Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neuro-Doping – a Serious Threat to the Integrity of Sport?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The formation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 was spurred by the 1998 revelation of widespread use in professional cycling of erythropoietin (EPO). The drug was supposedly a real danger. The long-term consequences were unknown, but rumor said it made athletes’ blood thick as jam with clots and other circulatory fatalities likely consequences. Today the fear of EPO has dampened. However, new scientific avenues such as ‘neuro-doping’ have replaced EPO as emergent and imagined threats to athletes and to the integrity of sport. In this paper, we analyze the alleged threat from ‘neuro-doping’ in the following steps: First, we outline an understanding of ‘neuro-doping’ in a narrow sense, which we then put into context by looking at the phenomenon in a broader sense. Second, we highlight examples of societal perceptions of sport and science in order to shed light on where the concern for ‘neuro-doping’ comes from. Third, we address the more general fear of technology as a root for this concern. Fourth, we examine the evidence for the performance enhancing capacities of ‘neuro-doping’, where after we look at the obstacles for a ban on this technology. We conclude the analysis by stating that at present ‘neuro-doping’ cannot be considered a threat to the integrity of sport. Finally, however, we put this conclusion into perspective by examining what the most reasonable response would be if in the future neuro-stimulation techniques becomes an effective performance-enhancing mean in sport.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the present discussion, we are interested exclusively in non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. Thus, we do not consider for example Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). DBS certainly is invasive as it involves the placement in the brain of a medical device, which sends electrical impulses to specific targets in the brain for the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor and dystonia (see [3], Deep Brain Stimulation)

  2. Neuroethicists and others have attempted to draw a morally defensible line between different types of interventions, related to what we here refer to as ‘neuro-doping’ in its narrow and broad sense. The elevated concern for ‘neuro-doping’ could thus be explained by the extent to which such interventions exhibit a greater potential to compromise autonomy and disrupt identity. In their article “Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally?” Farah Focquaert & Maartje Schermer argue that indirect means (e.g. education) are morally preferable to direct means (e.g. change of brain structure and function). Although the latter are presently largely hypothetical (for inducing moral enhancement), the reason why they are morally inferior, the authors argue, is first that “direct, passive interventions limit an individual’s capacity for continued rational deliberation and autonomous choice. […] Second, direct, passive interventions may induce such radical and/or abrupt psychological changes, with little or no link to an individual’s narrative life story, that the continuity of one’s narrative identity is threatened ([18], p. 149). However, while such arguments may have academic resonance and help discriminate between different types of interventions, they are not only rather sophisticated, but also unrelated to sport/athletes or any other arguments previously forwarded by WADA (or any other NADOs) and thus hardly constitute a core component in the call for a ban on ‘neuro-doping’ [6]. Another point concerns the unknown aspects of new technologies. While it is true that music and radio does not have any adverse effects worth worrying about, we do not know the long-term effects of ‘neuro-doping’, and this in itself – as we will discuss below – could cause concern. Such concern, however, is in line with a general fear of the unknown, dehumanizing aspects, which science is often portrayed to embody by reactionaries. When it comes to manipulating the brain, the concern hereof is perhaps best captured in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, originally published in 1818 – a time where one could only vaguely see the contours of science’ Promethean potential (see the section “The fear of Technology”).

  3. The origin of the quote could probably be attributed to the Greek poet Archilochus: “We don’t rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of the training.”

  4. We are aware of the simplicity in reducing tDCS to simply a noise-cancelling device. There are for instance studies that have shown an effect on aggressive behavior. Thus sessions of bilateral prefrontal cortex tDCS has been shown to reduce self-perceived aggressiveness in men with high aggression potential [27]. However, for the present context we are concerned solely with TMS or TCS and their effect on performance, hence the analogy to a noise-cancelling device.

  5. Should Davis be interpreted more gently, it could be argued that what he refers to is not the broad idea of the ethos of sport but something narrower. Namely that for every new technology that emerges, each sport need to determine whether that technology stimulates, impedes or is indifferent to the testing of the relevant athletic skills in that sport. However, that is a different and more mundane question than assessing those technologies’ impact on the ethos of sport, or the spirit of sport, and inclusion or not on the list of banned drugs, substances and methods.

  6. An anonymous reviewer pointed out that in the future it may be possible to develop a test that can detect the use of ‘neuro-doping’. We acknowledge that this is of course possible. However, this is indeed a thought-experiment, and to illustrate the potential consequences of potent ‘neuro-doping’, it is an explicit premise for the thought-experiment that it is not possible to develop such a test.

References

  1. Beamish, R., and I. Ritchie. 2006. Fastest, highest, strongest : A critique of high-performance sport. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. López, B. 2011. The invention of a 'drug of mass destruction': Deconstructing the EPO myth. Sport in History 31 (1): 84–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wikipedia. 2020. Deep brain stimulation. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_brain_stimulation.

  4. Burke, L.M. 2008. Caffeine and sports performance. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 33 (6): 1319–1334. https://doi.org/10.1139/H08-130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. WADA. 2015. World Anti Doping Code 2015. Retrieved from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf.

  6. Park, K. 2017. Neuro-doping: The rise of another loophole to get around anti-doping policies. Cogent Social Sciences 3 (1): 1360462. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1360462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fenstermacher, J.D., T. Nagaraja, and K.R. Davies. 2001. Overview of the structure and function of the blood-brain barrier in vivo. In Blood—Brain barrier: Drug delivery and brain pathology, ed. D. Kobiler, S. Lustig, and S. Shapira, 1–7. Boston: Springer US.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Arendash, G.W., J. Sanchez-Ramos, T. Mori, M. Mamcarz, X. Lin, M. Runfeldt, L. Wang, G. Zhang, V. Sava, J. Tan, and C. Cao. 2010. Electromagnetic field treatment protects against and reverses cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease mice. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 19 (1): 191–210. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2010-1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, N.J. 2013. Neurodoping: Brain stimulation as a performance-enhancing measure. Sports Medicine 43 (8): 649–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0027-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stagg, C.J., G. Jayaram, D. Pastor, Z.T. Kincses, P.M. Matthews, and H. Johansen-Berg. 2011. Polarity and timing-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in explicit motor learning. Neuropsychologia 49 (5): 800–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eliakim, M., E. Bodner, A. Eliakim, D. Nemet, and Y. Meckel. 2012. Effect of motivational music on lactate levels during recovery from intense exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26 (1): 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31821d5f31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Waterhouse, J., P. Hudson, and B. Edwards. 2010. Effects of music tempo upon submaximal cycling performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 20 (4): 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00948.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The Inner Ring. 2014, 31 December 2014. Race radios banned. Retrieved from http://inrng.com/2014/12/race-radios-banned-2015/.

  14. Pates, J., I. Maynar, and T. Westbury. 2001. An investigation into the effects of hypnosis on basketball performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 13 (1): 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200109339005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barker, J.B., and M.V. Jones. 2008. The effects of hypnosis on self-efficacy, affect, and soccer performance: A case study. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology 2 (2): 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2.2.127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Onestak, D.M. 1991. The effects of progressive relaxation, mental practice, and hypnosis on athletic performance: A review. Journal of Sport Behavior 14 (4): 247–282.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pates, J. 2013. The effects of hypnosis on an elite senior European tour golfer: A single-subject design. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 61 (2): 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207144.2013.753831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Focquaert, F., and M. Schermer. 2015. Moral enhancement: Do means matter morally? Neuroethics 8 (2): 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-015-9230-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Christiansen, A.V., and R.B. Møller. 2016. Who is more skilful? Doping and its implication on the validity, morality and significance of the sporting test. Performance Enhancement & Health 4 (3-4): 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2016.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Møller, V. 2008. The doping devil. Copenhagen: Books on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lehman, T. 2015. Countering the modern luddite impulse. The Independent Review 20 (2): 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lin, J.C. 2005. Children's cognitive function and cell-phone electromagnetic fields. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine 47 (6): 118–120. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAP.2005.1608754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harari, Y.N. 2016. Homo Deus – A brief history of tomorrow. London: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reardon, S. 2016. ‘Brain doping’ may improve athletes’ performance. Nature 531: 283–284. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holgado, D., M.A. Vadillo, and D. Sanabria. 2019. “Brain-Doping,” Is It a Real Threat? Frontiers in Physiology 10 (483). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00483.

  26. Lattari, E., B.R.R. Oliveira, R.S. Monteiro Júnior, S.R. Marques Neto, A.J. Oliveira, G.A. Maranhão Neto, S. Machado, and H. Budde. 2018. Acute effects of single dose transcranial direct current stimulation on muscle strength: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 13 (12): e0209513. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Molero-Chamizo, A., R. Martín Riquel, J.A. Moriana, M.A. Nitsche, and G.N. Rivera-Urbina. 2019. Bilateral prefrontal cortex anodal tDCS effects on self-reported aggressiveness in imprisoned violent offenders. Neuroscience 397: 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.11.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Møller, V. 2010. The ethics of doping and anti-doping: Redeeming the soul of sport? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Poreisz, C., K. Boros, A. Antal, and W. Paulus. 2007. Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients. Brain Research Bulletin 72 (4): 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Brien, S. 2019, 1 March 2019. Stunned – Incredible moment Olympic cross-country skier Max Hauke is caught during blood transfusion in anti-doping raid. Retrieved from https://talksport.com/sport/503345/olympic-skier-max-hauke-doping/.

  31. Schmidt, L.-H. 1991. Det videnskabelige perspektiv : videnskabsteoretiske tekster. Kbh.: Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Dalgas Avenue 4, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Verner Møller & Ask Vest Christiansen

Authors
  1. Verner Møller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ask Vest Christiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ask Vest Christiansen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Møller, V., Christiansen, A.V. Neuro-Doping – a Serious Threat to the Integrity of Sport?. Neuroethics 14 (Suppl 2), 159–168 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09446-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09446-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation