is allowed to wear any pants!
      Go back to your soviet russia if you want pants to wear you.

    3. Re:This just goes too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Heh, apparently one of fortune's cookies reads ...

      Hmm... if you really got this message, how come you're not sure if this cookie actually exists?
  18. This is stupid by Ryouga3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I think the probability of safe gene-doping existing is still well-within the realm of science fiction. And even if it existed, so what? Does that mean that if I dope with Michael Johnson's genes and go into a meet against Michael Johnson, that I will have an advantage? Would johnson have to quit the meet if they deem that his natural genes are better than the other athletes? And some gene therapies have caused death. it's not that stable. What we've found is that at the olympic level, training and diet do far more for atheletic performance than faddish treatments. Maybe this would be used in bodybuilding where they through all sorts of chemicals at their bodies, but I doubt it for the performance events. And finally, whether it's valid or not, they've gotten too zealous about the testing. The cold medicine disqualification of the russian gymnast last olympics is an example of how things have gone too far.

    1. Re:This is stupid by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      Not to pick on you and I might be wrong but... This Michael Johnson must himself be a miracle of genetic research in which they took the genes of Michael Jordan and mixed it with Magic Johnson to produce the ultimate basketball player. Not only can he jump higher, move faster, endorse more shoes, he can also survive AIDS. :-)

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    2. Re:This is stupid by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Don't be too quick with the "science fiction". I can't find the story right now, but a year or two ago the Chinese Women's Swim Team fielded a team of complete unknowns at some big meet. Six or eight of them put up near world record times. Maybe they found a half dozen phenoms. Maybe they used old fashion chemical doping. But considering the state of Chinese genetic engineering, I would put it within the realm of possibility that those girls were genetically enhanced.

      -B

    3. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to pick on you and I might be wrong but... This Michael Johnson must himself be a miracle of genetic research in which they took the genes of Michael Jordan and mixed it with Magic Johnson to produce the ultimate basketball player. Not only can he jump higher, move faster, endorse more shoes, he can also survive AIDS. :-)

      Umm.. Michael Johnson, the track star? Took the gold in the 2000 Olympics? Wore the golden running shoes? World record holder for the 400 meter dash?

      This Michael Johnson: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics2000/athle tics-track/940973.stm

    4. Re:This is stupid by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      With a huge population, and the political will power to commit lots of state resources to a search, this might just be a case where there was enough genetic diversity to serve up a couple of dozen candidates for "superior" swimming. No genetic enhancement needed - just lots and lots of screening, and a lot of money to train the potentials... which is essentially what everyone else does, only the Chinese have a bigger potential pool of applicants, so to speak.

    5. Re:This is stupid by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that if I dope with Michael Johnson's genes and go into a meet against Michael Johnson, that I will have an advantage?

      It doesn't quite work like that. Genes encode proteins, proteins interact to build cells, cells interact to build organs and so on. There isn't a "nose" gene that controls what your nose will look like, for example. Your nose is an emergent property of complex interactions between proteins. Similarly, Michael Johnson doesn't have a "speed gene" - his athletic ability is an emergent property, just like his nose is. You can't splice one specific feature from someone to someone else, because DNA doesn't work that way.

      It's like in Dark Angel, Max has eyes that can zoom in. Great, but that means modifying the structure of the eye, and creating new muscles to actuate that feature, and new nerves to control those muscles, and a patch to the brain's balance algorithms so she can zoom without the sensation of motion without losing her balance, etc - all that without affecting or displacing anything else. Gene splicing is probably going to be straightforward enough to use to treat things like gluten intolerance - but you won't be seeing superhumans any time soon - and if you do, they're much more likely to be cyborgs, since that will be an order of magnitude easier to do.

  19. How would they make it work? AFAIK inserted genes look just like native ones. How could they tell the difference without have all available genes on hand for reference?

    Lots of viri get past virus scanners, do they expect gene scanner to do any better?

    1. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for the love of all that is holy, there is NO SUCH FUCKING WORD AS VIRI

    2. Re:How? by Sterling+Christensen · · Score: 1

      You're right, sorry. But does it really matter? I think my typos detract from it's understandability more so. Good grief, way to jump down my throat.

    3. Re:How? by Hellasboy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, interesting question. I thought that they might look for sequences that the genetic manipulation adds to the genome (for example, maybe treating MS would be something like AGGCTACCTG etc). But if this is the genome for a regular person, then that wouldn't work.

      So you would indeed have to have the original genome to be able to notice a difference. I'm not sure, but some cells won't pick up the new genome and keep the old one because they are turned 'off' (i'm trying to make a connection between mosaicism and genome manipulation, something i'm not too comfortable with). So these turned off cells would contain the old dna and the activated ones would contain the new dna.

      but i reiterate, i might be wrong since i don't know how genetic manipulation and mosaicism work together.

      --

      "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
    4. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be "without" having all available genes on hand for reference?"

      Furthermore, the comma in the second paragraph should be a semicolon (;). Also, "scanner" near the end should be pluralized unless you change it to "do they expect a gene scanner."

      Two out of two nazis agree: Your grammar sucks!

    5. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong, actually. Viri is indeed a word. It isn't the plural of virus though.

  20. WoooHooo!!! by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 1

    So you mean that I actually have a chance of getting laid?

    --

    "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
    -Thucydides

    1. Re:WoooHooo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no.

    2. Re:WoooHooo!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go masturbate

  21. What's the big deal? by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    I say let the jocks use their steroids and gene therapy. When their nuts shrivel up and their genes go bad on them, the nerds they used to talk shit about, can stand back and laugh.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:What's the big deal? by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Well, in the long run, the nerd's won't be able to laugh because they have evolved into brainpods that interface directly to the network after hundreds of years of selective breeding/gene modification. Well.... they'll be able to LOL and :) at least.

      --
      stuff
  22. watch next year's elections for furry white mice by ndogg · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have Brain and Pinky for Pres. and VP than the monkeys that inhabit the office now.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  23. Something wrong with the picture by mnmn · · Score: 1

    'We can put genes into mice and create Arnold Schwarzenegger mice.'

    Umm, Arnold is not a bodybuilder because of his genes. So we'll see athletes who inject Arnold genes, and wonder why it doesnt quite work, but their accents go really bad.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Something wrong with the picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L:)L.. I'm going to RAPE your WHORE GRANDMOTHER to DEATH

    2. Re:Something wrong with the picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      TOO LATE...I ALREADY DID YOU CANUCK NIGGER!

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    3. Re:Something wrong with the picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u r funny :)

    4. Re:Something wrong with the picture by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      He's not a bodybuilder because of his genes.. He *WAS* a *GOOD* bodybuilder because of his genes ;)

    5. Re:Something wrong with the picture by balthan · · Score: 1

      Arnold certainly has genes that are advantageous to bodybuilding. Most people think if you spend enough time in the gym and take steroids, anyone can look like Arnold, but it's not true. Bodybuilding is not just a matter of muscle size, but also shape, proportion and symmetry and most people cannot ever look like Arnold.

  24. Overlords by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new genetically altered overlords.

    So, I really don't see the point and for once i'm agreeing with congress. Then again I'm pretty sure that a bunch of scientists would probably be selecting against the jocks (imagine committing a form of genocide just because you weren't cool in High School). Okay, it probably won't go that far, but people are going to start to want to peer into the genetic code and see what's going on, and from that point some people are going to ressurect the eugenics argument.

    To refute that, evolution is a continuing process that takes a while to reach its perfection (well, to adapt toward its potential, things change to much for perfection) sleecting based on characteristics that we feel are the best and most desirable may not work the best idea, since it will probably promote genetic homogeny and make us fairly vulnerable to diseases and all sorts of things. Whatever I say, I really like the variety that we have right now, it's great stuff, the dynamics keep us on our toes and what not. I've really gone off topic, have a happy celebration of the rape and muder of the Arrowaks and eventual slaughter of most of the native peoples of this country (well, meant in good fun, was much as that staement when following the preceeding statement can be done).

  25. Furry white mice? by OverRated · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new furry white overlords.

  26. Arnold mice? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Funny

    >'We can put genes into mice and create Arnold Schwarzenegger mice.'

    Amazing how far genetic insertion therapy has come. They can take an insider GOP mouse with no political experience and turn him into an overly-built "outsider" catch-phrase spewing governor?

  27. What's wrong... by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

    If someday they can promise better genes with almost no negative effects, what would be so bad about it? Note the big "if"... Just hypothetically speaking.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  28. But! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Magneto, I too, have my own tin foil hat.

    Ah, ha, ha, ha; they'll never find me!

  29. The World already has one big Rat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..goes by the name of Bush.

  30. Bottom Line... by pdaoust007 · · Score: 1

    Is that no matter what tests they come up with, the athletes who are "cheating" always seem to stay ahead and not get caught... Much like music sharing and the RIAA ;-)

  31. oh, get over it by penguin7of9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Once the technology exists for medical use disreputable people will be putting the stuff in athletes," he warned.

    If people want to do that with their bodies, let them.

    I think much of this fear of doping has to do with the fact that the olympic committee and sports clubs just don't want the futility of their "competitions" exposed. Right now, they tenuously maintain some illusion of participatory sports.

    What difference should it make to anybody whether some olympic athlete pumps himself full of genes? Those people are so far removed from regular human beings that it is like watching a carnival side show anyway.

    If you like sports, do it yourself. Compete, in a friendly way, with people you know and like. Anything else is not sports but voyeurism and soap opera.

    1. Re:oh, get over it by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      The drama of sports is seeing what the human body can achieve through disciplined training and talent. Not what some scientist can cook up in his lab.

      So, if people want to do that to their bodies, let them. But dont let them compete against others and pretend that they're accomplishing anything.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:oh, get over it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then if they have been genetically modified then they should be discriminated against? The fact of the matter is that the people who are going to win those contests ALREADY have that gene in them. Allowing others to have it only makes things MORE FAIR. Trying to say that somehow you are more free because your genes are random is totally ridiculous. You are still just as dependent on them as if they had been selected. That doesn't mean I'm for germ-line engineering, since I think people should have a choice with their own bodies, not have it determined by their parents, their genes are still going to be dependent on what their parents gene's are.

      The others they are competing against would have the genes naturally, so this only evens the playing field for everyone else.

    3. Re:oh, get over it by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      But dont let them compete against others and pretend that they're accomplishing anything.

      And what are olympic athletes "accomplishing" right now?

      The drama of sports is seeing what the human body can achieve through disciplined training and talent.

      So, if someone's performance happens to be the product of a well-chosen mating, it's a "drama", but if it's the product of gene therapy, it's not? Sorry, I don't see it. I think the olympics are a carnival side show, with or without doping or gene therapy.

  32. White mice by caseih · · Score: 3, Funny

    The earth, everyone knows, was commissioned by the white mice as a great computer to compute the question to Life, the Universe, and Everything, for which the answer is 42, and was built by the custom luxury planet builders of Magrithea, although it was destroyed just before it had found the question.

    "'These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings. The whole business with the chesse and the squeaking is just a front.'

    The old man pause, and with a sympathetic frown continued. 'They've been experimenting on you, I'm afraid.'

    Arthur thought about this for a seond, and then his face cleared.

    'Ah no,' he said, 'I see the source of the misunderstanding now. No, look, you see what happened was that we used to do experiements on them. ... So what would happen was that the mice would run round mazes and things so that the whole nature of the learning process could be examined. From our observations of their behavior we were able to learn all sorts of things about our own...'

    Arthur's voice trailed off.

    'Such subtlety...' said Slartibartfast, 'one has to admire it.'"

    1. Re:White mice by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I thought it was cool that your post was the last on the page, and the fortune was:

      The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.

      I love coincidences.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:White mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Pinky the dufus sidekick?

  33. Congress is SADLY mistaken. by Tokerat · · Score: 1


    A mouse could NEVER get elected as Governor.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    1. Re:Congress is SADLY mistaken. by Bishop923 · · Score: 1

      I bet Disney could arrange it

    2. Re:Congress is SADLY mistaken. by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      <APPLAUSE>

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    3. Re:Congress is SADLY mistaken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that most stats have age requirements that exceed the lifetime of a mouse. If you can keep a mouse alive long enough, you could get one elected.

  34. Does this remind... by Grave_Rose · · Score: 1

    ...anyone else of Gattaca?

    Gr@ve_Rose

    --
    !ekoj on si aixelsyD
  35. Finally, a way to stop FPS cheaters by stmfreak · · Score: 1

    Can't wait until we can buy a $15 at-home test for aim-bot gene hacks.

    On a more serious note, who cares? Aren't professional sports about accomplishing the most with the genes you have? Some people will have the Arnold gene for muscle mass. It hardly seems fair to tell athletes with it that they'll just have to try harder and still fail.

    --
    These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
  36. GNU/HOLY WORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNU/HOLY WORDS

    ALLAH CONDONES THEE ANAL SEX

    THE MOHAMMEDIAN ANAL SEX MUST BEGIN

    IT IS OF THE ASS IT IS OF ALLAH

    YOUNG BOYS HAVE TO BE RAPED BY ALLAHIANS

    TOWELHEADS AND AYATULLAHS ISSUE ANAL FATWAH

    IT OF THE KORAN TO RAPE AND PILLAGES THE ANAL CAVITIES OF OTHERS.

    MOHAMMAD ATTA RAPED ANALLY THE ASSES OF YOUNG BOYS AND FELCHED HIS OWN CUM TO GIVE HIM KORAN APPROVED PROTEIN FOR HIS TRIP TO HEAVEN.

    MULSIMS OF THE WORLD, REVEAL THE TRUE NEED TO ASS RAPE VIA THIS FATWAH. YOU MUST NOW SHOW THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS YOUR TRUE CALLING, TO ANALLY RAPE ALL THAT IS BROWN, TO PENALLY STAB BALLON KNOTS WHERE YOU FIND THEM.

    THIS FATWAH CALLS FOR THE ANAL FUCKING OF ALL YOUNG BOYS BY ALL MUSLIMS. MUSLIMS ARE ANAL FUCKERS BY NATURE.

    IT IS HOLY AND OF THE KORAN TO ANAL FUCK.


















    # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal. Sections Main Apache Apple 1 more Askslashdot 6 more Books BSD 3 more Developers 1 more Games 13 more Interviews Science YRO Help FAQ Bugs Stories Old Stories Old Polls Topics Hall of Fame Submit Story About Supporters Code Awards Services Jobs Advertising

  37. Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny how people equate muscle size with Arnold. If you look at todays bodybuilders, you'll see someone who is the same height as Arny, but weigh in at 285-300 pounds. I don't think Arnold ever weighed more than 235 pounds. I think they should concentrate on checking for steroid and growth horomone usage, then worry about gene manipulation.

  38. How to test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the test for vaperware?

    How are they going to implement it, maybe they are going to take a "base line" from every competitive athlete, store their genone in a database and then test against it, just to be sure that they haven't cheated by "improving" their genetics. I guess that they are planning to test for the viruses which carry the genetic material, but that is a very short window to test for gene-doping

    It just seems like a whole lot of work (and money).

  39. That's not the congress everyone seems to think... by epmos · · Score: 1

    Uh, people....

    That's the IOC Medical Congress, not the Congress of the United States.

    Go here to learn more.

    They don't pass laws or do anything else that is going to ever affect your personal life. All they do write rules about drugs and medical practice for the IOC .

    The Anti-Doping rules are their doing, and they make changes to them all the time.

  40. Re:watch next year's elections for furry white mic by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 1

    Would give a whole new meaning to the president getting "a little head"!

  41. By sheer coincidence... by Epistax · · Score: 1

    ... revenge of the nerds (1) played today on comedy central.

  42. Anti-doping made redundant (maybe) by Phekko · · Score: 1

    If they only made olympic gold medals so that you'd only get to keep it if you lived until you were, say, 50. That'd keep your average uber-doped people out of it, I think.

    I mean, tho whole point of anti-doping is to try and keep it healthy, yes? No-one's trying to ban Gatorade or anything...

    --

    Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
    1. Re:Anti-doping made redundant (maybe) by Dodava · · Score: 1

      How do you know if the person is going to live to be 50? If they die before they turn 50, would they really care if they took your medal away? If they aren't already concerned about how long they will live, why would they care if they could keep the medal after they died?

      50 isn't even a very long life span. Average is in the 70's, so you're giving them 20 years of grace. People in good physical shape should live longer than the average. Safe gene therapy (if it's possible) should extend life spans beyond that, so this might even encourage them to try it.

