Athlete alert: Is genetic juicing set to replace steroids?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


When Olympic medals and multi-million-dollar contracts are at stake, athletes and coaches have been known to resort to drastic measures to strike gold. But as the steroid era evolves amidst increased testing and public hectoring, what other performance booster will enter the ring?

Gene therapy, say a host of researchers, three of whom call for more oversight of the technique's use in athletics. In a commentary published online February 4 in Science, Theodore Friedmann, of the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and his colleagues wrote that aside from ethical questions of good sporting practices, many genetic therapies are far from proven: "Although highly effective in some models, these gene therapy techniques are imperfect and still highly risky."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Pressure on athletes to be ever faster, stronger and higher-scoring feeds a fierce field that markets sometimes-suspicious solutions. "Some athletes and coaches will be tempted, prematurely and unwisely, to take advantage of results packaged by some as performance enhancement 'breakthroughs,' even if they are untested in humans and the only 'breakthrough' is faster or stronger mice," the biomedical and genetic researchers wrote.

Indeed, some therapies that are being developed to help people with degenerative diseases and genetic defects live longer and more high-functioning lives might also be used to boost healthy bodies. These include "treatments that regenerate muscle, increase its strength, and protect it from degeneration," H. Lee Sweeney, a physiologist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine who was not involved in the new paper, wrote in a July 2004 article for Scientific American. "Among these are therapies that give patients a synthetic gene, which can last for years, producing high amounts of naturally occurring muscle-building chemicals."

One molecular manipulation in particular, a modulator of peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor delta, "regulates expression of genes involved in lipid metabolism, energy utilization, and insulin action," noted the authors, and it "increases the production of slow twitch oxidative energy-efficient muscle fibers."

But are these newly developed techniques really being used? Friedmann and his colleagues noted that their concern is far from speculative, pointing to the German track and field coach who in 2006 was found to have tried to get a vector for gene transfer and the genetic juicing from a Chinese lab reportedly offered to athletes before the 2008 Olympics.

Hedging its bets, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which was established more than a decade ago with initial funding from the International Olympic Committee, put gene therapy on its list of no-no's back in 2004. (Two of the paper's authors have worked with the WADA, and the other works for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.)

As the race to discover new competitive edges speeds up, so too does the race to detect them. Jacking up genes is "likely to produce broad metabolic, genetic, and proteomic changes," noted the authors. Speedy new sequencing techniques, as are currently used to scan for developmental disorders and other genetic red flags, will likely be able to catch such changes, they wrote.

Although the dangers and dubiousness of gene doping are clear to some scientists, few sports professionals and amateurs have taken a dive into this research literature, cautioned the authors: "Reputable athletes or coaches with little knowledge of genetics are at a disadvantage in assessing 'scientific' claims" of purported performance enhancers.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/valery08

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe