Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Science

Genetically-Engineered Super-Athletes? 308

Posted by michael from the mickey-mouse-olympics dept.
Karma 50 writes: "The BBC News is reporting that genetically modified "super-athletes" may be competing as soon as the 2012 Olympic games. A conference in London warns that gene therapies for diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis may be used by athletes to enhance performance. So far, this is undetectable. So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance but, with our desire to win at all costs, this too can't be far off."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetically-Engineered Super-Athletes? More

Genetically-Engineered Super-Athletes?

Comments Filter:

  • what everyone wants to know is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jason99si ( 131298 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:12AM (#2635782)
    ... how long until our planet is graced with Genetically-Engineered Super-Models?

  • Parity? (Score:3, Funny)

    by spatrick_123 ( 459796 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:12AM (#2635783)
    Have they not seen the Chinese gymnastics teams of the past few Olympiads? I think this is OLD news.

    • Re:Parity? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spamuel ( 246002 )
      It's goes back further then that. Does everyone already forget what happened in East Germany? Athletes were basically adopted by the government when they were teens and given steroids and various other performance enhancing drugs without being told what they are. They were groomed for Olympic competition, like cattle. Many of these athletes were given so many drugs that they now have serious health problems. I laughed when I read the comment "So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance" because it's already happened.
  • How far will this go?
    Beeeeefcake!

  • But why shouldn't athletes be genetically modified (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The aim of athletics is to be the best at some (overall pretty pointless) pursuit. So why shouldn't athletes be genetically improved in order to become even better?

    As long as the competitor is still human, what is the problem? I draw the line at cyborgs though...

    • As opposed to which pursuits that aren't pointless. Overall nothing has a point so why crack on athletics?
    • The aim of athletics is to be the best at some (overall pretty pointless) pursuit. So why shouldn't athletes be genetically improved in order to become even better? As long as the competitor is still human, what is the problem? I draw the line at cyborgs though...

      Because the competitions are supposed to be about the athletes, not about who has the better 'technology' support group behind them. That's one of the reasons why they keep trying to ban drugs ... those with more money tend to do better (In the Seoul gams, frex, certain tests revealed the presence of performance enhancing drugs behind 27 (!!!) layers of blockers.)

      When you start in with genetic engineering, you're going down what is essentially the same path ... those with more money will produce the better athlete. It isn't the athlete who's performing, it's the horde of scientific types behind him.

      The article mentioned one natural mutant (doubled haemoglobin levels), which apparently is a family trait. Predessor also took the gold a few decades back. And the family also has a far higher than average rate of heart attacks and strokes (so much for all that good exercide!)

      Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between drugs, gene therapy, or cybernetics in this regard - they all remove the competition from between the athletes to between the money behind the athletes.

  • ...Speedball becomes an Olympic sport then?

  • Human limits (Score:3, Insightful)

    by psxndc ( 105904 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:16AM (#2635797) Journal
    What I've been wondering over the past couple Olymipcs is: What is _the_ absolute fastest a human can do something, no matter how much we enchance them? Records get broken year after year because of new breakthroughs in diet, practice technique, etc, but there has to be a physical limit to how fast a human can theoretically run, swim, etc. Example: There is simply no way a human can cover 100 meters in 5 seconds (current records are like 9.8 seconds). It just can't be possible for a human body to move at 20 m/s under its own power. Even if we engineer the perfect athelete, at some point we are going to hit that wall. Then what? We keep bumping up against it every year? I'm curious what others think about this.

    psxndc

    • If we are going to genetically engineer, the only theoretical limitation I can see on the 100 meter dash is (100 meters / 3e8 meters/second) = 3e-7 seconds = .3 microseconds.

      Seriously, what *theoretical* reason is there why we can't engineer a jet-powered human? Beetles do it. High gees? Exoskeleton.
      • Depending on your diet, you CAN be jet-powered ... not very much at the moment, but like the original poster said - breakthroughs in diet ...

    • Re:Human limits (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TH4L35 ( 310071 )
      I suppose they would be some sort of limit to running speed (presumably slightly less than the speed of light in a vacuum), but there would still be plenty left to tackle afterwards, even if you managed to get someone tweaked to run that fast. Assuming the example of a foot race, genengineered athletes would need to be "perfect" in a variety of racing conditions, not just the ideal ones.

      Some probably not so perfect analogies might be found in mechanical engineering. There is a scientifically precise amount of energy that combusting gasoline can provide, but there is no perfect engine. The tensile strength of steel and concrete are known, but there is no perfect bridge. etc. etc.

    • Re:Human limits (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bert Peers ( 120166 )
      ~There is simply no way a human can cover 100 meters in 5 seconds (current records are like 9.8 seconds)~


      Sure there is, just crossbreed a human with a lynx or something similarly fast, and make sure the final result is genetically still more of a human than an animal, so "it" can compete at the 2064 olympics -- presto, 100 meter in 3.7 seconds.


      This is exactly what the article is about... How much can you enhance a human before it is no longer a human ? Does running on 4 legs count ?

  • Dope, either Genetical or chemical is a bad thing that has not actually yet been proven to enhance one's health on the long-term.

    It'd actually be a good thing for these sportsmen to be respectfully treaten instead of playing some multinational's Guinea pigs.

    So, if you don't watch them on TV, then
    you won't watch their sponsors ads, then they won't get enough money to afford such experiments.

    Sport is not supposed to be "watched" but performed.

    Now, if you get stuck in front of your tv, you'll play their rules and will continue to feed such excesses.

    Here, in Switzerland, no tv accepted to pay the billion bucks needed to broadcast the 2002 Soccer World Cup. Of course, in a 6million people country, it would be indecent as there are some bigger priorities than just financing new undetectable doping technologies.
  • "'super-athletes' may be competing as soon as the 2012 Olympic games"

    isnt 2012 a bit too soon...
    it's 2001 now... so even if we start today, and 'engineer' one of these babies...

    neglecting the 9month fertility period.. the child's supposedly be able to compete at the age of 11? for a lot of guys, that's even before puperty.. needless to say the type of conditioning the athletes get day in and day out.. unless these kids are engineered to be able to compete before puperty.. without the conditioning... still doesnt make much sense

    man... now imagine the political side of things..... oh boy...
    • 11 years old, assuming a newborn started the therapy now, is about right for genetically engineered female gymnasts, swimmers, and figure skaters? It may take another couple of years for genetically modified athletes to appear in men's sports.

      My biggest problem with this isn't the modification in itself; who wouldn't want to be smarter, better looking, faster, stronger, with perfect eyesight and hearing, and the ability to first post at will? It's just that I doubt there will ever be free will to choose to get genetic modifications. It's hard to carefully weigh the consequences of a genetic therapy when you are 3 months old (or still in utero, for that matter.)

      On the other hand, how many 13 y.o. gymnasts really had the free choice about whether to compete or not, anyway...
    • The kind of research they are referencing is about introducing new genes into adults. (Biological) Virii try to do this all the time. A virus is just some genetic material in a coating that makes it easy to transfer, and once it adds it's genes to the mix you become ill.

      It's a bit more complicated with genetic therapies, because you generally don't want the body to fight them off, or kill target cells, but in many cases the idea is still to deliver new genetic material into adult cells. Naturally, you can be more thorough about genetic modifications if you perform them on infants, but a lot of people don't have enough confidence that they know what the effects will be. Gene therapies on adults don't generally change it all at once, so if there are negative side effects you can stop before it's overwhelming.

  • New Slashdot Poll (Score:3, Funny)

    by WinDoze ( 52234 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:18AM (#2635805)
    Favorite Genetically-Engineered Superpower:

    • Super-Strength
    • Super-Height
    • Super-Coding-Abilities
    • Ability to Digest Genetically Modified Foods
    • Ability to Digest CowboyNeal
  • I somehow expect that this would be more the rage in places with major government sponsorship of athletes, like China.

    2012 is about right for the younger athletes, such gymnasts, etc if they were being born right now.

    I can see such a government promoting better athletes by offering rewards if certain athletes got married and had kids. By creating such an articial village of swimmers, or runners, etc. one could improve chances over several generations. All very scientific, and all that.

    Right now I do not see that many traits have been isolated as far as genes go for selecting for specific traits, such as reactions time, muscle size, or whatever. There is more to this somehow, and a lot of details are likely missing for the time being.

  • A bit sick but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:23AM (#2635816) Homepage Journal
    ...somewhere deep down I'd REALLY like to see the olympics competed between genetically modified super steroid dope mungeous uber athletes.

    The 7s 100m, the 2 minute mile, a marathon in... no time. Swimming without having to breath, with great big flat feet hinged at the ankle like flippers.

    REALLY tall dudes playing basketball. Chicks with HUGE asses doing speed skating.

    Roll on 2012!
    • These mutants are already out there - try watching ESPN2's "World's Strongest Man Competitions" and you'll see what I mean.

      Absolute brutes - they probably were born that way and exercise/steroids did the rest.
      • god i love that show.

        it's so much fun watching torbjorn samuelssen and magnus samuelssen (brothers) competing against the protege of a former winner.

        well, no

        it's a lot of fun watching really big guys lift really huge weights and do pointless things with them.

        yeah.

        -gleam

    • Re:A bit sick but... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by IainMH ( 176964 )
      This is what happened in the Red Dwarf books.

      GELFs (Genetically Engineered Life Forms) were created for humans pleasure. I can't remember many of them, but boxers with thier brains below the waist and nothing but a lump of meat where the head should be* so they couldn't get knocked out so easily.

      *Hmm sounds like me at 4am on Satuday mornings. :-)
    • You can get all of that stuff and more on prime time TV. Ripleys believe it or not.....

      I think that the olympics are really trying hard to keep the sports respectable. The world isn't quite ready to see genetically altered freaks battle it out in the olympic arena.

  • How can we tell for sure? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:25AM (#2635821) Homepage Journal
    As the article says, genetic advantages (like the skier with the high red blood cell count) can occur quite naturally as a result of mutation as well as being engineered into athletes.

    How can we be sure that genetic advantages are from cheating (i.e. artificially engineering the DNA to improve the athletic ability of a competitor), and not simply down to a lucky combination of gametes?

  • SciAm has some interesting articles on how it might be done:

    A muscle-building vaccine [130.94.24.217].

    The September 2000 issue has an article (sadly not in the archives yet) that talked about genetically increasing muscle strength and speed. Humans have two types of muscle, "fast-twitch" (strong and fast, but low-endurance) and "slow-twitch" (slower and weaker, but high-endurance). Some mammals (e.g. rabbits, which have to run fast to escape predators) have an "ultra-fast-twitch" muscle type. Humans have the genes to make it but don't have the gene to make the signal protien that causes it to be produced.

    Injecting muscle with genes to produce the activator might lead to super-fast sprinters and amazing power-lifters. Or, people who can tear their tendons out of their bones...

    • Or, people who can tear their tendons out of their bones...

      Yes, certain genetic enhancements, such as higher RBC count, can be done without (i assume) much damage to the body.

      However, there are limits to other enhancements. The human body has had millions of years to become somewhat optimized. When you start increasing certain aspects with disregard for others, you create problems.

      Just building muscle mass on power weight lifters won't matter much unless you also increase the strength of all the supporting structures. Yes, you could pretty easily increase muscle mass/density to lift an extra 200kg. But how much more weight can the wrist take before snapping? The small bones of the feet?

      Sprinters- just how much stress can you put on your feet when you start? Sure, tweaking those leg muscles so they can pump faster will help, but the start is the most critical part of a sprint. Gene therapy to build stronger bones and tendons in the feet so that it can withstand more pressure at the starting point would be key to winning races. IIRC, the foot can withstand 20G's or so. Well, if you could double it, then the sprinters would be able to get off the line that much quicker.

      Perhaps that's where the competition will be. How far can you push the body, during competition, without breaking. Sorta like the drag races of today- the cars that win are the ones that are the best, but most importantly, don't blow headers and gaskets coming off the line.

      We'll start watching the olympics for the same reasons we watch the nascar races; for the crashes.

  • Why would this be news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:29AM (#2635839) Homepage

    Drug use is already endemic [outsidemag.com] in professional athletics. Those athletes that don't use banned drugs benefit to various degrees from accessibility to non-banned training drugs, diets, therapy (including surgery), sponsorship and equipment

    It's delusional to think that we can catch reliably all use of all banned substances, nor even that we'd want to unless we want some very, very empty stadia. We've already got athletes competing doped to the gills, with pins in their bones, covered in surgical scars and supportive strapping, and wearing cutting edge footwear and outfits. Cyborgs by any other name. So let's not get too worried over a bit more tweaking. It's only different by degree.

    Yes, there's a very valid argument that drugs, training and now gene tweaking victimises vulnerable young athletes. But this happens in societies where these athletes generally wouldn't have any other prospects, so let's not get too preachy and overprotective.

    Personally, I'd rather we stopped even pretending to disapprove of drug use, and say that you can do anything you like to yourself before or during the competition, but you'll compete in issue equipment, or naked. Hey, it was good enough for the Greeks. ;-)

    • > Personally, I'd rather we stopped even pretending to disapprove of drug use,
      > and say that you can do anything you like to yourself before or during the
      > competition, but you'll compete in issue equipment, or naked. Hey, it was good
      > enough for the Greeks. ;-)

      Yeah. ALL the athletes who enter into the Olympics and other big competitions have decided to give up on a "normal" lifestyle. From a very young age they train, train, train and train and do very little else. They either do it out of their own free will, or ignore free will long enough to win big.

      Super-elite drugged up, surgically enhanced, genetically modified or engineered athletes would be the next logical step, where people are either born for the express purpose of providing us with amusement, or forced by their families or governments from a very young age to do the same. What exactly is the big problem with letting people decide for themselves to get totally messed up on steroids, let alone genetic modification?
        • <sarcasm> What exactly is the big problem with letting people decide for themselves to get totally messed up on steroids, let alone genetic modification? </sarcasm>

        The problem, as you well know, is that it screws people up, and often they're not given a choice.

        Right. We can address that in two ways:

        1. We can genetically engineer our competitive nature out of ourselves.
        2. We can ban all competitions, or at least all viewing or sponsorship of them. No, wait, that's actually just a special case of 1

        Our competitiveness isn't going to go away, and banning all use of enhancements is delusional. Let's get enhancement of athletes out in the open, study and understand the effects, and allow governing bodies to make rational decisions about marginalising extreme examples of abuse. Banning everything will just encourage trainers to use everything, on the basis that you may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

  • Sometimes it's scary... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LordEq ( 63011 )

    ... how closely reality follows science fiction.

    Think about it. Nation 1's athlete gets beaten by Nation 2's genetically-engineered athlete at the Olympics. Nation 1 realizes the same thing could happen with genetically-engineered soldiers on the battlefield.

    Say it with me, now... Eugenics Wars.

    • I dunno, maybe - but then on the other hand: is military superiority really dependend on the individual strength of soldiers, anymore? It seems that today technology is a far more important factor. A bullet typically travels faster than an athlete...
      • Physical strength, not so much, although a certain minimum level is still important since modern infantrymen carry a really absurd amount of heavy equipment around with them. (In the Korean war, the average infantryman's load, including pack, rifle, ammunition, etc., was ~40 lbs. These days, it's over 100 lbs.) But endurance, resistance to heat and cold, hand-eye coordination ... all those things still matter a lot in modern land warfare. Also, I can see task-specific modifications like engineering fighter pilots to handle high g loads being useful.
  • As long as the modifications are equivalent across all the athletes competing in a given sport, won't this just make it all the more exciting for the viewer?

    Mind you... faster isn't necessarily better, as shown by Formula One [fia.com]

  • This is NOT NEW news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GReaToaK_2000 ( 217386 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:33AM (#2635859)
    America "experimented" with genetic breeding during the slave times. I hate to say it because it bothers me that this happened, BUT black men and women were breed with the specific intent of being bigger, stronger and faster. At the time it was done for the purpose of making them more productive as slaves. Now most of the athletic arena is dominated by black men and women. One would be completely foolish to think that the breeding that went on 200+ years ago did not have a dramatic impact on the black athletes of today.


    Besides, we (the human race) has been breeding animals for specific intent for thousands of years. I mean what the hell was going through the minds of the people that breed dogs to create a Dachshundor the Chihuahua.

    • I'm not sure exactly how many generations American slavery went on for, but I'm not entirely convinced that selective breeding, if done haphazardly for 20 or so generations (here we cannot assume a rigorous, scientifically based and centrally organized program) could produce a group of people who were significantly stronger/hardier than average. After all, when your slaves work hard every day, how do you determine how much of their muscularity is due to genetics, and how much is due to you making them carry heavy things for 16 hours a day? This sort of nature/nurture contribution to phenotype (that means the person's traits) is hard to determine even by modern bio-statistical methods. I doubt some family of slave-owning assh*oles could do it effectively enough to make a difference. I would argue that the abundance of elite black athletes might point more to a legacy of discrimination in other fields of life which might encourage more black people with potential to enter professional sports.

      WRT your comments about the Daschund and Chihuahua breeds of dogs, they weren't bred that way to look preposterous. A Daschund is ideally suited to running down narrow burrows to hunt rabbits (I think that's what they were bred to go for). A Chihuahua, well I don't know but somebody had an idea. Maybe they were bred to kill rats.

      • I do understand what you are saying about the dogs I mentioned. I know alot about different breeds of dog. I just an not a big fan of the Daschund and the Chihuahua. Never have been. I know what their use was. I like the Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Well, I like most of the Spaniels in general. Most of them are "bird dogs" and "lap dogs".


        As for the breeding program of the slaves. It is a documented fact that black people (at the time slaves) were specifically breed large men with large women with the intent of making bigger and hopefully faster and stronger children. I know that it was not scientific, BUT there have been a few articles in the past 10 years about this topic. It is NOT a popular topic because of the nature of the subject. I feel uncomfortable about writing about it, but there is nothing I can do about the past.


        It is my opinion and I agree with the articles that I have read about this subject that the breeding done to the then slaves has enhanced some of our athletes. I also feel that it is not a bad thing and that it should be something that men and women think about when they are looking at potential mates. I was thinking about it and dumped this one particular girlfriend for a number of emotional issues and because I did NOT want to have children with her. I was fearing that her partial blindness and hearing loss, which she was born with, would be passed on. I was also concerned about emotional instability. My wife is a very intelligent and staunchly independant. I love that about her. I am very happy to be having children with her. In fact, the "joke" in her family was to marry a tall man, because her family is generations of short.



        GreatOak


        _______________________________________________


        Just opinions of someone willing to share honestly and with integrity. Can you do the same?

      • Dachshunds [dictionary.com] were bred to hunt badgers, actually, a much more fearsome foe than a mere rabbit.

        I know this because a bed-and-breakfast my wife and I once stayed at had a dachshund puppy that got into everything and loved to go into dark, tight places (like handbags). I took to speaking for it (I often speak for animals and babies), saying, "Is there a badger in here? Maybe there's a badger in HERE!"

        As for the Chihuahua, I can't find a good reference on what they were bred for or even where they came from. Weren't they were bred to hunt Gorditas...?

      • When you consider for a moment how much less harsh American plantations were when compared to thousands of years of conditions in wild africa, and you'll understand completely that a century of breeding in America wouldn't accomplish a thing. Drop this old meme. It's not based on any good facts.

        C//
      • He's not talking about hicks in Tennesee breeding black slaves. He's talking about the intentional, and very controlled breeding of nubian slaves that went on for thousands of years in Northern Africa (there is documented evidence of this in ancient Egypt, and not JUST with black slaves either).

        Still, you take well bred dogs and turn them loose into the wild, and the mutts you get in 3 generations have pretty much lost most of the specialized traits.

        Rat terriers were bred to kill rats.
        The thing is, it's the same moral issues. Look at Greyhounds. As racers, their carreers are usually over with in about 2 years. Most are euthenized after that. The ones that make it as pets have tons of healt problems and special needs that other dogs don't have. And what if a Greyhound had a mind of human proportions. What if that Greyhound actually wanted to be a retriever, but he's stuck racing because of his genetic heritage, and can't catch a tennis ball in his mouth to save his life? Or what if an accident brings a severe injury that makes him unsuitable for racing? Call the vet, time for doggy to go to sleep. Apply these same standards to humans, and you start to see the creepiness of genetic engineering. It's all fine and dandy when you're talking about making it so your kids don't grow up to be obese, or need glasses, or be prone to cancer. Or even have blue eyes and blonde hair. But when you consider some of these "occupation-oriented" traits into the mix, it's pretty frightening.
    • Some species seem to be more mallable than others from a breeding perspective. Dogs have a huge breeding range, but domestic cats only vary in size over about a 2:1 range. Unclear why. Humans seem to be somewhere in between.

      As for the running thing, there's a huge concentration of world-class runners from one specific area of Nigeria. There have been some studies of why this is so, but nobody has identified a genetic marker yet.

    • I thought that the american black athletic superiority came from pretty much the fact that when slave traders robbed the people from africa they would tend to pick the big and healthy ones.

      To survive a month on the boat (and believe me, only the strongest did) in cramped quarters and diseases further improved the selection. There was no real need to further breed the slaves as they are all very strong already. It might have happened, though, I don't know.

      So in the end only the best of the best made it to usa and formed the basis of american black people. This pretty much explains why american black(big and muscular) are good with short distance running and current africans(they also have the skinny ones) dominate long distance.

  • So What? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:34AM (#2635862) Homepage
    We should use science to alter our athletic ability. We should use it to modify our physical appearance, our intellectual capacity and anything else we want to improve as well.

    The idea that we should just deal with the genes we are born with is crap. Practically no one objects to using gene therapy to treat medical conditions, even if the person was born with it.

    What if I want to run as fast as Carl Lewis? Or lift as much as Magnus ver Magnusson? Or swim as well as Matt Biandi? What if I want to be able to do all three? Who are you to tell me I can't?

    A half-assed case can be argued for Olympic competition, but if they want 'natural' athletes, they may as well shitcan the entire lot.

    There are steroids that clear in 24 hours. Testosternone Propionate, for example. People can train while juiced, then stay clean just a couple days before testing. What about creatine? That stuff is made in a lab, as well, but athletes are allowed to use it. It occurs in nature, but so does testosterone and DNA.

    Let the olympians juice themselves to the gills. Let the records fall.

    The human race needs to drop the idea that we should be stuck with shit genetics.

    Knunov

    • Re:So What? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by forgoil ( 104808 )
      I agree, if...

      Always an if there isn't it? Well, my only concern is the possible harm for humanity. The more individuals we get with the same genes, the more likly they are to be wiped out, and "traditional" steroids (etc) have a tendecy to make the user aggresive, or degenerate the body in the long run.

      So, as long as I won't suffer from it, let them have cloned teams and altered people. Maybe we can stop the madness that is cosmic surgery today as well.

    • The problem with this is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mESSDan ( 302670 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @10:36AM (#2636173) Homepage
      What if I want to run as fast as Carl Lewis? Or lift as much as Magnus ver Magnusson? Or swim as well as Matt Biandi? What if I want to be able to do all three? Who are you to tell me I can't?
      Hmm, with today's gene therapy, you'd be lucky to be as fast as Magnus ver Magnusson, able to lift as much as Matt Biandi, and swim as well as Carl Lewis. Don't push it ;)
    • Writing something like this is easy, implementing it isn't. To sucessfully introduce Rabbits Muscle genes into the human Gene code would require years of experiments on animals then higher primates and finally Humans and alot of the experiments would fail including the ones on Humans. When they wheeled that Cloned sheep "Dolly" out onto the Media stage it was called a great scientific achievement. Which may very well be true. That achievement was however preceeded by a legion of faliures which nobody mentioned. I for one am not going to be one of the first to try this, especiall if it involves some Underground Sports Doctor who hopes he knows what he is doing injecting animal Genes into my "System Code". The results this sort of gene splicing could easily leave you wising you were dead.

