The Economist has a dopey editorial about “gene doping” in this week’s magazine. It is along the lines seen so often in our debates about culture and biotechnology, paraphrased as “we are already on the slippery slope, so we might as well enjoy the ride,” or “the genie’s out of the bottle so there is nothing to be done,” that sort of defeatism.
The issue under discussion is not hugely important in the overall scheme of things, but I think the underlying shoulder shrug is a matter worth pondering. The narrow issue discussed concerns using gene therapy—known as “gene doping”—to enhance athletic performance. The editorialist states the only real concern should be safety because, it is claimed, we already permit “unnatural” forms of athletic training. Here’s the meat of the matter from the editorial:
Given that so much unnatural tampering takes place, the onus is surely on those who want to ban doping (genetic or otherwise) to prove that it is unusually unfair. Some point out, for instance, that it would help big, rich countries that have better access to the technology. But that already happens: just compare the training facilities available to the minuscule Solomon Islands squad alongside those of mighty Team America. In druggy sports it may narrow the gap. One condition of greater freedom would be to enforce transparency: athletes should disclose all the pills they take, just as they register the other forms of equipment they use, so that others can catch up.Ah yes, the old bugaboo that if we have “transparency” all norms and principles can be discarded as if doing something wrong somehow becomes right if only we do it in a store front window.
I see it differently: The joy of athletic competition is for the athletes not only to compete with each other but with those who came before and who will come after. Natural improvements in training methods, better diets, etc. can lead to improved results. But apples are still being compared with apples, that is the natural human body competing against other natural human bodies.
But add in truly artificial enhancements, such as steroids and, if feasible, gene therapy, and you begin to compare apples with oranges, increase the already existing trend to commodify athletes as being merely so much meat on the hoof whose health and bodies are expendable for $$ and the cheering of the crowd, and indeed, devalue the worth of individual excellence and discipline it takes to compete at professional and Olympic levels
If they want to give gold medals to biochemists or biotechnologists for the most effective enhancement, fine. In fact, why not just build robots and let them compete—as in an old Twilight Zone? But to me, Henry Aaron remains the true home run champion because he earned the crown from natural talent mediated by personal effort. Barry Bonds’ home run count, in contrast, means nothing because it was merely a matter of better power hitting through chemistry.
The Economist’s perspective follows the line of least resistance that leads to our slouching toward a society in which expediency rules. And that attitude is ruinous to true excellence—a potentially disastrous course since it would not be limited to athletics.
