Article Type:
Report on New Innovation with International Implications
- World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) -- Dr. Theodore Friedmann; Frederic Donze
- International Olympic Committee
- University of California-San Diego
- Science Magazine
- Cell (an online journal)
- FDA
- Salk Institute for Biological Studies -- Dr. Ronald Evans
- L'Agence Francaise de Lutte contre le Dopage (French-Anti Doping Agency) -- Pierre Bordry
- Oxford Biomedica
- Thomas Springstein
- University of the West of Scotland -- Andy Miah, bioethicist
- Oscar Pistorius
- Atlas Sports Genetics -- Mike Weinstein
The Purpose:
The purpose of this article is to educate and expose readers to this new innovation in athletic technology. It also exists to allow the reader to make their own choice about a no doubt soon-to-be ethical issue.
Key Information:
Obviously, one can immediately conclude from reading this article that no matter what happens, no matter what kind of scandal or controversy there is, this technology will reach athletes and will go into use. I can also see people dividing into groups based on technologically enhanced and "pure" athletes, although, as Andy Miah said, with so much technology already available, there really is no such thing as a "pure" athlete.
Background Research:
Athletes Beware, Scientists hot on Gene Doping Trail: This article further clarified the Springstein story and offered another story about an undercover journalist performing a sort of sting on a Chinese doctor offering stem cell injections, proving that this technology definately is out there. Also interesting, both articles noted that although there have been coaches caught trying to obtain this technology, there have been no actual recorded cases of athletes being busted for its usage. The one disparity between this and the main article is that this article made it seem like detecting illegally modified genes is slightly easier.
How Gene Doping Works: This article delved more into the actual processes, even sporting a nice little disclaimer saying that the author/website in no way endorse these practices. It mention one method in its most early stages through which stem cells can be modified, causing these altered performance genes to be passed down through generations. Another Bioethicist was featured in this article said that gene doping could do hardly any good and would cause almost all trouble. Also interesting was the mention of how gene doping could possibly link to cancer, a very loaded statement. Two of the most interesting statements, however, were the facts that gene changing is not technically illegal in the US only in Olympic competitions, and the fact that some people are just naturally born with performance enhancing mutations, but they are not considered cheaters.
Analysis of Potential Bias:
This article certainly seems very unbiased and there are many ways to prove it. Bias through selection/omission as the background research certainly corroborates the article. Being an internet article, there really was not much chance for placement bias, and bias through photos is impossible, as the only picture on the page features a pair of legs running. Statistics and crowd counts were also non-existent rendering this type of bias invalid. As far as word choice, there really seemed to be a good balance in the use of words, making much reference to how athletes have a "choice" and at some parts seeming ever so faintly like an article about abortion or some other major choice. However as, one of my background resources pointed out, although the words "doping" and "enhancing performance" (e.g. Wearing good running shoes is performance-enhancing.) have practically the same meaning, doping has a much more negative connotation, and doping was the favored term in this article. The only other possible bias is the use of sources, seeing a only one out of the many named sources was even remotely for genetic enhancement, and the title, for the previously mentioned reason about how the word "doping" has such a bad reputation.
Sources:
Key Information:
- Gene doping is the process of modifying one's own DNA through any means of different methods, and although it was banned by the WADA in 2003, as WADA head Dr. Theodore Friedmann puts it, "It's not a stretch to imagine that there's an Olympic athlete -- possibly at Vancouver -- who has started this new, very risky form of gene manipulation."
- Testing with the chemical IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor) on mice showed that once merged with their DNA, the small tears that occur naturally in all organisms muscles when they "work out" healed twice as fast with only half the effort.
- Similarly, scientist Ron Evans created two different pills Aicar and GW1516, both containing proteins which increase the performance of non exercising mice on treadmills, although neither have been approved by the FDA.
- This experiment was met with much controversy, as was his "Marathon Mouse", a mouse genetically modified to have weight gain reduced and performance doubled.
- According to WADA spokesperson Frederic Donze, there are literally no ways to test for Aicar and similar drugs in athletes short of cutting their muscles open and performing an biopsy, a wholly inefficient way to test.
