The selfish gene

The selfish gene
Norris Pritam

The black sprinters, white swimmers phenomenon has dominated the sports arena for several decades. In the century-old modern Olympic Games history it was only last year at Sydney that a black swimmer won a medal. American Anthony Erwin’s gold in the 50 m freestyle event was considered a unique achievement. It was felt that blacks were not genetically endowed for swimming. They were considered more suitable for sprinting and jumping. Swimming was said to be the whites’ domain. Thus a gold-medal winning performance by Erwin was bound to catch the attention of the scientific community. And now that a new chapter has been added to the book of life, sports scientists have huddled to work in the direction of the new findings.

But for readers of Olympic Review, the IOC’s official magazine, recent genome findings may not be so astonishing. In the July 1979 issue, Dave Milton James, a world class sprinter-turned-sports medicine doctor, had said, ‘‘Nothing annoys me more than when certain specialists contend that if sprinters are black and swimmers white, the reasons behind this situation are simply of physiological or anatomical nature. I can assure you this is largely the result of a social problem.’’ James was convinced that with the exception of a few very rate instances, physiology and anatomy played only a very secondary role in top level performances. But his observations were superseded by the fact that it was an all-black final in the 100 m event at Mexico in 1968 and seven of the finalists in 1976 at Montreal were black.

So sure were sports scientists of inheriting genetic endowment that there were allegedly state marriages arranged in the then East Germany. The idea was to combine athletic abilities of two individuals to produce a super athlete. The marriage between Olympic swimming sensations Rolland Matthes and Kornelia Ender was rumoured to be a contract much beyond romance. It was the follow-up of Adolf Hitler’s dream of of that super Aryan race.

The latest genome findings have come as a blessing for sports scientists and coaches. Now they will have a much wider pool to select future champions. In the talent hunt, the selection will now depend more on the will to work hard rather than genetic endowment. In a radical breakthrough, the new evidence suggests that environment rather than genes control human potential. Thus champions will not be born. They will be made.

If black Americans excelled in sprints, it was simply because they had access only to stadiums where it was quite impossible to cover, on a daily basis, the 20 to 30 km required for endurance races. The incentive of an Olympic medal was another factor that induced them to plunge headlong into the 100 and 200 m events. It ensured them university scholarships and later a contract with an American baseball or football team.

In India, Sansarpur, a small hamlet in Punjab, produced several hockey stars. It was not because they were offspring of Olympic champions but simply because of the tradition of playing hockey in the region. In athletics, while the north produced good middle and long distance runners, the south dominated in sprints and jumps. In retrospect one can say it was perhaps due to the north’s cooler climate which allowed runners long stints on the road and the better education system in the south which offered facilities for sprint and jumps in the schools.The current genetic studies, if proved right, will open up new vistas for aspiring sports persons. Since everyone has more or less the same potential, it will be left to the available facilities and an individual’s will to excel in sport. The emphasis will have to be on better infrastructure.

In the light of new research, frequently used jargon will change dramatically. Next time you see a beautiful shot by Leander Paes or an elegant cover drive by Rohan Gavaskar, don’t say, ‘‘Oh! It’s in the genes.’’