Slashdot Mirror
Gene Doping: Genetically Engineered Athletes
securitas writes "With the Athens 2004 Summer Olympics about to begin, games officials are on the lookout for the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes who want to gain an edge over their competitors. Scientific American's H. Lee Sweeney reports on sports officials who are looking to the near future with fear, anticipating a new, undetectable kind of doping that threatens to transform the fundamental nature of sports: gene doping (single-page view). The technology uses new 'therapies that give patients a synthetic gene, which can last for years, producing high amounts of naturally occurring muscle-building chemicals. The chemicals are indistinguishable from their natural counterparts and are only generated locally in the muscle tissue .... so officials will have nothing to detect in a blood or urine test.'
The article from the July 2004 issue includes diagrams by Jen Christiansen on the importance of skeletal muscles that provide athletes' power and how gene doping works.
Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?"
Where do I sign up?
..undetectable, just like EPO was back in the day.
I was speaking with a friend the other day about doping and the olympics. We started talking about the effect cybernectics and genetic engineering will have to the future of the olympics and all sports for that example. Eventually, when cybernectics are more common and people starting embedding electronics in themselves, what will we do? Will we restrict games to only people who haven't had their genes tampered with and those who are chip-free. Or will we just get tired of watching normal sports because Unreal Tournament has become a live person event?
...olympic games, which was pretty much anything goes and to the winner go the spoils.....
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
That would explain those CS dominating Swedes.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I wonder how long until suppression of the myostatin protein becomes a viable way to increase olympic potential. If they made drugs that did this, could they even stop people who took them, cause they could clame that they had a mutation and it was natural?
Boxing Equipment Reviews
the games have allready begun. Check your timetable.
if you're reporting something, at least get the time right...
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
I, for one, welcome our new geneticly altered super athletes.
trying for my first +5 funny
If only there was a +1, Pity...
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Could the same "gene-doping" be used to combat muscular dystrophy? Sounds like this may have more than one use. Like steroids.
Do not touch -Willie
Ha! Wait 'til the start doping soldiers, cops and politicians.
I think it would be a great benefit for society, because then the legalized genetic enhancements would become a highly lucrative legimate business that does controlled experiments only on willing participants. What better way of advancing biotech, growth hormone therepies, genetic engineering techniques than funding it with huge sports franchises and only using them on people who want to be using them.
Could turn into some X-men plot with try to weed out the mutants...
"This explains all of
Although given the comments in the "Total Cost of 0wnership" thread, that was apparently a package deal with the gullibility gene. ;-)
It's things like this that makes the whole notion of "natural" competition absurd. If what are essentially changes to the genes can result in an unfair advantage, then you have already been penalizing people who don't have these genes, and rewarding people who do.
Ideally, olympics should be about who has the most perseverance, dedication, and talent. But this exposes the olympics as essentially rewarding people for having the right genes. Why don't we just examine the genes aka Gattaca and declare the winner beforehand? I realize that reaching a competitive level takes quite a bit of effort, but if genes turn out to be the determining factor, we may as well be just testing DNA.
Somehow, the first thing that comes to my mind is how the gene modding could be used to create ultra-mega-super-models. mmmmmmmmmm, ultra-mega-super-models I suppose the athletes will have to just be honest then. No more "vitamines and nutritional supplaments".
A whole other class of improve your [insert attribute here] spam on the way!
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Yes but this was before the age where eating drugs till your heart is the size of your head was possible.
So what are performance enhancing drugs if not an extension of this? If an athlete drinks isotonic energy drinks to help them train, why not let them take a chemical to allow them to go that little bit further whilst in action? Is there a difference? Only in the modern fascist paradigm in which drugs are somehow dirty and bad, rather than tools which we use to alter our minds and bodies.
The anti-drug stance of the IOC and other bodies is pure fascism, and doomed to failure. As long as there is competition people will take performance enhancing drugs.
That's not irony that's imperialism.
GattIca ? I is not a nucleotide. yet
...
also
Don't rely on works of art to try and prove a point.
Hey, at least I'm honest about it :)
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
I doubt that gene doping does a good job of inserting exactly one copy of the foreign gene in all cells of an athletes' body. Doing a genetic tests of a sample of cells and discovering that only x% (where X is not near 0% or near 100%) would show that the athlete is a chimera. A bit more study would then prove that the individual is not a naturally occurring in utero chimera, and thus must be an artificially created one. And if the tests show multiple copies of the gene in some cells, then that cinches the finding of being a GMA (genetically modified athlete). The only issue is cost, which might be a bit steep at first.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Case mods, gene mods,... it is just how we express ourselves. Just remember that the rogue athlete looking for the cutting edge is usually following way behind a government trying to make better soldiers (or they should be...) I can't wait until we can reengineer adult genes, but I gues that would only go to the rich... Damn, conspiracies suck!
Even now, before this kind of thing is readily available, people pass blood tests and yet get derided as using something that allows to succeed. Lance Armstrong is the classic example - here's a guy who's an amazing athlete, and who has been able to stay on top of his game for longer than anyone else. Makes sense that he would be using drugs, right? Well, he's passed every test he's taken.
In my opinion, he's clean, and is being unfairly accused. But in the future, in 20 years, will there be another Lance Armstrong who refuses to take performance enhancing drugs but yet surpasses all of his or her opponents? What will happen to him or her if s/he is accused of gene therapy? What will happen to the incredibly successful athletes who also happen to be honest?
Jus how does taking a normal drug itself increase in better performance for the sportsman??
I mean how do drugs work?
does that make their muscles move faster,and there fore they win.?
And especially in games other than athletics and swimming, how does it actually help?
there seems to be drugs for every game!!
~~~~~~~~
Why does yahoo do this
Greed is a powerful thing. This sort of thing has been going on for years and it will always continue to go on.
At least with the Communist (German and Chinese) swimmers that were doping in the 80s and 90s everyone knew they were cheating and it was just accepted that eventually they would be caught.
Sadly, at times, the athletes themselves didn't know they were being fed something other than vitamins. Let's just hope that the athletes that are doing gene doping know that they should be ashamed of their actions.
Look at the movie Gattica
I think you mean Gattaca. I wonder how many people think that's just a weird title that has nothing to do with the story...?
...look like a statistical blip. Once prospective parents can replace defective genes and "improve" existing ones, we'll have medical ethicists and philosophers agonizing over what it means to be human -- to no avail, since the revolution will sweep them aside before they can come to a conclusion.
Forget the atomic bomb -- if a totalitarian country like North Korea starts fiddling with the genome, the rest of the world will have to follow suit or risk being turned into an irrelevancy. In one hundred years, we'll look on unaltered humans the same way we view the Amish or Bush people today.
/ not saying it's good or bad, it just is.
I think they should have a modified class olympics where you can do anything you want to enhance the human body - drugs, gene manipulation, steriods, you name it is legal. You could call it the X Olympics.
One problem I could see is that the women sports categories would populated with some very ugly hairy looking women.
Why not just add this stuff to water supply?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Strangely, the 2 replies that others have posted in regards to my attempt are outscoring me. This whole "no longer an AC" thing isn't all it was cracked up to be.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
There was a story published in Omni magazine in '79 called 'The Mickey Mouse Olympics' by Thomas Sullivan. The Soviet and USA Olympic teams consisted of genetically engineered freaks that the respective teams tried to sneak past the judges. There was a swimmer with a blowhole who didn't have to lift his head out of the water to breathe, a wrestler with alligator skin ('just a really bad case of eczema'), etc.
Its having the right genes and having the drive and dedication to use them.
How many kids on the playground today have the potential genes to become another Michael Jordan, but lack the desire and drive to get there.
I wonder if they can do the same for IQ or concentration? This would be handy for the chess competitors... And for me... I could complete my world domination scheme... hmmmm...
KHHHAAAAAANNNNNNN!
"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority." - Dr. Who
In the opening credits, don't they show how the name GATTACA was derived? Flashing G's, C's, A's, and T's?
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
[Intelligence] was apparently a package deal with the gullibility gene
What? I didn't sign any sort of package deal! I didn't sign any sort of deal at all! I demand to see who has been making deals behind my back, especally about my genous IQ!
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Wake up. As our technology advances, life is going to change, sometimes in increments that are uncomfortable to bear. Debates of morality and ethics will constantly shift and evolve. And guess what -- none of this is a "threat."
I'd say it'd be more appropriate to say Unreal Tournament would become a "dead" person event... CAUSE I'D WASTE ALL THE MUTHA--***NO CARRIER
Why not quote your way to +5 funny?
... Oh! He pulled his arms off! He's pulled his arms off! That's gotta be disappointing to the big Russian!"
/.l drug.avi
"Getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmudov of the Soviet Union. His trainer has told me that he's taken anabolic steroids, Novocaine, Nyquil, Darvon and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had several cocktails within the last hour or so. All of this is, of course, perfectly legal at the All-Drug Olympics, in fact it's encouraged. Akmudov is going for a clean and jerk of over 1,500 pounds, which would triple the existing world record. That's an awful lot of weight and here he goes
This will take about 2 seconds to
http://www.rollingviolation.com/video/funstuff/al
Although the ancient Olympic games were first recorded in 776 BC, they originated at least a century before that and possibly as early as the 13th century BC.
One Greek legend said that the great Herakles (Hercules, in the Roman form) won a race at Olympia, a plain in the small state of Elis, and then decreed that the race should be re-enacted every four years. Another said that Zeus himself had originated the festival after defeating Cronus for the sovereignty of heaven.
The more likely story is that the Olympic festival was a local religious event until 884 BC, when Iphitus, the king of Elis, decided to turn it into a broader, pan-Hellenic festival. To accomplish that, he entered into a temporary truce with other rulers, allowing athletes and others to travel peacefully to Olympia while the festival was going on.
The Greeks based their chronology on four-year periods called Olympiads, and the Olympic festival marked the beginning of each Olympiad. Evidently, the festival was reorganized in 776 BC, which was considered the start of the first Olympiad.
Ruins of the Olympic Paleastra
The festival was basically a religious gathering to celebrate the gods worshipped in common by all Hellenes, primarily Zeus. There were three other major pan-Hellenic festivals, the Pythian, the Nemean, and the Isthmian, all of which included fairs, but the festival at Olympia became pre-eminent by 572 BC, when Elis and Sparta entered into an alliance under which Elis was in charge of the event itself while Sparta enforced the sacred truce.
A single foot race was the only athletic event until the fifteenth Olympiad. The race was the length of the stadium, approximately 200 yards. As time went on, the games associated with the festival expanded and became increasingly important. A race of two stadium lengths was added in 724 and a long-distance race of 24 stadium lengths (about 2.5 miles) was added in 720.
Other types of sports followed quickly: Wrestling and the pentathlon in 708, boxing in 688, chariot racing in 680, and the pancratium, a combination of boxing and wrestling, in 748. At one time or another, there were 23 Olympic sports events, although they were never all held at the same festival.
A branch of wild olive was the only official prize for an Olympic winner, but there were also usually some unofficial prizes awarded by his city-state. For example, Athens allowed an Olympic champion to live free of charge in the Pyrtaneum, a special hall set aside for distinguished citizens. Other city-states exempted winners from taxes for an Olympiad, and in some cases citizens contributed to a cash award.
Athletes had to arrive in Elis a month before the games to undergo spiritual, moral, and physical training under the supervision of the judges, who then decided which of them were genuinely qualified to compete. Each competitor had to swear an oath that he was a free-born Greek who had committed no sacrilege against the gods.
At first, the games took up only one day of the festival. That was extended to two days in 680, with the addition of chariot racing, and to five days in 632. However, only three of those days were actually devoted to competition. The first day was devoted to religious sacrifices, the registration of athletes, and the taking of the Olympic oath. Prizes were awarded and thanksgiving sacrifices were offered on the fifth day.
Athletes usually competed nude. They originally wore shorts but, according to one ancient writer, Pausanias, a competitor deliberately lost his shorts so that he could run more freely during the race in 720 BC, and clothing was then abolished.
Women were not allowed to watch the games, but that had nothing to do with the nudity of the male athletes. Rather, it was because Olympia was dedicated to Zeus and was therefore a sacred area for men. The chariot races, which were held outside the sacred precinct, were open to women spectators. (Women had their own sacred festivals from which men were banned, most notabl
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Does Monsanto has the right to demand a kind of (IP) license from IAAF or the athlets?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
You know, I was interested in this when I read the blurb. Still am. But I can't help being put off when the first thing that I check out, this page from SciAm, starts out with the following sentence:
"Skeletal muscle accounts for more than a third of an average healthy 30-year-old's body mass, but its cells are unlike most human tissues."
Think about that. Thirty five percent of your body is unlike the other sixty five percent. I'd hazard a guess that that would be a true statement for almost any given discrete subset of your body. Its not like its saying that a few small cells (1%) responsible for your conditioning and are unlike the rest of your body. Your muscles are useful, yes, but hardly unique.
Ah, but you have to fill inches...
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
If it were safe and avalible, why not get it done? How much healthier would we all be if we were given extra lean muscle, improved joints, stronger bones? And I mean normal people, not just those with disease.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Genetic musclular/coordination potential, as determined by ones genetic composition, is only one part of what makes a champion. The other factors, training, coaching and drilling on technique, mental toughness (How nutured/mentored), opportunity and desire also contribute. Some of these are totaly random but all contribute to the outcome. Fail to have anyone of them, and even if you have a superior gene map, you won't win.
I for one welcome our new genetically enhanced lazy beer drinking game playing Overlords.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Honestly, I don't. EVERY sport has had athletes doing some "underhanded" thing to gain competitive advantage. This is no different than taking amphetamines in the 50's. As long as someone can come in first, people will cheat. Test them all you want, but it won't EVER change, so instead just open it up. Take what you want, use whatever technique you like, and may the best (altered) man win.
And for all of you who claim to care about the welfare of atheletes, shut up. They're allowed to make up their own mind (or should be.) The very playing of many sports (football) is a severe hazard to health. No one is suggesting we outlaw sports.
Published in Time Magazine, I recieved this issue today. Where has our originality gone?
You could have just linked to the Time story, it's very extensive.
Why should they be ashamed? It's their bodies. It's not like I have any money riding on the outcome. It's not like being a gold medal calibre athlete is generally "healthy" in the "well-rounded live to 97 with all your joints intact" sense of the word.
Actually, I'm playing devil's advocate here, since I do think there is a loss of purity to the games, but I thought that ever since the "Dream Team" jumped in the game and started beating up on the true amatures. I guess I'm just a little fed up with the media frenzy (currently drugs but gene therapy is just around the corner) with the assumtion that it is WRONG without anyone asked to defend their position.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
"Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?"
Isn't the present and past of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes???
I mean why is genetic engineering though evolution better then consciouse design??
stendec@gmail.com
If you can't detect it, it should be legal.
Caveat; If you die of 'natural' causes within 5 years after winning the games, ya gotta give the gold back. Fair? Fair!
Like lots of people on this board, I think the whole idea of 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' competition is a little odd. Why is someone who 'naturally' produces more testosterone more ethical than someone who injects it? Shoud certain hormones be restricted to a normal range? Or do we just say 'its gotta be organic.'
Probably at the heart of all this is the question "what's the Olympics about, exactly?"
Doing as well as you can? Testing the limits of human endurance? Then allow modifications.
Overcoming disability? Lets penalize those folks with fewer disabilites, then!
The problem with technology is that it blurs natural boundaries and makes us ask silly philosophical questions like "what does a person have to do to qualify as a human."
The original olympics wasn't about all of this silly ethical garbage. It was about muscular naked men manhandling one another in front of a large audience. I, for one, think we should honor this spirit and seek to preserve it.
Amen.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
...toothpaste, deoderant, and soap.
"Powers. I have them."
