CRISPR modifications banned for atheletes

[Abizar Lakdawalla]

No CRISPR for Sports

Oct 13, 2017

The World Anti-Doping Agency is adding gene-editing agents to its list of banned substances for use in sports, Engadget reports. It notes that the organization is trying to get ahead of a possible new doping approach, rather than playing catch up.

Beginning next year, WADA is to prohibit the use "gene-editing agents designed to alter genome sequences and/or the transcriptional or epigenetic regulation of gene expression," according to the organization. New Scientist notes that the agency already prohibits the use of genetically modified cells and gene therapy and that the additional language appears to be aimed particularly at CRISPR-based gene editing.

A WADA spokesperson tells New Scientist that individuals who undergo gene editing for medical reasons may be allowed to compete in sports, depending on whether that treatment returns them to what's considered normal or provides them with an edge. The agency did not respond to New Scientist's query about whether it would be able to actually catch individuals who cheat via gene editing. However, it notes that the biological passports the agency introduced a few years ago to track biomarkers of doping might be able to detect changes stemming from genetic alterations.

[Nathan McCorkle]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Abizar Lakdawalla <abi...@gmail.com> wrote:

No CRISPR for Sports

I really never liked most of the "sports" that exist... autonomous robotics was the closest thing to a competitive sport I ever got into. Also I was on a swim team once when I was very young.

We should start a better sport, take iGem and perform gamification on it. It could span from "microbe battles" to more logically based games/goals (basically copy any of the autonomous robot competitions).

"GMO-only sports" sounds much more interesting.

Seriously, it is sad that people still watch "professional" sports... what a pointless waste of time. That stuff is never going to make the world a better place, at least not any time soon. We aren't fighting off bears and wolves anymore, so it really seems outdated and archaic. Maybe I'm just too big of a nerd to "get" it.

[Andreas Stuermer]

Indeed, cars driving a circle or people trying to run 0.1 second faster than one another hardly seems to get us anywhere. If people could just be as excited as labs competing to cure cancers

[Josh Melnick]

well said

[A No Body]

How do you police something that can edit itself and its mechanisms out?

Even if you find some trace of residues needed to target the right genes, evidence can be said to be purely circumstantial.

[Michael Crone]

You would only be able to edit a certain proportion of the cells, so some would still contain your original genotype. It would be very difficult to explain that kind of mosaicism.

[Nathan McCorkle]

On Dec 17, 2017 5:06 PM, "A No Body" <yuriy...@gmail.com> wrote:

How do you police something that can edit itself and its mechanisms out?

time series data, unless they were modified at germ-cell level before conception