Open Inquiry and Shared Thoughts about
Ethics, Exercise Physiology, and Sports Supplements
Tommy Boone
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN
“There is merit in challenging
concepts and ideas since the effort can result in new theories and hypotheses.
To block such manuscripts is a form of scientific arrogance that curtails
the very essence of the scientific process; that of an open inquiry and
shared thoughts leading to heightened knowledge and understanding.” – Robert
A. Roberts
Introduction
This article is about the rights of professionals
to open inquiry and shared thoughts. It makes sense that exercise
physiologists should be leaders in shared thinking even when they disagree,
even when they are criticized, and especially during the emergence of exercise
physiology as a profession. It makes sense that those of us who have
taught sports nutrition, who have an interest in sports nutrition and,
in particular, those of us who believe that sports nutrition for athletes
ought to function with a recognized code of conduct should value open inquiry
and shared thinking. However, given the powerful differences of opinion
about sports supplements recently described in the PEPonline journal, this
does not appear to be the case. Although sharing a common purpose
is important, fear and distrust can drive professionals away from each
other. Our sense of “OK-ness” with each other is swept away when
we believe “our way or no way” is the only step to sharing thoughts.
Aside from the negative effects of criticism that can linger, fear of criticism
can be so strong that it keeps individuals from sharing their thoughts
and ideas.
Exercise physiologists need to look at
sports nutrition with a critical eye just as they have done with other
subject areas under exercise physiology. They are expected to understand
why sports nutritionists encourage the use of sports supplements.
They are expected to consider ethical issues as well as research designs.
However, exercise physiologists who have an interest in sports supplements
do not appear comfortable with other exercise physiologists asking questions.
This is a concern. Many of us have developed interests in different
aspects of exercise physiology. At the present time, exercise nutrition
is considered part of exercise physiology. Hence, to teach exercise
nutrition or to engage in the application of exercise nutrition is to do
so as an exercise physiologist. The key to understanding exercise
nutrition is therefore directly an exercise physiology-dominated behavior.
Shared Thinking
How absurd to think that a different point
of view cannot exist among exercise physiologists. The only thing
more absurd is the threat that my shared thinking about supplements is
hurting the professional development of exercise physiology. This
kind of thinking is unbelievable! All of these forces have brought
us to this breaking point. To paraphrase Robergs [1], to stop an
idea that challenges an existing idea is plain and simple a statement of
arrogance. We may not have taken the time to appreciate it, but our
refuge and strength lies in the diversity of shared thoughts. There
is no reason to be angry at what another person writes. Open inquiry
is about challenging concepts and ideas. It is the reason that we
have unlocked important facts about the human response to exercise.
If we believe that only one view should exist, we wouldn’t have the diverse,
yet specialized body of knowledge that we can call our own. We may
not agree with the author of a research paper but, nonetheless, the author
has the right to his or her views.
Just think of the difficulties or lack
of understanding about most things if we only had one view about any topic
or field of study. Critical reflection (thinking) is certainly not
a “one view” perspective, and it is clear that we value it. There
is increased knowledge and understanding from the noise that comes from
“thinking out-loud” or raising questions about what is acceptable behavior.
How many different ways we can think about something is often the stimulus
to new theories and hypotheses. If we want to know the way to sports
and competition without supplements, then we must be willing to entertain
the shared thought that what we believe is true may not be.
Rethinking Exercise Physiology
Others agree that there is a problem with
exploring the limits on performance-enhancing supplements. Why some
exercise physiologists fail to appreciate this point is difficult to understand.
Given that there is an ethical dimension to our research, some would argue
that we must evaluate the influence of our work beyond the laboratory.
If we do not anticipate and plan for the interaction of ethics and research
along with what we teach our students, our failure to do so may have real
human costs. This idea is not meant to be negative, and it is not
meant to ban all scientific inquiry into “ways and means” to enhance physical
performance. In other words, are there areas of investigation in
exercise physiology that we should rethink? What are the ethical
implications of the findings to the public? Is it appropriate that
exercise physiologists who engage in supplement research to enhance athletic
performance continue as a unilateral decision? Should members of
the community be involved with decisions to investigate supplements?
