Should we engineer our athletes?

Major advances in science and biomedical engineering have conferred upon us the opportunity to alleviate some of the suffering that plagues our species and simultaneously, it has also given rise to predicaments regarding various artificial improvements which can be bestowed upon certain sections of the population whose requirements are strictly non-medical in nature. An example to illustrate this point is the concept of 'Gene Therapy'. Roughly speaking, it is an experimental technique that employs DNA as a pharmaceutical agent to treat a disease. For instance, this procedure, when performed on elderly people suffering from muscular dystrophy, can improve their lives substantially by strengthening the required muscles and can allow them to lead a healthier and more comfortable life than it would have been possible without the assistance of such a technique. However, this procedure also has the ability to improve hitherto healthy muscles and take their performance and functioning to a higher level. Then, there is a potential concern: should such techniques be employed for non-medicinal ends - in our case, the artificial engineering of athletes?

Consider the case of Lionel Messi - arguably one of the world's finest footballers. In his early years as a teenager, he suffered from a growth hormone deficiency that left him relatively stunted compared to his peers, and it was F.C Barcelona who paid for his treatment and allowed him to reach a level of normalcy so that he could train and pursue the opportunity to hone his exceptional skills. Regardless of the exact nature of the medical treatment, our judgement of Messi - his achievements, his performance, his talents, his hard-work and everything else that makes him admired and appreciated by those who have watched him, does not degenerate even with the knowledge of the assistance offered to him by scientists to facilitate the production of his growth hormone. This is so because the scientific aid has assisted him to treat a medical condition and this has only leveled the playing field, so to speak.

Now, imagine an alternative scenario. Ceteris paribus, the only variable that we would change is the very disease that initially afflicted him. For argument's sake, we can assume that Messi may have grown maybe an inch or two taller (his parents are quite short so it is probable that he would not deviate too much from their average height) since he is not affected by the growth hormone deficiency. Again, for argument's sake, assume that technique of gene therapy has been signaled as completely safe for human use by the scientific community. Messi is already on a level playing field and F.C Barcelona, having identified his inherently superior talents, decides that he will undergo gene therapy to strengthen certain muscles in his legs that will better aid him in acceleration, speed, agility, shooting, stamina and balance. Then, it is very likely that this fictional Messi's performance would be superior to his real life counterpart, if one is not being excessively pedantic about the assumptions. Now, if we were to witness the engineered Messi's triumphs and achievements over his career and somehow, his muscle enhancement was kept top secret by F.C Barcelona, would our discovery of this athletic enhancement from some reliable source change our perception about his achievements and ultimately, our perception of him as a footballer?

It is not difficult to imagine what the common reaction to such a news would be: most of us would be disappointed or even appalled. In more general terms, our perception of him would fall into what can be simply termed as 'negative'. The reasons that warrant such a response are many and it will be useful to pursue the most common among them in our case. One could suggest that Messi's enhancement gives him an undue advantage over his competitors as well as those in his team, with reference to the various criteria mentioned earlier. In other words, there is the issue of fairness, which Messi's muscle engineering clearly seems to violate. However, this argument does not hold validity since the innate skill set that any player brings to the training ground can be roughly ranked in an ordinal fashion into a hierarchy by most seasoned coaches and those who lag according to this criteria may always stake a claim to the idea of fairness, in that they have been disadvantaged by circumstances of life such as genetic endowment, early nutrition, fetal development, parental care, environmental concerns (in the broadest sense) and so on. Viewed under this light, genetic engineering is one such circumstance in life that has allowed player X to be at a level higher than player Y, with reference to performance. Therefore, even if the concept of fairness holds sway over our moral sentiments and judgement, it still cannot be a good enough justification for the disapprobation of our fictional Lionel Messi. So what can?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. Complicated moral issues such as this boils down to certain subjective sensibilities towards life that most of us possess, and as is the case with the majority of situations concerning the members of our species, it varies between individuals. Nevertheless, a lack of potential consensus should never be a hindrance towards moral discourse, and I attempt to convince the reader that the endeavor to engineer athletes is a pernicious side-effect of the wider quest to have a Promethean, architectural control over the myriad aspects of life. Granted, many of the practical manifestations of such a quest are noble endeavours resulting in the upliftment and welfare of our species but in this particular case, as I have already hinted, the ligature between artificial enhancement and non-medicinal requirements does not deserve our endorsement. The case can be strengthened via a combination of ideas mainly revolving around the concept of giftedness.

In the face of intense pressure and expectations, both from outside and within, there will always be a tendency for athletes to hone their strengths and improve their weaknesses. However, a natural restriction that comes into place is the idea of giftedness and how it acts as a limiting factor in the face of tremendous amounts of hardwork and determination. This is why most of us would agree that despite player X having trained more hours than Cristiano Ronaldo, the former does not deserve a first team place in Real Madrid C.F since, by definition, the ideal that we most seek in sportspeople is excellence and not striving. Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player in Real Madrid C.F because he has cultivated his natural talents through hardwork and determination. If player X expended greater effort at honing his skills even if they were of a lesser quality relative to that of Cristiano Ronaldo's, we still would not think of naming him in the first team list merely because of his striving. The essential point here is that there is a place for giftedness and the honing of it in sports, and we must realize that the Promethean attempt to drastically and artificially compensate for deficit of talents or physiological limitations is, in some sense, a misplaced effort. If the reader is still unconvinced that it is a misplaced effort, then why was Lance Armstrong stripped of all the Tour de France championship medals? Of course, he had knowingly disobeyed a certain code of conduct but more importantly, the knowledge of his doping program greatly shifted the agency of his apparent success from his own efforts and talents to that of steroids and other banned substances. The widespread ire and indignation directed by fans at Armstrong in the wake of this scandal suggests that athletic success, at least from a common standpoint, is a mix of effort and giftedness with the latter given more importance.

Hence, it seems reasonable to assert that we should not engineer our athletes. With science progressing at breakneck speed, the scope for perfectibility, despite it partially being a social construct, will hold sway over our athletes and related professionals, and in the coming decades, there will be no end to what can be improved and enhanced by our increasing mastery of nature. Engineering sportspeople will ultimately corrupt and erode the essence of sports and it will indeed become a battle of scientists rather than the athletes themselves. What seems essential therefore, is to maintain a sense of humility and to realize that not all is under human control, and the need to drastically alter such a status quo by scientific techniques may not be necessarily be good for sports and athletic excellence, unless reasonably justifiable medical issues are involved. It is only in such a state, when giftedness can be honed together with a degree of hardwork and determination that we as spectators can experience the athletic brilliance and sporting magic of Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi without having to entertain the ethical revulsion we had for Lance Armstrong, who was by all means, an engineered athlete.


*[All Souls College, Fellowship Examination, General Paper I (September 2012), Q. 30]