Tuesday, November 22, 2005

WADA's Second Gene Doping Symposium

From 4-5 December, the World Anti-Doping Agency hosts its second Gene Doping symposium in Stockholm Sweden. They have already issues a press release for this meeting and, like the NYC meeting in 2002, the proceedings are closed to the media and by invitation only.

At the meeting, I will give a reply to Dr Thomas H. Murray, President of The Hastings Center as part of a session on the ethics and policy implications of gene doping for sport.

One of the greatest catalysts for media coverage at the first meeting was Lee Sweeney's statement that he had been contacted by coaches and athletes who wish to enrol in gene therapy trials, in order to boost their performances. For the media and many other interested parties, this made the issue real and present.

It is likely that this meeting will present some advance on whether detection will be possible and I will argue for a re-definition of the ethics of sport based on a couple of recent pieces I have written. The first - published in the journal Public Understanding of Science - will advance a critique on the way in which gene doping has been discussed in society; the second - published in the European Journal of Sport Science - will argue that anti-doping policy should be replaced with a 'performance policy'.

Together, my conclusion will state that a rejection of gene transfer on the basis of current arguments implied and explicit within anti-doping policy is not justified. The two references are as follows:

Miah, A. (2005). "Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics?" Public Understanding of Science 14(4): 409-421.

Miah, A. (2005). "From anti-doping to a 'performance policy': sport technology, being human, and doing ethics." European Journal of Sport Science 5(1): 51-57.


Anonymous Mike said...

I think that gene doping can be very dangerous for young sportmen, sportmen should be control so often how it is possible.

11:41 am  
Blogger andymiah said...

and what if it were not dangerous Mike?

11:44 am  
Blogger Dax Vercauteren said...

If gendoping is not dangerous, the question of fairness is still an argument to hold of doping practice. Then again, I don't believe that sport will ever be unfair for many reasons (money, birth, hierarchies within teams, etc.).

I believe that it is upto the athlete to decide what they do to their body. Sport is very depended on the use of technology and doping productions are just one of those new technological innovations that are driven by the recent dominant ideology (modernity and progressive thinking). The use of technology in sport is pathdependent and I do not think that it can be stopted like some doping agencies are trying to do. They allowed to much in the past.

Isn't it maybe interesting to split uses of sport technology and standardize sport technology use within a certain sportfederation?

What is your opinion on these remarks, Prof. dr. Miah?

11:12 pm  
Blogger Dax Vercauteren said...

I'm conducting research on the subject sport technology and I discovered that when doping is not dangerous, than it does not belong to doping. Then respondents told me that it would be a form of food substance...

1:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home