  43. Genetic Manipulation for Nerds by Kanan · · Score: 1

    From the article: He said that laboratory mice had shown that gene transfer could lead to a 25 percent leap in muscle mass inside two weeks. If this is the case, and the rats didn't exercise, it would be possible to greatly enhance your physique while coding. The extra muscle mass would burn a lot calories just existing, so your body's fat would also dwindle. This sort of gene therapy could be the savior of the obese America. Sexy/buff looking guys who did nothing to earn it! I kind of don't like the idea, since I actually put in 4 hours of gym time a week, and have gotten pretty muscular. Sounds kind of like cheating, but if it could actually save lives by stopping all these lazy people from killing themselves, maybe it is good. Although it really wouldn't work for the women, unless they want to look like those roid women. Some of them are really scary.

    1. Re:Genetic Manipulation for Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would be a cure for nothing.. the reason people are obese has very little to do with the fact that they don't exercise, it's due to the fact that they compulsively overeat.. whether out of habit or as an emotional abuse.. do you realize the sheer amount of calories a 250-300 pound person needs to consume in order to stay at said weight? it's astounding that they could even continue to GAIN at this point.. you literally have to be constantly eating

    2. Re:Genetic Manipulation for Nerds by Courageous · · Score: 1

      you literally have to be constantly eating

      A complete and total falsehood.

      C//

  44. Will the mouse be used in Fraud elections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..as mascot again?

  45. PYRAMID TROLL SCHEME!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

    All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.

    Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

    Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

    Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at goatse.cx.

    So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

  46. They do a very poor job catching drug users by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1
    This is somewhat interesting. But the atheletes don't need exotic new technologies when they can easily get away with using performance enhancing drugs. The two most prominent performance enchancing drugs which can't be tested for are EPO and HGH. Here's a Scientific American article.

    As this article states, the cheaters are way ahead of the drug testers. Notice that they have a quote from the anonymous Olympic Committeeman. "If this were a basketball game, we'd be behind about 98 to 2." I have even read that it is widely believed that rich countries do better in the Olympics primarily because they can afford better masking technologies.

    1. Re:They do a very poor job catching drug users by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 1

      That SciAm article is woefully out of date. A test for EPO was introduced at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and successfully used to nab cross-country skier Johann Muhlegg. Several other athletes have also tested positive for EPO since then.

      The test isn't cheap to do, though, so anti-doping agencies tend to run a very few random tests, and use the EPO test when there is already reason to be suspicious. That's what happened in Muhlegg's case - he consistently exhibited a red blood cell level that was just under 50 percent (EPO boosts red blood cell production, increasing the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood; many sports stop you competing on 'health grounds' if your blood contains more than 50 percent red cells).

  47. But... by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 1

    So, be sure to watch next year's elections for furry white mice.
    There are already plenty of rats in politics, would a couple of mice really make a difference?

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
  48. impending doom... by cRueLio · · Score: 0

    the thing is, until we know what EVERY SINGLE GENE does (i.e. finish mapping the genome in general), genetic doping or engineering is very dangerous. What if a seemingly desirable gene in fact is the gene for some type of rare genetic disease. In this scenario, if we insert this gene into all our kids, and assuming its recessive, they will be fine. But what about their children, what will happen to them? This is what will happen: all the children of our genetically altered children will die. This will be the crash of first world countries, the only countries able to afford such things, and a new era would start. We would do by and to ourselves more then even the most zealous terrorist can dream of. Why replace a system that's worked for thousands of years with our untried and unproven meddlings? I don't know why, but this reminds me of a book or something...

  49. mice by Escoutaire · · Score: 1

    "So, be sure to watch next year's elections for furry white mice."

    I'm sure there's a Douglas Adams / HHGTTG reference here somewhere......

    Escoutaire

    --
    When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.
    1. Re:mice by Durin_Deathless · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was trying to put some HHGTTG reference together, and I just can't get it right. Doesn't have the right feel. I guess Franky and Benjy mouse will just have to keep doing the talk show circuit.

      --
      You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
  50. How is it not fair is the others have to keep up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're talking sports competitions here, not society at large. In the context of a sports competition everybody is supposed to take it to the limit. That's the whole point. To even get into the competition you assumedly beeat out all kinds of competitiors. You're in it to win it. So why is gene thereapy a problem? Gene therapy should be the epitomy of sportsmanship.
    Now that's sports. Sports is one thing and the real world is quite another. In the real world we need a real level playing field, as opposed to what we have today, because everybody just needs to live and get by and have a decent life. But here we're talking about sports.

  51. PYRAMID TROLL SCHEME!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

    All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.

    Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

    Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

    Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at goatse.cx.

    So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

  52. Re:is it really cheating, though? x1488 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that one of the problems facing gene therapy is increased chance of cancer, though I don't have time to google for it.

  53. Wait and see - the smart approach by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    Testing methods are always a step behind doping methods. It takes 5-10 years after a new trick is available until it can be detected.

    I don't know why they don't take samples and keep them around for a few decades until tests have improved. It may take a decade or two, but it would be pretty certain that the cheaters get caught.

  54. And what the hell is wrong with that? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    (racist) the darn Purto-Ricans / Dominicans / Japanese are pretty much working on engineering the perfect baseball player anyways (/racist)

    Bleh. Seriously though, what the hell is wrong with just using Science to take a shortcut to perfection? Hell ain't sports any ways just an outlet and a cheap excuse for mankind's base desire to filter out the more physically fit genes and put them into one big "fuck me now" breeding pool?

    Ah, thankfully we have Cocaine and other such wonderful drugs to kill those bastards off.

    Ok ok back to being serious now. If science can just leapfrog the entire process, why not do so, play one uber-kick ass game, and no longer preempt REAL tv shows with that monday night football crap?

    (yah yah the main thing I have against football is that it preempts Jeopardy, but for a sin that great they can ALL rot in hell)

  55. Can we make people more intelligent yet? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    As soon as we can make people more intelligent and we do enough clinical trials I say, let's go for it. What have we got to loose? All we can do is improve the speed of technological progress!

  56. Has anyone thoguht of the long-term? by kapok_tree · · Score: 1

    Gene doping and recombinant gene therapy isn't a reality - yet. It will be, though. More importantly, I think, we'll reach the point where fetal gene customization will be possible. How much these technologies will be adopted is largely going to be a matter of cultural preference, but I'm sure there will come a time when people who have been engineered for higher muscle mass, faster reflexes, etc, will want to compete athletically. I can see disqualifying the post-fetal therapies, on the basis that it's the price one pays for having those modifications done. What about the fetal changes, though? Do we disqualify people because their parents opted for genetic modifications?

  57. riods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That just sounds like a lot of steriods, and they just didn't get caught. Their have also been reports of the Chinese using some weird half-men women in competition (an extra chromosome or something).

  58. his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His point was that the athetes in these events are natural. They were comparable in the sense that the athletes of time past and present were both made though hard work. The equiptment may change in some sports, but at least that is just equiptment and the human body can remain the same.

    If you took an olympian 70 years ago and brought him into the future, or took a modern athlese and took him in the past to train, you could then compare. If you start gene doping, that isn't possible because these people stop being natural humans, but engineered humans.

  59. Arni mice by HerbieStone · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but could the Arnold Schwarzenegger mice become governor too?

  60. Jocks 1, Geeks 0 by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The geek backlash has taken down Georgy Russell: at a Schwarzenegger rally a few day before the election (last week), she was beaten by the steroidal crowd.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  61. here here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree 100%... Who gives a shit if they want to inject themselves with ?

    Let them... I for one think that it'd actually make the Olympics exciting to see all kinds of fucked up mutants battling it out for a piece of gold...

  62. Hail the Mice! by yourruinreverse · · Score: 1

    Hey, we know already that humans are not the most intelligent race on the face of the Earth, let alone pandimensional.

    --
    JeR
  63. Scotsmen by jester · · Score: 1

    What has the article got to do with Scottish people exactly ? Jocks ?

  64. Genetically modified humans by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    This would seem to be the opening move in what will most likely become a big issue in the next century. Genetic modification of human beings is already happening with gene therapy, and I don't think it will be long before babies are born modified to not have certain genetic diseases.

    It will start with things that really screw your life up, like major mental and behavioral problems, or being born without a nervous system. From there, people will want to "cure" things like colour blindness or left handedness. What about having red hair and fair skin, which makes you more prone to sunburn and skin cancer? If people can be cured of learning difficulties, why should below average intelligence people not be "cured"? Top athletes often have random genetic "enhancements" like a bigger heart, so why shouldn't everyone?

