-
7 Authenticity
- Indiana University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Authenticity 7 If individuals knowingly and voluntarily agreed to be genetically enhanced, or if the benefits so clearly outweighed the risks that we permitted children and others to be enhanced despite their inability to consent, we would face the question of how to value their accomplishments. Should a race won by a genetically enhanced athlete count the same as a race won by dint of years of training and self-sacrifice? Is a college degree obtained with the aid of genetic enhancements a legitimate reflection of individual achievement ? Would the fact that an artist had been genetically enhanced diminish the beauty of a painting or sculpture? In short, how valid are accomplishments made with the aid of genetic enhancement? Are they true achievements? Are they authentic? This problem has arisen historically with athletes who use drugs to enhance their performance. The organizations that sponsor the events they compete in ban the use of these drugs and go to great lengths to detect and punish violators. The most prominent of these organizations is the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The IOC first became concerned about performance enhance- 96 Wondergenes ment—which it calls “doping”—in 1960, and in 1961 it created a Medical Commission to deal with it. The basic anti-doping principles of the IOC were laid down in 1967: (1) “protection of athletes ’ health”; (2) “defense of sports ethics”; and (3) “equality for all participants at the moment of competition.”1 The first drug tests were performed at the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble, France. A subcommission on “Doping and Biochemistry of Sport” was established in 1981 to identify banned substances and practices, to promulgate approved testing methods , and to certify testing laboratories. Beginning in the early 1990s, the IOC broadened its concern to include the use of doping during training outside of competition. In 1999, an independent body called the World Anti-Doping Agency was established in Lausanne, Switzerland, to coordinate the worldwide anti-doping effort. At the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney, Australia, a total of 2,846 anti-doping tests were performed. Forty-one athletes were disqualified before they even reached Australia, nine after they arrived but before they could compete.2 Three Bulgarian weightlifters forfeited medals after they tested positive for a drug that can mask the use of steroids. A Latvian rower and a Russian runner were stripped of medals for steroid use, and in the most controversial case, a sixteen-year-old Romanian gymnast lost her gold medal after testing positive for an over-the-counter medicine that contained a banned stimulant, which her team doctor apparently had given her to treat a cold. One drug that the IOC tests for is erythropoeitin (EPO), which stimulates the production of red blood cells. Since EPO is made using recombinant DNA, it qualifies both as doping and as a genetic enhancement. Olympic officials detected approximately 100 uses of EPO during the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Games.3 In short, the IOC already is testing athletes for the use of a banned genetic enhancement substance. As the IOC’s anti-doping principles state, a major concern is the negative effect of performance-enhancing drugs on the athletes ’ health. Many of these substances can cause serious health problems, even death. But some of these drugs, such as the overthe -counter medicine given to the Romanian gymnast, are quite safe. And others, although they may present a risk of adverse ef- [3.236.111.234] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 08:40 GMT) 97 Authenticity fects, are no more hazardous than some of the physical and emotional abuse that athletes subject themselves to during training. Why are these substances banned as well? The answer lies in the IOC’s other two anti-doping principles, “defense of sports ethics” and “equality for all participants at the moment of competition.” Even if the substances are not harmful to athletes, the IOC is saying, their use is unethical. They confound the integrity of sport. Athletes who use them are cheating. They don’t deserve to win. Their victories are inauthentic. The same charges can be lodged against users of genetic enhancements . The advantages conferred by enhancement, it can be argued, are not merited. An athlete who places first by virtue of using genetic enhancement no more deserves a medal than an athlete who uses steroids or EPO. But let’s take a closer look at the IOC’s second and third rationales . The third—“equality for...