Traditional definitions of what constitutes a human being in human rights discourse fail to include the new kinds of human beings that are emerging through genetic manipulation. The prospect of such technology and the knowledge that such alterations provide infringe a number of human rights and so require further consideration, in order to be clear about their appropriateness for human beings.
This paper identifies the problematic discourse of defining the human, so as to clarify the inadequacy of human rights’ theory in an age of high-technology. Whilst the result of any genetic manipulation would still be a human life, it is argued as naïve to assume that the term 'human' requires no further distinction. The “genetically engineered human” requires addressing as a specific kind of human, one for whom their is potential for discrimination. For example, such knowledge as will be afforded by the Human Genome Project requires considerable management, since knowledge of a person's genetic composition creates the potential for discrimination.

The contribution of sports in these brave new worlds to the discussion of human rights is through the demonstration of the inadequacies of current human rights theory to account for the potential cyborg athlete. Sport provides a forum within which addressing the appropriateness of genetic technologies becomes unavoidable. Sports must decide whether the genetically engineered athlete is a legitimate competitor. Through such discussions, it is possible to learn of the inadequacies in human rights theory. For example, when considering cloning, Hans Jonas (1974) argues that “every human being has a right to a totally new and uncorrupted life of his or her own”. Such a claim requires deliberation, particularly since the current moratorium on cloning is for the purpose of coming to terms with the appropriateness of this technology.

At a time when the world has seen the cloning of animals and potential humans, the controversial emergence of genetic food technologies, and numerous techniques of genetic manipulation, these implications are timely and confrontational. Sport articulates the difficulties facing the integration of new technology, providing a template upon which the tenability of arguments can be realised. The uncertainty about genetic technologies, which pervades modern society, can be made clearer through placing such technologies in the context of human rights, within which sport makes a most significant contribution.