uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Gene Doping and the Responsibility of Bioethicists
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics)
2011 (English)In: Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, ISSN 1751-1321, E-ISSN 1751-133X, Vol. 5, no 2, 149-160 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this paper we will argue: (1) that scholars, regardless of their normative stand against or for genetic enhancement indeed have a moral/professional obligation to hold on to a realistic and up-to-date conception of genetic enhancement; (2) that there is an unwarranted hype surrounding the issue of genetic enhancement in general, and gene doping in particular; and (3) that this hype is, at least partly, created due to a simplistic and reductionist conception of genetics often adopted by bioethicists.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 5, no 2, 149-160 p.
Keyword [en]
genetic enhancement; gene-doping; sport
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-206595DOI: 10.1080/17511321.2010.536960OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-206595DiVA: diva2:644695
Available from: 2013-09-02 Created: 2013-09-02 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Transforming the Doping Culture: Whose responsibility, what responsibility?
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Transforming the Doping Culture: Whose responsibility, what responsibility?
2013 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The doping culture represents an issue for sport and for society. Normative debates on doping have been mainly concerned with questions of the justifiability of doping. The practice of assigning responsibility for doping behaviour has chiefly been individual-based, focusing mainly on the individual athlete’s doping behaviour. The overarching aim of this thesis is to investigate the relevance and the importance of the ideas of responsibility in relation to ethical debates on doping. The more specific aim is to examine the possibility of broadening the scope of responsibility beyond the individual athlete, and to sketch a theoretical framework within which this expansion could be accommodated. In the first study, it is argued that bioethicists have a moral/professional responsibility to start out from a realistic and up-to-date view of genetics in ethical debates on gene doping, and that good bioethics requires good empirics. In study 2, the role played by affective processes in influencing athletes’ attitudes towards doping behaviour is investigated, both on an individual and on a collective level. It is concluded that an exclusive focus on individual-level rule violation and sanctions may entail overlooking the greater social picture and would prove to be ineffective in the long term. In study 3, the common doping-is-cheating arguments are examined and it is argued that they fail to capture vital features of people’s moral responses to doping behaviour. An alternative account of cheating in sport is presented in terms of failure to manifest good will and respect. It is concluded that putting cheating in the broader context of human interpersonal relationships makes evident the need to broaden the scope of moral responsibility and agency beyond the individual athlete. In study 4, the particular case of assigning responsibility for doping to sports physicians is used to examine the current individual-based approach to responsibility. This approach underestimates the scope of the responsibility by leaving out a range of other actors from the discourse of responsibility. The central conclusion of the thesis is that transforming the current doping culture requires broadening the scope of responsibility to include individuals and groups of individuals other than the athletes themselves.  

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2013. 72 p.
Series
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine, ISSN 1651-6206 ; 931
Keyword
Doping, responsibility, prospective responsibilities, cheating, good will, interpersonal relations, sports
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-206607 (URN)978-91-554-8738-6 (ISBN)
Public defence
2013-10-11, Auditorium Minus, Museum Gustavianum, Akademigatan 3, Uppsala, 13:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2013-09-20 Created: 2013-09-02 Last updated: 2014-01-23

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full texthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2010.536960

Authority records BETA

Atry, AshkanHansson, Mats G.Kihlbom, Ulrik

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Atry, AshkanHansson, Mats G.Kihlbom, Ulrik
By organisation
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
In the same journal
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy
Ethics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 438 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf