A recent study conducted by researchers
at the University of Minnesota's Lillehei Heart Institute may not
only signal a possible method of curing Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
(DMD), but also impact athletics as well as biotechnology steadily
advances this century.
Under medical researcher Rita
Perlingeiro's team, it was discovered that induced pluripotent stem
cells could be use to treat mice cells suffering from muscular
dystrophy. Particularly, a new genetic tool called the Sleeping
Beauty Transposon, which consists of a small fragment of the DNA
molecule, could be used to transport the genes necessary to correct
any deficiencies caused by mutations, such as DMD. Once the
appropriate genes are inserted into the target cells' genomes, a
protein called Pax3 triggers the conversion of pluripotent stem cells
into muscle stem cells, giving mice with severe dystrophy working
muscle stem cells.
While the Perlingeiro and her research
team are optimistic about the potential for this treatment to be
suitable for humans afflicted with DMD, it seems to me that another
human application, namely for humans with average musculature and
especially athletes. While some may be disturbed by using this
treatment on “normal” people, it is quite difficult to see what
good reason there is for such suspicion. Still, some have attempted
to meet the challenge. Michael Sandel, for instance, has argued in
his well-known article “The Case Against Perfection” that using
stem cells to build muscle should not be permitted ultimately because
excellence in sports “consists at least partly in the display of
natural talents and gifts that are no doing of the athlete who
possesses them.” And, Sandel contends, treatments such as
Perlingeiro's eliminate the possiblity of this display.
Much can be said in response to Sandel,
but the most fundamental flaw I see in his objection is that it
relies on a very weak intuition about the nature of athletics (and
one that is not universally or even perhaps widely held at that). I
for one view athletic excellence as consisting of human effort and
struggle (be it through "natural" or "unnatural" means) rather than natural talents and gifts, as do many others as
well. Indeed, if anything, intuition seems to be squarely against
Sandel here.
To see why, consider two athletes who
are evenly matched in terms of skill and strength. However, one of
the athletes has these qualities almost purely due to natural talent
and trains minimally, while the other is an ordinary individual who
has acquired these abilities through dedicated and relentless
training. Although both are equal in terms of their athletic prowess,
it is clear to most people that the latter athlete is greater than
the former, thus suggesting that Sandel's focus on natural talent
over human effort is flawed. Even if it is conceded that gifts of
nature have some place in sports, their role is minimal and certainly
not primary as Sandel's position requires. At that point, however,
the objection against the use of muscle stem cells for the athlete
falls apart.
2 comments:
I agree with you that dedication, practice and hard work are at the core of success in any competition, whether it be in sports, academics or anything else. However, I think that natural abilities are not to be set aside as less significant. I believe in talent and predisposed ease, affinity or skill, and therefore find it difficult to think of sports as a competition primarily based on who tries the hardest.
Using cellular "Muscle Milk" to enhance physical performance is a direct comparison to the use of psychological stimulants to improve concentration or focus, such as Ritalin and Adderall for example. Both cases raise the issue you brought up and Sandel argued against: whether merit can be attributed for something achieved with the help of artificial enhancement. The connotation and acceptance of certain substances and not others depends on social, historical, demographical and political context. Nowadays, there is a stigma associated with performance enhancing drugs but none with caffeine, whereas in the 19th century, caffeine was considered a dangerous and addicting substance while morphine and cocaine were widely used. The point is that there is no telling what the public’s view of these drugs will be in so much as a few decades, which will undoubtedly affect regulation and legislation accordingly. Scandals like the case of Lance Armstrong created a bad image for certain substances, but public opinion will gradually shape and alter public policy. My guess is that in a few years time, stimulants and performance-enhancing drugs will be as common as coffee and will not harm society’s daily functions in any way.
I think this post is right on the mark, Pranav. One of the points that puzzles me is how quickly Sandel gets to a philosophical understanding of what people admire in an athlete. What is his backing, exactly? Is it true that we think Michael Jordan deserves more acclaim than some other, equally hard-working and talented (but talented because he was genetically modified) athlete? I doubt fans would have qualms – sports in our society is functionally a form of entertainment, so my guess is that better performance would be greeted excitedly.
What would it mean to call Michael Jordan a better athlete because his talent was a result of random, rather than designed, genetics? To me, it looks like the admiration of dumb luck, not of hard work or dedication, or whatever virtues we want our athletes to have.
One place to which I return often in these discussions of enhancement is the effect on developing children. Indeed this is the reason I remain deeply uneasy about forms of enhancement with negative side effect – it incentivizes kids in sports to partake. In the genetic case, we ought to consider what message children are receiving, and to me it seems clear: if you don't get lucky, you can't succeed in sports. Perhaps there's a good life lesson there, about life being unfair, but does that lesson not lose some thrust when there might be something you could do about that unfairness?
Post a Comment