Channeling Robin Hanson on Growth Hormone Policy

As I’ve stated before, I think the illegality of growth hormone actually promotes its use in sports. Yes, outlawing such a product with testing may raise the price and thus reduce the quantity used; however, I don’t know that this is the best way to solve the problem of growth hormone use. And let me be clear about this, growth hormone is dangerous, and no one should ever try to use it to enhance performance even if it had ergogenic effects. If it was shown to be a performance-enhancer, I would support its ban.

What we have is a situation with asymmetric information. Medical researchers understand that growth hormone has no ergogenic benefits, players do not. Players who are seeking an edge need to acquire information as to what works, and they don’t get their information by searching PubMed. They may look to pushers, Google searches, or members of the media for information. These places are not ideal, and may be enough to provide some doubts about the drug’s efficacy as a performance enhancer; however, in my mind, the banning of a drug by anti-doping authorities sends a loud and incorrect signal that it works.

Last night, I was thinking about this and realized this argument fits with one that Robin Hanson made over a decade ago. Hanson came to George Mason just as I was finishing up my coursework, but I still remember his job-talk paper: Warning Labels as Cheap Talk: Why Regulators Ban Products. Here is the abstract.

The most frequently mentioned explanation for product bans is that regulators know more about product quality than consumers. A problem with this explanation, however, is that such regulators should prefer to just communicate the information implicit in their ban, perhaps via a “would have banned” label. We show, however, that since product labeling is cheap talk, any small market failure, such as a use-externality, will tempt regulators to lie about quality. If consumers suspect such lies, regulators can not communicate their ban information, and so will ban instead. We also show that when regulators expect market failures to lead to underconsumption of a product, and so would not ban it for informed consumers, regulators should want to commit to not banning this product for uninformed consumers.

The underlying focus of the paper looks at the opposite of what I’m discussing, but the underlying rationale for lifting a ban on a product is the same. Hanson is focusing on informed regulators choosing to ban unsafe products, because it is a signal to buyers about its safety. The ban allows experts to signal danger to the uninformed. In the case of growth hormone, the signal that consumers are receiving isn’t about safety. Users are well aware that growth hormone, anabolic steroids, and amphetamines are not safe, it’s just that athletes feel the safety sacrifice acceptable in light of the performance-enhancing gains. These substances are illegal under the law, the safety signal has been sent.

When it comes to anti-doping rules, banning a drug may signal that it is not safe, but it also sends the signal that it works. Players who are willing to make the health-for-income (or fame) tradeoff look to these lists for evidence of efficacy. Being undetectable is a huge plus. We need to stop the Larry Bigbie‘s of the world who just want to play baseball and will do anything to do it. Bigbie told George Mitchell that he didn’t even notice it working, but continued to use. Why? Because it was undetectable, and deep down he must have thought it helped. This undoubtedly is reinforced by the placebo effect, which has far more support as an ergogenic aid than growth hormone.

Therefore, I believe that legalizing growth hormone is needed to send the signal that it doesn’t work, largely to undo the widespread common belief that growth hormone does improve performance. Will some people try it because it’s legal? Absolutely, just like ballplayers who wear legal but benign magnetic necklaces. But think of the powerful effect it would have if MLB pulled growth hormone off its banned list. I can’t imagine a more powerful signal of a drug’s lack of potency as a performance enhancer. If we are going to be paternalists, let’s be effective paternalists. I know this is a radical solution, but I believe it is the best solution.

7 Responses “Channeling Robin Hanson on Growth Hormone Policy”

  1. Marc Schneider says:

    You are assuming this is a matter of science and what policy makes sense. That’s pretty naive, IMO. It’s actually PR. Can you imagine the public uproar if baseball legalized growth hormones? Congress would go bananas. Look, this is a business that relies on good will from the public. There are all sorts of things in public policy that make no sense in public life from a purely rational perspective. The public is largely ignorant and uninformed about reality and most prefer to stay that way. They read an article in USA Today or hear Glenn Beck and they think they know how things are. The point is, you will never persuade a majority of the public that growth hormones aren’t performance enhancing. Baseball already has a PR problem because of the steroids and the idea that all the records of the 90s are tainted.

    It’s not about preventing the use of growth hormones. It’s about making the uninformed public believe that baseball really cares.

  2. JC says:

    I have already said the current stance is based on PR. I am just stating what I think the best policy is.

  3. Brandon says:

    While the positive effects of GH may not be confirmed, you can’t deny that there are negative effects to taking steroids and HGH. MLB players may be alright with sacrificing health for fame as you said, but what about the youth who look up to these players and want to play professional ball 20 years down the line? They will want to follow in the same footsteps and take steroids and HGH without recognizing the ill effects.

  4. JC says:

    You find me a kid who can afford $1,600 a month for growth hormone then we can have this conversation.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] Channeling Robin Hanson on Growth Hormone Policy [...]

  2. [...] That is John Bradbury.  He interprets: [...]

  3. [...] In the end, it doesn't matter what a policy claims – it's what the scientific evidence says. Channeling Robin Hanson on Growth Hormone Policy [...]