- However, scientists speculate that if athletes' genes were kept on "file", a much simpler test could be performed, and both Britain and Canada have agreed to this for the upcoming London Olympics.
- Of course, these new methods are not without danger either, as demonstrated when a test group of baboons were given a certain substance that was meant to increase performance, but instead caused their red blood cells to replicate so rapidly that some died, and others lay on brink of death.
- In 2005, scandal erupted when a German track coach by the name of Thomas Springstein tried to obtain and supply a similar, unreleased substance called Repoxygen to his underage runners resulting in a court hearing and a 16 month sentence.
- However, in bioethicist Andy Miah's opinion, "The majority of athletes immerse themselves in a world of technology -- whether they perceive it or not -- and modern sport has always been about the obsession to evolve performance, beat world records and generally test the boundaries of human capability," although she does agree that current gene doping methods need to be improved in regards to their safety.
- There is also already a limited form of interest in athletes and genes already on the commercial market, as shown by the company Atlas Sports Genetics, who offer a $149 test for junior high students that reveals the presence of a gene known as ACTN3, which improves the capability of a person's fast twitch muscle fibers, one of the major factors in how fast a person runs.
- When Aicar inventor Ronald Evans asked a group of athletes why they would want to take a possibly unsafe drug, they posed the same question with, "Dr. Evans, let's say there was a drug out there that you knew would make
you smarter and you might be able to make another discovery, would you take it?"
Obviously, one can immediately conclude from reading this article that no matter what happens, no matter what kind of scandal or controversy there is, this technology will reach athletes and will go into use. I can also see people dividing into groups based on technologically enhanced and "pure" athletes, although, as Andy Miah said, with so much technology already available, there really is no such thing as a "pure" athlete.
Background Research:
Athletes Beware, Scientists hot on Gene Doping Trail: This article further clarified the Springstein story and offered another story about an undercover journalist performing a sort of sting on a Chinese doctor offering stem cell injections, proving that this technology definately is out there. Also interesting, both articles noted that although there have been coaches caught trying to obtain this technology, there have been no actual recorded cases of athletes being busted for its usage. The one disparity between this and the main article is that this article made it seem like detecting illegally modified genes is slightly easier.
How Gene Doping Works: This article delved more into the actual processes, even sporting a nice little disclaimer saying that the author/website in no way endorse these practices. It mention one method in its most early stages through which stem cells can be modified, causing these altered performance genes to be passed down through generations. Another Bioethicist was featured in this article said that gene doping could do hardly any good and would cause almost all trouble. Also interesting was the mention of how gene doping could possibly link to cancer, a very loaded statement. Two of the most interesting statements, however, were the facts that gene changing is not technically illegal in the US only in Olympic competitions, and the fact that some people are just naturally born with performance enhancing mutations, but they are not considered cheaters.
Analysis of Potential Bias:
This article certainly seems very unbiased and there are many ways to prove it. Bias through selection/omission as the background research certainly corroborates the article. Being an internet article, there really was not much chance for placement bias, and bias through photos is impossible, as the only picture on the page features a pair of legs running. Statistics and crowd counts were also non-existent rendering this type of bias invalid. As far as word choice, there really seemed to be a good balance in the use of words, making much reference to how athletes have a "choice" and at some parts seeming ever so faintly like an article about abortion or some other major choice. However as, one of my background resources pointed out, although the words "doping" and "enhancing performance" (e.g. Wearing good running shoes is performance-enhancing.) have practically the same meaning, doping has a much more negative connotation, and doping was the favored term in this article. The only other possible bias is the use of sources, seeing a only one out of the many named sources was even remotely for genetic enhancement, and the title, for the previously mentioned reason about how the word "doping" has such a bad reputation.
Sources:
- Fantz, Ashley. "The next Frontier in Athletic Doping -- Genes - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 19 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 May 2010.
- Nasr, Susan L. "HowStuffWorks "How Gene Doping Works"" Howstuffworks "Science" Web. 21 May 2010.
- Keim, Brandon. "Athletes Beware, Scientists Hot on Gene Doping Trail | Wired Science | Wired.com." Wired News. 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 May 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment