Genetic tests to scout out children’s athletic talent: are they ‘ethical’?

New, open-access paper our for Sports Ethics & Philosophy! ‘Bend it like Beckham! The ethics of genetically testing children for athletic potential‘.

photo by Kevin Moloney for the New York Times

photo by Kevin Moloney for the New York Times

In this paper I analyse the use of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests, sometimes coupled with more traditional methods of ‘talent scouting’, to assess a child’s predisposition to athletic performance. I first discuss the scientific evidence at the basis of these tests, and the parental decision in terms of education, and of investing in the children’s future, taken on the basis of the results of the tests. I then discuss how these parental practices impact on the children’s right to an open future, and on their developing sense of autonomy. I also consider the meaning and role of sports in childhood, and conclude that the use of DTC genetic tests to measure children’s athletic potential should be seen as a ‘wake up’ call for other problematic parental attitudes aimed at scouting and developing children’s talent.

Raising the threshold for pain: Gene transfer, gene enhancement, or gene doping?

In this paper, co-authored with Professor House MD PillsMike McNamee from Swansea University,  we address the question whether it can be ethically justifiable to seek gene transfer to raise one’s own tolerance to pain in a therapeutic and in an elite sports context. As a case study we analyse a currently recruiting Phase 1 study that seeks to transfer Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor to treat pain in patients with peripheral artery disease, but that could plausibly be applied also in an elite sports context. We presented this paper at the International Association for Philosophy of Sport, Porto, Sept 12-15, 2012.

Camporesi S, McNamee MJ (2012) ‘Gene Transfer for Pain: A tool to cope with the intractable, or an unethical endurance-enhancing technology?’ Life Sciences, Society & Policy Journal 8: 20-31 doi:10.1186/1746-5354-8-1-20

You can read the full paper free of charge here.

Trading participation for access to healthcare: the COMPAS trial

This short paper is an open-peer commentary (OPC) to Dave Wendler‘s new justification of paediatric research without therapeutic benefits. Synflorix packshotWendler argues that pediatric clinical research that offers no therapeutic benefits to the participants can be justified on the basis that participating in clinical research qualifies as contributing to a valuable project. Matteo Mameli and I disagree and argue that Wendler’s argument is unsatisfactory in that it fails to consider the context of clinical research, i.e. the conditions in which participants find themselves and, more specifically, the kind of access to health care that they have. In our OPC we provide a concrete example to our arguments, by focusing on the recent COMPAS-Synflorix trial (Argentina, 2008).

Camporesi S, Mameli M. (2012) The context of clinical research and its ethical relevance: The COMPAS trial as a case studyAm Journal Bioethics, 12(1):39-40.