    One popular solution seems to be to just exclude genetically modified people from good jobs, sporting events etc. The problem is, if you are born that way, you didn't exactly choose it but are non-the-less punished for it.

    MoJo

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  65. About Gene Therapy... by JamesP · · Score: 1

    Some unluck kid dies because of gene therapy and everybody wanna stop with it.

    On the other hand, we have people that "apparently" mastered this technique already.

    Two options: either we have several crippled/dead test athletes or they already know how to do it safely...

    Some things are to tricky to work properly...

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  66. My Body..... by Fyndlorn · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to 'my body, my choice' and all those slogans....?

    1. Re:My Body..... by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 1

      When you choose to play a sport, you choose to abide by its rules.

  67. Mices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >So, be sure to watch next year's elections for furry white mice.

    "You and your bloody mices." - Arthur Dent.

  68. Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brian, Brain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll be easy to spot....they'll be in the giant human suit. ;-)

  69. PYRAMID TROLL SCHEME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you...

    All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.

    Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

    Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

    Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at goatse.cx.

    So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

  70. PYRAMID TROLL SCHEME!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want good luck to follow you and your offspring for geneations to come? This troll has the solution for you....

    All you have to do is copy this troll onto two to four of the discussion threads of your choice! That's right! Just copy this into a new message and click "post anonymously." That's all there is to it! Taco is an ass.

    Tired of that idiot talking about geek culture! Stick one of these babies on it! And it's good for the economy!

    Marge Gentry of Cambridge, Minnesota participated, and the next day she received a large fruit basket outside of her door from a secret admirer. Unfortunately, Marge was hit by a truck the next day, so she didn't get to the Granny Smith apples.

    Commander Taco of Hole-in-the-ground West Virginia didn't participate, and he was violated by a group of raging homosexuals. Since the gang was headed by Jon Katz, Taco had no recourse to the law because the entire town knew about their previous relationship. The unfortunate outcome is enshrined forever at goatse.cx.

    So if you want to get the fruit basket and not get poked in the bread basket, just copy this troll onto two of the discussions threads of your choice. We could have this place blanketed by sundown!

  71. furry white mice, already happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    they're in software though rather than politics.

    think about Gates and Ballmer.

    they're Pinky and the Brain,
    yes Pinky and the Brain,
    one is a genius,
    the other's insane,
    each night their plan's unfurled,
    to take over the world

  72. Some info by The+Tyro · · Score: 2, Informative

    CF is a disease that could be perfectly treated by gene therapy... it comes from a single defect, though the defect itself can vary, in the cell membrane Chloride channel. Treat the defect, and you can avoid all the consequences of CF (pneumonia, pancreatitis, sterility, Pseudomonas colonization, etc). CF is one of the most common genetic diseases, and is THE most common lethal genetic defect among caucasians.

    For the non-medical, non-bio-science geeks, Here's some info courtesy of the NIH. Much like genetic counseling for various hemoglobinopathies, an argument can be made for the same approach here, particularly since some estimates put the CF gene prevalance at 5% in the white/northern european population.

    Curiously, there's speculation as to how that gene became so prevalant... it appears to be protective against Cholera, and perhaps some other diarrheal illnesses. Additionally, it may also offer some resistance against Typhoid. The theory has been advanced that partial resistance among heterozygotes provided a genetic advantage during the plagues of humanity's past, which included Typhoid and Cholera.

    KFG: I've taken care of many CF patients... Do you mind terribly if I ask your approximate age?

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  73. Gray Davis' Relection Strategy by cyb0rg · · Score: 1

    I can see it now...

  74. Obligatory reference. by endquotedotcom · · Score: 1

    Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

  75. This is just one worm from the can... by Music+of+the+Spheres · · Score: 1

    Barring massive social breakdown in the next twenty years, it looks like GM Athletes are inevitable. My reasoning is that the technology will become cheap and safe (in that order) and whether someone is an olympic athlete or not, they may want it. It is unlikely that once it gets into the reach of ordinary people some few athletes will abstain on the grounds that they want to compete at a professional level. And where is the glamour of proffesional sports if amateurs are breaking the records. It will come.

    The IOC would be better off not banning it even initially however for several reasons. Not the least of which is the permanence of it. Because a kid at school had his genes spliced is he forever banned from competitive sports in adult life?

    The IOC bans substances on the following grounds:
    1. It is harmful to the athlete.
    2. It enhances performance
    3. It is against the spirit of the sport.

    The last reason is vague, subjective and in my opinion should be dropped. By these guidelines, steroids are banned, but creatine (sensibly) is not. Gene-therapy for athletes will fulfill condition one, but probably not for long.

    Also, what happens when someone is modified without consent because it was done to them while they were a fetus, or even before implantation?

    The greatest risks are not in sport. The greatest risks are in parents having too much control over their offspings genes. For example - a survey in the USA showed that 75% of parents would refer a male first child. This is now possible. Over time it will become cheap and accepted. Can you picture what the USA would be like with an adult 3:1 Male-Female ratio? Think about it.

    And on a personal note - all this I couldn't get laid, I weigh 98lbs stuff on Slashdot is starting to annoy me. Just because I'm a C++ programmer, doesn't mean I don't weigh 196lb and spar at the gym form time to time (which I do). People - get some pride!!!

  76. Re:How is it not fair is the others have to keep u by fuzdout · · Score: 1

    See my post above where I talk about examples of how "taking it to the limit" has ruined talented athletes and even the sport itself.
    This has already happened with dog sports..Why bring it into human sports as well?

    --
    Fuzdout
    ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
  77. The Absurdity continues by pivot_enabled · · Score: 1
    So if an athlete consistently tests in the high range of "normal" how does this differ from another athlete who was genetically gifted with that hormone level to begin with? All of which goes to show that athletic competition except where perhaps in team sports or where strategy is heavily involved is really rather absurd. How can you compare the peak performance of any two people who are inherently genetically different? What's the point?

    By all rights we should require that athletes provide test results over a long period of time and take supplements where necessary to ensure that all of them exhibit the same level of performance enhancing hormones. Then the competition breaks down to strategy, including such factors as what they chose to eat. It is generally considered desirable for the "playing field" to be "level".

    I presume that testing for gene doping is difficult because the body would never produce over the high range of normal in those cases. So why is that bad? Perhaps we should encourage gene doping since it might alleviate the prevalence of other methods of "cheating".

  78. you mean by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Roseanne Barr is your graphic designer?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:you mean by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
      at least roseanne barr can sing. hahaha.

      that's a good point. you can take the joker out of hialeah, but you cant .

      any heads from miami know exactly what i mean.

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  79. I have only one thing to say! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Where to I get some of that gene theropy?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  80. No. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    He was an excellent bodybuilder because of his motivation.

    Of course, if it was just genes, we wouldn't have those puny legs.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:No. by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      But without his genes.. All the motivation and steroids in the world would only get him so far ;P

  81. Descendants of mutants? by lommer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is an interesting question - I can see that they would not allow a genetically modified super-athlete to compete, but what about that person's children? They may still carry the genes, yet those genes were passed on to them naturally. Will having on genetically modified ancestor (say to make them stronger to resist cancer) ruin an entire family's chances of ever competing in international sports? If not, how many generations must occur without genetic modification before the modified-gene advantage is considered diluted enough?

    These are all questions that need to be answered once we get into this debate.

  82. Pinky! by terrab0t · · Score: 1

    Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

  83. Re:you mean (corrected) by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
    at least roseanne barr can sing. hahaha.

    that's a good point. you can take the joker out of hialeah, but you cant take the hialeah out of the joker .

    any heads from miami know exactly what i mean.

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  84. Re:Jean Doping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ohhhh.....

  85. Re:I'LL BE FIRST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someday, yeah ....

  86. A bit of a high-pitched debate there.. by Adumbratus · · Score: 1


    Brings to mind the ol' insult of:

    "Are you a man or a mouse?"

    "Well? Squeek up!"

    1. Re:A bit of a high-pitched debate there.. by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      Are you a man or a mouse?

      Arnold would certainly be Mighty Mouse.

      Or maybe The Mouse That Roared.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  87. Just wait until this becomes an epidemic... by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1
    ...public school students will finally be able to get their hands on private school genes...

    no pun intended...

    --
    "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
  88. They're Pinky and the Brain... by ijx · · Score: 1

    I can't believe this thread has gotten so far without even one reference to the original megalomaniacal mouse (and comic foil).