Gene Doping
Who doesn’t want to run faster? Who doesn’t want to be able to run longer? Who doesn’t want to win? What if you could do all these things by giving yourself a shot? No more dangerous blood transfusions, no more steroids, just a shot. This is the thinking behind the growing interest gene therapy for humans.
By altering specific genes, gene therapy can be used to treat some diseases like the X-linked lethal neuromuscular disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). This is accomplished by physically and permanently altering genes. In theory, this very same technology can be used to promote maximal oxygen uptake. This is why major athletes are becoming increasingly interested in gene therapy to boost their on-field performance. Gene therapy can work in different ways. A new functional gene can be introduced to replace the defective gene in question. This application can be used to treat single-gene disorders like hemophilia. Another possible use of gene therapy is changing the expressivity of a gene. Using gene therapy one could conceivably make their erythropoietin (EPO protein producing gene) gene more efficient. By doing this, the individual would be able to consistently produce more red blood cells, thus boosting their endurance. There are some risks involved with increasing red blood cell production in normal beings. Blood can become too thick, making the heart work harder, actually decreasing oxygen transportation. The risk with this type of gene therapy/doping is getting it wrong. Being wrong about how certain genes will react can mean being dead. Sometimes you just can’t predict just how expressive a gene can turn out to be. If one gene’s expression is the difference between life and death, altering that gene can be a big gamble. That really is the risk athletes will have to consider before doping.
Transferring the genes can be done in two ways. During ex vivo transfer, the genes (in cells) are taken out of the individual who is undergoing the treatment. The genes are then modified in a lab using a virus as the genetic transfer material. Because viruses need cell hosts to survive, once they are inserted in the cells, they insure that the cells that reproduce in your body stay permanently modified and produce modified copies. Ex vivo transfer is individual specific. This means that the ex vivo approach requires elaborate laboratories and is expensive. But the ex vivo approach allows for the modified genes to screened for potential errors. This makes it safer in some ways than the in vivo approach.
The in vivo approach allows for the preparation of multiple viral vectors to treat nonrelated individuals. This means that costs can be reduced and production speed increased. The downside is that you can’t screen the modified genes like you could with the ex vivo approach. There is also some risk of vectors integrating into germ cells, thus, modifying any offspring. This risk is more ethical than anything else. While these risks may seem small, the biggest risk of in vivo modification, is that the body’s immune system may attack itself trying to get rid of the gene modification.
It seems that nobody at the moment has been caught (in sports) gene doping. Detection is difficult. Test can show abnormally high red blood counts, but that does not prove gene doping to be present. In humans, only the 22 kD form of GH (growth hormone) is present in the recombinant form. If a test shows the presence of 20 kD GH, this can be indication of gene doping, but drugs always evolve with the tests they are subjected to, so it is hard to predict where gene doping testing will be in the future.
The risks are high, but so are the rewards. Gene therapy has been proven effective in some animal trials. In humans however, there have been fewer trials (because of the risk), and more inconsistent results. Significant technological hurdles still exist in human gene therapy, but with benefits that are so tempting, it is likely that we will see its use in the future, just not right now.
-Graham Byrd
"Gene doping: the hype and the reality"
1. D J Wells
British Journal of Pharmacology
Volume 154, Issue 3, pages 623–631, June 2008
This seems like a really interesting concept. But looking at this and morals would gene doping be considered morally acceptable? To me it is like plastic surgery but in the genes. Of course this is an opinion question but along with the risks involved people considering gene doping need to also look at the morals.
ReplyDeletecomment by M. Castaneda
DeleteTo me, it's not really about what is morally acceptable, it's more about pushing the limits of human performance. Right now the dangers of gene doping are too high to consider doing it. If some day, it becomes feasible to better your genetic makeup, the only problem I can see with doing it, is other people might not have the financial means to do so. This would mean that we wouldn't have the "rags-to-riches" success stories we love in today's sports.
ReplyDelete-G. Byrd
With every new discovery in science there's going to be pro's and con's to it. On one side people who may be suffering with genetic diseases such as hemophilia, can be cured. However with this technology people would abuse it for sure. Well when it's not so dangerous of course.
ReplyDelete-Nelson Elmore
This post is very interesting and is it relative to athletes, especially in college and the pros. I don’t I agree with gene doping because it is wrong. Athletes who work hard and condition do not need to do it. It’s not right for some to do it and take the easy way out.
ReplyDeleteKayla Jones