Genetic medalling – what do genes tell us about sporting ability?

Genetic  studies of race are understandably controversial. Biology has in the  past been used to legitimize and perpetuate racial stereotypes, and to  justify eugenic practices, slavery and genocide. The human genome can  reveal incredible detail relating to an individual’s ethnicity. Using  modern genetic techniques it is now possible to broadly identify an  individual’s geographic origins, in some cases down to the particular  village. These techniques can be powerful tools in the study of human  evolution and the genetic basis of certain diseases, but could easily be  misused. The implications of this area of research were the topic of  debate in a series of events exploring genetics and ethnicity organized  by the Progress Educational Trust (PET) and supported by the Wellcome Trust - Genes, ancestry and racial identity: Does it matter where your genes come from?

Sporting  competitions can sometimes draw attention to racial differences. It is  widely commented upon, for example, that at the elite level most long  distance races are won by athletes of East African origin, whereas  sprint races are almost exclusively won by athletes of West African  ancestry. Although few other clear examples exist, we tend to assume,  because of its physical nature, that differences in sporting ability  must be due to genetic differences between athletes. Is sporting ability  just a matter of good genes, and is some of this genetic advantage  associated with ethnicity? Is a race won before it even takes place? If  there is a strong genetic component to sport performance, it opens the  door to genetic testing for ‘sport’ genes, gene doping and segregation  of sporting events along genetic lines. These issues were discussed at  the final event in the PET series, Genetic medalling, held at the Royal Society of Medicine in June.

What  do we know about the relationship between genetics and race – is race a  biological concept? A key finding of the Human Genome Project and  subsequent population genetics research is that we are far more alike  genetically than we are different, a discovery in reassuring agreement  with our modern values of equality and diversity. As a species, humans  are 99.7 per cent identical – which leaves only 0.3 per cent of genetic  variation between individuals.  

Within  this narrow scope for variation, however, some of the genetic  differences in individuals tend to cluster according to ancestry and  geographic origin, so that individuals from different regions can be  distinguished at a genetic level. Recent research, for example, has been  able to accurately predict the village of origin of individuals in  areas of rural Scotland, and to distinguish between neighbouring African  populations. This genetic variation is subtle and continuous rather  than discrete, and reflects the pattern of human migration over the  course of evolution.

This  lack of distinct boundaries between human populations therefore  challenges the concept of a genetic basis to socially-defined racial  categories. Human migration and increasing 'gene flow' between  populations is blurring these boundaries further.

Is  any of this genetic ancestry information useful? Some diseases are  known to be more prevalent among certain ethnic groups, and certain  ethnic groups respond differently to medicines. But because  self-identified ethnic categories don't necessarily have a biological  correlate, they are often a poor proxy for predicting disease  susceptibility. Where the specific genes involved are known, a more  sophisticated approach using personalised genetic testing would  circumvent the need to make clinical decisions based on ethnicity, and  focus instead on the individual patient.

Even  if genetic ancestry information might replace ethnicity in medicine and  other contexts, it still presents a number of ethical issues in terms  of how the information is interpreted and used. Just as with rare  diseases, there is a risk of marginalizing ‘rare’ populations, with  fewer medicines and treatments tailored to them, and shifting investment  in research and resources towards more populous or wealthy  demographics. Without proper safeguards, health insurers might use  genetic ancestry information to increase premiums or refuse coverage for  certain groups. The use of any genetic information in this way is  illegal at present in the United States, and UK insurers have agreed a  voluntary and temporary moratorium.

The potential applications extend beyond medicine. In 2009 the UK Border Agency began the Human Provenance Pilot Project,  which aimed to determine whether genetic testing could establish the  “true country of origin” of asylum seekers to the UK, amid serious  concerns from scientists that the plans were fundamentally flawed,  confusing genetic ancestry and geographic origin with citizenship and  national borders.

What part does genetics and ethnicity play in sport performance? At the Genetic medalling  debate, Dr Alun Williams, a sport and exercise geneticist, said that  there was growing evidence that genetics does play a large part in  sporting ability, for characteristics such as oxygen uptake, strength,  endurance-related ability, and even elite athlete status. Whether any  ‘sport’ genes were linked to ethnicity has not been studied  specifically, he said. John Dupree, professor of philosophy of science  at the University of Exeter, agreed that it would be unlikely for  ethnicity to be systematically correlated to sporting performance, but  that it was possible that genetic ancestry might be linked to specific  ‘sport’ genes, pointing to the record of East African long distance  runners and West African sprinters.
 
The  science writer Connie St Lewis warned against conflating race or  ethnicity with genetics, and said that racial stereotypes were common in  sport. She described the scandal involving the French football team,  whose current manager, Mr Blanc, allegedly planned to impose a quota  limiting the number of players of African and North African origin in  the French football squad, in favour of players with “our culture, our  history”. African players were “large, strong, powerful”, he said, and  implied that white players instead had “a certain intelligence for the  game”.
 
The  panel agreed that as more was understood about the link between  sporting ability and genetics, the more this information would be  exploited. Genetic testing would become just another “tool in the box”  for elite athletes to understand their physical potential, and were  likely already in use. Gene doping – the use of genetic material to  enhance athletic performance – has been banned since 2003, but some  products are available illegally to athletes. The synthetic virus Repoxygen,  originally developed to treat anemia, can insert the erythropoeitin  (EPO) gene into the body and instruct it to make more red blood cells,  undetected, which enhances muscle performance.
 
Would  genetic testing among the general population, or school children,  inspire or discourage participation in sport? Several companies already  offer such tests, marketed specifically to parents to predict their  child’s athletic potential. These tests, apart from not being validated  scientifically, promote a biological determinist perspective, and imply  that if you don't have the genes, it's not worth participating. In  focusing exclusively on genes, we are ignoring the powerful social and  environmental factors that draw people to particular sports and allow  them to excel.

If  some genes really do confer a major advantage, then athletes are  competing on an unlevel playing field. Is there a case for genetic  segregation of athletes in sporting events? One could consider  separating men and women in sport competitions a form of genetic  segregation that already exists – enforced because of the recognised  effects of male hormones like testosterone on performance. But even for  these clear categories, the boundaries can be uncertain, as in the case  of the female athlete Caster Semenya,  who was publicly exposed as having an intersex identity when her gender  was questioned. Defining the boundaries of other genetic categories  would be more problematic, and risks stigmatisation of athletes and  invasions of privacy, especially if the genes in question are related to  ethnic identity.

So  does it matter where your genes come from? It is certainly possible to  gain information about your ancestry from your own genome, and this is  likely to become more sophisticated as genetic techniques improve.  Genetic ancestry tests are already widely available to consumers, even  if unreliable and unvalidated. Ethnicity information might be a stepping  stone to identifying the underlying genetics associated with disease  susceptibility, drug response, or even sporting ability. It seems that  these technologies, once available, are inevitable.

Debate  should focus not on whether they should or should not be allowed, but  how to ensure that they are used in away that respects an individual’s  privacy and confidentiality, and protects against discrimination.