Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport

Abstract

As Australia's peak high-performance sport agency, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has developed this position statement to address the implications of recent advances in the field of genetics and the ramifications for the health and well-being of athletes. Genetic testing has proven of value in the practice of clinical medicine. There are, however, currently no scientific grounds for the use of genetic testing for athletic performance improvement, sport selection or talent identification. Athletes and coaches should be discouraged from using direct-to-consumer genetic testing because of its lack of validation and replicability and the lack of involvement of a medical practitioner in the process. The transfer of genetic material or genetic modification of cells for performance enhancement is gene doping and should not be used on athletes. There are, however, valid roles for genetic research and the AIS supports genetic research which aims to enhance understanding of athlete susceptibility to injury or illness. Genetic research is only to be conducted after careful consideration of a range of ethical concerns which include the provision of adequate informed consent. The AIS is committed to providing leadership in delivering an ethical framework that protects the well-being of athletes and the integrity of sport, in the rapidly changing world of genomic science.

Can Genetic Testing Identify Talent for Sport?

“…Although there is a well-established effect of genetics on the attainment of elite athlete status, based on the available evidence, it is clear that the current use of genetic tests for the prediction of future elite athlete status is ineffectual, a finding that echoes recent consensus statements [21,71]. Despite the increasing availability of commercial DTC genetic tests, the currently available data suggest the use of the information provided by these tests for talent identification or selection, especially in children, is unfounded.…”

Ethics, Genetic Technologies and Equine Sports: The Prospect of Regulation of a Modified Therapeutic Use Exemption Policy

“…It is thus important that test results be interpreted by and discussed with medical professionals (Taranto et al 2018) and not simply made available upon demand directly to consumers (Vlahovich et al 2017;Webborn et al 2015). Furthermore, testing underdetermines what action should follow-ranging from exclusion from competing (e.g.…”

“…In a harm: benefit analysis, one could argue that off-target risks are worth taking if we are gene editing in order to treat or prevent disease or predisposition to injury rather than aiming at performance or economic benefits. This argument has been made in relation to gene editing in humans (Vlahovich et al 2017;WADA 2008) eliciting arguments about the boundaries of 'normality', and thus what constitutes 'correction' and what 'enhancement'.…”

Germ line genome editing and the emerging struggle for supremacy in the Chemical, Biological and Radiological (CBR) balance of power

“…For example, germ line modification could be used to selectively introduce high performance haemoglobin or upstream modulators of haematological system parameters. Introduced prior to conception from sequences taken from superior examples of human resilience and strength, such changes would then become part of the individuals' genome indistinguishable to the discarded wild-type sequences (29). Cognition, attention, tolerance to pain, creativity and potentially more desirable personality traits are all possible future targets for engineering (30,31).…”