With regard to your enquiry I can only say that I agree entirely that "Gene Therapy" is not one of the great threats in human enhancement technologies. There are many current drawbacks which make the gene approach very unattractive. Apart from the fact that "gene dosage" will be extremely difficult; gene interventions are very likely to be detectable for very long times (maybe during a lifetime) as they leave immunological traces. Whether these can be detected is more a matter of technique than a matter of principle.

  What we fear in Switzerland is "gene doping" via the internet whereby some low tech lab may offer cheap "genetic enhancements" to athletes or would be athletes. Looking at the latest doping scandal in Spain—the risk behaviour of some athletes (in this case Tyler Hamilton) is such that some athletes probably take any risk for the chance of a performance enhancement.

  We are currently working on a prevention campaign against "criminal gene doping". A major drawback of the current system is that WADA doping rules are not uniformly enforced worldwide. In particular we fear countries in which the success of their athletes is a political instrument. It may therefore be an important move of the IOC to have Olympic Games in China—as this will put enormous pressure on China to comply with current standards. We (as developped Nations) also need to support the many countries that simply lack the means to establish good standards in doping prevention and doping control. As president of the Swiss Antidoping Agency.

  I am quite unhappy about a number of shortcomings of the current doping ruling of WADA (TUE to bureaucratic, Cannabis is not doping but is on the list, no clear guidelines as to infusions, etc etc ). Moreover, the current people in power do not have good record for taking advice from those that do the job (National Antidoping Agencies) seriously.

  So on a local level we continue to lose money and credibility by defending and adhering to a policy of an organisation that does not seem to be goverened always by common sense. Having said this: WADA is needed and much of what was done was good and important. I can provide you with the official statement of our agency with regard to the perceived shortcomings of WADA in particular with regard to the next revision of the Standards. However, I would very much think that the UK-Agency probably has very similar complaints.

September 2006