About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Athlete alert: Is genetic juicing set to replace steroids?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

gene therapy doping athlete olympicsWhen Olympic medals and multi-million-dollar contracts are at stake, athletes and coaches have been known to resort to drastic measures to strike gold. But as the steroid era evolves amidst increased testing and public hectoring, what other performance booster will enter the ring?

Gene therapy, say a host of researchers, three of whom call for more oversight of the technique’s use in athletics. In a commentary published online February 4 in Science, Theodore Friedmann, of the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and his colleagues wrote that aside from ethical questions of good sporting practices, many genetic therapies are far from proven: "Although highly effective in some models, these gene therapy techniques are imperfect and still highly risky."

Pressure on athletes to be ever faster, stronger and higher-scoring feeds a fierce field that markets sometimes-suspicious solutions. "Some athletes and coaches will be tempted, prematurely and unwisely, to take advantage of results packaged by some as performance enhancement ‘breakthroughs,’ even if they are untested in humans and the only ‘breakthrough’ is faster or stronger mice," the biomedical and genetic researchers wrote.

Indeed, some therapies that are being developed to help people with degenerative diseases and genetic defects live longer and more high-functioning lives might also be used to boost healthy bodies. These include "treatments that regenerate muscle, increase its strength, and protect it from degeneration," H. Lee Sweeney, a physiologist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine who was not involved in the new paper, wrote in a July 2004 article for Scientific American. "Among these are therapies that give patients a synthetic gene, which can last for years, producing high amounts of naturally occurring muscle-building chemicals."

One molecular manipulation in particular, a modulator of peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor delta, "regulates expression of genes involved in lipid metabolism, energy utilization, and insulin action," noted the authors, and it "increases the production of slow twitch oxidative energy-efficient muscle fibers."

But are these newly developed techniques really being used? Friedmann and his colleagues noted that their concern is far from speculative, pointing to the German track and field coach who in 2006 was found to have tried to get a vector for gene transfer and the genetic juicing from a Chinese lab reportedly offered to athletes before the 2008 Olympics.

Hedging its bets, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which was established more than a decade ago with initial funding from the International Olympic Committee, put gene therapy on its list of no-no’s back in 2004. (Two of the paper’s authors have worked with the WADA, and the other works for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.)

As the race to discover new competitive edges speeds up, so too does the race to detect them. Jacking up genes is "likely to produce broad metabolic, genetic, and proteomic changes," noted the authors. Speedy new sequencing techniques, as are currently used to scan for developmental disorders and other genetic red flags, will likely be able to catch such changes, they wrote.

Although the dangers and dubiousness of gene doping are clear to some scientists, few sports professionals and amateurs have taken a dive into this research literature, cautioned the authors: "Reputable athletes or coaches with little knowledge of genetics are at a disadvantage in assessing ‘scientific’ claims" of purported performance enhancers.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/valery08

Rights & Permissions

Comments 4 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. mjlaye 1:06 am 02/5/2010

    a modulator of peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor delta, "regulates expression of genes involved in lipid metabolism, energy utilization, and insulin action," noted the authors, and it "increases the production of slow twitch oxidative energy-efficient muscle fibers."

    In humans the data is very limited, and controversial, that a switch from type 2 fibers (twitch) to type 1 (slow twitch) can even occur. The data from the cited study occurred in mice. It is more likely than the use of a PPARdelta agonist in humans would increase the proportion of type 2 oxidative (IIa) to type to glycolytic (IIx) fibers, which may improve oxidative capacity (increased ability to use oxygen) of the muscle as a whole and thereby may improve endurance.
    However, it should be noted that exercise physiologists are still not an agreement on what is the limiting factor in endurance sports. Whether it be the oxidative capacity of the muscle, delivery of oxygen via the circulatory system, or a central regulator in the brain. More likely each of these plays a role that will vary depending upon the exact duration and intensity of the endurance event.

    Link to this
  2. 2. ZBAPOReese 9:50 am 02/8/2010

    I read an interesting article not to long ago in a local paper on how the US government also keeps genetic records of people born in the United States to screen them for genetic diseases. I wonder if such information could also be utilized for screening if someone has used gene therapy as a means of getting ahead in the athletic arena later in life?

    Link to this
  3. 3. Probolan 7:21 am 10/18/2010

    I don’t understand this sportsman who do the things like this, there are a lot of naturaal suplements, wchich can help them and dont ruins carrier. For example:

    Link to this
  4. 4. Dochoctor 11:03 am 04/15/2011

    To me the issue of any type of performace enhancement comes down to goals. If your goal is to increase performace for a brief window of time regardless of the physiological or moral consequences then by all means take your growth hormone, your steroid, or apparently now a synthetic gene stimulus. But we can’t be blind to the pattern. We live in a culture where we are constantly looking beyond ourselves for our health, wellness, and optimal function. We think a pill will protect us from heart disease, will make us skinny, keep us from being depressed, etc. And yet here we are obese, depressed, nutritionally deficient and dying of heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. True function/performace comes from the proper care and maintanence of the human body.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article