Maybe sporting events should be broken down by category of modification like in car racing. Let's see there's street legal, stock modified, some more and then unlimited.
Then you got tiny countries competing with giants, some of who can afford to spend huge sums of money on training and some who can't. Add events that some countries just can't train, bit hard to learn to sail in a landlocked desert, and what is the point.
Open up the drugs and lets see what we can do to the human body eh? Doctors have to be very carefull in human testing of new drugs but here you got a bunch of idiots^H^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteers who happily pump themselves full of the latest medicine. Most of these performance enhancing drugs can be used in real medicine.
Lets try muscle building medicine in those without social value ehm, in athletes and if it works we can use it in people struck with disease.
The games ain't fair anyway, if they are all pumped up at least that bit balances out.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
According to "Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers", yes but they will be banned because they make things boring. The point of no return comes when you get goalies who exactly fill the goal.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well now, its been awhile since we have had those unnaturally "muscular" east german olympic chicks. Ah, the good old days of state manufactured olympic competitors have been privatized. But it sounds to me a bit like that old "super soldier" thing from the Captian America comics, though this time I guess these new private enterprise Captian America's, rather than having a flag on their shield, will no doubt have a viagra sticker on their helmet, a patch with an exxon logo, a montisento foods sticker on their back pocket, and a niki swish on the shield, and come with a dmca restricted license on their genes.
Why not just have a set of games where there are no restrictions on performance enhancing technologies? We'll keep the Olympics all-natural, but have a parallel event where anything goes.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Who cares about sports.
This technology can probably benefit the life of the comon person.
I don't see why the benefits of a "active healthy life style" can be taken on a pill, leaving time to actually enjoy life instead of jogging 3 hours a week.
Actually, I'm playing devil's advocate here, since I do think there is a loss of purity to the games, but I thought that ever since the "Dream Team" jumped in the game and started beating up on the true amatures.
Communist countries didn't have "true" amateurs. In fact, we were far more pure in that sense than most of the other major powers in the Olympics. The current "Dismal Team" is just that. They are performing terribly against other countries because they have forgotten the essentials we were stressing 30+ years ago (teamwork and passing).
Why should they be ashamed? It's their bodies. It's not like I have any money riding on the outcome.
Large monies gained from endorsements and sometimes awards in excess of $1 million for a gold medal. Michael Phelps (USA swimming) is looking for quite a chunk *IF* (big IF) he sets the gold metal count record. You may not have any but everyone else sure does.
I do hope people at the Olympic Commitee realize that their games are slowly shifting from sport to engineering?
The question is, once the Olympic Games, as well as a whole other lot of various sports - look at the Tour de France - become a dangerous arena where everything, legal or not, is done to upgrade the athletes to a victory which is the only, absolute goal since we've come to entertain a deeply sick fetishism for any kind of winner, no matter if it was in a fair competition and if he/she deserved it, once sports in general, and the Olympic Games in particular become the field of a elite crew of genetically engineered humans, what will then be the point for such games? Aren't sports from the Olympic perspective a way of celebrating and uniting humanity in competitions that are meant to be fair?
If the athletes become better than normal human beings, not because of training but because of biological engineering, will humanity still identify itself to its champions who would have unnaturally bulky muscles, a blood that could carry insane amounts of oxygen and tightly-controlled metabolisms?
How would these athletes be different from machines, engineered with a precise purpose - and discarded, left out to die afterwards (damn, look at what happened to Marco Pantani)...
Worshipping winners instead of reverring competition in itself is having us slide along a slippery and very dangerous slope, IMO.
- HadrivenAt least, if those victory-obsessed were tinkering with cybernetic bodies or something close - replaceable, tweakable at will... But no, they're playing with their own lives. All that for a victory which means nothing but insane amounts of money.
historicaly, athletics have been there to show us just how far the human body can endure and what we can achieve when we put our minds to it.
We have always utilized the highest technology of the day to increase performance in all of the various events, only now that technology threatens to break thru into an area that has been considered a taboo in the past. simply put, Drugs.
the very idea of drugs in athletics brings to mind negative images such as Steroids or Meth
the interesting thing to me might come as a shock to other however, it is the idea that perhaps not all of the "drugs" that could be put to use in athletics would be detramental to the sport.
Maybe it is possible that Technology has gotten to a point of development where certain things can safely be used, ofcourse much testing will be needed to determin which of these would indeed be safe, however. if we are to somday in the future develope drugs that increase "health" in an individual should those drugs be excluded from the real world test that athletic events has always stood as a benchmark from which to measure real world results? maybe, maybe not.
we breed some animals with the intentions to bring out or optimize certain traits in them so that they may become more effecient/effective performing certain functions.
to a certain extent the same thing could be said to happen in humans aswell (an attractive body is usually regarded as one that is "fit" and muscular, compared to the alternative "unfit" )
that and the topic of this article is the fact that we now have (or soon will) the ability to control those things on a shorter timeline which causes it to appear more shocking to the "people"
I can see a day where athletics may begin branching into two distinct levels of competition. "Natural" and "Open". Natural competitions for those who do not choose to enhance their bodies using technology, and "open" competitions where the athletes are allowed to use anything that is legal under law. this is the branch where athletics will continue to show us how far we can push our bodies to do extraordinary things.
no, i didnt use the speell cheeker, why do you ask?
"Strangely, the 2 replies that others have posted in regards to my attempt are outscoring me. This whole "no longer an AC" thing isn't all it was cracked up to be."
Ah grasshopper, the first step in gaining karma is to realize that there is no score . Post freely, and with forethought. What follows will follow.
"Ideally, olympics should be about who has the most perseverance, dedication, and talent."
exept the problem with this is that perseverance, dedication and talent are genetic traits just like strength....what if an athlete didn't use the mussle building gene but she did use a gene that makes her procrastinate less....or in some other way helps with the mental part of training.
stendec@gmail.com
And don't imagine its just an issue of personal choice. That it is not is perfectly clear in team sports where players are asked to "take one for the team" but even in individual sports the pressures to perform make it very hard for individuals to make informed choices.
In an individual sport like Tennis, for example, the pressure causes lots of good teenagers burn out from trying to meet parental and other expectations even (presumably) without taking performance drugs. The pressure is very real even when not deliberately applied.
Given this, all sports association have a moral duty to try to prevent use of such drugs. To do otherwise is to recklessly endanger the children taking up your sport.
Squirrel!
side effects? Seems to be the primary thing keeping people away from steroids, right? (except for those who buy into that whole "morality" thingie...)
the "danger" of 'science mods' to sport is that sport becomes less meaningful; less of an inspiring quest. Of less importance. Frankly, it is over rated and should have less importance. A little get together for friendly competition, fine; but this nationalistic/jingoistic/egoistic madness, I can happily forget about the whole thing. If doping causes more people to feel the same, that's fine with me.
"It was reported that Lance Armstrong is about to have his 6th Tour de France title taken away"
Care to cite some sources? Google came up blank.
We welcome our new genetically enchanced overlords.
Logic, macros, and more
Let me guess, you were always the last one picked?
I was, too, but I'm not bitter about it.
That you happen to dislike sports doesn't make them any less worthwhile than wasting time posting to slashdot about how idiotic you think they are.
Your argument is bogus, anyway. Evolution, if it happened, is blind in a manner of speaking, and didn't have a purpose in mind when it gave us large brains. It was certainly quite some time before we figured out how to avoid lifting heavy things and running from predators.
The Olympics are not a celebration of brawn over brains. I really don't think any athletes or fans are thinking, "Finally.. a chance to stick it to all the smart people! Down with thinking!"
Why is this flamebait?
/The Twilight Zone/?) in which, after misfeeding the ant colony, the ants (now really big) turn an entire town into a sort of "people colony". If I remember the episode correctly, the post even captured the feeling portrayed at the end where the little boy was wondering what the ants were going to do with them. Or maybe he was referencing that obscure movie with.....
