ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2014
Performance enhancement, elite athletes and anti doping governance: comparing human guinea pigs in pharmaceutical research and professional sports.
Article in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pain Management in Italian Elite Athletes: Trends in the Use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), Glucocorticoids, and Narcotics in Anti-Doping Reports (2013-2023).Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Olympic Glory Vs. Athlete Safety: Ethical Lessons From the Seine Water Quality Controversy.Public health reviews · 2024Article
- Phase I trial compensation: How much do healthy volunteers actually earn from clinical trial enrollment?Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Speculating on Precarious Income: Finance Cultures and the Risky Strategies of Healthy Volunteers in Clinical Drug Trials.Journal of cultural economy · 2021Article
- Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- Ethics, Nanobiosensors and Elite Sport: The Need for a New Governance Framework.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- Against Genetic Tests for Athletic Talent: The Primacy of the Phenotype.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Article
- Using "clinical trial diaries" to track patterns of participation for serial healthy volunteers in U.S. phase I studies.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In light of the World Anti Doping Agency's 2013 Code Revision process, we critically explore the applicability of two of three criteria used to determine whether a method or substance should be considered for their Prohibited List, namely its (potential) performance enhancing effects and its (potential) risk to the health of the athlete. To do so, we compare two communities of human guinea pigs: (i) individuals who make a living out of serial participation in Phase 1 pharmacology trials; and (ii) elite athletes who engage in what is effectively 'unregulated clinical research' by using untested prohibited or non-prohibited performance enhancing substances and methods, alone or in combination. Our comparison sheds light on norms of research ethics that these practices exacerbate with respect to the concepts of multiplicity, visibility, and consistency. We argue for the need to establish a proper governance framework to increase the accountability of these unregulated research practices in order to protect the human guinea pigs in elite sports contexts, and to establish reasonable grounds for the performance enhancing effects, and the risks to the health of the athlete, of the methods and substances that might justify their inclusion on the Prohibited List.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.