Another Contribution to the Conversation

On Thursdays I usually leave home around three or shortly thereafter for the temple - this usually gets me there early, even in bad traffic, but there's a Barnes and Noble fifteen minutes from the temple and I like to hang out there for a little while. The drive is about an hour long, more if the traffic is heavy (and it often is, especially now that we've entered the construction season) and so I usually get to hear the entire second hour of Talk of the Nation on NPR. Each show has a specific topic, guests, callers. One thing I like about NPR is that their programs are very well-designed for radio - you can tune in at any time and not feel like you've missed anything crucial, but the programs are also meant to be listened to for an entire commute - the first topic in an hour of Talk of the Nation lasts an entire 40 minutes, the second for the remaining 20.

Anyway, I'm not about to give a discourse on why you should listen to NPR because I know how little some of you who read my blog care for public radio :), but I wanted to bring up this Thursday's program because it reminded me of Eric's little series on athletes and drugs. The topic of the day was Oscar Pistorius, a runner whose legs were amputated before he was a year old, and who is now looking to compete in the Olympics. You can listen to the conversation here, or download the podcast from Thursday off of iTunes for free, or read this article, which will give you all the information (but none of the conversation). The controversy is his prosthetics, and whether they give him an unfair advantage over the competition, and it's interesting because a lot of the ideas behind the issue are similar to the ideas that come up with the drugging issue - but even fuzzier. Essentially, the prosthetics do act as springs in a way, which are illegal in Olympic running events.

And yet, you can't really compare the prosthetics to human legs in terms of such things as, for instance, energy input and energy return. In fact, that's the problem. It's not that the prosthetics may offer an advantage over human legs - it's that the two aren't even comparable. There's really no good way of judging whether Pistorius would be just as fast had he his own two feet to run on (or if, perhaps he would have been faster). And then the issue extends outward in infinite directions. What about Tiger Woods and his laser surgery? What about an athlete who has a tendon replaced, or knee surgery that results in strengthening the joint? What about newer, better prosthetics that are being created, some of which in the future may have a mechanical base that makes them act and react more like the organic human leg?

The Olympic committee hasn't made any decision yet as to whether Pistorius should be allowed to run. I'm rooting for him, personally, because from what little I've heard and read, the advantages the prosthetics might give him are far outweighed by the disadvantages, and I think it's pretty amazing that he can do what he can do with what he has. But it does raise interesting questions. And at the very least it's just a cool story from the human interest side.

Just thought I'd pass it along.