This post represents everything slashdot is about:
-Elitism
Fact is most of the posters seem to think themselves above normal people. This post pokes at that in an annoyingly obvious, but still valid way.
In addition it uses one of the many slashdottisms that slashdotters as a group use to differentiate themselves. Sure he didn't refer to a beowulf cluster of hot grits Natalie Portman overlords bio-engineering (in Japan) you (in Soviet Russia), but he did include one, and that's worth something, right?
-Geekyness
Reference to something obscure. Possibly he was referencing to an obscure television episode (was it
Anyway, how is this flamebait?
It may not be worth a +5 funny, and probably not +2 funny, but probably should live at 0 or 1. -1 is for the trolls and people who intentionally do something stupid. But that's just my opinion...
Maybe I'm just dreaming here, but if this drug turns out not to encourage the growth of cancer cells (currently the main concern and only known side effect), I think it could seriously improve the quality of life of the average person. People don't exercise because it's hard. It's hard because people don't exercise. Quite an unhealthy cycle. However, this treatment, while immensely promising for muscle degenerative diseases, could really help overweight people break their unhealthy cycle.
I'll go out and say it: I'm overweight. And yes, it is my fault. I could get out and exercise a ton, I could eat less, etc, but I find the struggle unrewarding and difficult. In the month of July, I spent most of the month creating a 3D game with another guy my age. He had an average build. As an experiment on top of our research, we decided to try something. He didn't believe me that my being overweight was not a result of my eating more and exercising less than he did. So we equalized our days. We ate all meals together and ate items of equal nutritional value. We also followed identical exercise routines (I can run a few miles no problem, I just don't seem to lose weight unless I run them every day while starving myself). By the end of 3 and a half weeks, I had GAINED 10 pounds and he stayed the same. He was shocked. I was not amused. The routine we settled on was probably was less active than what I do normally to maintain.
I don't want to say I have a slow metabolism or any of those other shitty fat people excuses but I can't help but feel like I was dealt a poor hand by genetics. Muscle is expensive for the body to maintain. If I could have more muscle and have it break down less quickly, it could just help my body eat away at my apparently conserved energy being stored as fat. At the same time, it would make exercising easier by increasing my strength by a third or so. I know I'm interested.
Large monies gained from endorsements and sometimes awards in excess of $1 million for a gold medal. Michael Phelps (USA swimming) is looking for quite a chunk *IF* (big IF) he sets the gold metal count record. You may not have any but everyone else sure does.
I'm not sure of your point. Drugs (and gene therapy) used to enhance athletic ability are bad because Nike has an advertising contract with an athlete?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
It's funny that you bring up Lance Armstrong - no doubt a great athlete, and a man of strong character yet abysmal public relations - as there is some speculation as to his performance and how it might relate to :
;)
- his having had cancer
- his fighting cancer
- his rehabilituation after the cancer
I don't know the facts, so this is entirely speculation based on what other people have said - so don't take this as fact, accusation, or anything else, please - it'll lead up to a more generic question
What if his having had cancer weakened his body quite a bit.
And when he started rehabilitation, he did it with one goal - to cycle once more, and be the best at it that he could be.
Then his body would be trained specifically for, and 're-developed' for, this one goal - cycling.
This as opposed to other cyclers whose bodies 'developed' for everything from crawling, to walking, running, doing the dishes to name something silly - and only later in life, started developing the muscle, endurance, etc. for cycling.
What if this starting out with training the body for the primary goal of cycling gives him the edge ?
Alternatively....what if the cancer, or the treatment, did something to his hormones / body's chemical balance, and thus gives him a sort of 'natural' doping ?
And now for the more generic question...
What if we can actually tell this has happened to a person - that their body has developed into something that it wouldn't normally develop into (call it a mutation, or just an 'abnormal development', or whatever) ?
Would we then ban these individuals from participating in sports ?
Would we create special sports events just for them ? ( much like the Paralympics, and the Special Olympics )
(I guess I should've added a comment about never encountering fellow cyclists who actually use deodorant on the morning group rides...)
Well that makes it even worse then. If even the mental and motivational aspects of competition are (largely) genetically determined, then what we have is a genetic competition. Why are we rewarding people for this?
The method of using viruses to introduce genetic changes has been troublesome up to this point. Viruses don't always take over the cell properly and if they don't then the splicing of genetic material causes errors which can lead to all manner of illnesses including toxic shock and cancer. Viruses look like a great way to introduce genetic changes until you realize the fight with the body makes it unpredictable and dangerous.
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
Some people act like nobody will know they copied and pasted.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
What if these methods help athletes recover from an injury (tear, pull, etc), but as a side effect of the recovery they are stronger than they were before? Are they still eligible to compete?
This could be like the Tommy John Surgery in baseball. Some of the pitchers are better than they ever were before surgery.
They cant prove if you've injected it artificially, or if it's a natural disorder.
Andre the Giant had it, people who suffer from it get those facial features, pronounced brow and nose, etc.
I watched some documentary about it, they showed lots of photos of russian athletes from the cold war era, most of whom shared striking facial similarities with Andre. Beating americans at all costs was the mantra of the Soviet athletic program.
In soviet russia, hormones produce you!
Who cares about the olympics anyways. The IOC is so frigging corrupt it's a joke. They openly accept bribes (hell, demand them!) when chosing cities to host the games.
Its all a corporate jack-fest, like so much these days. McDonalds, the official hamburger of the american olympic team. Come on, how many finely tuned athletes eat Big Macs on a regular basis?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I was listening to an interview on the CBC (can't remeber details), but it was pointed out that this technology already exists.
That means if an athlete is willing to pay someone who can and will do it... then there could (in theory) be genetically enhanced athletes in this olypics.
-... ---
42
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Absolutely it's the future of atheletics. Just like it'll be the future of everything else. A world where everyone is genetically modified into an idea of "perfection" and we all connect our brains into an advanced stage of the internet to have instant access to all "knowledge". A future where everyone knows and can do everything like everyone else, where all culture is sterilised. Not like it hasn't already happened essentially...
now why in heavens would the human invent ... er ... ... ...
...
olpympics? why!
is it because everyone gets more food? is more
happy? is wiser? is richer?
no!!!
it's plain and simple to get the best soldier
athlet
so
i'm sure nature built us wrong. it build us flawed
so we can compet to repair ther flaw
oh come on, i haven't been watching olympics since
12 years. there haven't been any sponsor changes
in 12 years
the appropriate retraction should have been "D'oh!"
If they want to dope themselves, let them! It's their bodies. We've got the science to improve our bodies, why not use it?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Fascism is a political system which espouses the State as the focus of the system, above individuals. It is authoritarian, but so are a lot of things.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You're posing a lot of the same questions a lot of other people have re: Armstrong and his comeback from cancer.
The thing is, before Armstrong had cancer, his body type was radically different -- broader shoulders, heavier upper body. Chemo destroyed most of his muscle mass, and as a result, when he rebuilt himself, he was able to focus on the muscle groups necessary to win Tours de France. Look at him now and he's got a scrawny upper body compared to the past. That translates into a HUGE advantage in the hills.
That said, the hormonal/chemical balance in his body would be very unlikely to be beneficial in this case. The man had cancer, which is not a favorable mutation. And chemo? It's poisonous, that's why it works. It's not mutagenic and isn't likely to have fuxored with his hormones/body chemistry. Armstrong was a genetic freak before cancer and was a very good bicycle racer before cancer -- he just made the most of a very bad situation and turned it into a huge positive. Cancer gave him a few advantages: he was able to rebuild himself to be more suited toward events like the Tour de France, he learned to endure horrible hardships and pain, and he learned the value of hard work.
That said, as an amateur cyclist, where can I get the LanceArmstrongGeneModPak(TM)?
blog |
Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?
How is this different than now? If everyone uses this, then there is a "level playing field", right? If we're ready to engineer our food, then we should engineer our bodies. You are what you eat.
--or--
I hope so, but only if they go against robots at least half the time.
--or--
Aren't they supposed to be amateurs anyways? Perhaps that's the problem.
My belief is that drug testing in sport should just stop, period. But a new criminal offense, that of administering a substance likely to reduce life expectancy, should be created, carrying a mandatory prison sentence equal to the estimated number of years of life expectancy lost. It's likely to be the coaches and team managers who are the real proponents of doping, and the prospect of maybe forty years jail if one of their charges dies of cardiac failure at 45 might have an effect. And if a drug has no adverse effects...well, sorry, but why aren't we all taking it?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
In one of his novels there are genetically engineered superhumans who hold a sports competition.
What is exactly, the basis for what is determined to be fair and not fair? There is genetics, which is through random and evolutionary processes, the selection for individuals with upregulation of genes that promote atheleticism (i.e. two track stars marrying and having babies). This is usually seen as fair and okay in competition. Then there is the direct doping of chemicals which are the downstream products of such genes, both naturally occuring and synthetic analogs, which are usually outlawed. Now we have the upregulation of those genes through "artificial processes". When analyzed on this level, I can't help but realize how all these tactics lead to the same outcome (on a molecular biology level, not ethnical, moral or whatever). The methods that utilize technology and usually require more money are the ones deemed unfair. Also, if foreign DNA constructs are need to upregulate these genes, it is likely that a test can be developed to assay for this. Even if the individual's own natural open reading frame and promoter are taken out and duplicated (not 100 percent this would even work), one could perhaps test for the unnatural abundance of such DNA by comparing quantitative PCR runs which compare that against a gene which has nothing to do with atheletic performance. All in theory of course, this is assuming that both parts are equally accesible to the polymerase and that there are no secondary structure elements that will create "kinks", etc etc. I'm guessing that such experimental details can be worked out to make sure that the chance of false positives is low.
Athletes that want a career rather than a single blaze of glory aren't going to kill themselves in their first race. The idea is enhancement, not death.
There's no L in spooge.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
To a large extent, that is what happened. He used to be a triathlete, and had a strong upper body that was good for swimming but mostly dead weight on the bike. When chemotherapy stripped him down to his bones, he built himself back up as a pure cyclist.
Also, while a lot of the European cycling fans and journalists grumble that Lance never shows visible pain during races and is therefore less likable -- if you've seen the clips of him riding just after getting out of chemo, bald, with a hole cut in his skull, you get the impression that he's simply redefined his whole scale of what real suffering is.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Let's just all settle down...
And use this technology to engineer me some hair.
So, it's ok if people are BORN better/faster/stronger than others, but throw down the red card when someone tries to improve their genes with human technology. Yeah, why does that somehow feel so so evil.
Would we be able to dope our own muscles so as to be able to pedal hard enough that our human-powered helicopter wouldn't need a "jock" pilot?
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
"Well that makes it even worse then. If even the mental and motivational aspects of competition are (largely) genetically determined, then what we have is a genetic competition. Why are we rewarding people for this?"
How could this be worse then it already is?? I mean the "natural" athletes now are products of genetic engeneering through evolution. Why is design somehow less valid then random selection of evolution?
But how about taking it to the extreem...lets say we make a group of genetically identical (engeneered of couse) athletes and have them compete...the only diffence would be thier training (sort of like nascar racing...all the cars are the same) then who would be rewarding? the trainer? the athlete?
The only real problem of genetic engeneering of athletes that I see is that it points out the existing inatiquacies and well sheer pointlessness of it. competitive sports in terms of viewing them has always been like a county fair....who can grow the biggist pumpkin, or the redest tomato. Who will get the blue ribbon? Should we check for genetic engeneering at county fairs? Is the crude form of gentic engeneering, ie breeding, somehow better or more valid? and if so why?
Anyway i don't want to sound like some anti-cometive sports asshole. I like the olympics and watching sports...i also like playing them. But I think it is important to play devils advocate once in awhile.
stendec@gmail.com
Actually, in the original olympics, all forms of magic were band. Whether they be charms of "potions."
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
should be "charms or potions."
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Cory Doctorow's 0wnz0red
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I know this thread is supposed to be about human athletes & the olympics...but...
There are many thousands of race-horse owners around the world that are going to use this technology. They have the money to invest, big rewards and the short term business ethics outweigh the long term health implications of a mere animal.
Leela: "Those poor 20th century women."
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
reece's biggest star might drop out of the Athens Games after missing a drug test, shaming the host nation as it opened its first Olympics in more than a century. Greece's Olympic Committee will meet Saturday to discuss the bizarre case of sprinter Kostas Kenteris, the 200-meter Olympic champion who is accused of dodging a drug test and was later hospitalized after a motorcycle crash. A source within the committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that one topic at the meeting will be whether Kenteris should withdraw from the games. Even if he drops out, the International Olympic Committee probably will proceed with its doping case against him. A hearing was set for Monday. Kenteris and fellow Greek sprinter Katerina Thanou were in a motorcycle wreck Thursday night just hours after drug testers failed to find them in the Olympic village.
This is a site for news for nerds and I'm way more interested in when genetic engineering will allow us to overclock our brains. This interesting tidbit was on CNN yesterday about how blocking dopamine receptors in monkey's turned them from procrastinators into workaholics. I personally would be very interested in taking a pill that made me sit my ass down and do work instead of posting to slashdot.
On a similar note, when I was at MIT there were a number of people (predominantly course 7 and 18 majors for some reason) who took ritalin or aderall to help them stay up all night and be super focused on work. There was no sort of outrage around campus for that though, much more of a "hey, that's a great idea! Where can I get some?" You can definitely make identical arguments about "fair play" with this type of doping too, but I never agreed with the naysayers. If I want to be an elite thinker and knowledge worker, why shouldn't I do whatever I can to acheive that? If sometime in the future scientists could get a genetic modification which raised their IQs by 30 points, wouldn't we want that? It seems to me that the only reason there's an uproar about atheletes doping themselves up is because all of atheletics is truly and fundamentally about unimportant little games. If cancer researchers boosted their brainpower they'd be lauded for making a "sacrifice" in the name of the common good.
My opinion of this has waxed and waned, over the years. The Olympic Games, that is.
I think it is a good balance, as we have, now. Granted that the games favor only the athletes that have the latest technology, and that only "first world" nations would be able to excel at that kind of game. The game of "an un-detectable advantage". But as it is visibly obvious, every day, there are advances which our bio-genetics and medical sciences can manipulate to give people entirely new lives. Steroids which are more specific to a metabolic pathway, or methods of increasing red blood cell count. They may first be developed for the Games, but think of it more along the lines of free, INTENSE human clinical trials. Only the most sucessful advances will make it to the "third world", courtesy of the rest.
Money and prestige motivate alpha males, as well as alpha females. Take away the commercials and worship, and you have less motivated lab technicians. Less motivation means fewer advances.
Hell. Who knows? At the current rate, Professor Hawking may be running the Boston Marathon within the next decade...
Well, yes, exactly. Why should we reward people for anything? It's usually because we get something in return. But it seems that the Olympics and other athletic competitions are founded on a flawed premise of objective fairness. I was pointing out that this fairness is merely an illusion, and you seem to agree.
To compare to another context, consider a software developer that takes stimulants to help get him through a project. Does that make the project any less valuable? No. Surely the person sacrificing his own long term health to do such a thing, and there is a point of diminishing returns. But generally, we care about the product of his effort, not what he used to generate that effort in the first place.
There will always be some new cunning way that atheletes/competitors in any game can possibly beat the system. It just forces the system to evolve and become as advanced as the cheaters. I'm fairly confident that when steroids first started popping up someone said "there's this drug people can take that works just like hormones in your body, and we can't detect it". But, sure enough we have no trouble detecting them.
Just because a chemical is released in the body that is natural doesn't mean we won't be able to detect unhealthy or non-natural levels of it.
Cheating has always be an aspect to consider in any competition since the beginning of time. All that must change is the way we detect it.
can't sleep. clowns will eat me.