Answers to these questions should help
in understanding the far-reaching consequences of research that is designed
to market a product that has changed the face of athletics. As an
example, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association’s Healthy Competition
Foundation has concluded that, “…approximately one million young people
between ages 12 and 17 have taken potentially dangerous performance-enhancing
supplements and drugs….” [2] Should young people have unlimited access
to unregulated sports supplements? Is there something wrong with
young children taking supplements to run faster or jump higher? It
seems to me that it is wrong. Others believe that it is wrong, too.
For certain, the issue goes deeper than just athletics. Here is the
opportunity for exercise physiologists, in particular, to demonstrate their
professionalism. At the very least, why not encourage the purchase
of performance-enhancing substances by prescription only? Better
yet, why not encourage athletes to get the competitive edge by working
harder or by placing an age-limit on performance-enhancers?
It is time to stop exploiting athletes.
False and misleading claims along with useless ingredients have taken precedent
over eating a balanced diet. Our young people, some in high school
and others in college, actually believe the adults who say, “The nutritional
supplements work. You will be a better athlete. You need the
supplements. Your competitors are taking supplements.” Obviously,
it is a big supplement scam. The real story is that student-athletes
should stay true to their sports. Instead, between 20 to 30% of NCAA
student-athletes are taking supplements [3]. If a small amount is
believed to work, it couldn’t hurt to take more, right? Equally bad
is the belief that everyone is cheating, so why not? None of this
is new, and no one seems to be outraged.
The Magic Pill
Cheating is expected of athletes, if not
encouraged. Everybody is looking for an edge [4]. Athletes,
researchers, coaches, and even medical doctors have given in to the new
athletics where the “magic pill” is in and ethical standards are out.
Simply put, the win-at-all-costs mentality is a problem that needs discussion
and analysis. The question of whether exercise physiologists will
step up to the plate for a critical discussion about performance enhancing
supplements remains a valid one. They, in particular, know that doping
is a problem in athletics [5]. Turning a blind eye to the ethics
of sports supplements is not the answer. Barr said it best: “Cheating
has evolved into epidemic proportions because we want shortcuts….” [6]
Similarly, others have concluded “The financial incentives of this era,
which is shaped by commercialization, professionalization, and an increasing
importance of medals, are unhinging the basic ethical principles of modern
top-level sports, such as fair play and equal opportunity.” [7]
It is shocking to me that grant writers
who get money from supplement industry companies cannot see the possibility
of a conflict of interest. Open inquiry is absolutely necessary to
anticipate adverse consequences from unchecked relationships. This
is not a new idea by any means. Hwang and Has [8] point out that
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) “…requires that advisory committees
be ‘fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented’ and that
‘the recommendations of the advisory committee not be inappropriately influenced
by...any special interest...because many committees are stacked with academics
whose ties to industry raised the perception, if not fact, of conflicts
of interest.” Clearly, the potential for conflicts of interest, if
not carefully handled, can undermine the integrity of the development of
the members of any emerging or established profession.
Exercise physiologists should adopt and
actively promote fair standards of ethical conduct concerning conflicts
of interest. Too little has been done for far too long. Why
not establish an advisory committee within the ASEP organization?
Members could represent the latest thinking about the ASEP Code of Ethics
and exercise physiologists’ interest in sports supplements, specifically,
and sports nutrition, in general. The committee could be the first-ever
attempt by exercise physiology professionals to systematically and purposely
investigate the role of exercise physiology sports supplement research
to avoid a direct conflict of interest. This only seems right that
exercise physiologists take the lead.
University Professors Are Role Models
According to the American Board of Internal
Medicine [9], professionalism “comprises those attitudes and behaviors
that sustain the interests of the patient above one’s own self-interest.”
Shouldn’t the American Society of Exercise Physiologists believe the same?
Aren’t the members interested in the care of their clients, accountability
for their actions, and commitment to professional excellence? It
seems that they should be if they are to evolve as professionals.
