Since the early 1900s, sports governing bodies have developed guidelines for the use of enhancement technologies. Typically, this has taken the form of an interest to avoid the "abuse" of medical substances and procedures, though the sports community is also particularly keen to ensure a "level playing field" in competition. In 1967, this process gained across-sport relevance when the International Olympic Committee initiated its Medical Commission, whose task was to address the problem of doping in sport. At this time—and since some would argue—the sole technologies of concern were those broadly described as medical, either substance or procedure.

  The current international standard for doping technologies is the World Anti-Doping Code, which indicates that two of three conditions must be met in order for a technology to be banned from sport. These consist of the following:

1.  Harmful to health.

2.  Performance enhancing.

3.  Against the "spirit of sport".

  It is widely recognised that determining whether these conditions are engaged is not simple and requires some form of discursive process to resolve. However, this process does not apply to all forms of enhancement technology, which are neither considered in relation to the Code. For instance, when a new design of tennis racquet is introduced, the anti-doping code is not engaged. Rather, the specific sports federation will consult its own guidelines on technical specifications to determine whether the innovation is acceptable. A closer connection between such enhancements and doping technologies is desirable (Miah, 2005a; Miah and Eassom, 2002).

  Discussions about the ethical, legal and policy debates surrounding Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) in Sports began in formal academic circles in the 1980s. One of the earliest publications in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport (JPS) was about the emerging culture of doping in sport (Brown, 1980). Since then, the JPS has published a substantial number of articles about the ethics of performance enhancement, where doping has been the key case.

  During the 1980s, the renowned bioethics institute, The Hastings Center, also undertook a study where forms of performance enhancement in sport were considered (1986-88) (Murray, 1984). Again, drug use in sport was of particular concern. The Center remains proactive in philosophical and ethical studies of sport technology, through the ongoing interest of its President, Dr Thomas H Murray, who was long standing adviser to the United States Olympic Committee and currently Chair of the Ethics Review Panel at the World Anti-Doping Agency (Murray, 1983, 1984, 1986, Parens, 1998).

  Related studies of the cultural context of performance enhancement have also been relevant, but are often overlooked in the debate about the ethics of sporting performance (Denham, 1999a, 1999b). For instance, while there is considerable reference to how the media characterise the doping debate, very rarely is this media presentation taken into account in policy discussions. Thus, one could be sceptical of the claim that society broadly is unhappy about enhanced athletes. Rather, one might more adequately claim that the media discourses surrounding the doped athlete generate a justification for a culture of anti-doping (Magdalinski, 2000). The current lack of clarity on the ethics of hypoxic chambers in elite sport demonstrates that technology, in itself, gives rise to a mixed reception and that the ethical stance taken by athletes or lay spectators or sports fans is malleable. [6]In short, there is no ethical view out there that can, without qualification, justify the current approach to evaluating the role of technology in sport. However, concerns about doping in sport also reveal a worry about the "dehumanisation" (Hoberman, 1992) of sport, where technology might reduce the athlete's role in performance and, in so doing, diminish the value of competition. This view of dehumanisation also emerges from a "mechanisation" thesis that describes the scientification of sport as bringing about feelings of alienation—ie the manufacturing of athletes, for instance. Such an evaluation of contemporary, elite sports, describes the athlete as a product of a scientific or technological process, somehow automated in performance. A good indication of such narratives is within popular cultural texts. Indeed, this very notion is typified in one of the Rocky films, where the Russian, doped athlete is presented in precisely these terms, a cold, machinic, performance body, which is contrasted with the "natural", virtuous "hero" of the film, Rocky Balboa. While this example might be treated lightly, it should be noted that various studies on the ethics of medical enhancements have turned to cultural texts such as the Rocky movies to develop further understanding. In particular, the ESRC Centre for Economics and Social Aspects of Genomics has recently undertaken extensive research investigating film narratives on genetic technology in their "Media, Culture and Genomics" project. I would suggest that any public engagement programme on the use of HETs in Sport consider how to utilise cultural texts to promote public debate on this subject. [7]

  Elsewhere, I have argued that the "dehumanisation" thesis about sport and technological progress is neither accurate nor critical, but is a historical consequent of disenchantment with grand, technological progress. Thus, one might describe a sense of anxiety over tampering with biology on a global scale. This contrasts with the pervasive acceptance of smaller scale technologies that have become an integral part of daily life, such mobile phones or the Internet. A further example that raises questions about whether there is a broad social concern about enhancement technologies is cosmetic surgery (or more broadly body modification). Very little is known about whether athletes would utilise elective reconstructive surgery for sports performance. While one might immediately consider cosmetic interventions given the importance of gaining sponsorship within the sports world, one might also envisage other surgical procedures that could enhance the body. Indeed, there is some evidence of athletes undertaking risky, experimental surgical procedures when injured, hoping that their ability will be restored. In some cases, there is even anecdotal evidence to suggest that the athlete performs better after the procedure. A related case that has been discussed widely is LASIK eye surgery to attain perfect vision, a form of enhancement that is not prohibited by sports governing bodies, but which further emphasises how blurred the boundaries are between sports and non-sports interventions.

  Various scholars have attempted to develop a conceptual, ethical framework for distinguishing between different kinds of technologies. For instance, one might make an ethical distinction between isolated and systemic interventions, the latter of which might be perceived to have some greater bearing on the stability of biological systems. Thus, cosmetic interventions might be seen as less problematic than, say, drug use or genetic interventions, because they do not affect the stability of biological processes. However, further work on this area should take place, with particular attention given to the legal framework for implementing the outcome of such discussions.

  It would be of value for the inquiry to tease out some of these views on the use of various kinds of technology in sport. After all, the way of dealing with various sport technologies in sports has not been particularly systematic, nor wholly dependent on establishing what are the major ethical concerns absent of any social context. For instance, in the 1980s, the introduction of carbon-fibre pole vaults would appear to have enhanced the practice of pole vault by allowing a more skilled performance. Before then, the pole's stiffness was an inhibitor to technique. Alternatively, the transformation of the javelin in the 1980s was necessary since throwers were beginning to throw dangerously close to the spectators. As such, the transformation of the javelin was a relatively pragmatic choice—it was much cheaper to change the technical requirements of javelin throwing than to change the length of all athletic arenas around the world.

  An alternative example demonstrates how decisions about technological change in sport are also inherently political. Thus, in the late 1990s the International Tennis Federation wanted to address the dominance of the serve in the male pro-game. One of its concerns was that the inability to return powerful serves would make the sport less interesting to watch. In turn, this could translate into fewer spectators, less revenue, but perhaps more seriously less of a grass-roots base of participants that would enable the sport to flourish. Each of these concerns are relevant when thinking about the use of enhancing technologies in sport, though they also raise potential conflicts of interest. For example, consider the influence of television scheduling on sports like marathon running. While marathon runners might prefer to run in the morning or at a time of day where the temperature is moderate, often television companies will wish for scheduling to take place at a time that is optimal for viewing figures.

  Since 2002, a major enhancement issue for sport has been the potential use of genetic technology. Variously described as gene therapy, gene transfer or "gene doping", this subject continues to draw speculations about whether the end of sport is nigh. These claims rely on an assumption about the impossibility of detecting for genetic and other future enhancements, thus making the practice of anti-doping somewhat futile. However, a deeper claim relates to the integrity or character of sports, where there remains a strong tension between what might be described as traditional versus a technological character for sports. In 2004, Miah's "Genetically Modified Athletes" proposes that sport should soon enter a transition phase where the dominant model of anti-doping is brought into question as a result of changes to technology policy outside of sport. Current WADA intelligence suggests the prospect of detecting genetic interventions, though it remains unclear whether all forms of genetic doping can be detected. One might argue that if some kinds of enhancement cannot be detected, then this would render an anti-doping policy ineffective and inconsequential.

  A related set of questions arises in the context of genotyping for athletic capacity. In 2004, the first commercial genetic test for sports performance was developed, and, in 2005, WADA's Stockholm Declaration concluded with a strong discouragement over the use of such technology for discrimination or selection. In April 2006, a working group of the British Association of Sports and Exercise Sciences has begun to work on this issue. I am a part of this group.

  There remain questions over whether there is satisfactory cooperation from biotechnology companies and, indeed, scientists and medics who are working on novel interventions for enhancing performance or relieving injury symptoms. This topic alone also causes some difficulty for the world of sport since the distinction between therapy and enhancement is unclear. Questions also remain about how to distinguish between natural and unnatural interventions. For instance, the development of "functional foods" could present problems for clarifying differences between food products, nutritional supplements and doping substances. Finally, there seems a need to develop a structure within the world of sport that can protect the integrity of health-care professionals' decision making, which can often be under pressure from commercial and competitive priorities.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Science Communication Strategy

  One of the major weaknesses in the world of sport concerns the communication of science, medicine and technology. If one examines the development of this work outside of sport, then it is clear that sport has a lot to do to catch up with these debates. An explanation of these circumstances is possible on the basis of the kinds of practices that sports are (private predominantly) and the development of sports studies/science programmes. I am unaware of any sports programme that includes Science Communication or Public Engagement within the curriculum. Only recently have critical ethical debates emerged within Professional Bodies, in part because of the emergence of a critical mass of Sport Ethicists who are interested in science and medicine. Within anti-doping debates, it is often discussed that "education" is necessary, yet there is a particularly didactic form of education that often takes place. Further consideration of various models of education and communication should constitute any form of public debate. Rather than begin educational praxis with an expected end learning point in mind (such as the informed choice to not dope), policy should allow the development of a critical, informed opinion about enhancement in sport. The consequence of such proposals might certainly be a challenge to established rules and guidelines on enhancement within sport, but this, in itself, cannot be seen as negative.

External Audit

  The regulatory structure surrounding the discussion of this subject should be subject to external scrutiny. For example, in the case of gene doping, one might imagine that the Human Genetics Commission should be invited to contribute to the debate. Second, a regulatory structure should be brought into place that allows for the ongoing inquiry into ethical debates concerning performance in sport and this should be distinct from, but also involve, doping technologies.

Related Stake Holders

UK

British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine (BASEM)

British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES)

British Philosophy of Sport Association (BPSA)

UK Sport

International

World Anti-Doping Agency

International Olympic Committee

International Sports Federations

American College of Sports Medicine

European College of Sports Science

Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sport

A range of national anti-doping agencies.

Professional Bodies

International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA)

International Sports Law Association (ISLA)

International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (IAPS)

Australian Institute of Sport

Non-Sport

Nuffield Council on Bioethics

Australian Law Reforms Commission

United States President's Council on Bioethics

May 2007

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Key Texts

Consult these texts for additional references.

Australia Law Reforms Commission (2003). Alrc 96: Essentially Yours.

Hoberman, J M (1992). Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport (Reprinted 2001, the Blackburn Press). New York, The Free Press.

Miah, A (2002). Philosophical and Ethical Questions Concerning Technology in Sport: The Case of Genetic Modification. Sport Science. Bedford, De Montfort University: 229.

Miah, A and S B Eassom, Eds (2002). Sport Technology: History, Philosophy & Policy. Research in Philosophy & Technology. Oxford, Elsevier Science.

Miah, A (2004). Genetically Modified Athletes: Biomedical Ethics, Gene Doping and Sport. London and New York, Routledge.

Tamburrini, C and T Tännsjö, Eds (2005). Genetic Technology and Sport: Ethical Questions. Ethics and Sport. Oxon and New York, Routledge.

6   This comment relates to a debate between sports scientists/medics and the World Anti-doping Agency in April 2006. The WADA Ethics Committee concluded an inquiry into hypoxic (altitude) chambers, indicating that it would be consistent with anti-doping rules to include such chambers within the World Anti-Doping Code. This outcome is currently in dispute by a range of professionals, since most sports authorities currently permit such technology and WADA is now consulting with stakeholders on how best to proceed. Back

7   I also note that, in 2004, one novel on the subject of enhancement in sport was published (Joseph, 2004) and I am consulting for one screen-writer who currently has a screen play under review with a Hollywood studio. Back