Make me a superhero: The pleasures and pitfalls of body enhancement

April article for the Guardian..

We should welcome with open arms the rich possibilities of technologically enhancing our bodies. Just so long as we don’t all end up looking, and thinking, and acting the same.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/01/body-enhancement-cosmetic-surgery-genetics

The Guardian and Me

This month, I start writing a colum for The Guardian, one of the UK broadsheet papers. The science Editor, Ian Sample has invited me, along with PZ Myers, Chris French and Simon Singh to keep abreast of the latest scientific developments. Naturally, I’ll be focusing on the ethical issues arising from emerging technologies, so keep an eye on its pages.

Now, all I need is for someone to adequately update my Wikipedia entry. It’s soooo out of date and and I dare not touch it!

Start the Week with Andrew Marr

On Monday 15th at 830am GMT, I’ll be appearing on the BBC Radio 4 flagship Radio programme to talk abou thte future of humanity and my new book Human Futures: Art in an Age of Uncertainty.

Tune in, or iTune in (then buy the book – great Xmas present).

Human Futures conference programme (2008.10.30, Liverpool)

Find below the full Programme for 30 October, 2008, FACT, Liverpool, UK. Book Tickets

And, via a presentation I gave last week, a sense of the book’s visual content:

10.00-10.15    Why Human Futures? Mike Stubbs

10.15-11.45    Envisioning the Future,

Chair: Steve Fuller

10.15-10.40    An Ethics of the Unknown, Russell Blackford    AUS
10.40-11.05 Notes Towards the History of the Present, Norman M Klein    USA
11.05-11.45    Questions & Answers, Discussion

11.45-12.15 Tea and Coffee

12.15-13.45    Designs on the Future,

Chair: Andy Miah

1215-12.45    Design for Debate, Fiona Raby    UK
12.45-13.00    Enhanced Humans as Super-Organisms, Michael Burton     UK
13.00-13.15    Natural Kingdoms and the Post-Biological World, Revital Cohen    UK
13.15-13.45    Questions & Answers

13.45-14.45 Lunch & ISEA 2009 Meeting

14.45-15.45    Life after death in the 21st century,

Chair: Ernest Edmonds    UK

14.45-15.05    Mission Eternity, etoy.CORPORATION    SWITZ
15.05-15.45    Discussants: Paul Brown, Linda Candy    UK

15.45-16.45    Unsustainable Futures? FACT in 2009 ,

Chair: Nicola Triscott

15.45-15.55    Overiew & Summary, Nicola Triscott    UK

Rapporteurs:
15.55-16.05    Steve Fuller
16.05-16.15    Ernest Edmonds
16.15-16.25    Nigel Cameron
16.25-16.45    Laura Sillars

17.15-18.30    Book Launch Reception, Speeches & Signings

Mike Stubbs – Human Futures: The Programme

Andy Miah   – Human Futures: The Book

Related Events
Also taking place in Liverpool that day is the Long Night of the Biennial, an evening of cultural activities running from 8pm-12am. The following day sees the start of the BBC’s Radio 3 Free Thinking Festival, which is also at FACT. If you’ve not had a chance to get to Liverpool during its year as European Capital of Culture, this could be your time.

Beijing Olympics Torch Relay in London

On Thursday afternoon Josh Neicho from Letters at the Evening Standard asked me for a contribution about the torch relay arriving in London. I was waiting for a flight to Barcelona, but cobbled together something for them. Pasted below are the published version and my full submission. All are free for quoting:

Evening Standard published version

“If athletes are thinking of protesting this weekend, as the Olympic flame arrives in London, first they have to decide what they are protesting about – Tibet or wider human rights issues – then, on how their politics square with Olympic values.

There is an argument that the Olympics should be untainted by confrontational politics. In support of this view, one could point to the vast amount of soft diplomacy done at the behest of the Olympic movement: such as the Olympic Truce, which through the UN calls on heads of state to cease conflicts during the competition, or Olympic Solidarity, which enables the participation of many athletes who might not otherwise compete due to financial difficulties or political circumstances.

Athletes are and should be free to express themselves about global issues without intervention from any Olympic authority. They should, however, be cautious about their celebrity being co-opted by well-meaning but aggressive campaigning teams seeking to use them for their own benefit. They should gain inspiration from the quiet protests of Juan Carlos and Tommie Smith in Mexico in 1968; but recall their actions led to their expulsion from the Games.

The arguments used to support demonstrations against the Beijing Olympics, furthermore, might also be advanced by protesters against the 2012 London Games, on account of Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war and attacks on civil liberties during the “war on terror”.

