For centuries, America, more than any other nation, has beckoned immigrants in search of a brighter, safer future to come take advantage of this land of opportunity. The American model of immigrant assimilation is one of dignified achievement and pride because it reflects long-standing American traditions of the integration and inclusion of other nationalities.[1]Nevertheless, of late, anti-immigration hysteria is pervading a country once held in high regard for being fortified by the contributions of generations of immigrants, who offered this country their allegiance and their dreams. Just months after strict anti-immigration laws were passed in Arizona, proposals to boldly amend the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution are garnering alarming levels of support in the U.S. Senate. These proposals call for a repeal of birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants—a protection previously ensured under application of the Fourteenth Amendment. The shocking legislative change has sparked immense controversy concerning its arguable effectiveness, potential discriminatory factor, and worrisome repercussions of stripping a deep-rooted constitutional entitlement from all persons born in the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment is hailed in U.S. history as a cornerstone of American civil rights. The amendment ensures due process, grants equal protection, and provides affirmation that all persons born in this country are U.S. citizens.[2]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

-          Amendment XIV, Section I, Clause I [3]

This constitutional guarantee dates back to the post-Civil War era, as the Amendment was initially designed to resolve citizenship issues pertaining to former slaves and their children.[4] Since its addition in 1868, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has controlled the citizenship of every person born in the United States.

The current legislative measure in question is predominantly led by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is actively pushing hearings to amend the clause. Graham said, “We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen,”4. He claims the current law “attracts people [to this country] for the wrong reasons.”[5] Senator Graham insists the children granted citizenship under the Citizenship Clause assist their relatives in obtaining citizenship and other benefits. This argument is not entirely reasonable because having an “anchor baby” does not provide citizenship to the mother. It is not possible for a child to sponsor their parents for citizenship until age 21. Furthermore, even when the child is of this age, certain restrictions apply; thus, Senator Graham’s argument that mothers will easily gain citizenship is not supported in the application of the clause.[5]

The main issue Graham is pushing is that the U.S. has unauthorized immigrants crossing the border for the sole purpose of having children, although immigration data and surveys don’t support this claim at all. “All the data [from the Pew Hispanic Center] suggests that people come here to work – especially Mexicans, and especially illegal Mexicans,” said Roberto Suro, a communications and journalism professor at the University of Southern California who specializes in Hispanic issues. Suro also explained that if having a baby was a significant driving factor in illegal immigration, we would expect to see a higher percentage of women of child-bearing age in the U.S. illegally compared to men of the same age and he points out that just the opposite of this is the case.[5]

While only recently gaining momentum, the current proposal to repeal birthright citizenship is not an entirely new idea. Former California governor Pete Wilson (R-CA) proposed such a measure as a part of his immigration plan in 1993[6] and Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also introduced legislation to end automatic birthright citizenship in the same year.[7] But it is only since 2009 that prominent political leaders have seriously taken up the idea as a prospective solution to the daunting issue of illegal immigration and its depletion of national resources.

What it looks like from the outside, however, is that Republicans are hurriedly riding along the coattails of Arizona laws, as well as national anti-immigration sentiments, in an attempt they believe will save taxpayer money and slow down rampant illegal border crossings.8 But without significant evidence to support that the desperate measure of altering Constitutional law would effectively do anything to impede illegal immigration, the assault on the Fourteenth Amendment can be viewed as an exhibit of extremism. Opponents are also hesitant to overlook hostility toward immigrants as a motivation for amending the clause. Notions of prejudice, especially toward Mexican immigrants, are not inconceivable, especially since past efforts to abolish birthright citizenship have relied greatly on nationalized xenophobia. In 1942, California natives attempted to take advantage of wartime anti-Japanese public sentiment to end birthright citizenship. Greg Robinson is Associate Professor of History at the Université du Québec À Montréal and noted that their arguments revealed a fundamental motivation of white supremacy, with the ACLU and NAACP perceiving such implications.[6]

In truth, the act of abolishing the amendment does not guarantee success or benefits to anyone at all – in fact, the proposal is a bit alarming in how much damage it might produce and the chaos it could trigger. Were the amendment to pass, it would fundamentally change what it means to be an American. The citizenship status of every individual born in our country would be left in question. And what about the hundreds of thousands of children born in this country that will be undocumented; to what nation will they belong? Furthermore, is the U.S. prepared to develop a new system of classifying its people if a birth certificate will no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship? And apart from the children of unauthorized immigrants, where does that leave the rest of America? …With liberty and justice deportation papers for all.

It is apparent the U.S. immigration system in need of new direction; nevertheless, it is important to contemplate all possible solutions and consider the respective consequences of each. Our new immigration policy must complement our national security policy as well as our economic policies. Politicians see solutions through reform, but on the issue of illegal immigration, our dilemmas are comprised of several affairs – including our national debt, the health of our economy, and level of unemployment. Concerning birthright citizenship, can we not appreciate the fact that what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years has been good to our country? Maybe there is an opportunity cost, but in the end we reap the benefits as we accumulate citizens who become taxpayers, join our communities, and serve in our military. Is this exclusivity really what America stands for – that we are it and we don’t want to share this country with anyone else? This is untrue of our ancestors then, who came here, worked hard and succeeded to provide better lives for future generations. There is a Persian saying by Tusi from a story about an old man planting a walnut tree written over 700 years ago that translates to say that “Others planted and we ate, and we will plant so that others may eat.”[10] Our ancestors planted walnut trees they would never see for generations they would never meet. In a nation where it is so easy to constantly take from one another and disregard the future, it is time we consider planting more walnut trees instead of wielding our axes.

1. S, M. “Go Back Where You Didn’t Come From.” The Economist, 12 Aug 2010, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/birthright_citizenship (accessed Sep, 2010).

2.Stock, Margaret D.. “Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s Birthright Citizenship Law.” Made in America: Myths & Facts about Birthright Citizenship Immigration Policy Center,. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/made-america-myths-facts-about-birthright-citizenship (accessed Sep, 2010).

3. “Constitution of the United States.” The Charters of Freedom. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html (accessed Sep, 2010).

4.“Born in the USA: The flawed case against birthright citizenship..” Chicago Tribune, 15 Aug 2010, http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10584318 (accessed Sep, 2010).

5. “Fact-checking the claims about ‘anchor babies’ and whether illegal immigrants ‘drop and leave’.” St. Petersburg Times, 2010, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/.

6. Robinson, Greg. “Repealing Birthright Citizenship Wasn’t a Good Idea Back in the Forties Either.” History News Network (2010):. http://hnn.us/articles/130165.html (accessed Sep, 2010).

7.“Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison.” Center of Immigration Studies (August 2010):. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship (accessed Sep, 2010).

8.”Bilbray, ‘14^th Amendment Needs Clarification.” San Diego Political Examiner. Congressman Brian P. Bilbray. http://bilbray.house.gov/2010/07/san-diego-political-examiner-bilbray-14th-amendment-needs-clarification.shtml (accessed Sep, 2010).

9.“The Ruh of Brown Folks.” 18 Apr 2010. http://brownfolks.blogspot.com/2010/04/below-is-small-portion-from-khwaje.html (accessed Sep, 2010).

The headlines on BBC News website on September 19^th, 2010, read “Gulf oil spill ‘finally sealed,’” putting an end to a five month ordeal for the citizens of the Gulf of Mexico. [8] On April 20^th, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned by British Petroleum, exploded, leaving eleven workers dead and an uncontrollable fountain of oil gushing into the Gulf. Over the next few months, efforts to cap the leak saw their effectiveness ebb and flow like the tides of the Gulf; the blowout preventer remained unresponsive, the static kill took months, and a “junk shot” failed. It was only until the relief well was completed in September that the leak stopped spewing oil. In sum, the explosion led to 4.9 million barrels spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. [8] The livelihoods of thousands of fishermen, crabbers, tourism-service providers, and other Gulf Coast-residents were threatened, as millions of fish and sea creatures died on the blackened beaches of Louisiana and Alabama. And yet, as the final feet of the relief well was bored, and as the pressure on the well abated, the end of the crisis was realized. The objective had been reached, and the Deepwater Horizon spill was over, hopefully never to spew black liquid death again . [7]

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an unheard of ecological catastrophe, a disaster whose magnitude is still being grasped. Despite this, all signs point to the optimistic possibility of a full recovery for the Gulf Coast. The oil-eating bacteria that helped eat up the crude did not create the dreaded “dead-zone” of oxygen-deprived ocean water; thus the massive cleanup crews assembled by BP and the US government were able to contain much of the oil before it reached too many beaches. The Gulf cleanup was effective in part because it required little more than physical labor and human capital; the science behind cleaning the oil was essentially simple spraying and scrubbing. Natural forces, like the current and crude-eating bacteria, sufficiently dissipated the spill. Though many wildlife sanctuaries were greatly damaged, the worst case scenario was not realized. The deaths of the eleven men, while undeniably tragic, was not a calamitous number. Despite all of this, British Petroleum was forced by the US Department of Justice to set aside 20 billion USD for victims, after already spending over 8 billion USD in initial cleanup and recovery efforts. Pressure from the American public and President Barack Obama led to BP’s announcement of the creation of the fund within two months of the explosion, and within weeks, 319 million USD had already been issued out (“BP” 1). Though the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, did step down, further punishments for those found responsible for the spill  processes is still ongoing . [8]

Thus, a British company who victimized the American people came under scrutiny and pressure from the US legal and political system to right its wrongs. This was not the case in Bhopal, India, where an American company was responsible for devastating the region, and yet remained nearly immune to punishment.

On December 3^rd, 1984, a gas cylinder in the Union Carbide pesticide plant reacted with water and exploded, spewing forty tones of poisonous gas over Bhopal, a town of one million people. By the 6^th, 8,000 people were killed, followed by tens of thousands of deaths in the next months. The poison’s effects remained in the area, affecting 600,000 people at the time. For years, the people have continually suffered; they lacked the scientific expertise to contain and cleanup the gas, and the company did little to help. Even today, the groundwater in Bhopal is likely still contaminated, and the children of the region are known to have disproportionally high rates of many genetic diseases. [5] The exact number of those who became ill, passed away, and were adversely affected by the Union Carbide explosion will never be known, but the area will never be the same again .[4]

Though it occurred over two decades ago, the people of Bhopal are still waiting for justice. In 1989, Union Carbide paid 470 million USD, which amounted to approximately 783.33 USD per person affected. [In contrast, if the BP fund for the Gulf disaster was allocated equally to all 31 million people living (regardless of whether or not they were personally affected by the spill) in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida would receive around 651.70 USD in compensation.] 783.33 USD was all the money that each victim was given to fight off kidney, liver, skin, and brain disease; for those families that lost males, the main breadwinner was replaced by this paltry sum.[6] The Indian government has been slow in dealing with the victims, and legally, India was unable to force the US into allowing for Bhopal to file charges in American courts.

When BP’s negligence in the US came to light, the latter almost immediately forced the gas giant to make reparations. However, in a case where an American company neglected to ensure the safety of a foreign nation’s citizenry, the United States refused to force just compensation.[1] Union Carbide’s CEO, Warren Anderson, was punished neither by the company nor the US; in fact, Anderson was allowed to retire in 1986. Outstanding warrants intended to bring the CEO in on homicide charges in India have been ignored, as Union Carbide claimed that it does not fall under Indian jurisdiction. The American legal system backed this when, in separate Superior and Supreme Court cases in 2006 and 1993, attempts by Bhopal victims to sue in US courts were dismissed.[3] Thus, the United States government did little to compensate India for the gross negligence of its company’s actions abroad.

The discrepancy and hypocrisy of the United States legal actions towards each incident are glaring. In one situation, a major environmental disaster became a PR nightmare for the offending, non-American company; moreover, as a result billions of USD were issued in compensation. On the other hand, one of the worst industrial disasters in history, which led to the deaths of thousands, was perpetrated by a US subsidiary that was only forced to pay a sum fewer than one thousand dollars per victim. The people of Bhopal were given a cold introduction to the American justice system.

References

1.”BBC News – ‘Waiting for justice’ 25 years after Bhopal disaster,” BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_

correspondent/8386710.stm (accessed September 20, 2010).

2.”BBC News – BP makes $3bn deposit in $20bn relief fund,” BBC – Homepage, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10917007 (accessed September 18, 2010).

3.”BBC News – Bhopal survivors fight for justice,” BBC News – Home, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8390156.stm (accessed September 20, 2010).

4.”BBC News – Bhopal’s economy was stalled by the 1984 gas leak,” BBC News – Home, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8380243.stm (accessed September 20, 2010).

5.”BBC News – Bhopal’s health effects probed,” BBC News – Home, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7961062.stm (accessed September 20, 2010).

6.”BBC News – Campaigners dismiss Bhopal compensation as insufficient,” BBC – Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10411047 (accessed September 19, 2010).

7.”BBC News – Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer ‘faulty’ – Congress,” BBC News – Home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8679090.stm (accessed September 19, 2010).

8.”BBC News – Timeline: BP oil spill.” BBC – Homepage, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10656239 (accessed September 18, 2010).

9.”Chronology.” Bhopal Information Center, http://www.bhopal.com/chrono.htm (accessed September 20, 2010).

A significant number of people in need of social service help do not get it because they lack the information needed to obtain it. While it is regrettable to see people suffer the lack of a resource because of their economic woes, it is even more unfortunate if they are eligible to receive the help they need but yet do not receive it. One can ascribe this failure to unawareness of the existence of the resource, ignorance of eligibility, and/or inability to properly complete whatever is required to obtain the resource. All of these factors ultimately point back to insufficient information or the lack of it altogether. This phenomenon is widespread and is often a great hazard to providing resources to basic needs. Over 17 million Americans eligible for food stamps do not obtain them [3]. At least 6 million tenants who are 50% below the area median income do not receive rental assistance from the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) despite their eligibility for this benefit [4]. 70% of uninsured children in America eligible to enroll in SCHIP (State Child Health Insurance Program) [5] remain uninsured.

The basic needs and resources low income families go without due to lack of information eventually results in poor health. Food insecurities among expectant mothers can lead to low birth weight in newly born children [6].  Children who experience difficulty in accessing food may end up with poor health and have a greater incidence of chronic illnesses such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes [7]. Families with energy problems are at risk of exposing children to a greater risk of hospitalization [8]. Inadequate housing among low income families is also a huge health hazard to both adults and children. Poor living and housing conditions are often associated with malnutrition, especially in children [9]. Household members are also at greater risk of mold exposure, lead poisoning, and asthma attacks.

Social medicine, the provision of non-medical help geared toward improving an individual’s health, is an efficient means of combating the aforementioned lack of information. Organizations such as Project HEALTH (PH) [10], LIFT [11], and Single Stop USA [12] are examples of the few not-for-profit organizations that provide information on social services, community resources, government programs and financial education to help combat the effects of poverty and promote better health. PH operates from Family Help Desks in local hospitals and community clinics staffed by a trained college volunteer workforce in six cities in United States. PH provides clients with information on resources for food, housing and employment. LIFT is a similar program aimed at combating poverty and improving the health and lives of its clients. Single Stop USA advises its clients on relevant financial issues and provides information on how to access previously unknown resources in order to better their life and health. All of these organizations work to eliminate the lack of information that has plagued most low income communities.

Social medicine organizations are few in number with a limited scope of influence and thus there still remains a huge void to fill in the provision of information to those who need it. These organizations are usually located in major cities such as Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C. The magnitude of their impacts underscores the need for their presence in more cities. In 2009, Single Stop USA helped over 120,000 low income families access over $300 million dollars in benefits [13]. An average of around 52% of families that visit the Project HEALTH Family Help Desk obtain at least one of the resources they need in the first three months with the rest receiving follow-ups until they obtain their resource [14].While some social medicine organizations have plans to open up more sites, a bulk of these new sites will be in locations they already have a presence in. That said, the quest to dispense social medicine continues and with organizations like Project HEALTH finding other ways to expand their influence such as working more closely with doctors and social workers – 30% of their clients have been referred by care providers [15] – we can make significant headway in bridging the gap between poverty and health.

References

1. World Health Organization. Poverty and Health. July 19, 2010.
2. DeNavas-Walt Carmen. Bernadette D. Proctor. Jessica C. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States 2007. August 2008 U.S. Census Bureau.
3. Food Research and Action Center. State of the States: 2007. A Profile of Food & Nutrition Programs Across the Nation. June 2007.
4. HUD. Affordable housing needs report to congress 2005. May 2007.
5. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured/Urban Institute. Health Insurance Coverage of the Nonelderly by Poverty Level, 2007. March 2008.
6. Borders, Ann E. Bryant MD, MSc; Grobman, William A. MD, MBA; Amsden, Laura B. MSW MPH; Holl, Jane L. MD, MPH.  “Chronic Stress and low birth weight neonates in a low income population of women”. Obstetrics & Gynecology:February 2007 – Volume 109 – Issue 2, Part 1 – pp 331-338.
7. 7. Hilary K. Seligman, Barbara A. Laraia and Margot B. Kushel. Food Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic Disease among Low-Income NHANES Participants. Journal of Nutrition Vol. 140, No. 2, 304-310, February 2010.
8. Cook, John T. Deborah A. Frank, Patrick H. Casey, Ruth Rose-Jacobs, Maureen M. Black, Mariana Chilton, Stephanie Ettinger deCuba, Danielle Appugliese, Sharon Coleman, MS, Timothy Heeren, Carol Berkowitz, Diana B. Cutts. “A Brief Indicator of Household Energy Security: Associations with Food Security, Child Health, and Child Development in US Infants and Toddlers”. Pediatrics Vol. 122 No. 4 October 2008, pp. e867-e875.
9. Myers Alan, Diana Cutts, Deborah A. Frank, Suzette Levenson, Anne Skalicky, Timothy Heeren, John Cook, Carol Berkowitz, Maureen Black, Patrick Casey, Nieves Zaldivar. “Subsidized housing and children’s nutritional status”. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine Vol. 159 No. 6, June 2005; 159:551-556.
10. 10.  Project HEALTH. http://www.projecthealth.org/.
11. 11.  LIFT. http://www.liftcommunities.org/.
12. 12.  Single Stop USA. http://www.singlestopusa.org/.
13. 13.  Single Stop USA. 2009 Results. http://www.singlestopusa.org/2009results.html. [Accessed August 17, 2010].
14. 14.  Project HEALTH. Our Impact on Families. http://www.projecthealth.org/impact-families. [Accessed August 17, 2010].
15. 15.  Project HEALTH. Our Impact on Clinics. http://www.projecthealth.org/impact-clinics [Accessed August 17, 2010].

Gene Doping

Every two years, the best athletes in the world gather to compete in the modern Olympic Games. Against a backdrop of sand or snow, these seemingly superhuman competitors push their bodies to perform feats that would be impossible for the average person. Yet in the past few decades, concerns have mounted over whether some participants have gone beyond what the human body is truly capable of, relying instead on performance enhancers to reach new heights. In the 2004 Summer Olympics, 24 athletes—a record number—tested positive for banned substances, leading to several disqualifications and stripped medals [1]. But in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, only two athletes, to date, have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs [2].

Despite this low number, experts are skeptical that athletes have stopped looking for illegal ways to gain a competitive edge. Instead, many suspect that would-be cheaters have found ways around the current doping tests. At present, the biggest suspect is an enhancement that is not yet reliably detectable, or even proven to be scientifically possible: gene doping, a new and dangerous frontier in performance enhancement. An offshoot of gene therapy, gene doping may allow athletes to produce extra copies of genes that provide a competitive advantage such as increased muscle mass or endurance [3]. Currently, however, both gene doping and gene therapy remain largely untested in humans. Although some animal studies have shown promising results, others have demonstrated deadly side effects, leaving the effects of such treatments questionable at best [4,5].

Natural Enhancement?

When research into gene therapy began, it was intended to treat debilitating or deadly medical conditions—a far cry from performance-enhancing technology. But the theory behind gene therapy—that the insertion of a corrective gene can treat genetic defects—also indicates that if the right gene were to be spliced into a healthy person’s DNA, a competitive edge could be gained, as the gene would cause or increase production of, for example, a hormone that produces a beneficial byproduct.  The hormone initially targeted for this purpose was erythropoietin, more commonly known as “Epo.” First purified in the late 1960’s by University of Chicago researcher Eugene Goldwasser, Epo promotes the production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells [6, 5].

In 1997, a group of University of Chicago scientists led by Dr. Jeffrey Leiden experimented with Epo gene therapy as a treatment for Epo-responsive anemia, a debilitating condition caused by chronic renal failure [5]. The study focused on the safety and efficacy of injecting a virus carrying the gene into the muscles of mice and non-human primates. The experiments proved successful, as researchers were able to establish a threshold dose required for long-term Epo expression. The elevated hematocrit, or red blood cell volume, in the animals that underwent the treatment also led to increased aerobic ability. More importantly, no adverse reactions to the treatment were observed [5].

In the wake of this and other Epo studies, the potential benefit for athletes became clear: inject Epo, improve athletic performance. The first major Epo-doping scandal hit in 1998, when the Festina-sponsored team in the Tour de France was disqualified after being caught with large quantities of Epo and other banned substances [7]. Other athletes followed in their footsteps, and throughout the late 1990’s and early 2000’s several were caught exploiting Epo in an attempt to enhance endurance and aerobic performance, despite the fact that Epo’s benefits remain unproven in humans.

Epo is not the only therapy-turned-doping target in the past decade. A study published in 1998 by researcher H. Lee Sweeney from the University of Pennsylvania grabbed headlines with reports of the “super mice” that resulted from injecting normal mice with a virus containing the gene for insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a protein that interacts with cells on the outside of muscle fibers and makes them grow larger [4, 8]. Just as Epo is crucial to aerobic endurance, IGF-1 could give athletes an edge in sports that depend on large muscle mass and explosive anaerobic ability. Although Sweeney’s research goal was to develop a treatment for muscle-wasting diseases, it was not long before he was deluged with requests from healthy athletes longing for larger muscles. He quickly developed a “stock response,” telling anyone who asked that gene therapy is still experimental, and there is no proof that it would be safe for humans—a warning that has proven to be all too true.

The Dangers of Doping

In 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, a nineteen-year-old from Tucson, AZ, entered a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Jesse suffered from ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, a rare X-linked genetic disease of the liver that prevents the body from metabolizing ammonia, a byproduct of protein breakdown. The disease is usually fatal at birth, but Jesse had survived because his condition was the result of a genetic mutation instead of inheritance. This important difference allowed him to manage the disease with medication and a restrictive diet. Although there was no hope of a cure for him, Jesse entered the clinical trial in the hopes that a new type of gene therapy would help infants born with the disorder. On September 13, 1999, Jesse was injected with a virus vector carrying a corrected copy of the gene mediating ammonia breakdown. The theory was that the gene would incorporate itself into Jesse’s DNA, replacing his mutated copy and allowing his body to begin metabolizing ammonia. Instead, Jesse suffered a massive immune response, leading to multiple organ failure. He died four days later [4].

Jesse’s case represents the danger inherent to gene therapy, and underscores the perils of gene doping. The fact is, scientists simply do not know enough about how the body will react to these substances to safely inject them into humans. While IGF-1 might give one person stronger muscles, it could easily kill another. And Jesse Gelsinger is not the only fatality linked to gene therapy. In 2000, a study about nine French infants with severe combined immune deficiency—or “bubble-boy syndrome”—who had undergone gene therapy reported that all nine were cured by the treatment. However, this initial success was overshadowed when two of the patients developed leukemia only two years later—a side effect that researchers are still unable to explain [9, 10].

Risk Versus Reward

When studies on the efficacy of Epo injections originally appeared, the positive results intrigued many. But these studies were eclipsed by the publication of a University of Pennsylvania study performed in 2004 testing the efficacy of Epo therapy in macaque monkeys [11]. After researchers injected several monkeys with virus vectors carrying the gene for Epo, the therapy initially proceeded as expected, increasing oxygen transport. However, the high concentrations of Epo soon produced so many red blood cells that the monkeys’ blood became sludge-like, and the researchers were forced to thin it at regular intervals. What came next was entirely unexpected: the monkeys’ Epo concentrations plummeted, leading to severe anemia. After the animals were euthanized and autopsied, researchers discovered that the immune response to the high Epo concentrations cleared out not only the inserted gene, but the macaques’ natural Epo as well [11].

It is this kind of unpredictable outcome, says Eugene Goldwasser, now Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, that make any sort of gene doping foolhardy. “It would be the height of stupidity. If you want to get your hematocrit up, you go to Mexico City, go the Andes, and train at high altitudes. Then you’re not getting some [gene] you didn’t make” [12].

After watching athletes compete in the Olympics, though, one begins to understand the lure of gene doping. Even though scientists have yet to prove that is even possible for humans to benefit from injecting a substance like the gene for Epo, the possibility of gaining an edge that translates into a gold medal will certainly tempt some. But the risks related to gene doping are undeniable in the face of the gene therapy-related deaths reported in both animals and humans.

Sports officials are not counting on common sense to keep athletes from attempting to gene dope, however. In 2003, the World Anti-Doping Agency, which oversees Olympic drug testing, formally banned gene doping, despite the fact that there was little evidence that it was occurring [5, 13]. Since then, gene therapy research has continued, making it ever more likely that some athletes are exploiting it in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. Because detection techniques remain unreliable, however, it is difficult to conclusively prove that an athlete is gene doping [14]. But the International Olympic Committee isn’t taking any chances. Officials have collected samples from athletes at the 2010 Winter Olympics, and will store them until detection tests are refined enough to be trustworthy. Until then, there is little to do other than warn of the dangers and appeal to the athletes’ integrity.

Even with full knowledge of the risks, Goldwasser admits that he is not surprised that athletes are trying to capitalize on experimental gene therapies to gain a competitive edge. “People do all sorts of dopey things. The problem is, the reward isn’t worth the danger of what could happen.”

Bibliography

1. Weir, Tom. “Doping Cases Hit Record.” USATODAY.com. USA Today, 29 Aug. 2004.
2. Canadian Press, The. “Anti-doping Lab Still Processing Samples.” CBCSports.ca. 1 Mar. 2010.
3. Friedmann, Theodore, Oliver Rabin, Mark S. Frankel. “Gene Doping and Sport.” Science 327 (2010): 647-48.
4. Brownlee, Christen. “Gene Doping.” Science News 166.18 (2004): 280-81. JSTOR. 02 Nov. 2010.
5. Svensson, Eric C., Hugh B. Black, Debra L. Duggar, Sandeep K. Tripathy, Eugene Goldwasser, Zengping Hao, Lien Chu, and Jeffrey M. Leiden. “Long-Term Erythropoietin Expression in Rodents and Non-Human Primates Following Intramuscular Injection of a Replication-Defective Adenoviral Vector.” Human Gene Therapy 8 (1997): 1797-806.
6. Easton, John. “Eugene Goldwasser to Receive the 2005 Prince Mahidol Award.” 2005 Press Releases. University of Chicago Medical Center, 1 Dec. 2005.
7. “Drugs in Sport-Who Will Win the Drug Race?” Home – Australian Academy of Science. Web. 02 Feb. 2010. <http://www.science.org.au/nova/055/055key.htm>.
8. Barton-Davis, Elisabeth R., Daria I. Shoturma, Antonia Musaro, Nadia Rosenthal, and H. Lee Sweeney. “Viral Mediated Expression of Insulin-like Growth Factor I Blocks the Aging-related Loss of Skeletal Muscle Function.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95 (1998): 15603-5607.
9. Juengst, Eric T. “What Next For Human Gene Therapy? Gene Transfer Often Has Multiple and Unpredictable Effects on Cells.” British Medical Journal 326.7404 (2003): 1410-411. JSTOR. Web. 02 Nov. 2010.
10. Lyford, Jo. “Gene Therapy ’caused T-cell Leukemia’” The Scientist. 20 Oct. 2003. Web.
11. Gao, Guangping, Corinna Lebherz, Daniel J. Weiner, Rebecca Grant, Roberto Calcedo, Beth McCullough, Adam Bagg, Yi Zhang, and James M. Wilson. “Erythropoietin Gene Therapy Leads to Autoimmune Anemia in Macaques.” Blood 103.9 (2004): 3300-302. Print.
12. Goldwasser, Eugene. Personal interview. 18 Feb. 2010.
13. Keim, Brandom. “Athletes Beware, Scientists Hot on Gene Doping Trail.” Wired.com. 4 Feb. 2010.
14. Saey, Tina Hesman. “Foul Play.” Science News 173 (2008): 195. JSTOR.

Only three days till the annual conference starts, make sure to tune into our live blogging of all the happenings at the conference!