With the rapid evolution of technology, athletes are rushing to get their hands on anything that could give them an edge to eliminate the competition. Gene doping is the result of gene therapy. However, instead of injecting DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) into a person's body to restore a function related to a damaged or missing gene, as in gene therapy, gene doping involves the process of inserting DNA DNA with the aim of improving sports performance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayWe now have genetic technology capable of enhancing our physiological and psychological nature; increase size, muscles and influence our mood. The question that arises is to decipher whether or not it is ethical to create these super athletes. This is a classic case of science evolving faster than our morality can be coded. There are two main methods of genetic modification in athletes that have recently come to light. One is somatic therapy. Somatic genetic modification involves the treatment or modification of genetic cells in an adult. The changes resulting from this type of gene therapy are limited to the individual and cannot be inherited by any future offspring. The second method is germline therapy. This form of genetic modification affects future generations of the test subject. This type of therapy is initiated before birth at the embryonic stage. The primary use of germline therapy is to combat genetic disorders and potentially dangerous diseases, but it won't be long before its application makes its way into the world of sports. The founder of anti-aging company BioViva, Elizabeth Parrish, says she has two methods of experimental gene therapy. One of these methods has the ability to disrupt the breakdown of muscle tissue. Your muscles can stay strong without exercise and grow faster if you exercise. It is unclear whether athletes have ever used genetic enhancement to improve their performance. To date, no athlete has tested positive for gene doping or voluntarily told the public that they were genetically doping. Sports authorities are working to remedy this situation, maintain the integrity of the sport and create a level playing field for all competitors. New methods of testing for potentially culprit genetic enhancers are currently being developed by Australian molecular biologist Anna Bautina. She is a member of the National Measurement Institute and has worked on the identification of added copies of a gene called erythropoietin (EPO). This hormone has the ability to increase the production of red blood cells. Red blood cells carry oxygen throughout our body, so this becomes invaluable for endurance athletes. Athletes would benefit from any high-intensity training, increasing their aerobic capacity. Understanding the characteristics of gene doping techniques allows the design of testing strategies to determine this specific genetic enhancement. Does this avoid future risks associated with gene therapy in the world of sport? Negative. In 2003, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) added gene doping to its list of banned substances and said athletes testing positive for genetic enhancement would face the same consequences as people testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs. In 16 years, only one method has been designed to testathletes regarding genetic manipulation. The International Olympic Committee said the athletes' blood was taken to test for potential gene doping during the Rio 2016 Olympics. No positive results were returned. Genes other than erythropoietin also have the potential to increase the quality of athletes' sports performances. Potential genes added directly to muscle are now undetectable in the blood. Currently, the only method to detect them would be to remove portions of muscle tissue from athletes, which is obviously not an acceptable practice. However, the situation is even worse for anti-doping authorities in their efforts to combat sports cheaters. The introduction of a gene editing technique known as CRISPR is “a simple but powerful tool for editing genomes” (Livescience, 2018). CRISPR technology has the ability to make changes as elusive as altering a single letter of DNA in a sequence, enhancing athletic abilities that humans would not normally be able to experience. Additionally, CRISPR is now used to modify specific gene activity without changing any DNA sequences. , rather simply by changing chemical labels, which, as a collective, are known as the epigenome. These chemical compounds are not part of DNA but are attached to it. Epigenome editing could be even more useful for treating diseases than genome editing, because the entire epigenome is responsible for giving instructions for turning genes on or off and manages production of proteins in particular cells. (Home Genetic Reference, 2019). The scientific hope is that editing the epigenome will improve health outcomes by turning genes on and off. Once this manipulation becomes popular among the medical world, you can be sure that epigenome doping will start in sports as well. Currently, it is believed that the current doping prevention regime may not be as effective as we hope to believe. A large majority of athletes who engage in conventional doping would certainly emerge unscathed. An anonymous survey carried out in 2011 suggested that around 30 percent of athletes doped, while tests managed to detect 2 percent. These figures will only become less favorable to anti-doping agencies when gene doping and epigenome doping have reached the sporting world. So what to do? Accept that gene doping is making its way into the world of sport and letting cheaters do what they want? Or will we put our foot down and fight the genetic doping epidemic and punish those who taint the professionalism of sport. The arguments for legalizing conventional doping start from the fact that people who want to play fair are basically obligated to dope, even if they don't want to, just to have a chance against those who improve their performance in abnormal ways. This would be morally wrong for the athlete, as it would virtually force him or her to accept the potential health risks that would arise from doping, even to have a chance of winning. However, participating in many sports is already inherently risky. For example, there is ample evidence that soccer, rugby league, boxing, and American football can cause brain damage, although modifications to the game have been implemented to counteract these findings. Should we ban them? The 2011 survey mentioned above suggests that many, if not most, athletes believed they should dope, 2019).