No Cover Image

Journal article 1569 views

Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports

Silvia Camporesi, Michael McNamee Orcid Logo

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Volume: 9, Issue: 1, Start page: 4

Swansea University Author: Michael McNamee Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1186/1747-5341-9-4

Abstract

In light of the World Anti Doping Agency’s 2013 Code Revision process, we critically explore the applicability of two of three criteria used to determine whether a method or substance should be considered for their Prohibited List, namely its (potential) performance enhancing effects and its (potent...

Full description

Published in: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
ISSN: 1747-5341
Published: 2014
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa19664
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2014-12-03T02:57:44Z
last_indexed 2018-05-14T12:50:55Z
id cronfa19664
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2018-05-14T11:09:28.9639667</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>19664</id><entry>2014-12-02</entry><title>Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>85b0b1623e55d977378622a6aab7ee6e</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-5857-909X</ORCID><firstname>Michael</firstname><surname>McNamee</surname><name>Michael McNamee</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2014-12-02</date><deptcode>STSC</deptcode><abstract>In light of the World Anti Doping Agency&#x2019;s 2013 Code Revision process, we critically explore the applicability of two of three criteria used to determine whether a method or substance should be considered for their Prohibited List, namely its (potential) performance enhancing effects and its (potential) risk to the health of the athlete. To do so, we compare two communities of human guinea pigs: (i) individuals who make a living out of serial participation in Phase 1 pharmacology trials; and (ii) elite athletes who engage in what is effectively &#x2018;unregulated clinical research&#x2019; by using untested prohibited or non-prohibited performance enhancing substances and methods, alone or in combination. Our comparison sheds light on norms of research ethics that these practices exacerbate with respect to the concepts of multiplicity, visibility, and consistency. We argue for the need to establish a proper governance framework to increase the accountability of these unregulated research practices in order to protect the human guinea pigs in elite sports contexts, and to establish reasonable grounds for the performance enhancing effects, and the risks to the health of the athlete, of the methods and substances that might justify their inclusion on the Prohibited List.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine</journal><volume>9</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart>4</paginationStart><publisher/><issnPrint>1747-5341</issnPrint><keywords>Guinea pig; WADA; Research ethics; Sports medicine; Clinical trial; Pharmaceutical research; Visibility; Multiplicity; Consistency</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2014</publishedYear><publishedDate>2014-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.1186/1747-5341-9-4</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Sport and Exercise Sciences</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>STSC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2018-05-14T11:09:28.9639667</lastEdited><Created>2014-12-02T06:35:14.7067243</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Silvia</firstname><surname>Camporesi</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Michael</firstname><surname>McNamee</surname><orcid>0000-0002-5857-909X</orcid><order>2</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2018-05-14T11:09:28.9639667 v2 19664 2014-12-02 Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports 85b0b1623e55d977378622a6aab7ee6e 0000-0002-5857-909X Michael McNamee Michael McNamee true false 2014-12-02 STSC In light of the World Anti Doping Agency’s 2013 Code Revision process, we critically explore the applicability of two of three criteria used to determine whether a method or substance should be considered for their Prohibited List, namely its (potential) performance enhancing effects and its (potential) risk to the health of the athlete. To do so, we compare two communities of human guinea pigs: (i) individuals who make a living out of serial participation in Phase 1 pharmacology trials; and (ii) elite athletes who engage in what is effectively ‘unregulated clinical research’ by using untested prohibited or non-prohibited performance enhancing substances and methods, alone or in combination. Our comparison sheds light on norms of research ethics that these practices exacerbate with respect to the concepts of multiplicity, visibility, and consistency. We argue for the need to establish a proper governance framework to increase the accountability of these unregulated research practices in order to protect the human guinea pigs in elite sports contexts, and to establish reasonable grounds for the performance enhancing effects, and the risks to the health of the athlete, of the methods and substances that might justify their inclusion on the Prohibited List. Journal Article Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9 1 4 1747-5341 Guinea pig; WADA; Research ethics; Sports medicine; Clinical trial; Pharmaceutical research; Visibility; Multiplicity; Consistency 31 12 2014 2014-12-31 10.1186/1747-5341-9-4 COLLEGE NANME Sport and Exercise Sciences COLLEGE CODE STSC Swansea University 2018-05-14T11:09:28.9639667 2014-12-02T06:35:14.7067243 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences Silvia Camporesi 1 Michael McNamee 0000-0002-5857-909X 2
title Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
spellingShingle Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
Michael McNamee
title_short Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
title_full Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
title_fullStr Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
title_full_unstemmed Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
title_sort Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports
author_id_str_mv 85b0b1623e55d977378622a6aab7ee6e
author_id_fullname_str_mv 85b0b1623e55d977378622a6aab7ee6e_***_Michael McNamee
author Michael McNamee
author2 Silvia Camporesi
Michael McNamee
format Journal article
container_title Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
container_volume 9
container_issue 1
container_start_page 4
publishDate 2014
institution Swansea University
issn 1747-5341
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1747-5341-9-4
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description In light of the World Anti Doping Agency’s 2013 Code Revision process, we critically explore the applicability of two of three criteria used to determine whether a method or substance should be considered for their Prohibited List, namely its (potential) performance enhancing effects and its (potential) risk to the health of the athlete. To do so, we compare two communities of human guinea pigs: (i) individuals who make a living out of serial participation in Phase 1 pharmacology trials; and (ii) elite athletes who engage in what is effectively ‘unregulated clinical research’ by using untested prohibited or non-prohibited performance enhancing substances and methods, alone or in combination. Our comparison sheds light on norms of research ethics that these practices exacerbate with respect to the concepts of multiplicity, visibility, and consistency. We argue for the need to establish a proper governance framework to increase the accountability of these unregulated research practices in order to protect the human guinea pigs in elite sports contexts, and to establish reasonable grounds for the performance enhancing effects, and the risks to the health of the athlete, of the methods and substances that might justify their inclusion on the Prohibited List.
published_date 2014-12-31T03:23:09Z
_version_ 1763750748464611328
score 11.013731

Similar Items