There was
some interesting news recently reported by the BBC about the potential of
athletes, and in particular cyclists, to implant a gene which helps the body
manufacture additional amounts of the hormone erythpoietin. It is more widely known
as EPO.
EPO was
used illicitly by cyclists such as Marco Pantani and Lance Armstrong and causes
increased levels of red blood cells in the body, enabling more oxygen to get to
the muscle groups and in turn allowing an individual to have great strength and
endurance. Perfect ingredients for a professional cyclist.
Gene
therapy involves planting genes into the body and is currently being
investigated by scientists for its use in battling debilitating diseases such
as haemophilia and conditions such as blindness - the medical journal Lancet recently reported the partially
regained sight of 6 patients whose eyes had been injected with a gene which
they had formerly been missing.
But as
the report makes clear, this research has also attracted the interests of
former Tour cyclists - the inference being that cyclists will be at an
advantage if their body is seen to be producing additional amounts of EPO
naturally through their genes, rather than artificially introduced into their
blood. The French scientist, Philippe
Moullier, who had been approached by the cyclists, related how they then seemed
relatively cavalier about the possibility of harmful side effects e.g.
thickening of the blood and clots which are associated with the abnormal
production of red blood cells. The implication being that the competition in
the world of cycling was so fierce, the will to win so intense, that riders
were willing to take the ultimate risk to achieve in their chosen sport.
The fact that these genes were available simply at
the end of a Google search and purchase was a further level of concern. So too
the possibility that the gene directly injected into the muscle could disappear
and leave no trace within days.
For the outside interested observer it once again
raises questions about how level the field is when watching sports. Going deeper
it raises questions about what a level playing field is in the first place.
Who's to deny an athlete with a naturally low red blood count from making use
of a gene to boost his level to equal those of other competitors? If an EPO
gene is being used generally in the future to make muscles last longer and be
more effective in life, what's to stop a sportsperson from extending their
sporting career by using it?
And where in the world of professional sport the
differences between glorious victory and an ephemeral second place are mili
seconds, what's the role of science in general as regards performance? Power
meters, heart rate thresholds, dietary information, cycle aerodynamics and
design, VO2 max are all products of a science which helps the sports person
ultimately perform better. Are these therefore not to be made available to the
sportsperson?
Like the use of the EPO gene, these are questions
which beg more questions and where black and white dissolve to an opaque grey.
To read the article:
To listen to the BBC report:
No comments:
Post a Comment