The source of the current world wide health crisis has finally been identified: genetic doping activities in professional sports! Contagious virus vectors, developed to insert high performance genes into players’ genomes, are causing the current cancerous pandemic.
News headlines such as these certainly are frightening. Luckily, up to now, they are fictional only. Nevertheless, they may actually portend a future health crisis, if gene doping practices continue as such in professional sports. In this piece, Spanking FIT examines the potential for such a crisis to occur; but, first, we quickly review the findings of our prior investigation of traditional doping with focus on the Lance Armstrong affair.
Review of traditional doping vis-à-vis Lance Armstrong
Last November, Spanking FIT analyzed the controversy surrounding the use of non-genetically based performance enhancing substances in professional sports (see “Why Not Allow Lance Armstrong To Dope?”, Nov. 21, 2014) . In the case of Lance Armstrong, we observed how it took over fifteen years for full exposure of his now-admitted illegal activities to take place. We also detailed the methods that Lance, his trainers, and his team doctors admitted to using in concealing the truth from the public. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (U.S.A.D.A.) belatedly released a report on the matter in 2012 including with it this shocking statement: “an estimated 80% of Tour de France medalists between 1996 and 2012 have been similarly tainted by doping”. These facts and statistics caused us to seriously question the ability of the professional sports establishment to police itself and to enforce performance enhancing drug (P.E.D.) bans. Spanking FIT actually went so far as to suggest that sports bans be completely lifted under the condition that players be better monitored and tested, and that an anonymous data bank be established and maintained for purposes of performing risk/ benefit analyses for P.E.D.s. It was suggested that the accumulated data be used to make scientific decisions as to whether medical benefits outweigh risks. In the current segment, Spanking FIT takes an objective look at an even more controversial sports-related problem- performance enhancement through gene doping techniques; but, first, we examine what exactly gene doping is, and examine how it differs from more traditional methods.
Gene doping
In gene doping, an attempt is made to enhance the physiological performance of players, either permanently or on a long-term basis, by inserting genetic materials into the player’s genome. The genome contains the genetic code for the synthesis of proteins and hormones within our body, and is what determines innate differences in our level of physical and mental ability. For example, instead of injecting Human Growth Hormone (H.G.H.) or steroids directly into a player’s bloodstream, with the gene doping process, genes specifically responsible for the natural production of those substances are identified and manipulated so that they are naturally produced by the body only in abundance. Gene doping is an offshoot of legitimate efforts on the part of medical researchers to find remedies for genetically-based diseases through genome repair or modification. Naturally, detection of genetically modified athletes (so called “G.M.A.s”) is a more difficult job than simply detecting athletes who use P.E.D.s. Here are a couple of specific (and troubling) examples:
(1) Performance enhancement through increase in blood oxygen content, via gene doping: In 2002, a company called Oxford Bio Medica developed “Repoxygen” for treatment of anemia. The product uses a viral vector to transfer modified human E.P.O. gene to patients. The E.P.O. gene encodes for the hormone E.P.O. which increases the number of red blood cells and oxygen in the patient’s bloodstream. You will recall that E.P.O. was one of the performance enhancing substances admittedly used by Lance Armstrong in winning his gold medals. The difference is that Lance used the traditional doping approach of injecting the hormone directly into his bloodstream. (Had he used Repoxygen, there is a possibility that he may never have been caught.) Dangerous side effects that have been associated with Repoxygen include increased risk of stroke and heart attack.
(2) Performance enhancement through increased muscle tissue mass resulting in increased strength, via gene doping: In a manner similar to that explained in example 1 above, insulin-like growth factor 1 (I.G.F.1) gene transfer has been successfully used in regeneration of skeletal muscles following injury. The gene transfer method was deemed more effective than systematic administration of the protein product, which, incidentally is currently available in the U.S. to anyone with a mailing address from Life Technologies, a Therma Fisher Scientific company. A potential side effect of I.G.F.1 gene transfer is cancer.
Gene doping risks
A few of the risks associated with genetic enhancement of players have already been mentioned. In the case of E.P.O. genetic enhancement, they include stroke and heart attack. There are also relevant experiments that were conducted at the University of Pennsylvania by Jim Wilson whereby monkeys injected with the E.P.O. gene experienced horrific overproduction of red blood cells turning their blood into sludge. One side effect of I.G.F.1 gene transfer is cancer, as already mentioned. This can occur when genes are delivered by viral vectors to the wrong site. Potential risks, however, of gene doping go way beyond those associated with the traditional methods, and may also involve other innocent victims besides the individual doped athletes. In contrast to gene therapy which is (hopefully) being carried out under strictly controlled conditions, gene doping is generally carried out with few protective measures. The fact that it is illegal aggravates the problem. Viral vectors produced haphazardly can easily become contaminated with other biological agents making them potentially deadly. Also, and this one relates to the hypothetical pandemic headline, it is possible for viruses to become contagious and be transmitted to other players or to members of the general public. D.N.A. from doping agents might even work their way into patients’ reproductive cells with disastrous repercussions for future generations. Instead of becoming a race of super ball players, we could become one of cancer prone short-lived invalids.
How prevalent is gene doping in professional sport?
Nobody really knows the answer to that question. It is like asking what the rate of cocaine use is among legal professionals. The fact that it has been occurring for quite some time is evident from the following reported events:
(1) In March 2006, German athletics coach Thomas Springstein was convicted of doping charges including administering Repoxygen to female runners. Springstein, who was once coach of the German Athletics Association (D.L.V.), worked with some of Germany’s “top” athletes including the East German track stars Katrin Krabbe and Grit Breuer. Both were suspended for using banned substances. Krabbe had previously won world titles in 1991, while Breuner won a European title in 1990.
(2) In a 2004 edition of Science News, reporter C. Brownlee reported that H. Lee Sweeney, M.D., Professor of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania, claimed that was being inundated with requests from professional athletes for I.G.F.1 genetic enhancements. The article did not say if Dr. Sweeney complied with any of those requests.
(3) More recently, during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, German broadcaster W.D.R. sent an undercover reporter to the much-respected Russian Academy of Sciences, after it was rumored that a scientist there was supplying athletes with gene doping agents. A one milligram sample of the product known as “full-size M.G.F.” was offered to the journalist who took it back with him to the German Sports University for testing. The University confirmed that it was a potent form of genetic dope containing a variant of the I.G.F.1 gene. Up to this point, no controlled clinical trial had ever been performed on humans with the product. Testing involved animal species only as well as the handful of players who had clandestinely obtained it.
Societal responses to gene doping
It is clear that inherent dangers from genetic doping exist not only to the players but, to the general public as well. The question is what to do about it? As Spanking FIT pointed out last November, attempts to eliminate traditional doping in professional sports have been rather ineffective. Does that mean that Society should adapt a laissez-fair attitude toward genetic doping as well? Keep in mind that there are medical “experts” like Dr. Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford who believe that. Public statements to the effect of: “genetic enhancement is not against the spirit of sport- it is the spirit of sport” have been attributed to him (Skipper 2004). If they are accurate, he probably takes the risks lightly. I personally do not have a ready answer to this important question. Clearly, education of players, the public, and yes, even of researchers, is of paramount importance in preventing a catastrophe from occurring. Perhaps, a public referendum should be held on this question. That would certainly be the democratic approach. But, exactly who should hold it? Can we trust political bodies like U.S.A.D.A. or the U.S. government to objectively do so? Maybe the time has come for society to put its foot down firmly when it comes to genetic doping and demand that Draconian measures be put into place. What about this? In the event that even a single member of any sports team be discovered gene doping, why don’t we ban the entire team from professional sports? That’s proven to be an effective strategy in war, why not sports? This attitude, of course, completely differs from the one we previously expressed on traditional doping (see Spanking FIT, Nov.21″Why Not Allow Lance Armstrong To Dope“?). As usual, I look forward to your enlightening comments. Doctor Garrett
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lastexitstudios/3612122335/in/photolist
Creative commons license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/