    • You're obviously trolling, but I'm going to take the bait. I have something to say about your comment.

      What if I want to run as fast as Carl Lewis? Or lift as much as Magnus ver Magnusson? Or swim as well as Matt Biandi? What if I want to be able to do all three? Who are you to tell me I can't?

      No one has the right to tell you you can't. But is it fair to specifically engineer someone to do something without their consent? That goes beyond your rights. Picking your kid from a catalog isn't fair to the kid because then they're valued more for a specific trait they didn't choose rather than given the chance to form their own opinion about what skill they'd like to enhance.

      • The original post was not a troll in any way.

        There are many genetic modifications that no child would resent their parents for. Make them healthy. Make them strong. Make them fast. Make them nimble.

        Any problem would be after they are born by forcing them in a particular direction.

        What I'm saying is give them the best tools available, then watch them use them in the way they'd like.

        Knunov
    • So when you have the money to genetic engineer your offspring, are you going to teach the, to be just as nice to the "normals" whose parents couldn't afford or didn't want to engineer their children?
      • So when you have the money to genetic engineer your offspring, are you going to teach the, to be just as nice to the "normals" whose parents couldn't afford or didn't want to engineer their children?

        No, we're going to teach them to keep them as pets or slaves or eat them as food. After all, we paid for our superiority fair and square. Better watch out - I see your neural enhancement treatment hasn't kicked in yet. And I'm getting hungry...

    • Re:So What? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by osgeek ( 239988 )
      Complete agreement. Make sure to check out the Extropians [extropy.org]. They're similarly forward-thinking. (Their site seems to be down for the moment, but it's very much worth checking out)

      I enjoy Star Trek, but one of the things that really irks me is Roddenberry's persistent "natural" approach to the future of mankind. Anyone who has taken control of their genetic destiny is the villain. You need look no futher than Kahn to see it, but even in the latest 'Enterprise' series, genetic manipulation is what's done by the evil Sullians (or whatever they're called). Even TNG's brief brush with genetically engineered super-children ended up being a lesson in the "evils" of tampering with mother nature.
  • Wether we use 'natural selection' or bio-engineering, what's the diff? We still end up with people who are great at what they do, though they may be sub-optimal at other things.

    Basketball players make lousy power-lifters.

    Make chess an Olympic event.
    Make wheel-chair dancing an Olympic event.
    Make priapism an Olympic event.

    You'll get the individuals best suited for the sport.

  • Doping and Sponsorship (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slutdot ( 207042 )
    I believe that the problem with athletes considering doping and gene therapy has to do with the lack of money in Olympic sports, well sports in general for that matter. There is a lot of pressure for these guys to win because they have to feed their families.

    Sponsorship in sports is extremely important because without a sponsor, you have to get a real job and that takes away from your training time. So what is an athlete to do? He decides to dope so that he can gain the advantage in a race, get the headlines for his team and sponsors and continue to get another paycheck. It happens all the time and while I think doping is pretty stupid and don't condone it, I can see why some athletes do it. There's a lot of pressure to produce results and if others are possibly cheating, you have to cheat as well to hang with the rest of the pack.

  • Objectifying the athlete (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Katravax ( 21568 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:38AM (#2635884)

    Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I have some questions:

    1. We've all seen parents that push their kids into doing things the parents themselves wish they were good at rather than considering what the child wants. Will the ability to custom-order strength or speed (like paying the Dungeon Master for extra points on a roll of the die) increase this sort of thing?
    2. Will possible backfires from this lead to the ability to special-order not only strength and speed but the desire to perform particular tasks?
    3. If so, would we consider it ethical to psychologically condition the earlier children with custom abilities (but not the custom desire) to do what we want?
    4. If not, why would it be ethical to engineer them with those desires?
    5. And not to be flippant, but doesn't that sort of take the fairness and fun out of the sport?

    • Re:Objectifying the athlete (Score:5, Interesting)

      by marxmarv ( 30295 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @10:25AM (#2636104) Homepage
      Idolatry is just one side of the objectification coin. They're already there.

      Of course it takes the fairness and fun out of the sport. What makes you think sponsors are interested in fun and fairness? Fun and fairness doesn't sell sports. Rivalry sells sports. Tostitos and ESPN/Disney didn't just solicit free marketing work from their addicts^Wcustomers to find the best teams in the leagues. No, they specifically asked for the best rivalry.

      Personally, I don't care. I never understood competitive sport anyway.

      -jhp
      This post is dedicated to George Harrison. May he rest in peace.

      • Personally, I don't care. I never understood competitive sport anyway.

        I'm not a fan of sports either. But I do care — I think that's wrong to do that to people. Just because it's not something I enjoy the effects from doesn't mean I think it's right to modify someone for a specific purpose without their willing participation.

    • If not, why would it be ethical to engineer them with those desires?

      Even if it wasn't, why the hell would you fuck your kid up like that? What happens if these "desires" you instill in him/her are inherantly impossible to quench, or at least inherently difficult? Why start off your kid with such an uphill battle when there are so many others already?

      It seems to me a person who would want to do that sort of thing to a kid lacks a certain basic appreciation for human life. If you would want to change yourself to be a genetically enhanced super-athelete--I mean really want it, not just as an intellectual exercise--then you have issues you need to work out before you are let loose with an impressionable young mind. And if you wouldn't wish it on yourself, why wish it on another?

      -Erik
  • Sports competition is already "win at all costs". Right now people sacrifice family life, friends, and education in order to become the top in the field. Top athletes will often train more per day than the average person works at an 40-hour/week job. This is why they need sponsorship, which means only the rich can compete, or at least, those who can get money from rich people.

    It's already a technology game. Of course, we don't look at training methodologies as technology, but it is. We have been developing better and better training techniques over the years, which has been showing up as better and better sports performance.

    It's already about genetic advantage. Certain people are born with better genes for sports competition. Gene therapy just levels the playing field. Heck, it also relieves the pressure from parents who want to improve their child in the womb -- they can just wait until the kid is born, who can then choose their genetic attributes themselves :-).

    I think the real issue here is that people believe that sports competition is something noble. Certainly, this is how the multi-billion $$$ Olympics.com sports corporation markets it. I just don't see it that way. I'm not saying its ignoble, its just that the NobleAthlete(tm) is a product. E.g. in the past, only "amateurs" could compete in order to maintain this mythical image, but now professional athletes can compete -- pros were allowed only when it didn't weaken the image the Olympics.com is trying to sell.

  • It's the next step in the evolution of sports (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mttlg ( 174815 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:42AM (#2635900) Homepage Journal
    If you look at the past century, you'll see that athletes have used every advantage available to them to make themselves better than those who came before them. New ideas, new techniques, new equipment, new training methods, new diets, etc. The athlete of 2001 has countless advantages that the athlete of 1901 didn't have. Advances in materials and medicine alone have had a huge impact on sports. Some of these "performance-enhancing" advances (semi-dimpled golf balls, corked bats, anabolic steroids, etc.) are banned, but many others are allowed. The playing field may be mostly level at any given time, but it changes dramatically over time. Genetic enhancements, especially those that can't be detected, are just the extension of current practice into the field of genetics.

    The reason why this will eventually be accepted (assuming there is no serious risk to the athlete of course) is simple - sporting events are entertainment. If records are never broken, nobody cares. In 1997, baseball was no big deal. In 1998, there was a huge peak in interest because a record that had stood for decades was about to be broken. However, frequent record breaking is just as boring as no record breaking at all, as was shown by the general lack of interest in the last weekend of the 2001 MLB season, which featured all kinds of records falling. What does this mean about the future of genetically enhanced sports? At first, people will be amazed at the superhuman feats. Then it will get boring. Finally, it will be interesting again, if anyone still cares about sports enough to participate at the media-hyped level.

  • If this is what it takes ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HalfFlat ( 121672 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:51AM (#2635928)
    ... to make gene therapy cheap and safe, then let's not worry too much!

    History has already shown that a significant proportion of athletes are willing to risk their health in order to gain a competitive advantage. Gene therapy will be another risky medical technique that they will adopt.

    Given that it is going to happen anyway, think of the benefits! With widespread use and money invested in development, it will encourage the development of gene therapies that are safer, cheaper and of potential benefit to a large proportion of the population. Why shouldn't we be fitter (or smarter, or healthier) than what our random genetic heritage dictates?

    The best defense against a world of genetic haves and have nots is to encourage an environment where gene therapy is widely accepted and above all, cheap! The alternative has the technology develop more slowly, and be available only to an elite, rich few.

    On another front, on the topic of fairness in sport, it's already moot on the genetic front. While the very best athletes of course dedicate their lives to their activities and are admirable examples of determination and hard work, they are also in all likelihood blessed with an advantageous genetic makeup when compared with the population at large. (This is sure to be more the case in some sports than others, of course!) Much as we would like it to be otherwise, we are not all born equal when it comes to genetic potential. One could make the case that genetic tinkering has the potential to make competition more fair rather than less.
  • The tests for extra DNA are pretty straightforward once you have a marker. A recent example is anthrax testing. At the beginning of the scare it was do the old fashiong way by growing cultures and looking special characteristics- a process that took three to four days. But commercial labs and the CDC came up a genetic marker test that can be done more conclusively and in an hour.
    • The test for anthrax is based on detecting genes which exist in the anthrax bacterium. This IS easy using modern molecular methods. It will be harder to detect whether a human being has been genetically modified by the addition of naturally occurring human genes. After all, who's to say that they weren't born with the gene(s)? It would be easier if the genes being inserted were from other species but you'd have to test for a LOT of different genes unless certain genes became so commonly used that you could expect to catch a good proportion of the offenders. You might more effectively screen for the presence of vector (the DNA which "carries" the gene into the person's chromosomes) sequence, but again there are a number of vectors (adenoviruses, HIV, other retroviruses) which could be used, and some of them are VERY similar to viruses you and I might be carrying right now. It'll be harder than you think.

      • I think the third arm and the ability to fly would tip me off that an individual has been "modified". ;)
      • My guess is that to effectively engineer someone, you're going to have to insert more than one gene. Not only that, but to get decent (both specific and high) gene expression you may to have to do some strange stuff to the promoter/enhancer/etc that won't likely be in nature.

        Now, if you're going to insert a lot of genes, are you going to try and put them all in one vector simultaneously or are you going to put them each in their own vector and try and co-transform the cells? You'd obviously put them in one vector in order to increase efficiency. Granted, you could do it the other way, but co-transformation efficiency would be very low (efficiency would be very important when dealing with a limited number of human embryos).

        My test would simply be PCR up the genes in question and look for the length of the product. If they're really close together then you know there's some engineering involved. If there's no product (different chromosomes) or huge product (far apart on a chromosome) then it's natural.
  • That's pretty... interesting.

    I'm sure a lot of people will have moral objections to this, personally I don't really care.

    However, doesn't this type of thing sort of, I dunno, take the fun out of competion? Who the hell wants to watch genetically engineered people competing, sort of the same way steroids do?

    On the other hand, wouldn't it be great to be a genetically engineered super-human?

    Ah, super strength, super reflexes, super brain power, super killing power... ;-)

  • I dont think its the desire to win at all costs anymore. Its the desire to win at less cost than the amount of sponsorship you might get from Nikidas.

  • Sceptical (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marcus Brody ( 320463 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:58AM (#2635959) Homepage
    2012 sounds a little early to me.

    Gene therapy is the act of introducing gene(s) into a population of adult cells, for therepeutic benifit. For example, Cystic Fibrosis patients lack the CFTR gene. Therefore, in theory, introducing this gene to the lung cells should correct most of the physiological defects. However, the pharamseutical industry and academic sector have been struggling with this apparantly simple idea for a long time.

    Problems include:
    -deliviring the gene to the correct tissue in a high enough dose
    -Many of the delivery systems rely on (crippled, non-contagious) viral vectors, which can illicit an immune response. A patient died during clinical trials because of this
    -It is difficult to get a stable transfection. I.e. Once the gene is in the correct cell, it does not stay their for life.

    There are numerous other technical hurdles to overcome, and if the multi-billion pound pharmaceteucial industy is still struggling with them, I find it hard to believe that the (largely ameteur) athletics industry will be using them in 2012.

    But, I guess they will use this technology at some point in the future - but not untill it first becomes common place in medicine, like other peformance enhancing drugs. So the point is still valid I guess.

    Also, they say this will be difficult to detect. Philisophically, I disagree. I am of the opinion that most actions leave a fingeprint, a signature. You just have to look hard enough. You could detect gene therapy by looking for certain properties of the transgene (e.g. if it was stably integrated, the gene would likely be in the wrong place in the genome. Or if the gene was only delivered to muscle cells, the genetic content of the muscle cells would be different to skin cells).

    Furthermore, some people seem to be confusing eugenics with gene therapy. Gene therapy changes the genetic content of populations of adult cells, primarily for therepeutic benifit. Eugenics is the selective breeding of humans. Both techniques could (thereotically) be used to produce people with exta-ordinary abilities. However, eugenics would result in the trait being passed on to future generations. Gene therapy, normally, would not do this, except in the case of germline gene therapy, which I believe is now outlawed in most countries along with human cloning & eugenics.
  • Olympic is not as commercial as Football, both American and English (real) style. Commercial factor is always the evil factor! Just imagine clubs like 49ers or Chelsea start sponsoring these things. Then you'll see a huge meathead SF49er running at 50mph or a rugby player sized footballer running faster than Owen, more skillful than Maradona and play better golf than tiger woods in his spare time.

    Then what is the point of watching games anymore? amire the result of science?

    Why can't I be engineered to be a super star to earn millions in sports instead of someone else?

    • Then what is the point of watching games anymore? amire the result of science?

      Sure. I'd rather admire the result of science than admire the physical performance. "Wow, look how they managed to increase his muscle mass without any of the usual side effects--their team must have figured out a better sequence of muscle growth genes"

  • I'm genetically engineered... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @10:06AM (#2635989) Homepage
    I'm engineered in such a way that my cells divide and grow and make me larger and stronger. I was so cleverly engineered that if you cut me the damage repairs itself over time... also I have a system by which I can fuel myself, and a means of distribution for that fuel throughout my body...

    Isn't science wonderful...?
    • Well not really. Ok, maybe if you believe in god, than you may believe you were "engineered" but then you'd probably have a problem with muddling with "the creator's work".

      If you don't believe in god, then you presumably realize that you came into existence by a process which has nothing in common with engineering. Evolution has neither a goal, nor is there an understanding of the process which is driving it. I think both of those are required for engineering work.

      Of course, sometimes we may wonder "why the fuck, am I supposed to do this?" but that only shows that most companies aren't run by engineers. ;)

      • Of course, sometimes we may wonder "why the fuck, am I supposed to do this?" but that only shows that most companies aren't run by engineers. ;)

        And if they were run by engineers, ther companies probably wouldn't be around for you to wonder "why the fuck am I supposed to do this?" at all. Maybe it's a good thing not to ask too many questions!

  • It's done already (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ubi_NL ( 313657 )
    In rats and monkeys that is.

    They managed to inject DNA containing biosynthesis genes for EPO so that rats were capable of running around endlessly with 3 times their body weight on their back. They were named 'Arnold Schwarzenegger' mice. In monkeys gene therapy had a similar effect.
    It must however be noted that at least in monkeys it was found that the genes changed the blood to look like ketchup, with all the hazards that go along with that.

    However, the problem with EPO etc etc is that although it does build muscle, it DOES NOT increase the muscle binding to the bone. So a;though you'll get 80 meters in 1 second, by that time all muscles are ripped off and you'll never finish your 100 meters on your own...
  • Not that we are creating super babies, but in many cases, we are training olypic athletes from birth. If I recall the old Sovit Union held try outs in all the elementry schools and then took the promosing youth to athletic camps and proceded to train the hell out of them. This is most notrotious among women's gymnastics and figure skating, but it can also been seen in swiming. I mean in these sports we have 14 or 15 year olds traing 10 hours a day. We may not be genticly enginering them, but we certenly determen their fate from a suprisingly younge age.
  • ...this is an anime plot,... check out Black Jack.

  • 2 olympics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @10:55AM (#2636269) Homepage Journal
    I've been waiting for this for years.

    What I would like to see is 2 separate parallel olympics:

    SuperOlympics
    Take all the drugs you want, upgrade your genes, add some cyborg parts, and do the 100 meter dash flat under 4 seconds. (I would love to see a marathonian on coke!)

    NormalOlympics
    Just like they are now, no drugs, no gene therapy, no implants, BUT with snipers! If you fail a drug test, they don't tell you, you get shot in mid-race!

    Now THAT I would watch!
    • SuperOlympics
      Take all the drugs you want, upgrade your genes...

      Been done. The Saturday Night Live sketch, "The All-Drug Olympics".

      Dennis, getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmudov of the Soviet Union. His trainer has told me that he's taken antibolic steroids, Novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had a few 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 getting set now, he's going for a clean and jerk of over 1500 pounds, which would triple the existing world record.
  • We already draw artifical lines between what is acceptable and what is not in athletics training. The common thread in banned supplements is that they are deemed hazardous to the athlete's health. Would gene therapy have significant harmful side effects ? If not, there is no reason to ban it.

    Creatine is legal, anabolic steroids are illegal, and androstenedione was illegal in some sports but legal in others (although baseball later banned it).

    Science will continue to come up with performance enhancing methods faster than tests can be produced to detect their use. If this does give people an edge, it will be used whether it is legal or not.
  • "I need to take these massive amounts of Vitamin C to prevent scurvy. It has nothing to do with the fact that my ankles are the size of your neck."
  • How do we separate drugs from nutrition. Last olympics, an athelete was accused of using drugs because they seemed to be detected in his body. Turns out he just ate a lot of a certain nutrient and his body produced the chemical naturally.

    Here's an idea. Atheletes should be allowed to use any chemical that they want, so long as it occurs naturally in the human body. If you die of liver failure or somthing like that within ten years after winning, they take back your medal.

    What the hell is the difference if one athelete produces loads of a hormone naturally and another injects it?

    Or maybe they should just do a variation of Roman law and say that it's illegal to use any drug which is detectable. If you can't detect it, it shouldn't be illegal.
  • The article mentions the doping scandal in the 1998 edition of the Tour de France and claims that 20 cyclists have died of EPO abuse. In truth there is really only one EPO abuse death that has been documented and I'm not sure where they got this figure. I've been an avid cyclist for years and have never heard such a high figure.

    The international cycling union prohibits EPO usage (like many other sport unions) in order to make the sport more fair. This stuff costs a lot of money. Even if there were no risk of personal harm, if everyone has to dope in order to compete it just means that the average speed increases and the financial costs as an athlete also increase. Objectively it would be more prudent for everyone not to dope, but some will try for an unnearned edge so they need to test and occassionally a scandal erupts.

    (As a side note, cycling often gets a bad rap for drug problems, but it is because the officials are more serious about rooting out the problem. For example, in major races they conduct random drug inspections and keep samples for 6 months afterwards should a more refined test method be developed. In cycling, if you hemocrit level is over 50% you are automatically disallowed from the major races. Other sports are much more relaxed and in effect turn a blind eye to the problem because it produces bad press.)

    Genetic modification is a more tricky topic. We could all generally agree that this would be good if we could reduce heart disease. It is a short step to conclude that genetic modifications to allow for a higher oxygen capacity for blood would be good. This is what some drugs like EPO do.

    The bottom line is that any elite athlete is a very specialized person. For example, when Lance Armstrong wins the Tour de France he sacrifices many other pursuits in order to train 6 hours a day on the bike. He lives like a monk in order to win. Incidentally, he is quite gifted genetically.

    I'm an avid cyclist and an amateur racer, but I'll never ride like Armstrong. A pity, but true. If someone could be engineered to beat a natural elite athlete it would be a tad pale. I tend to think that many of us have the ability to be great at something, we just need to discover it. Athletes have done this. For the most part they learned about themselves and chose to maximize their talent. What does this say of someone who would be engineered to be a great cyclist?

    I'm no luddite and I think genetic engineering will yeild great things, but in the realm of sport the real beauty isn't in the records broken. The beauty is seeing someone who discovered his or her best acheivement. How that I wish we could all do that.
  • So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance
    Genetic therapy is not about inheritance or breeding. Geneticists are increasingly seeing every physiological process as genetic. The therapy works by introducing certain genetic material into a living organism. Even a small amount this material can "cure" diseases caused by the lack of certain enzymes due to defective genes. This article seems to imply that even those without defective genes can benefit from the additional genetic material.

    So far, this is undetectable.
    Where does this idea come from? Its not in the article. I doubt that its true.

    And some sports scientists believe that work must start now on developing a test to catch them out.
    Okay, okay! Developing a test that can be used quickly on a large number of athletes shouldn't be too difficult. Certainly those working on the therapy would have a test to determine whether it's effective.

  • Personally, I could give a crap if I could break the world's record in... whatever. I'll leave that to the comptetive types who get their sense of self worth from beating other people.

    BUT: If these techniques could be used to be a sort of super-Viagara, not only keeping Mr. Happy up and running but also keep Mr. Coronary Failure from showing up... Well I'd be tearing down the door to get it done.

    And you know how a normal tongue is three times stronger than normal muscle tissue? Think about it! A super tongue! I'd start spelling "cunnilingus" with even more N's. And I'd have oh so many new friends with large breasts and flat stomachs and tasteful tattoos. Hell, I might even get famous and get on Stile Project! Woo-hoo!

    - Rev.
  • Imagine being able to take a shot a day of some exotic drug and then being able to almost instantly understand COM?

  • Fair? Yes. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dh003i ( 203189 )
    I've read several comments on slashdot, and gotten the impression that some people think such gene therapy would be "unfair" to those athletes who didn't use it, if they had to compete against those who did.

    This is nonsense.

    Really, all gene therapy does is alter someone's natural talent. No one really "deserves" what natural talent they have anyways. Did Einstein or Hawking "deserve" to be brilliant? Did Michael Jordan "deserve" to be gifted with natural athletic talent. The answer to these questions is, of course, a resounding no.

    No one deserves what natural talents they have or do not have.

    ----------

  • Breeding for athletic performance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @02:03PM (#2637452) Journal
    So we're not immediately facing the prospect of watching athletes bred especially for their performance but, with our desire to win at all costs, this too can't be far off.

    WHAT?

    Athletes have been "breeding for athletic performance" for thousands of years! That's what it's ABOUT!

    Haven't you noticed, even now, that the Jocks get the Cheerleaders, along with their pick of the female fans? Cheerleaders who are themselves athletic and exhibiting all the characteristics of healthy and extremely fertile young women just hiting breeding age? And Olympic Jockettes get to pick among several healthy multimillionaires, if they don't pair off with a prime Olympic Jock?

    The only thing different here is that technology can now meddle directly in the process to direct and accelerate it by selecting particular genes or adding new ones from outside, rather than leaving it to the luck of the genetic draw among the genes currently in the particular Jocks and Jockettes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.

Close