Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology

Editor-in-Chief: Cutter, Anthony Mark

More options …

Athlete or Guinea Pig? Sports and Enhancement Research

Nancy M. P. King / Richard Robeson
Published Online: 2007-12-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1006

Bioethics has paid little attention to the issues raised by health in athletic competition, with the single exception of the use of prohibited performance enhancements. However, in competitive athletics, the treatment and prevention of athletic injury and the development of training programs designed to maximize athletic achievement share many characteristics with medical innovation and clinical research, and should be understood to constitute enhancement research.Athletes should, in at least some circumstances, be viewed as vulnerable research subjects, akin to desperate patients. Competitive athletes are often encouraged to sacrifice long-term health benefits for short-term gains; cultural mythology about sports and high-stakes financial investments at the organizational level in team sports exercise great influence on individual athletes' range of choices. Technological advances in training, equipment, and injury treatment serve to raise the bar in competitive athletics, in turn increasing not only the risks of harm but the level of expectation with regard to performance, injury, and recovery. It is common for athletes to seek, and teams to offer, intensive and innovative training regimens from which data are gathered, thus transforming innovation into research.As technology continues to enhance the prospects for athletic enhancement, it is time for bioethics to take a closer look at the way competitive athletics highlights the troubling questions posed by enhancement research.

Keywords: athlete; enhancement research; innovation; research ethics; sports ethics

About the article

Published Online: 2007-12-21

Citation Information: Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, Volume 1, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 1941-6008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1006.

Export Citation

©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Lynn Hagger and Gareth Hagger Johnson
Law, Innovation and Technology, 2011, Volume 3, Number 1, Page 137
Katrina Karkazis and Jennifer R. Fishman
The American Journal of Bioethics, 2017, Volume 17, Number 1, Page 45
Performance Enhancement & Health, 2016, Volume 5, Number 2, Page 35
Michael E. Hoffer, Mikhaylo Szczupak, and Carey Balaban
Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2016, Volume 272, Page 77
Richard Robeson and Nancy M. P. King
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2014, Volume 42, Number 3, Page 334
Silvia Camporesi and James A. Knuckles
Reflective Practice, 2014, Volume 15, Number 1, Page 106
Nancy M. P. King and Richard Robeson
The American Journal of Bioethics, 2013, Volume 13, Number 10, Page 13

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in