Mandatory genetic testing for some female athletes constitutes a “step backwards” and risks serious ethical, legal and psychological harm, a new editorial published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine has warned.
World Athletics, the international governing body for the sport of athletics, recently introduced sex‑verification rules requiring all athletes in the female category of world ranking events to take a one-time gene test.
However, the new editorial led by Manchester Metropolitan University and KU Leuven says the rules contradict scientific evidence, violate fundamental human rights and may disproportionately penalise athletes with a difference of sex development (DSD). The new editorial has been produced by 34 academics with expertise across medicine and ethics, standing in firm opposition to the new regulations.
Under the updated eligibility regulations, now merged for transgender athletes and those with a DSD, female athletes who test positive for the SRY gene must provide evidence of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) to compete.
The research warns this process raises major concerns around coercive consent, medical privacy breaches and the potential targeting of children.
Alun Williams, Professor of Sport and Exercise Genomics at Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Sport, said: “There are already stigma and shame to people both inside and outside of sport arising from these regulations, and these consequences cannot be considered proportionate to the objective pursued by World Athletics.
“The longevity of the new regulations will probably be determined in court, but not before subjecting women and girl athletes to foreseeable and unjustifiable harm.”
The new article highlights the absence of robust scientific data showing that the presence of the SRY gene in people with a DSD directly correlates with athletic performance advantages.
Researchers also warn that the policy reinstates outdated and discredited sex‑verification practices that were abandoned decades ago due to their discriminatory impact.
The new rules could cause stigma, psychological distress and long‑term harm to athletes forced to undergo invasive testing procedures, particularly young athletes who may not fully understand the implications of genetic screening, say researchers.
There is further concern for the disproportionate burden placed on DSD athletes, who may be compelled to disclose sensitive medical information or undergo unwanted examinations to continue their sporting careers.
Professor Williams, who has previously served as an expert witness in major international cases relating to athlete eligibility, adds that the lack of meaningful scientific evidence underpinning the policy makes its implementation both ethically and legally questionable.
Silvia Camporesi, Professor of Bioethics and Sports Integrity and Ethics at KU Leuven in Belgiu, who has published extensively on this topic since 2009, said: “This editorial is particularly important as it is unique in collating expertise of scientists, historians, legal scholars and ethicists bringing together a formidable array of expertise and internationally renown scholars in an unprecedented way.
“I never thought I would still be working on this topic after 15 years, but leaders of key sports-governing bodies such as World Athletics have made this a personal battle to target women with differences of sex development and not only dissuade them from competition as they had been doing with the previous testosterone regulations, but exclude them from competition under the pretence of protecting the female category.
“Our editorial is a call to all researchers in the world to continue working hard to show the misuses of science by sports-governing bodies, the harms derived by the proposed regulations, and the way history is, sadly, repeating itself.”
The researchers are calling for World Athletics and its member federations to urgently reconsider the policy and commission an independent review grounded in transparent, peer‑reviewed science and respect for athlete rights.
They also encourage the development of scientifically sound eligibility criteria that do not expose athletes to unnecessary harm or discrimination.
