Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Against Genetic Tests for Athletic Talent: The Primacy of the Phenotype

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New insights into the genetics of sport performance lead to new areas of application. One area is the use of genetic tests to identify athletic talent. Athletic performances involve a high number of complex phenotypical traits. Based on the ACCE model (review of Analytic and Clinical validity, Clinical utility, and Ethical, legal and social implications), a critique is offered of the lack of validity and predictive power of genetic tests for talent. Based on the ideal of children’s right to an open future, a moral argument is given against such tests on children and young athletes. A possible role of genetic tests in sport is proposed in terms of identifying predisposition for injury. In meeting ACCE requirements, such tests could improve individualised injury prevention and increase athlete health. More generally, limitations of science are discussed in the identification of talent and in the understanding of complex human performance phenotypes. An alternative approach to talent identification is proposed in terms of ethically sensitive, systematic and evidence-based holistic observation over time of relevant phenotypical traits by experienced observers. Talent identification in sport should be based on the primacy of the phenotype.

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

Notes

  1. The ACCE model defines a procedure for genetic test assessment with 44 targeted questions. For background information and a complete overview of the 44 questions, see Sanderson et al. [19] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website [20].

References

  1. Lippi G, Longo UG, Maffulli N. Genetics and sport. Br Med Bull. 2010;93:27–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bouchard C, Hoffmann EP, editors. Genetic and molecular aspects of sport performance. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford UK; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Guth LM, Roth SM. Genetic influence on athletic performance. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2013;6:653–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tamburrini C, Tännsjö T. Genetic technology and sport: ethical questions. London: Routledge; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Loland S. Genetics and ethics in elite sport. In: Bouchard C, Hoffmann EP, editors. Genetic and molecular aspects of sport performance. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. pp. 353–361.

  6. WADA. The 2015 prohibited list. Available from: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-prohibited-list-en.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar 2015.

  7. Savulescu J, Foddy B. Comment: genetic test available for sports performance. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:472.

  8. Miah A, Rich E. Genetic tests for ability? Talent identification and the value of an open future. Sport Educ Soc. 2006;3:259–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McNamee M, Müller A, van Hilvoorde I, et al. Genetic testing and sports medicine ethics. Sports Med. 2009;5:339–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Camporesi S. Bend it like Beckham: the ethics of genetically testing children for athletic potential. Sport Ethics Phil. 2013;2:175–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loland S. Fair play in sport: a moral norm system. London: Routledge; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hurka T. Perfectionism. Oxford: Oxford UP; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard UP; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Abbot A, Collins D. Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. J Sport Sci. 2004;5:395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, et al. Talent identification and developmental programs in sport: current models and future directions. Sports Med. 2008;9:703–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Breitbach S, Tug S, Simon P. Conventional and genetic talent identification in sports: will recent development trace talents? Sports Med. 2014;44:1489–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Foddy B, Savulescu J. Ethics and performance enhancement in sport: drugs and gene doping. In: Ashcroft RE, Draper H, McMillan JR, editors. Principles of health care ethics. London: Wiley; 2007. p. 511–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Yang N, MacArthur DG, Gulbin AG, et al. ACTN3 genotype is associated with human elite athletic performance. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73:627–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sanderson S, Zimmern R, Kroese M, et al. How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genet Med. 2005;7:495–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ACCE model process for evaluating genetic tests: genomic testing. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/. Accessed 6 Mar 2015.

  21. Ericsson KA, Krampe RTh, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100:363–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sloboda JA, Davidson JW, Howe MJA, et al. The role of practice in the development of performing musicians. Br J Psychol. 1996;87:287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Charness N, Tuffiash M, Krampe R, et al. The role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19:151–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Starkes J, Ericsson KA, editors. Expert performance in sports: advances in research on sport expertise. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ericsson KA, Lehmann AC. Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annu Rev Psychol. 1996;47:273–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Astrand PO, Rodahl K. Textbook of work physiology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tucker R, Collins M. What makes champions? A review of the relative contribution of genes and training to sport success. Br J Sports Med. 2012;8:555–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rescher N. Luck: the brilliant randomness of everyday life. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gould D, Dieffenbach K, Moffett A. Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. J Appl Sports Psychol. 2002;14:172–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Greenbaum D. If you don’t know where you’re going, you might wind up someplace else: incidental findings in recreational personal genomics. Am J Bioeth. 2014;3:12–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Feinberg J. The child’s right to an open future. In: Feinberg J, editor. Freedom and fulfillment: philosophical essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994. p. 76–97.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dixon N. Sport, parental autonomy, and children’s right to an open future. J Phil Sport. 2007;34(2):147–159.

  33. Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden H. The right to an open future concerning genetic information. Am J Bioeth. 2014;3:21–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Camporesi S, McNamee M. Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti-doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports. Phil Ethics Humanit Med. 2014;9:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Janvier A, Farlow B. Arrogance-based medicine: guidelines regarding genetic testing in children. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(3):15–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Standal ØF, Hemmestad L. Becoming a good coach: coaching and phronesis. In: Hardman AR, Jones C, editors. The ethics of sports coaching. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Loland S. The normative aims of coaching: the good coach as an enlightened generalist. In: Hardman AR, Jones C, editors. The ethics of sports coaching. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The author has no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, P.O. Box 4014, Ullevål Stadion, 0806, Oslo, Norway

    Sigmund Loland

Authors
  1. Sigmund Loland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigmund Loland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loland, S. Against Genetic Tests for Athletic Talent: The Primacy of the Phenotype. Sports Med 45, 1229–1233 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0352-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0352-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation