At Drug Free Sport, we believe that a balanced approach
to sports drug testing and anti-doping involves testing and education. However,
there are several elements that factor into the development of such testing and
education, like proper research. With scientific advancements happening both
for doping and anti-doping efforts, it’s important to be on top of developments
to protect the integrity of sport.
We recently exchanged with Jenna
Celmer at the Partnership for Clean Competition about their work toward
improving the detection of performance-enhancing drugs. Our organizations share
the spirit of fair and safe sport. It was a great conversation that we’re
proud to share with you.
How did the Partnership for Clean Competition (PCC) come to be?
Back in 2008,
Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the United States Olympic
Committee, and the United States Anti-Doping Agency came together to discuss
how to better deter and detect performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and encourage
a culture of clean sport.
These
organizations understood that what the anti-doping movement needed was the
collaboration and commitment of leading sport organizations willing to fund
scientific breakthroughs which advance anti-doping policy. The initial (and subsequent)
financial contributions of these four founding PCC members catalyzed the anti-doping
research collaborative known as the Partnership for Clean Competition.
The decision was a vocal stand for sporting integrity,
and an investment in clean sport and in the health of athletes worldwide.
Tell us more about your focus on “the science of doping.”
While a robust approach to anti-doping policy involves
several aspects (such as the education that Drug Free Sport provides), the PCC focuses on advancing the science
and technology surrounding anti-doping sample collection, detection, and
analysis. Our science varies based on emerging priorities, but could involve
the creation of new testing methods that are less invasive and expensive,
reference materials for WADA-accredited labs, or innovative tests for new
substances. With new doping agents and methods being created every day to try
and evade current testing capabilities, it’s paramount that the PCC continues
to fund the research that produces sound responses to imminent anti-doping
challenges.
What is something that you’d like the public to know about the PCC?
The PCC funds PhD scientists all over the world (we
currently have projects ongoing in 14 different countries), and we are always
looking for additional investigators to contribute their unique acumen and
scientific perspective to anti-doping challenges. A common misconception is
that only dedicated ‘anti-doping scientists’ advance technology in this domain.
The truth is, while there are certainly some incredible researchers who have
devoted their careers to clean sport, many of the investigators we fund are
taking the important work they develop or study in their scientific discipline
and applying it to an anti-doping context. We have chemists, biologists,
endocrinologists, pathologists, physiologists, food scientists, toxicologists,
exercise scientists, and many others currently working on new and exciting
developments. There are truly few areas of science that do not play a role, and
we’re happy to talk through projects with scientists who aren’t certain if
their work is a good fit.
What are some of the research-related findings that the PCC has contributed toward recently?
The PCC has granted over $18 million in research to 100+
investigators around the world; many recent advancements in PED detection and
analysis are due to PCC funding. To understand how important this is, newly-found
positives during reanalysis of samples from past Olympic games are possible,
thanks to the more precise scientific methods developed by scientists.
While this type of research will always be a priority,
the PCC has recently invested significant amounts of funding in alternative
matrices – or new ways to collect and analyze samples. Currently, most drug
testing is done on blood or urine, but two emerging technologies are on our
radar:
1. Breath testing.
The PCC has invested in SensaBues breath tests as a quick, easy, and low-cost
alternative to current in-competition testing. Athletes simply breathe into the
device, which has been proven to detect not only drugs of abuse, but many
classes of anti-doping substances, with lab analysis using existing WADA
approved methods. PCC investment in the tests is ongoing, and we hope to do a
pilot study in 2018.
2. Dried Plasma
Spot Card Testing. While current blood tests involves the use of phlebotomists
to draw blood (a process which may be
perceived as invasive by athletes), the PCC has developed cards that require
only a finger prick of blood to perform several different analyses. Not only is
sample collection quick and easy, but the cards are easy to store, analyze, and
transport, potentially providing a significant cost savings over blood testing.
We believe that developing lower-cost, less invasive
sample collection methods may increase overall testing, thus enhancing overall
deterrence. The PCC is investing in the
scientific validation that would be required to protect clean athletes at the
same level as blood and urine matrices currently used.
As an organization that funds research, you have a grant cycle deadline coming up. Care to talk about your grant processes and programs?
Absolutely! To begin a PCC grant, investigators must
first fill out our 1 – 2 page “Pre-Application”, designed to gather high-level information
about the intended project to ensure it fits the PCC mission and priorities. We
do this so that investigators presenting research outside of our scope don’t
spend time filling out our (lengthy) full application. For instance, the PCC does
not currently fund social science research, even on the topic of anti-doping. We
always encourage interested researchers to review our research priorities
before submitting a pre-application.
Pre-applications are due March 1st, July 1st,
and November 1st of each year.
As soon as pre-applications are approved (and most are),
investigators are invited to submit the full PCC application, now available to
them via their project site on our website. This application ranges in length from around 10 pages,
to upwards of 75 pages, depending on the level of detail the investigators
provide, the complexity of their research, and the amount of supplemental
information they provide (for instance preliminary studies and data). Hint: the
more experimental detail provided in an application, the more likely it is to
be approved.
Full applications are due April 1st, August 1st,
and December 1st of each year (one month after the pre-application
of that cycle).
Once full applications are received, they are reviewed by
two members of our 10-member Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), which consists of
scientific experts representing a diverse array of disciplines (from
endocrinology to exercise physiology). The SAB meets every cycle to then
collectively discuss the applications, and the feedback provided by each
reviewer. As a unit, the SAB then makes funding recommendations for each
application submitted during the cycle to our Board of Governors (consisting of
a representative from each of our Founding Members) for final approval before
successful investigators are notified.
At this point, the PCC will negotiate terms and
conditions with the researcher’s host institution. Unsuccessful investigators
will receive feedback on their application, and may be invited to re-submit
their project with changes (often more detail is required). The entire process
from pre-application to funding and/or feedback takes 3-5 months.
What has research shown that may be next, in terms of doping to gain an athletic advantage?
This is a difficult question to answer and one that is constantly changing. The PCC does get applications from scientists and lab directors who have concerns about specific substances and propose research on those substances. We also incorporate input from our sponsors, who are often on the front lines with regards to new perforamnce-enhancing substances. If researchers from labs, academia, or the private sector believe they have identified a need in the anti-doping community, we would encourage them to apply for a grant or micro-grant.