Whether they realize it or not, this kind of thinking is woven into the
ASEP Code of Ethics and the ASEP Standards of Professional Practice.
Also, whether they accept it or not, the professional education of their
students is as important as the content that is taught in any course students
take.
University professors are the role models
for students. They have a responsibility to be aware of the powerful
influence their actions and thinking have on the development of the students’
values. Students internalize the observed behavior of their professors
in and away from the learning environment. Of what values are exercise
physiologists sharing when it comes to athletics and exercise physiology?
Beyond the obvious, are they sharing a commitment to ethical thinking and
a respect for the principles of fair play in athletics? Or, is it
possible that they are self-determined to doing their own thing?
Here, leading by example can be a good thing if it shares an understanding
that that it’s okay to make mistakes if they are to really learn what is
exercise physiology? All too often, however, lack of explicit attention
to these questions and to the values of professionalism sets the stage
for conditions less than optimal if not problematic.
Open inquiry is important to recognizing
why exercise physiologists think as they do and, therefore, is a valued
step in acknowledging their need to develop in areas that has gone unnoticed
for years. Share thinking is important because it helps exercise
physiologists to document how they have been thinking and the degree to
which they have ignored their travel done a path that is costly in many
ways. The root cause of their failure to unburden themselves from
their adopted thinking lies in their academic relationship to physical
education and sports. Of course, decades ago, it was a reasonable
(and ethical) effort to figure out how to jump higher and run faster.
No one anticipated or realized the critical and sustaining force of the
fitness industry. Sports nutrition was a step away from the cutting-edge
thinking of applied physiology. In other words, a network of certain
exercise physiologists transformed what was a physical education course
to a new dedication to make sports nutrition into a field of its own.
The Pursuit of Excellence
What exercise physiology has now, after
about 20 years of effort to raise sports nutrition to the centerpiece of
athletics, is a coordinated network of academically oriented researchers,
exercise physiology entrepreneurial, and members of the supplement industry,
along with athletes, coaches, trainers, and others. This collective
force must be acknowledged for its ability to shape athletics. In
fact, it is engaged explicitly in “pumping up” athletes with a national
agenda to convince everyone that if a supplement or drug is not illegal
or banned it is okay. In other words, the pursuit of excellence outside
of using supplements and drugs no longer exists. Participation in
athletics as we either understood it or had hoped for does not exist.
The easy thing to do is walk away and shake our heads. It is also
the wrong thing to do.
Few members understand it yet, but the
very existence of the ASEP organization drives change. The drive
for change is implied if exercise physiologists are to progress, improve,
and become what they ought to be. It everything that status quo isn’t.
Exercise physiologists are not happy with where they are, and they think
more everyday where they want to be. This renewal in how they see
themselves not as fitness professionals, but as healthcare professionals
is a vision that is consistent with their future reality. This vision
is not only acceptable to the hearts and minds of exercise physiologists
who are shaping their future, but a work in progress and professional development.
These voices represent the achievements of exercise physiologists who came
before ASEP, and they constitute the politics and culture since the founding
of ASEP. The implications, therefore, are obvious or, at least, they
should be regarding ethical behaviors.
Research and teaching in sports nutrition
are no longer seen as an activity at the fringe of exercise physiology.
That is, the right to exist and to do as sports nutritionists have done
for decades can no longer take precedent over exercise physiology per se.
There is a common good between both, except when exercise physiologists
who are primarily interested in sports nutrition do not see the need for
self-regulation or the placement of certain sanctions on their work.
To argue otherwise that sports nutritionists have the right to do as they
please is to ignore how their beliefs undercut the integrity of exercise
physiology. The point being, the message that ethical behavior is
a central objective of professional development and that abuses are unacceptable.
It is everyone’s responsibility to reflect
on the assumed rights and implications of his or her behavior. If
the assumption of rights reinforces self-promotion with the supplement
industry rather than a professional commitment to the larger common good,
then the shared thinking undercuts the collaboration and cooperation necessary
to professionalize exercise physiology. In neglecting the integrity
of our own professional development, surely it will bear directly on the
ASEP organization. To be sure, the ASEP Board of Directors will work
hard to uphold the integrity of the Board.
Linking Ethical Thinking and Standards
The primary way to ensure that ethical
behavior is enforceable is to link ethical thinking with professional standards.
Exercise physiologists should adopt the following guidelines: (1)
academic researcher who obtain research funding from fitness supplement
companies should have no other ties to those companies; (2) researchers
should not accept funding from industry with strings attached; (3) sports
nutrition researchers should limit their consultancy arrangements with
companies that advertise products they are researching; (4) academic researchers
should not be employees of the industry; (5) academic departments should
not become a research arm for industry; and (6) academic departments and/or
faculty should not encourage or allow industry to fun research equipment
and/or research centers in their departments [10].
It is probably true that most academic
sports nutritionists understand the need for the guidelines. However,
creating a new way to think is not always easy. It is rather difficult,
especially when a “statement on professional ethics” does not exist for
academic professors who define themselves as sport (or exercise) nutritionists.
Most are interested in transmitting knowledge. The idea of avoiding
subsidiary interests that might compromise or hamper their research freedom
is not discussed or developed. They hold before them the notion that
research and publications are significant academic and scholarly products
without discriminatory thinking. The obligation to a profession of
exercise physiology and/or professional judgment of research may not exist,
which may lead to failure to publish “disappointing” or “uninteresting”
research results.
While outright fraud in exercise physiology
is probably minimal at best, it does not mean that the intent to deceive
in scientific papers does not exist. This view is not meant to be
completely negative of exercise physiology and not of other sciences.
Intent to deceive exists in all fields of study. There are many reasons
for it, particularly when researchers are under press to publish.
Also, when researchers believe their work ought to confirm their bias and,
therefore, they design experiments to ensure that is the case, the deception
is scientific misconduct [11]. It violates the responsibility and
privileges of belonging to a profession. It makes no sense to not
discuss and make public the fact that no regulations govern sports nutrition
research. This is why exercise physiologists must stop being led
astray by supposedly credible evidence that supplements work. Lack
of leadership in governing research misconduct and greed are at the root
of the problem in most scientific research [12,13].
“Professional integrity in research
is the act of maintaining one’s scientific standards despite disappointing
data, controversial results, research and publication pressures, or publication
rejections.” -- Rose M. Chop and Mary C. Silva [14]
It is absolutely vital that exercise physiologists
take the time to study the assumptions underlying fitness supplements.
Surely the time has come to get involved, to investigate, if not regulate
the questionable marketing of supplements. There is more than suspicion
that they do not work and, if they were to work, they tip the athletic
scales towards cheating. There is clear evidence of suffering by
individuals who starve for help, but are given useless pills. The
indifference to the ethical implications cannot be allowed to continue.
Hence, although a rare topic in sports nutrition research, concerns about
ethics must be given the highest priority. Discussion of such matters
must grow with a strong conviction if exercise physiologists are going
to shape and nurture the emerging profession. The pursuit of grants
at the expense of objective research is disconcerting.
“Ethics can change science” [15,
p. 4].
A Critical Study of Supplements
All exercise physiologists with an interest
in either exercise physiology or sports nutrition must take more seriously
the freedom of the latter researchers to, in essence, promote the use of
supplements. As Samuel Johnson said, “The chains of habit are generally
too small to be felt, until they are too strong to be broken.” [16, p.
239] Exercise physiologists must be persistent and determined in
their beliefs regarding the right of every person to critical inquiry and
shared thinking. There is sufficient evidence to warrant a critical
study of supplements, the research that is used to promote them, and how
it influences the image of the emerging profession of exercise physiology.
As Donald Schon has observed:
“Professionals claim to contribute
to social well-being, putting their clients’ needs ahead of their own,
and holding themselves accountable to standards of competence and morality.
But both popular and scholarly critics accuse the professions of serving
themselves at the expense of their clients, ignoring their obligations
to public service, and failing to police themselves effectively….”