MSNBC did a thing on the future of the Olympics.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5625317/
It's flash, which I know most folks around here despise, but it's worth taking a look. Interviews with a science fiction writer (Carl Sagan's son), biologisits, trainers, sports experts. Lots of interactivity, too.
Many of the best athletes are the children of parents who were both athletes. That's a natural (and FUN!) method of genetic engineering.
Seriously. I think the time has already come where the Olympic games should be split into two categories. To use an automotive analogy, Stock and Modified.
Let the people who want to compete honest and clean do so, and give the people who want to showcase what modern technology can do for their bodies do so as well.
Those who want to burn themselves out in five years of drug-fuelled performance can then have their venue to do so. Companies wishing to showcase biological enhancements via gene doping, or cybernetics, or whatever the world's tech level has to offer, can then do so.
Is there a moral cost to this? Sure. Plenty will end up dead or crippled from their reliance on drugs/gene tech/cybernetics/what-have-you. Will it stop cheating in the 'Stock' Olympic games? No, but at least those drawn to "performance at any cost" will have a better venue to perform in.
Personally I'm excited about the idea of spending an hour or two watching genetically modified humans fly at twice the speed of an average sprinter around a racetrack, and then spend the rest of the day watching good old fashioned Human 1.0's compete amongst themselves.
Bring it on, IOC. If you don't, someone else eventually will, and steal your thunder in the process!
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
In other words, it's okay for rich countries like the US to use technology to optimize the performance of their athletes, to the detriment of those in poorer countries who do not have such advantages.
And yet, it is considered sacriligious to "violate" the spirit of competition by taking a few performance-enhancing drugs here and there?
There is a limit to how far we should tamper with the human body ...
FWIW
And now this. On Slashdot. Mentioned by name in a submission. And to top it off - it's a near DUPE!!!
Sorry ... I had to vent ...
Because it's against the rules and dishonest, duh. I sincerely hope you don't make all of your ethical decisions based on the financial outcome.
See the old Saturday Night Live sketch about the "All-Drug Olympics" for a take on why a seperate "enhanced" Olympics might be a bad idea. The punch line involves a weightlifter ripping his arms off trying to do a snatch lift. Commentator: "Oh, that's really going to hurt when the drugs wear off."
Let there be two categories of competition. Enhanced and Not Enhanced (though for American couch potatoes, they'd have to brand it something like "Super" and "Original".)
Anyways, how we as humans can enhance ourselves through whatever means, I think is perfectly fine. Let's compete and see how far science and technology can take us. Let's have 2 olympics.
Steroids...time to exercise....vitamins....gene doping...good nutrition.....computer designed track suits...leisure time.....a trainer. If you have advantages, you will do better. Some advantages are socailly acceptable, some are not. but it all comes down to how much money you have to put into it.
http://www.geocities.com/sethseekstruth/great_out
This seems to me as silly as the sort of distinction people draw between "natural" and "artificial". It's like buying "organic salt" because it doesn't contain any nasty "chemicals". Dude, it's ALL chemicals. To my viewpoint, if your muscle genes are better, it's academic whether you got them from meiosis or cyborgs-R-us.
It's really sad that there is such an emphasis on winning that people would even consider cheating for it by altering their body chemistry and possibly shortening their lives. The spirit supposedly embodied by the Olympics is one of international cameraderie and competition for competition's sake, not competition to win. Granted, the lucrative endorsements that a gold medalist receives are a large cause of this, as is nationalistic pride. It just depresses me that people would go so far to win - and that it is even conceivable that they would change their genes in the pursuit of victory. Competition is no longer about talent and training, it's about who can keep their doping habits concealed well enough to test negative.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
If we try to keep up with North Korea and genetic engineering of the populace we'll all end up look like the grays wiht big heads, weak bodies and a flying boat like the Mekon but with domed lids on top (and possibly round).
We'll be frantically popping back in time trying to undo the harm by getting some decent DNA samples from poor unsuspecting country bumkins whose DNA is pure.
Oh wait, thats already happened. I mean already going to have has happened. Or something
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
The original olympics wasn't about all of this silly ethical garbage. It was about muscular naked men manhandling one another in front of a large audience.
:)
"Tell me, Joey, do you like movies about Gladiators?"
And yes, I'm aware that I'm making Baby Jesus cry
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
OK were a bunch of geeks, most of us have a verry high earning potention. but the chicks still go for the dumb jocks. this is our silver bullet. all the geeks get this therapy, and we now have the muscle of the jocks and the brains of geeks. wee can finally exterminate all those jocks and highschool bullys. this is it men we get to take over the world, fuck the chearleader, and rub the jocks faces into a pile of dogshit.
if people take gene therapy to improve their bodies. There's nothing wrong with improving yourself, as long as it doesn't have dangerous side effects. Hell, I take growth hormones and about 20+ pills ( vitamins, proteins, etc. ) a day. Why do I do it? Because I work 8-10 hours a day, have an active social life, a house to take care of, 6 pets, a significant other ( practically common-law wife ), outside projects, etc., and don't have as much time and energy to exercise as I ought to. And, let me tell you, being a sysadmin/programmer at an understaffed company that just came out of bankruptcy is very draining without giving you any meaningful physical exercise. If I get an energy boost that I can use to work out longer and harder, and the proteins, growth hormones, etc. that I take help me get more out of it, then hell yes I'm taking them.
Why don't I take steroids? Because I don't want to damage my body. I have friends that take steroids. One guy I know went from benching around 300 lbs. up to 500+ in a month. But you know what? He also has pus sacks in his pecs, and wild mood swings, both of which are the result of having too much estrogen. Which is why I won't take them. I'd love to go double my strength, but I'm not willing to do it at the cost of limiting my life expectancy and lowering my quality of life in the future.
I believe the negative side effects of steroids are the reason that they're not allowed. Noone disallows an Olympic athlete from taking legal growth hormones or extra amino acids, all athletes can take that without fear of harm. But if you allow things like steroids, you end up having to take something that can threaten your health in order to compete, which is inexcusable.
Now, if gene therapy is non-harmful way of improving your physical condition, the only reason that I could see it not getting approved eventually is from the stigmata of steroids. If there's gene therapy available, legal or not, which doesn't have negative side effects ( or mild ones, like increased aggression and body hair, which are side effects of what I currently take ) sometime soon, I would go for it myself. Who doesn't want to be faster, stronger, smarter, etc.?
Basically, I'm all for better living through chemical experience, be it coffee, LSD, or gene therapy. Just make sure you know any risks, and have carefully weighed them, so you know that it's actually better living.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
I know, the Olympics are all about athletism, but one way to make drugs useless is to have sports that require less muscle-power and more brains and agility: fencing, diving, soccer (although still need a lot of stamina), etc. No matter how strong you are, these sports need practice, strategy and experience in order to come out on top.
The best way to keep the Olympics fair is to change the sports to require less raw athletism.
We take these competitions too seriously. If we're talking about gene manipulation to create extra amounts of naturally occuring chemicals, then we're talking situations that can arise naturally. In fact there was a story not long ago about some baby born with super-muscles.
;)
So what's the problem? Some people are born with genes that enable them to be better athletes. Now some people want to emulate that. Sure, it seems like cheating to me, but if someone has super muscles naturally that seems unfair as well. What the are we trying to test in the olympics anyways? Skill? Will? Natural genetic perfection? A combination of all three?
Seems to me that the focus on superlatives (as opposed to just excellence), combined with globalization, has forced us into a corner. What is the point of superlatives, anyways? What do we really want to know?
Also, I don't know if I think genetic manipulation is any less ethical than brainwashing children to devote their life to perfection in a single pursuit before they've had a chance to experience anything else.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole Olympic thing is just a big commercial opportunity. I'm all for individuals being their best, and competing. But it's just so dirty now and it doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose.
Just my take.
Cheers.
PS -- Speaking of testing will: I once broke my arm in an arm wrestling match. Seriously. This means I had the will and strength to torque my own humerus (with the help of an equally strong friend) until it spiral fractured. I don't know what it proved, but I would say it's the superlative of something
Most people don't realize the amount of "body tuning" these athletes get.
They get IVs every night to replenish fluids and sugars. They sleep in high nitrogen (or hypobaric) chambers to simulate sleeping at 15000 ft and stimulate natural EPO production. Blood hematocit is regulated so this is also tested regularly, to make sure the cyclist doesn't fail a hematocrit test.
There is speculation about widespread growth hormone and testosterone "boosting". These are also regulated within a range - athletes can undetectably boost natural levels to the high end of this range.
These are all things KNOWN to occur in SOME pro athletes. So, where is the line drawn at legal or illegal. Is it legal to have a sugar/fluids IV to re-hydrate and boost blood sugars? An athlete that does not use the IV cannot compete against an athlete that does.
How about the high nitrogen chamber for sleep? Again, a significant advantage.
What about boosting natural hormones to the high end of the normal range? Why should one person have an advantage because he has naturally high levels of hGH. Why not let everyone have the same level...
Its a slippery slope, and unfortunately few know where pro cyclists such as Lance Armstrong (and the entire rest of the peloton) fall on this axis. I'd bet money he uses a nitrogen tent and uses an IV regularly. Anything beyond that is largely speculation, and it is poor form to speculate on cheating of successful athletes that tested negative.
Mathematics is not a crime.
We already breed them. Athletes are often handled like cattle in some places, training programs culling the weak and promoting traits in gene pools through selective procreation. I don't see how gene doping is going to be anything new, it'll just be faster.
Learn to live with it.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Of course it's the minority. But > 0. So we can't just go by genes alone as an definitive selector of being able to 'win'. The person has to want it bad enough, and train hard enough.
You can inject yourself full of naturally occuring stuff all you want.
If you exceed the limit, you get nailed for doping anyway.
I think at a moderated level this wouldn't be bad for the general populus. Yeah, the same Robin Hood response is expected with the rich only being able to get it, bla bla, but the average middle class patient being able to use safe and proven augmentation chemicals could be beneficial... bodies with more pure muscles, better composition, more efficient hearts with blood that contains more Oxygen carying red blood cells is good for pre-emptive medicine.
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
should be "banned" too
should also be 'banned,' not 'band'
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard, be evil.
We already have different classes of athletes. Look at the special olympics. Different types of handicaps qualify you for different levels of competion. Now they just need to expand it to encompass all people, not just the below average ones.
One for non-enhanced humanoids and one for The Borg.
> ethos of the original olympic games, which was
> pretty much anything goes and to the winner go
> the spoils
Not really. Cheaters in the ancient Olympics were publically flogged with a leather whip.
Actually, the big problem with using viruses is that you get random insertion of the DNA into the genome. And if your virus DNA inserts in such a way that it disrupts the expression pattern of an oncogene you end up with cancer. This is exactly what happened in the much-publicised SCID (bubble-kids) gene therapy trials. It's not *all* that likely to happen, mind you, but would you undergo gene therapy that had a 5-10% chance of giving you cancer (and thus actually reduce your athletic potential - I realise that athletes who take steroids aren't worried about long term consequences like death :) if you didn't have a life-threatening disease?
...
Using viruses are not the answer - the real solution is to use human artificial chromosomes (HACs) where the DNA doesn't integrate and can segregate normally with cell division. However, the problems with HACs are enormous - delivery is currently impossible, genetic manipulation is difficult and stability is questionable. I actually work in a lab where our main focus is the creation of a HAC for gene therapy, and I can tell you that we're not going to see these things anytime soon.
Maybe in ten years' time, you might want to start worrying
Think about it, get a gene that gives you a bigger member. Then only the rich will have huge wangs, and then we'll all be doubly (not) screwed.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?
Of course it is. There's no discrimination against those with hip replacements, heart bypasses, dental refurbishments nor plastic surgery in sport. Mankind will continue to replace its really crappy protein bits with more durable components, and the Olympic committee is not going to object, at the risk of becoming totally irrelevant.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
It is interesting to consider parallels between bio-engineered doping and aesthetic surgery.
Somewhere I read how one participant at a beauty contest admitted she'd fixed her looks and then other participants requested her disqualification.
She was the only "enhanced" beauty - she was the only honest one.
So what can we do? Can we draw a line?
A corrective surgery disqualifies you but another emergency surgery to fix broken nose from a traffic accident doesn't?
Or bar every one who's ever "went under the knife" from participation? Are braces illegal because they're used instead of corrective teeth surgery?
The same is with sports - why can one individual have a mutated gene and I can't? Since it's not "natural" (as in "common"), why only him/her?
One way to make it fair is to make everything allowed. Of course for many that will have bad consequences for their health, but so do current "enhancers" that cannot be detected. And ultimately it is up to the athlete to make a decision - as is now.
Can they disallow that? It's undetectable and "natural" - unless they expand testing to athletes' parents and families there's no way they can detect if a gene or whatever is natural or mutated.
Coaches should have criminal responsibility for providing athletes with dangerious/harmful substances to keep coaches in the check.
While it's not easy to say what is just "bad for you" and what is really dangerous, but at least reasonable due dilligence would suffice.
I do think the _current_ system is unfair - people with disabilities cannot compete at all, people with "normal" genes aren't (very) competitive. So the system is biased in favor of the few sprinkled with couple genetic anomalies (=improvements).
And finally - bring the whole genetic performance enhancing idea to education - woooo hoooo!
Since the society is powered by greed, most people will give their kids anything to make them better off...
This is only the beginning...
>Because it's against the rules and dishonest, duh
Hey - this is Slashdot, where many are proud of their P2P achievements which are against the rules (laws) and dishonest (to artists who create the music).
When people are bent on doing something, they always find a good reason to do what they want.
Yes.
Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.
I believe that this methodology was originally directed towards MD treatment. However, from the emphasis in the SA article to "wow - way cool technology and Olympic mutants " rather than this is a serious treatment for MD- it obviously hasn't worked as well as hoped - which of course doesn't mean that it can't be developed eventually into an effective therapy.
I remember listening to a talk many years ago by Louis Kunkel, who cloned and isolated the dystrophin gene back in the days when cloning was difficult. Even more impressive was that he accomplished the feat with a very small lab beating out much larger competitors by sheer cleverness and of course a little bit of luck. Anyway, when asked about this type of gene therapy, he basically thought that the development of drugs to stimulate production of dystrophin or some substitute would be a more realistic way to go. If you google his home page you will find some clever approaches that they are quietly working on for MD - including gene therapies.
Who cares what some athlete decides to do... I for one don't even watch the Olympics - haven't for about 2 decades now. I don't miss it one bit.
I am sick and tired of hearing about how Joe and Sally Blow decided to use some drugs to enhance their performance... *yawn*... I could care less, and I don't see the difference anyway.
.. a.k.a. Unreal Tournament !!!! Now organized on YOUR planet by the local Liandri Office!!! Sign up for trials today!!!!
We have the Olympics because we enjoy watching the spectacle of competition. The purpose of the games is not to encourage athleticism. And even if we assume that it does promote athletic competition, we still know that favorable environmental conditions as well as good genes are needed to win.
I think the parent is dead on. I will never ever be an athlete (naturally at least). My genes have pretty much already done a fine job selecting me out of most sports. It doesn't matter how much I dump into it, I will never be in the Olympics. It is just shitty genetics. There is nothing 'fair' about this. I don't understand the obsession with keeping it 'natural'. I am not saying don't regulate it, but if some guy figures out how to get his body to pump on some chemical someone else's already does, why not allow it? The only reason to disallow such alterations to what nature gave is to keep people from hurting themselves. In that case, simply open on the field and regulate it. Allow people to use performance enhancing gene therapy, just regulate it to make sure that the things people are doing are not overly harmful.
If nothing else, it could lead to some advances for the rest of the world. An athlete might use his 'enhanced coordination gene' to better do gymnastics or hit a ball. I could use it to be roller blade better and get neater hand writing. I think we shoot ourselves in the foot limiting what drugs we research. Personally, I think everything from recreational drugs to body enhancement drugs should be fair game. Make the drug run the regulatory gambit to prove it is safe, but if a drug company makes a drug that lets you trip for half an hour and isn't addictive, or they build a drug that lets you build muscle mass twice as fast, so long as it is safe why not use it?
Link to source
Steroids are regularly prescribed for people undergoing cancer treatment.
I am not a doctor, but I can certainly see how doctors would prescribe steriods for people with testicular cancer in order to assist with testosterone production.
Maybe Lance is so good because he's undergoing steroid therapy.
In the same way, if a sprinter used a jetpack, and managed to avoid crisp-frying his legs, and won, then the spirit of the competition would be destroyed. Rules set up an interesting game.
Sports can't provide a totally level playing field, but everyone involved knows, or can find out about the rules (except perhaps in cricket). To keep rules consistent, enhancements to people must be either allowed for everyone or banned.
My feeling is that they shouldn't be allowed. While new techniques help sports stay interesting , cheap tricks which break the spirit of the rules cheapen the competition. We respect athletes because they are normal people who have gained abilities through long hours of training. If anyone could take a pill and lift twice their weight then it wouldn't be a worthwhile achievement.
If such modifications were to become available then a sub-race of doped-up super athletes would emerge. This would in my opinion be somewhat grotesque. I quite like the idea that while I hardly compare with my sporting heroes, I can at least play the same game.
--------
"The first of many European imports consumed in New Zealand was a dead Dutchman" - James Belich
Levels of gene expression can be measured, it is just very slow and tricky (=expensive). And you need a sample of the actual living tissue for it.
Maybe they would be able to find some good surrogate marker - increased amount of some protein in blood serum, for example.
The alternative - requiring urine, blood AND muscle sample is not pretty.
As it happens, The Economist recently ran an article addressing some of these issues. The article also provides context and perspective that should be of interest to those participating in this discussion. For convenience, the full text is reproduced below; it is also accessible online (may require paid subscription).
----
Sport
Drugs and the Olympics
Aug 5th 2004
From The Economist print edition
They are going to mix, whether you like it or not
[Image]
"WHERE does the power come from, to see the race to its end?" asks Eric Liddell in that cinematic celebration of the Olympian ideal, "Chariots of Fire". The runner's answer? "From within." Eighty years after Liddell won his gold medal, for competitors at the Olympic games starting next week in Athens that power may come instead from without--in the form of drugs designed to maximise performance.
There was "doping" in sport even before the days of Liddell; cyclists, boxers, swimmers and others made use of alcohol, strychnine, cocaine and sundry other substances to ease the pain and give them an edge. But by 1988, when a Canadian runner, Ben Johnson, was stripped of his 100m gold at the Seoul Olympics for failing a drugs test, it was clear that doping had become rife--not just in nasty communist regimes such as East Germany and China, with their famously manly female athletes, but in western countries too. If doping may play a lesser role than it might have done this month in Athens, it is only because allegations about the use of the steroid tetrahydrogestrinone by clients of BALCO, a dietary supplements firm in California, have deprived the Olympics of some of its likeliest medallists--as well as highlighting the pervasive use of steroids in some non-Olympic sports such as America's Major League Baseball, now dubbed the "new East Germany".
The evidence of doping has been greeted with almost universal condemnation, at least from those parts of the media that love a scandal and the chance to bring down a hero, and from politicians. George Bush has added the war on doping to his broader war on drugs, using this year's state-of-the-union address to urge sport to "get rid of steroids now" and bringing high-profile indictments against sporting dope-peddlers. Those in charge of sport are rapidly losing any ambivalence they once had, and joining a crusade against doping led by the redoubtable head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Dick Pound (see article). Driving doping out of sport may prove impossible, however--especially as undetectable gene therapies may soon be on the market. But in any case, is it really so obvious that doping is wrong?
Though they come in many forms, there are really two main arguments made against doping. One is that it harms athletes--or, if the argument is made by someone willing to admit that putting athletes in harm's way is an integral part of many sports (boxing, rugby, American football and so on), that it harms them unnecessarily. The other is that it is against the spirit of sport: it is cheating or, at the very least, it destroys the mystical quality that gives sport its appeal. There is something to both arguments, but neither is wholly convincing.
For a start, how harmful are the performance-enhancing drugs used by today's athletes, or likely to be used in the future? Certainly, there have been heavily publicised cases suggesting that excessive use can sometimes have nasty consequences--cyclists suffering heart attacks, perhaps because of the oxygen-storage boosting but blood-thickening steroid EPO, or drug-expanded body-builders who are deeply depressed--though these examples are isolated, and may not be entirely as they appear. Some of the drugs used in East Germany had severe consequence
As it happens, The Economist recently ran an article addressing some of these issues. The article also provides context and perspective that should be of interest to those participating in this discussion. For convenience, the full text is reproduced below; it is also accessible online (may require paid subscription).
----
Sport and drugs
Ever farther, ever faster, ever higher?
Aug 5th 2004
From The Economist print edition
[Image]
The Athens Olympics will be a crucial battle in sport's war on drugs
"OLYMPISM seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of a good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles." So said Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic games. Alas, there is every chance the 28th summer Olympiad, which opens in Athens on August 13th, will make headlines less for the joy of effort--and still less for good example or respect for universal ethics--than for athletes caught cheating with performance-enhancing drugs.
The past year has brought plenty of evidence that "doping" is rife. In June 2003, a syringe containing a hitherto unknown and undetectable steroid, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), was sent to America's Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), apparently by a disaffected coach. Speedily designed tests, some applied retrospectively to old urine samples, showed that use of THG had been widespread among top athletes. The drug was allegedly made by BALCO (the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative), in California, as a "nutritional supplement". BALCO's clients included many top sports stars, such as Tim Montgomery, world champion in the 100m sprint; his partner, Marion Jones, the reigning women's Olympic 100m champion; Shane Mosley, a former boxing world champion; several members of the Oakland Raiders American football team; and Barry Bonds, who holds baseball's record for the most home runs in a season.
Although some of these athletes deny using THG, others have already been banned from their sport for doing so, including Dwain Chambers, a top British sprinter. The USADA is seeking a lifetime ban for Mr Montgomery. After wide investigations, criminal charges have been brought against several people connected with BALCO--though no athletes, as yet--including its boss, Victor Conte, who has been indicted for allegedly supplying illegal drugs and laundering money. A lawyer for Mr Conte has hinted that other well-known athletes, due to compete in the Olympics, have yet to be identified as THG users, and that his client may be prepared to name them as part of a plea-bargain.
But the litany of recent illegal drug use stretches far beyond BALCO. Even cricket, the sport of gentlemen, has been tainted. Shane Warne, an Australian spin bowler, was banned for a year for taking a drug that can be used to mask steroids; on his return, he rivalled the record for the highest number of wickets taken in a Test (a record he shares, ironically, with a Sri Lankan who has been accused of cheating in a more old-fashioned way, by using an illegal bowling action). In soccer, England's top defender, Rio Ferdinand, was banned for eight months for failing to take a mandatory drug test.
Another Briton, Greg Rusedski, escaped a ban this year despite testing positive for nandrolone. The tennis star argued that he had been given the steroid without his knowledge by officials of the sport's governing body, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). In 2003, the ATP let off seven unnamed players who failed drug tests, apparently for the same reason. Drug scandals have erupted in rugby league, ice hockey, orienteering, the triathlon and so on and on.
Cycling has provided many milestones in the history of doping in sport, including the first sportsman allegedly to die as a result of
Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?
Professional Sports is all about elite. And all about genes. 'Get your fattie ass of my soccer field' ring a bell? So why don't we just let cooperations compete and entertain us with human overclocking goodness?
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Do we really really care if athletes use blood oxygen or gene doping techniques? As long as they are safe for the athletes, let's see how far we can go. http://www.discount-prescription-drugs.org/Viagra/ Viagara-Price-Guide.htm