Hypocrisy is rife on this issue, which is why the IOC prefers to portray itself simply as a sporting organization, even though it is clearly more than this.”

Dr Andy Miah, andymiah.net

My full submission

The Olympic torch passing through London this weekend

“If athletes are thinking of protesting this weekend, as the Olympic flame relay arrives on its long route to Beijing, then they have first to decide what it is they are protesting about. The interventions – plural and different – at the lighting ceremony in Olympia two weeks ago were characterized as pro-Tibet protests, yet the Reporters without Borders, while Tibet sympathizers, are predominantly concerned about the freedom of Chinese journalists within the mainland. It was the pro-Tibet protestors in the village of Olympia later that day that made particular reference to Tibet. So, will their protest be about media freedom of local or international journalists, or the various campaigns that have been launched in relation to Darfur, via the ‘Genocide Olympics’ strap line? Alternatively, will the protest be about the people of Tibet and the state of unrest that has been evident?

Their next decision should be about how their politics square with Olympic values. On one view, protest and activism are an integral element of the Olympic ideals, since they can contribute to the achievement of greater intercultural understanding, the core business of Olympism outlined in the Olympic Charter. On another view, the Olympic ideals should be untainted by this sort of confrontational politics, for its potentially destructive potential. Proponents of such views point to the vast amount of soft international diplomacy, which is evident below the surface of the Olympic Movement. For example, the Olympic Truce draws on the IOC’s relationship with the United Nations to call upon Heads of States to cease conflicts during the 16 days of competition. Alternatively, Olympic Solidarity has enable the participation of athletes from a vast number of countries that might otherwise be unable to take part, due to financial difficulties or political circumstances. Consider also the moment that North and South Korea entered the stadium at the Opening Ceremony of Sydney 2000.

The fact remains that in 100 years of modern Olympic history, there has never been a non-politicized Games. Yet, each incarnation has had to ensure that the Games are not too political, so as not to disrupt the entire Olympic programme. It is clear that athletes do not want this and the recent calls to boycott only the opening ceremony by Kate Hoey – a politics that gestures towards issues of political sensitivity – is a sensible route for those with strong views on this subject.

Athletes are and should be free to express themselves about global political issues without intervention from any Olympic authority. They should be cautious about their celebrity status being co-opted by well-meaning, but aggressive campaigning teams who seek to draw on an athlete’s name for their own good, some of which might have sponsorship tie ins that conflict with the Olympic sponsorship programme. They should gain inspiration from the quiet protests of Juan Carlos and Tommie Smith in Mexico 1968, but recall that their actions led to expulsion from the Olympic Games. Perhaps this is not too great a sacrifice for some athletes, but for others, it would be devastating and perhaps limit their capacity to capitalize on their Olympian status for subsequent purposes.

Finally, one might observe that arguments used to support protests of the Beijing Olympics due to China’s political interventions or lack of, might also be used to protest London’s Games in 2012, on account of its maneuvers in foreign policy, the Atlantic Alliance and assaults on human rights that have been justified in the context of a war on terror. In short, if athletes protest China, then they should consider whether they are also willing to protest London and, if not, whether this tells us anything about why protest and the Olympics enjoy a very difficult relationship. Hypocrisy is rife on this issue, which is why the IOC prefer simply to remain single minded about being just a sporting organization even if we know they are not.”

Dr Andy Miah
Reader
University of the West of Scotland

Linford Christie in London 2012 Torch Relay

A couple of weeks ago, an editor at the Evening Standard asked me to write a letter in relation to the Standard’s campaign to have Linford Christie removed from the Olympic torch relay nominations. I think he expected a letter in support of their campaign. He didn’t get it. Here’s what they didn’t publish. I didn’t hear back from him after sending it:

Dear Josh, I submit the following. It probably isn’t what you expected or, perhaps, wanted….

Dear Editor,

The campaign to remove Linford Christie from the Olympic torch relay for Beijing in London later this year highlights one of the longstanding inconsistencies within the Olympic Movement. As an aspiring judicial system – with its own Court to boot – it fails miserably as a mechanism of rehabilitation, since no amount of recompense an athlete makes after a doping infraction is enough to allow them entry back into the social world of athletics. While it might appear to be bad PR to bring Linford into the ceremony, this fact invites further questions over why such a decision was taken. In part, the answer lies in recent years when Linford became a mentor for the British Olympic team. At the same time, he was also a witness for a pioneering British inquiry into  developing more robust policies to address doping in sport, especially taking into account  claims from athletes, like him, who say that they have ingested banned substances by poorly labeled nutritional supplements. When we see Linford with the torch in April, we should not look upon him as a villain who has been celebrated despite his infractions – not as a bad guy who finished first -  but as a symbol of rehabilitation, someone from whom greater achievements are possible by learning the hard way. Much better for London to do this than to utilize a clean athlete who has yet to be found guilty of doping. At least with Linford, we all know where we stand. There can be no subsequent betrayal, which could occur if any, supposedly, clean athlete is asked to perform such duties. London should be different and it is right that the IOC does not intervene on these matters. While it might appear to be consistent with the moral outrage that surrounds doping in sport to request Linford’s absence, it is thoroughly inconsistent with the aspirations of achieving justice, which are the deeper values at stake when we appeal to fair play as a guiding norm within competitive performance cultures like sport. So, I say let him carry the torch. His permanent exclusion from the BOA as an athlete is mandatory under its policy, not a definitive statement on his present character. Perhaps his presence will encourage a deeper level of debate about what doping means, why it matters and how we should deal with it. However, any such inquiry is lost if we limit our conversations to the simplistic signifier of Linford Christie as doped athlete.

Dr Andy Miah,
Author of ‘Genetically Modified Athletes’
Reader, University of the West of Scotland.

Blogging in Beijing

A couple of days ago, I interviewed for ABC Radio on the recent discussions about blogging at the Beijing Olympics. Here’s the transcript:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sportsfactor/stories/2008/2179195.htm 

Technology pushes sporting boundaries (25 March, 2007)

Interview by Australian Associated Press while in Brisbane last week. Here’s the outcome:

Technology pushes sporting boundaries

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/1035788

Dozens of leading professional golfers, including Tiger Woods, have had eye surgery to improve their vision. Some believe it gives them “better than perfect” eyesight and makes the tricky business of reading greens far easier.

Hundreds of American major league baseball pitchers have had surgery to implant stronger tendons from elsewhere in their bodies into their elbows. Many of them testify that they can throw the ball harder and faster than they could before the operation.

Now the day may not be far away when athletes have microscopic-sized devices implanted in their brains to help them perform better.

According to Dr Andy Miah, a British bioethicist, the line between using technology to improve sporting equipment and using it to improve the bodies of its practitioners is becoming increasingly blurred.

“Sports are technologically enabled practises,” Miah said.

“We are pushing the limits of the body technologically and creatively – and I think the relationship between those two is quite close.

“People are fascinated with what the body can do in various kinds of performances.”

Miah, who was in Brisbane this week to address a conference organised by the Australian Sports Commission, said functional elective surgery in sport is a more immediate issue than the
long-feared emergence of genetically manipulated athletes.

While the World Anti-Doping Agency concentrates on performance-enhancing drugs and worries about so called “gene-doping”, it has no provision in its code for surgically enhanced athletes.

Woods, who was so short-sighted his doctor said he could barely count fingers held in front of his face, wore contact lenses early in his career.

He had laser surgery on his eyes in late 1999. After the surgery, which gave him vision rated at 20-15, Woods said the hole looked bigger to him.

Whether or not the surgery had anything to do with it, Woods won seven of the next eight PGA tour events he played in. The following year he began the “Tiger Slam” in which he became the first man to hold all four Majors at the same time.

Woods’ surgeon, Dr Mark Whitten, says the eyesight produced by surgically altering the shape of the cornea gives golfers an enhanced three-dimensional view of the shot confronting them. “It
may be better than normal vision,” he says.

Others who have had the surgery include Retief Goosen, Vijay Singh, Scott Hoch, Jesper Parnevik, Lee Westwood and Mike Weir.

Around 10% of major league baseball pitchers in the US have had surgery to strengthen their elbows, which come under enormous strain from repeatedly hurling baseballs at 150 kilometres an hour.

The procedure, called ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCR), is widely know as Tommy John surgery after the pitcher who first had it done in 1974.

According to a report published in USA Today, it involves taking a tendon, usually from the wrist or leg, and grafting it into the elbow in a figure-of-eight pattern through tunnels drilled in the
humerus and ulna bones.

The surgery has saved the careers of hundreds of pitchers, and there is evidence that its success rate is encouraging younger pitchers with only minor elbow injuries to seek the surgery to help their careers.

Some pitchers say they come back better than ever.

“I hit my top speed (in pitch velocity) after the surgery,” said Kerry Wood, who had the procedure five years ago and now pitches for the Chicago Cubs. “I’m throwing harder, consistently.”

Miah believes there is now a new frontier in sporting technology, driven by the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science.

All of these have profound implications for technological and medical developments generally, as well as within sport.

“It seems likely to me that sports will confront the implications of this convergence quite soon.

“We can imagine nanotechnological devices being utilised by athletes to keep them fit … these are molecular-sized devices that could be inserted into the brain to elicit certain kinds of
physiological modifications.”

The technique has already been used to implant molecular-sized devices into the brains of people suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

The implants alter the brain’s electrical output to help cure the  uncontrollable shaking that is the main symptom of the disease.

Technology such as this could have implications in shooting, snooker, archery and other disciplines requiring steady aim.

Miah, who believes genetic manipulation of athletes is not necessarily a bad thing, says the march of technology is throwing up some crucial philosophical questions.

“The development of biotechnology, stem cell research, cloning technology and the like has provoked a kind of moral encounter with what it means to be human and what technology might be doing to alter that.

“If we can develop devices that make it difficult to say these are external to the body, if they’re implantable into the body then it becomes much harder to say that they are artificial.”

BBC Radio Five Live (22 Feb, 2007)

At 1209am, 8 minutes after the official release of the Select Committee report into Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport within the UK, I gave an interview for BBC Radio 5 Live about its conclusions. I hadn’t actually read the final report by this time, but commented on the general principle of its main conclusions. I spoke mainly about the broader ‘enhancement’ context, which is not addressed fully by this report. However, my detailed reading of it indicates that they wish to invest into ethical research which could survey the prospects for anti-doping. While it is not obvious that this should imply anything other than endorsing the overall principle of anti-doping, there is recognition that sports are immersed in a vast technological culture and that the values of antidoping might be subject to redefining over time.

The report can be found online at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm 

The Drugs Do Work (The Observer, 04 Feb, 2007)

Article written by Robin McKie. I spoke with Robin at Glasgow Central station last december in preparation for this article. I think it’s timing is good, as the Select Committee on Science and Technology will soon report on the use of Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport.

McKie, Robin. (2007) The Drugs do Work, The Observer, Sunday 4 February, 2007.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,2002942,00.html

Digital era taking fans closer to action (The Times, 18 October, 2006)

Article published in the Times today with Matthew Syed

Digital era taking fans closer to action
By Matthew Syed and Andy Miah

VIRTUAL reality is upon us. Computer games in the high-street arcade are beginning to resemble exercise machines and an increasingly lucrative cyber-athlete professional league has been established.The United States bobsleigh team used a sled simulator to practice the Olympic run in Turin this year in their search for a critical edge in a competition in which it is almost impossible to practice on new and unfamiliar slopes.

More innovations are in the pipeline, with golf and motor sport leading the way. Fancy playing Augusta, Matrix-style? Digital technologies are increasingly influential on the playing field. Third-eye technology is transforming how events are officiated — Hawk-Eye is set to be used at Wimbledon next summer and cricket is debating whether to equip umpires with hand-held monitors to give them access to technologies familiar to armchair fans.

Radio frequency identification tagging will mean an even greater capacity to monitor and evaluate the actions of athletes on the pitch, including real-time judgments on such things as offside and whether contact has been made between players. Avoidable mistakes by officials could soon be a thing of the past.

The proliferation of mobile digital systems will soon close the gap between athletes and their spectators, where the latter will be able to immerse themselves virtually within the competition zone alongside their favourite athlete.

It is not inconceivable that we will see football teams managed by democratic voting systems.

Andy Miah is lecturer in media, bioethics and cyberculture at the University of Paisley and author of Cyber Sport, due out next year

BBC Radio Scotland (17 October, 2006, 1215-1245pm)

Debate about the developments in stem cell technology, which relates to an application from various scientists in the UK to the HFEA to introduce human skin tissue into animal eggs. The debate included Callum McKellar, who has also asked me to participate in a panel at the Edinburgh Biomedical Ethics Film Festival next month.

Here are my unedited notes from the debate, mostly what I said:

News peg

• current proposal is to use somatic cells – skin cells – these are not special cells, but the egg of an animal might be
• so, the news item is the creation of human embryos up to 14th day
• the study will use adult cells (skin) and insert into egg to see egg’s affect on cells
• seems to be a way of making adult stem cells more powerful
• use embryo to create stem cells that carry genetic defect responsible for neurological conditions
• convert stem cells into neurons to study disease – the egg converts the skin cells into stem cells
• ultimate aim:  use adult stem cells to create other cells for subsequent transplant without fear of immune rejection

initial reaction: a positive way of addressing what is often a stalemate between pro-life and pro-choice views on stem cells, but it is a compromise – involves treating animal life as artifact.

my position:

• first, this is not a licence to engineer people, but study a disease; which is consistent with the intention of current legislation. where it encounters problems is over creation of an embryo, but this is also unclear because the embryo would be chimeric.
• what’s needed is further debate about chimera and clarity about what they would entail,
• engages the wrath of those that might be characterised as pro-life and those who argue on behalf of animal rights, as well as people concerned about species integrity.
• human dignity is at stake for all parties: using stem cell science to improve the human condition and dignity of those who struggle with debilitating conditions
• but we shouldn’t be so serious about technology.
• key question is what are we prepared to allow people who have different value systems to do to themselves? if someone finds this an affront to dignity, does their view take precedence over those who do not see it in this way.
• certainly be wary of the politicisation of science, but also be wary of reducing science to politics – competing ethical lobby groups. policy has the hard task of fixing ethics within social systems and compromises will be made. this licence does not seem to great a compromise for pro-life advocates. for those who argue for pro-choice, they might claim much more.

our attitude to animals

• gene therapy research looking at extending mobility and functionality throughout life. major market in US for dog research – people want their dogs to run around for as long as possible.
• in this case, issue seems to be whether we allow manipulation of animal egg. we wouldn’t allow the reverse to take place – inserting animal tissue into female egg – but I don’t see how one argues on behalf of personhood for an animal. those who would argue against the insertion of animal tissue into human eggs rely on a concern over dignity and personhood. for animals, less clear that this could be the claim.

 From the Guardian, related story:

British scientists are seeking approval to create
embryos by fusing human cells with animal eggs in
controversial research which will boost stem cell
science and tackle some of the most debilitating and
untreatable neurological diseases.
Three teams in London, Edinburgh and Newcastle are to
submit simultaneous applications to the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority this month,
requesting licences to create early-stage “chimeric”
embryos that will be 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or
cow. The HFEA has sought legal advice and encouraged the
applications.
The licences will allow scientists to remove the nuclei
from animal eggs and replace them with human cells,
leading to embryos containing the complete set of human
genes, plus dozens of animal genes that sit inside tiny
energy-making structures called mitochondria.

BBC Five Live (3 Oct, 2006, 9-10pm)

I took part in a debate with Matthew Syed and Ted Friedmann about the prospects of Gene Doping

Genes and Juice

Article by TCS Daily writer on doping in sport references my Guardian article from last week.

Radio Five Live

Last night (7th Aug), I took part in a debate with Anita Anand on Radio Five Live. Other contributors included Dick Pound (WADA), Kris Akabusi (Athlete), Mike Smith (Coach) and my good friend Jim Parry (Philosopher.

Is sport winning the war on drugs? (The Guardian, 2 August, 2006)

Miah, A. (2006). Is Sport Winning the War on Drugs? No. The Guardian. London: p.7.

The press is in a bit of a frenzy this week over the doping issue. I arrived back in the UK to receive a bunch of calls from journalists wanting to interview. One of these was Duncan MacKay at The Guardian who asked me to write a response to the above question. The piece is published in today’s Guardian alongside the counter position written by Dr John Scott at UK Sport.

BBC Radio 4

Last week, I gave an interview for Radio 4 on the ethical issues related to developments in golf technology. Below are the details:

The Sports Programme

Mondays, 23:00 – 23:30

Listen to the latest programme

John Wilson

John Wilson brings you the best of the sports stories

The  programme was on:

When does technology cross the line between making sport a better spectacle and undermining the nature of the game? Tim Yeo MP and philosopher Andy Miah discuss speedy golf balls and other gizmos.

Archive

View information on all The Sports Programme programmes

Procycling Magazine

Interview for this month's (June) edition of Procycling Magazine. a large feature on gene doping written by Daniel Friebe.

Is there a human right to be superhuman?

This article was written by Brian Alexander who asked me for some comments about the paper I gave at Stanford University last week. It begins as follows:

Is there a human right to be superhuman?

By Brian Alexander

MSNBC

 

Updated: 7:45 p.m. ET May 31, 2006

getCSS("3027626")

While America was rushing to see sharp metal blades jut from Wolverine’s fists during the opening of the third "X-Men" movie last weekend, an academic conference was being held at Stanford University to discuss what might happen if people with special powers really existed.

Sky News, The Report

A couple of weeks ago, I interviewed for The Report, Sky News' flagship news programme at 7pm. It was broadcast last Tuesday. Did anybody see it? I was at the BASEM conference at the Belfry, so missed my email from producer Joey Jones, who set up the feature. Sounds as though it was thorough.