[17, p. 11-12]
Sports supplements are popular and exercise
physiologists are helping to make it a crisis of the 21st century.
Such involvement by professionals who understand research and who have
popularized how to jump higher and run faster are at the root of the advertisements
for dozens and dozens of supplements. It is a paradox for exercise
physiologists to push supplements on athletes whom they must rely on as
advocates of exercise training agendas. Not only that, exercise physiology
is a healthcare profession founded on respect for clients, informed consent
for research, and protection of rights and values. In face of this
dilemma, athletes have come to expect that athletics is possible only with
drugs and supplements.
Only if exercise physiologists adopt a
collective position on what athletics has become can they plan for their
professional development. They must be able to articulate what university
professors should teach sports nutrition, what professional characteristics
and qualities exercise physiologists should possess, and what kinds of
classroom and hands-on laboratory experiences are needed to be an effective
teacher. Ethics should be taught at all levels of the students’ education.
Education for the professional exercise physiologist cannot be restricted
to mere exercise physiology classes as usual. It is difficult to
get to this understanding without open inquiry and shared thinking.
The challenge is to start and to keep at it, regardless of the complexity
and/or unknowns.
“Nothing in the world can take
the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common
than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; un-rewarded genius
is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated
derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent!” [18,
p. 27]
Understanding the Spirit of Public Trust
Starting begins with understanding that
dishonesty and unprincipled behavior can occur even though no one questions
personal self-interest. This is exactly why rules of professional
conduct should exist. As one close friend said, “It takes time to
build a profession, and it takes even longer to understand a sense of responsibility
to the larger vision.” It begins with just being honesty and fair
in the spirit of public service. By focusing on the caring and counseling
dimensions of ethics, exercise physiologists and others will behave in
a professional manner. The term refers to individuals in pursuit
of a learned art and commitment to the highest ethical standards of conduct.
Building a community of exercise physiologists
with both principles and character is a matter of choice. It can
be argued that it ought to be the right choice for all exercise physiologists.
All sports have rules for competition, and all athletes ought to compete
against each other according to their physical abilities and psychological
hard work. Exercise physiologists, more than other healthcare professionals,
should understand that supplements and drugs give a competitive edge that
violates the “ethical” value of fair play. There is no justification
to think that a violation of ethical value occurs only with banned substances.
Similarly, there is little reason to believe that “sports with dignity”
can survive a blind eye to drugs and supplements.
There is also little justification for
published documents that appear to make fair arguments for ethical considerations
when it isn’t clear which side of the argument they actually embrace.
They state that, “…most people indiscriminately choose sides based on random
affiliations and social bias. [19, p. 5] Indiscriminately or not,
it is unethical to enhance athletic performance with supplements and/or
drugs. It is not an emotional decision or “copping out” to link “cheaters”
with supplement users. It is not even an ethical dilemma. There
is no debate when the use and/or abuse of supplements and/or drugs can
lead to serious health consequences aside from “…damaging the very spirit
of sport, cheating fellow athletes, the officials and spectators.” [20,
p. 49]
The Ethical Realm of Supplements
Although athletics, coaches, and exercise
physiologists might think that supplements and/or drugs are acceptable
and allowable, the line is being drawn in the ethical realm. No longer
is it appropriate to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of athletes by
unscrupulous scientists. It may also be a problem for all supplement
researchers if their primary duties are unduly influenced by secondary
interests, which in themselves are not illegitimate practices and often
necessary, if not desirable [21]. At the very least, all exercise
physiologists should be cautious of their relationships with industry and
the conflicts of interest that result from increasing commercialization
of athletics and exercise physiology research. They should also reveal
conflicts of interest in published papers and presentations, particularly
if the grant money “…could reasonably appear to affect their talks, papers,
book chapters, or books” [22].
At the very grassroots level of shared
thinking, why not accept what McArdle and colleagues have written in their
text, “Sports & Exercise Nutrition” about optimal nutrition
for exercise and training?
