Message from the Director
Genomics Meet Sports
Huntington F. Willard, PhD
Are we there yet? If by 'there' we mean transforming healthcare, the answer is: not yet. If by 'there' we mean fully understanding our genome and the role of our genes, the answer is still: not yet. But, if by 'there' we mean a time when some aspects of everyday life are irreversibly altered because of the Genome Revolution, then, at least in a few areas, the answer is: yes, we are there. 'There' will continue to change, deepen and grow, but there's no mistaking that a corner has been turned. It’s hard to imagine that we could, or would even want to, go back.
"...the fact that genetic testing was considered as a possible criterion for participation suggests that the world of sports has indeed begun to change"A perhaps unlikely Exhibit A is our view of sports. As recounted in the cover story, athletics and genomics have begun to collide in ways we could not have anticipated.
I had a glimpse of this last summer when I wrote an op-ed piece for The Boston Globe on gene doping in sports. Of all the op-eds I've done in the past few years, this one garnered the most attention — from a few athletes (I presume) and members of the public, but also from members of international sports commissions, National Public Radio, and at least one government official in Washington.
Recent events also indicate that there's a 'there' there in athletics. First, a professional sports team and one of its stars found themselves in a standoff over whether the player must undergo genetic testing designed to determine if he carries a genetic variant that puts him at risk if he plays. An aberration? Perhaps. But in preparing the story for GenomeLIFE, we learned about a current Duke student-athlete suspected to have Long QT syndrome, a genetic disorder that can lead to a deadly acceleration of the heart's rhythm and may require defibrillation in emergency situations. In this case, it was decided not to use DNA testing to confirm the diagnosis — the student is on medication and a defibrillator is always on hand. And, most importantly, by all accounts the student is enjoying a successful athletic career. Nevertheless, as in the case of the professional athlete, the fact that genetic testing was considered as a possible criterion for participation suggests that the world of sports has indeed begun to change.
Second, genome testing is now being viewed in some quarters as a suitable window into future athletic performance. That parents or coaches can have a young athlete's DNA tested in order to determine whether a future Mia Hamm or Lance Armstrong might be better suited to sprinting or endurance events is something many would not have thought possible a few years ago. And the fact that an Australian rugby team already administers a panel of a dozen genetic tests to its players is downright remarkable (despite the fact that many would argue that the value of such testing is open to debate).
Finally, while the pageantry and competition of the 2006 Winter Olympics were in full swing in Torino, a different sort of drama was unfolding in a German courtroom. There, a track-and-field coach on trial for giving performance-enhancing drugs to his under-age athletes was shown to have been actively trying to obtain a novel gene-therapy agent that’s yet to progress through clinical trials. The drug, Repoxygen, switches on a gene in response to low oxygen levels and switches it off when the levels rise. Presumably, the coach intended to give it to his athletes. Has the specter of gene doping already reached our doorstep?
From my perspective, these three cases of genomics-meets-sports point up exactly what's at stake in the Genome Revolution by raising broader questions. Do we want to peer into our genomic hardwiring and alter our choices and behaviors according to what our genomes indicate about our talents and/or health risks? If so, do our employers also have that right? And if we opt to tweak what we've been born with, does that somehow change the nature of competition and the way we perceive the gene/environment equation in sports? Are there philosophical differences among, say, steroid use to build muscles, laser surgery to improve visual acuity, and gene doping to improve one's genomic endowment? The public's angst on gene doping is a matter of public record. Our own Duke It Out feature on the IGSP web site tested the waters earlier this spring: about 400 respondents were evenly split on the question of whether gene doping should be legal. The comments are enlightening and well illustrate the full range of opinions on whether this is an issue of science or policy or both.
None of this is to imply that we are somehow "doomed" to a future in which our genes dictate what we can and cannot do on the field of play (or anywhere else for that matter). Athletic ability, like most human traits, is mediated by many genes and the broader environment, including, of course, rigorous training. The power to control — let alone predict — the behavior of a system as complex as the human body will never amount to a slam dunk.
Huntington F. Willard
Director