This document discusses the ethical challenges facing anti-doping regulations as human genetic engineering and enhancement technologies advance. It provides a timeline of key developments from 1999-2017 showing how gene doping became a reality in the early 2000s, leading to its inclusion in anti-doping codes by 2004. However, recent technologies like gene editing, ingestible enhancements, and advanced prosthetics now allow the general public to potentially surpass athletes in physical capabilities, calling into question the social mandate of anti-doping rules. The conclusion asks how anti-doping can continue protecting athletes when non-athletes may achieve superior performance through enhancement.

1. HUMANITY 2.0
A CURRENT ETHICAL CHALLENGE FOR ANTI-DOPING
Professor @andymiah

2. ACT I
THE CONTEXT

3. 1999
THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
ATHLETE

4. 2000
THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

7. 2001
GENE DOPING IS A REALITY

8. 2007
PROOF OF PRINCIPLE

9. 2016
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
“We don’t know yet whether this has been done
anywhere, but…it will be used sometime”
Carl Johan Sundberg, Karolinska,
WADA gene doping panel

10. 2005
THE STOCKHOLM DECLARATION

11. 2014
GENE THERAPY AS A HUMAN RIGHT

12. “From my own work with the mice, I also know that earlier you
intervene, the better off you're going to be when you get old. So
once you go down that path, I think it's unethical to withhold
from someone something that would actually allow their muscles
to be much healthier now and to the future. As long as there's no
safety risk, I don't see why athletes should be punished because
they're athletes. So I'm on the other side of the fence from Wada
on this one, even though we're on the same team right now”
Lee Sweeney, Jan 2014

13. 2004
WADA CODE INCLUDES ‘GENE DOPING’

14. 2017
THE FUTURE HAPPENED

16. ACT II
THE IMPENDING COMPLICATIONS

17. 2015
GENE EDITING IS A REALITY

18. 2016
NORTH SENSE GOES BEYOND THE SPECIES

20. 2016
INGESTIBLE TECHNOLOGIES BECOKE A REALITY

22. 2016
PROSTHETIC DEVICES BETTER THAN BIOLOGY

24. 2017
CONCLUSION: THE DILEMMA
How can anti-doping protect its social mandate, when
human enhancement is allowing the general public to
become more capable of performing acts of physical
endeavour than the anti-doping compliant athlete?

25. Thank you
@ANDYMIAH
Out now with MIT Press (2017)