The 36th meeting of the Pay and Conditions Committee of the Union of Philosophers, Sages and Other Luminaries (UK University Branch)
or
Doping and proportionality

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of current anti-doping practices through considerations of the ethical issues raised by the World Academic Standards Agency's proposal for an Academic Passport. It specifically analyses whether the modern anti-doping regime exhibits proportionality, whether it infringes privacy in relation to secondary research use of data and samples and whether it perpetuates a problematic notion of ‘thought crime’.

摘要：本文透過由世界學術標準局(World Academic Standards Agency)提議的學術護照(Academic Passport)引起的道德議題, 來分析近年反運動禁藥實務。本研究更分析當今反運動禁藥體制是否具比例原則(proportionality)、在做二次研究時使用的資料與樣本是否侵犯隱私、以及反運動禁藥體制是否延續了「思想犯罪」(thought crime)的概念。

世界アカデミック標準機構がアカデミック·パスポート導入の提唱により生まれた倫理的問題を通して、現行のアンチ·ドーピングの実践についての分析をする。現代のアンチ·ドーピング制度が均衡を示すのか、二次的研究データやサンプルを使用することに関してプラーバシーの侵害となるか、問題とされる概念である「思想犯罪」を持続させることになるかについて分析を加える。

Keywords:

• doping
• proportionality
• secondary use of data and samples
• thought crime

關鍵字:

• 運動禁藥
• 比例原則
• 資料與樣本的二次使用
• 思想犯罪

キーワード:

• ドーピング
• 均衡
• 二次的データとサンプルの使用
• 思想犯罪

Notes

With due acknowledgement to Douglas Adams.

1. In this article I am not going to discuss whether cognitive enhancement should be prohibited, allowed or perhaps even promoted in academic life, but see Goodman (2010) for a generally insightful discussion.

2. Public interest here understood as ‘the interest of the public’.

3. But the long-term economic consequences of academic performance generated by intellectual property and enhanced reputation and marketability can be very large.

4. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, and amended by the 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975, 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983, 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989, 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996, and the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000. Note of Clarification on Paragraph 29 added by the WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002.

5. We might in passing note that it will be difficult to make an argument that doping control is more important than biomedical research and that rules that constrain biomedical research should therefore be relaxed in the context of doping control! Making out the argument that doping control is more important than law enforcement in general will not be easy either.

6. The N’s refer to the number of studies included in the meta-analysis not to the number of respondents.

7. The highest prize in mathematics awarded every 4 years. http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes

8. That is, the sum total of what we believe science to have established.