“Research in exercise nutrition…indicates
that physically active men and women do not require additional nutrients
beyond those obtained through the regular intake of a nutritionally well-balanced
diet.” [23, p. 190]
“Attention to proper diet does not mean that
an athlete must…take supplements….” [23, p. 190]
“We recommend that athletes in heavy training,
particularly aerobic training, consume between 1.2 and 1.8 g of protein
per kg of body mass daily. This level of protein intakes falls within
the range of the typical protein intake of the competitive athlete, obviating
the need to consume supplementary protein.” [23, p. 193]
“Simply stated, adequate research design and
methodology has not shown that amino acid supplementation in any form above
the RDA significantly increases muscle mass or improve muscular strength,
power, or endurance.” [23, p. 193]
“Over 40 years of research does not support
the wisdom of using vitamin supplements to improve exercise performance
or ability to train arduously in nutritionally adequate healthy people.”
[23, p. 196]
This only seems logical given that surveys
have shown that 76% of college athletes, and 100% of body builders take
supplements [24]. Interestingly, “The sale of dietary supplements
by dietetics professional presents a potential financial conflict of interest
(both real and perceived) and could undermine the trust between patient/client
and the dietetics professional.” [25, p. 1158] In other words, dietetics
professionals understand the need to go the extra mile when it comes to
ethical issues. This doesn’t appear to be the case with some sports
nutritionists who advocate creatine supplementation on the same level as
carbohydrate loading. Kreider [26, p. 5], in particular, states that
“…proper education among athletes, coaches, and trainers regarding acceptable
and unacceptable nutritional practices is probably the best way to reduce
any carryover…” to dangerous or banned substances. The concern
here is the lack of ethical questions raised by researchers regarding the
use of creatine.
Children and School Sports
One reason for the success of the sport
supplements is the involvement of sports nutritionists in promoting supplements.
If there is a risk, even a small one, to using creatine to make it easier
to use other drugs, it should not be dismissed. Athletes are willing
to do just about anything to gain a competitive advantage. This point
alone is reason enough to ask ethical and safety questions about creatine
and whether it has a place in children or adolescent sports [27].
Children and adolescents should not be taking creatine to increase speed
and strength. The reality is that they are and, in fact, Popke (28)
stated that some young 11-year old athletes are taking large amounts of
creatine to supplement their diets. Similarly, a recent study of
creatine use among Wisconsin high schools reported that 15% of the student
athletes had used creatine [29]. With over 6 million adolescents
participating each year in school sports [30], the number of young athletes
using creatine is undoubtedly much higher.
In short, there isn’t any reason why high
school athletes or any athlete for that matter should be using or should
be encouraged to use creatine [24]. This is exactly why the Michigan
legislation enacted a law making it “…illegal for public school coaches,
teachers, administrators, and volunteers to promote or distribute performance-enhancing
products to student-athletes.” [27, p. 3] The position of the
coach (and the sports nutritionist) within athletics is a position of power.
It is hardly surprising that both influence athletes, and that the potential
for abuse is tremendous [31]. Athletics should be about doing the
right thing for the right reasons. In other words, coaching (like
exercise physiology) should be about holding athletes accountable regardless
of the outcome. This is the reason for the “Advisory Note Regarding
the Use of Dietary Supplements” by the Canadian Policy on Doping in Sports
[32], which states: “Very few claims of enhanced performance through supplement
use are backed up by valid research…” [p. 2]
Many coaches simply don’t want their athletes
taking supplements. It sends them the wrong message. Even if
they are legal, there are ethical and health concerns. Also, athletes
shouldn’t get the idea that success can be obtained without working hard.
This is the reason for the coach Frank Noppenberger’s statement when he
“…notices his teenage athletes at East Brunswick High School in New Jersey
bulking up suddenly, he always takes them aside for a confidential chat…I
hope you’re not doing it the wrong way, I hope you’re doing it the right
way…The right way is through a proper diet and a tough weight training
regime. The wrong way…is with performance-enhancing nutritional supplements.”
[33, p. 1]
“The person who takes a supplement…is
usually taking it in an effort to improve his or her performance.
The intent is usually stated as finding a legal way to enhance performance.
This is the fallacy behind the argument. Where do you draw the line
between legal and illegal performance enhancers? One of the early
definitions of doping was taking substances to enhance performance.
So, in theory taking anything with the sole purpose of seeking to enhance
performance is doping.” – Jim Ferstle [34, p. 1]
Final Thoughts
From the beginning, this article has been
about the rights of professionals to open inquiry and shared thoughts about
ethics, exercise physiology professionalism, athletes, and sports supplements.
It makes sense that exercise physiologists should be leaders in shared
thinking even when they disagree, even when they are criticized by their
colleagues, and especially during the difficulty of developing a professional
organization of exercise physiologist. As stated earlier in this
article, academic exercise physiologists are the role models for students.
They have a responsibility to be aware of the powerful influence their
actions and thinking have on the development of the student’s values.
Since the building a professional society of exercise physiologists with
both principles and character is a matter of choice. It can be argued
that the shared thinking ought to be the right choice for the right reasons.
Hence, those who bother to peek from their research laboratories may learn
that sports nutrition is at a pivotal point in its history. When
the ethical paradigms are analyzed, the professor’s task is to avoid conflicts
of interest. This is accomplished in a variety of ways. First,
the conflict must be recognized and articulated from the very first introductory
sports nutrition course until the point of publishing research articles.
Second, the notion of what is good sports nutrition needs clarification
for athletes at different levels of competition. Third, the notion
that exercise physiologists who are not directly involved in sports nutrition
research do not have the right to engage in intellectual inquiry is unhelpful
and needs changing. Fourth, although rare among exercise physiologists,
the ability to define day-to-day actions from an ethical perspective is
consistent with the notion of university teaching as a moral activity beyond
the persuasion that results from scientific publications and grant writing.
Fifth, teaching professionalism and ethics can increase exercise physiologists
and their students’ sensitivity to particular topics, produce a higher
standard of professional conduct, improve ethical thinking, and make it
easier to understand the consequences of unchallenged thinking.
“The person who takes a supplement…is
usually taking it in an effort to improve his or her performance.
The intent is usually stated as finding a legal way to enhance performance.
This is the fallacy behind the argument. Where do you draw the line
between legal and illegal performance enhancers? One of the early
definitions of doping was taking substances to enhance performance.
So, in theory taking anything with the sole purpose of seeking to enhance
performance is doping.” – Jim Ferstle [34, p. 1]
References
1. Robergs, R.A. (2003). A Critical Review
of Peer Review: The Need to Scrutinize the “Gatekeepers” of Research in
Exercise Physiology. Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline.
Vol 6 No 2, p. ix.
2. Say NO to Doping in Sports. (2002).
Survey Projects 1 Million Youths Aged 12-17 Use Potentially Dangerous Sports
Supplements and Drugs. [Online]. http://www.saynotodopinginsports.org/
3. Green, G. (2003). August Tip for Coaches
and Athletes. The Ivy League. [Online]. http://www.princeton.edu/~ivyorg/augtipca.html
4. Ivry, B. (2003). The Culture of Cheating
Pervades Our Society. Record Online. [Online]. http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/06/10/webcheat.htm
5. Young, M. (2003). Doping in Sport.
[Online]. http://www.elitetrack.com/doping.pdf+cheating+and+athletes&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
6. Barr, R. (2002). Cheating in Sports,
Our National Pastime. Sports Byline. [Online]. http://www.sportsbyline.com/roncomm/roncom47.htm
7. Striefel, H., Vollkommer, G., and Sickout,
H.H. (2002). Combating Drug Use in Competitive Sports: An Analysis from
the Athlete’s Perspective. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.
42:354-359.
8. Hwang, N. and Has, R. (2000). Deregulating
Danger: What to Do About Conflicts of Interest. Integrity in Science.
[Online]. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/hwang_haas.html
9. American Board of Internal Medicine.
(1995). Committee on Evaluation of Clinical Competence. Project Professionalism.
ABIM, Philadelphia.
10. Collins, R. (2000). Regulating Dr.
Frankenstein: Money, Lax Ethics, & Clinical Trials. [Online]. Integrity
in Science. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/regulate_frank.html
11. Goodstein, D. (1998). Conduct and
Misconduct in Science. [Online]. http://www.caltech.edu/~goodstein/conduct.html
12. Rennie, D. (1998). An American Perspective
on Research Integrity. [Online]. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7146/1726
13. Rennie, D. (1993). Accountability,
Audit, and Reverence for the Publication Process. Journal of American
Medical Association. 270:495-496.
14. Chop, R.M. and Silva, M.C. (1991).
Scientific Fraud: Definitions, Policies, and Implications for Nursing Research.
Journal
of Professional Nursing. 7:166-171.
15. Leopold, A.C. (1992). The Science
Community is Starved for Ethical Standards. The Scientist. 6:1-4.
[Online]. http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1992/jan/opin_920106.html
16. Montalbo, T. (1984). The Power
of Eloquence: Magic Key to Success in Public Speaking. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Schon, D. (1984). The Reflective
Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
18. Warner, M. Speaking of Success.
White Plains, NY: Peter Pauper Press.
19. Berardi, J.M. and Lowery, L. (2002).
Ethical Andro: The Ethics of Prohormone Use. Johnberardi.com: Translating
Research into Results. [Online]. http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/philosophy/ethicalandro.htm
20. Verroken, M. (2001). Hormones and
Sport: Ethical Aspects and the Prevalence of Hormone Abuse in Sport. Journal
of Endocrinology. 170:49-54.
21. Thompson, D. (1993). Understanding
Conflicts of Interest. New England Journal of Medicine. 329:573-576.
22. Case Western Reserve University. (2003).
Department of Bioethics Conflict of Interest Policy. [Online]. http://www.cwru.edu/med/bioethics/coipol_n.htm
23. McArdle, W.D., Katch, F.I., and Katch,
V.L. (1999). Sports & Exercise Nutrition. New York, NY: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins.
24. Williams, M.H. (1998). Rating the
Sports Ergogenics. In: William, M.H. The Ergogenics Edge: Pushing
the Limits of Sports Performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Pp. 115-278.
25. Thomson, C., Diekman, C., Fragakis,
A.S., Meerschaert, C., Holler, H., and Devlin, C. (2002). Guidelines Regarding
the Recommendation and Sale of Dietary Supplements. Journal of The American
Dietetic Association. 102:8:1158-1164.
26. Kreider, R.B. (1998). Creatine,
the Next Ergogenic Supplement? In: Sportscience Training &
Technology. Internet Society for Sport Science. [Online]. http://www.sportsci.org/traintech/creatine/rbk.html
27. Cumming, S.P. and Bartee, T. (2001).
The Use of Creatine Supplements in Youth Sports. [Online]. http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/ysi/Spotlight2001/use_of_creatine_supplements_in_y.htm
28. Popke, M. (2000). A Bitter Pill. Athletic
Business. 75-87.
29. Hunt, V. (2000). Are High School Athletes
Caught Up in Creatine. National Athletic Training Association News.
20-21.
30. National Federation of State High
School Associations. (2001). 2001 High School Participation Survey. [Online].
http://www.nfhs.org/nf_survey_resources.asp
31. Perko, M. (2002). Taking One for the
Team – Coaches, Athletes, and Dietary Supplements. Column: The New P.E.
& Sports Dimension. 9:1-6. [Online]. http://www.sports-media.org/Sportapolisnewsletter10.htm
32. Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.
(2001). Advisory Note Regarding The Use of Dietary Supplements. [Online].
http://canada.x-c.com/coaching/Technical/sup2.htm
33. World and Press Special. (1999). Growing
Up in the U.S. Eilers & Schunemann Verlag: Bremen. [Online]. http://www.nok.de/projekt/faecher/englisch/general/schoolswrestle2.html
34. Ferstle, J. (2001). Ethics and Drugs.
Drugs
in Sport 2. [Online]. http://www-rohan.sdus.edu/dept/coachesci/csa/vol86/ferstle.htm
