It will be a disaster! How people protest against things which have not yet happened

A specific communication type

What is the specificity of technological predictions and “promissory communication,” that is, what are the particular effects and constraints of this communication mode compared to others? These effects and constraints have been analyzed. First, this communication type interplays with the trajectories of innovation. To some authors, it has become essential to understand how the imaginaries, the implicit conceptions of key actors in the research field, influence the trajectories of innovation (Brown and Michael, 2003; Hedgecoe and Martin, 2003). This is how some major aspects and issues of promissory communication have been highlighted, through a set of works pointed out as “sociology of technological expectations.” I decided to classify these works into two categories—the first more concerned with the structure of predictions and the second more attentive to the social actors and configurations involved in the economy of promises. ¹

The analysis of technological expectations

A first strand of research has consisted in analyzing the conceptions of future produced within a research field, so as to identify the content of these conceptions and to give them a formal definition. Kaushik Sunder Rajan gives a description of the content of promises elaborated within the scientific and technical innovation groups. According to him, in order to generate economic value in the present and to reach a future objective, technoscientific capitalism has to sell a representation of this future, hence the importance of studying the “promissory discourse” of scientific entrepreneurs. The forward-looking statements are characterized by projections on financial benefits, plans and management objectives, and estimations of upcoming economic performances (Sunder Rajan, 2006). Other authors described the formal characteristics of promises. Borup et al. (2006) insist on the nature of expectations as material and semiotic networks in which inscriptions, actions, bodies, objects, and discourses are entangled and must be taken into consideration simultaneously.

Others highlight the multiple elements which compose the instrumentation of promissory discourse. The collective book edited by Amy Dahan shows, for instance, the importance of modeling tools in the shaping of forward-looking discourses (Dahan-Dalmedico, 2007). Sally Wyatt (2000, 2004) highlights the major role of metaphors, while Esa Väliverronen (2004) underlines the function of pictures. Pollock and Williams (2010) insist on how classifications built by some industry analysts or future assessment organizations encourage the production of promises. These works focus on the multiple argumentative and cognitive tools involved in the production of promises to strengthen their credibility (quantitative instruments and figures, visual instrumentation such as schemes, maps, pictures, and cognitive instrumentation such as dealing with common values or strengthening the legitimacy and credibility of the speaker).

In a second area of research, other works have identified the promise builders, the social actors involved in this practice. This has highlighted the fact that if researchers are major actors in the elaboration of promises, they are far from being the only ones. Brown and Michael (2003) showed that different kinds of promises were promoted by actors according to the position they occupy in the project (research, funding, concerned public, etc.), which has led Martin et al. (2008) to take into account the existence of different communities of promises. Furthermore, the emergence of new research schemes fostering hybrid practices by researchers–entrepreneurs contributed to the blurring of limits between different worlds (basic research, industry, finance). Some have noted that the promise builders are not always researchers themselves and have put into evidence the appearance of new players in the elaboration of promises, such as agencies, financial analysts, and industrial markets (Morrison and Cornips, 2012; Pollock and Williams, 2010). These “promissory organizations,” as Pollock and Williams describe them, participate in the development of the business of technological expectations. Highlighting the diversity of actors involved in the production of promises has led to take into account the different levels of this practice: macroscopic (scientific policies), mesoscopic (innovation networks), and microscopic (research groups) (McGrail, 2010).

The consequences of promissory communication have also been observed on the broader social trajectories of scientific innovation. Innovation is affected by promises, and it is also the case for its social inscription and for the controversies around it. In many fields (pharmacogenetics, nanotechnologies, information technologies, stem cells), the controversies are also articulated through the production of predictions (promises and counter-promises or pessimist predictions) (Hedgecoe and Martin, 2003; Martin et al., 2008; Selin, 2007; Wyatt, 2000). In various arenas such as general media and popular press, the use of predictions has become almost inevitable regarding some issues (Selin, 2007; Väliverronen, 2004). Authors have insisted on the importance of the social circulation of promises: some have studied promises in advertisements for technologies, others have analyzed literary, film representations of the future and the role of media in the construction and circulation of predictions (Glass, 1989; Hellsten, 2002; Väliverronen, 2004). Brown (2003) has demonstrated that the growing distance from the source of production of knowledge shows correlation with the growing exaggeration on the possibilities of an innovation. McGrail (2010) described the different key narratives surrounding the nanotechnological future. He showed the multiple scenarios and alternative futures related to an emerging field and the way in which these futures can be assessed and sometimes re-evaluated.

These two major research areas, mainly turned toward predictions produced by or around the scientific world, have insisted a lot on the strategic role fulfilled by these promises, as McGrail argued. Works concerning technological expectations have insisted on the performativity of the production of futuristic visions (Brown et al., 2000; Pollock and Williams, 2010; Sunder Rajan, 2006; Van Lente, 1993). First, predictions play a role in the establishment of research networks, by influencing key actors in scientific, political, and financial sectors (Brown et al., 2000). Second, the production of predictions helps producing alliances and giving roles to social actors involved in a project and identifying the risks and the opportunities associated to this project (Borup et al., 2006). Third, the production of promises strengthens power and legitimacy in emerging fields of research like nanoscience and nanotechnology (Selin, 2007). Fourth, some predictions have the ability to frame public debate issues, in particular in the case of predictions produced by researchers and regarding bioethical issues (Hedgecoe, 2010).

Much has been said in these works about the economic role and inscription of predictions. As a consequence, predictions regarding undesirable futures have attracted the attention of few authors (Tutton, 2011). Therefore, my argument here consists in describing the discursive strategies through which social actors predict disasters in the making, that is, events they deem possible and undesirable. The analysis is based on a case study upon “gene doping” and on an exhaustive corpus of 163 French language articles (France, Belgium, Switzerland) arguing against gene doping, even though no case of gene doping has been revealed so far.

The gene doping case: Corpus presentation

Since the late 1980s, the development of molecular biology has led some researchers to take seriously into account the possibility of medical treatments involving genetic engineering. After the first clinical trials in gene therapy at the end of the 1980s (Martin, 1999), many labs put in place their own trials during the 1990s and early 2000s. In that context, despite rather disappointing results of the first trials and the ongoing status of this research domain, the possibility of a misappropriation for doping purposes has been discussed since the late 1990s, after the discovery of the first “fitness gene” by Hugh Montgomery in 1998. Gene doping was then defined by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) as “the non-therapeutic use of genes, genetic elements and/or cells that have the capacity to enhance athletic performance.” This “non-therapeutic use” would consist in a misappropriation of gene therapy principles and techniques to enhance sports performances. At that point, it is necessary to underline that social actors, in particular institutions such as WADA, started considering the possibility of gene doping at a time when gene therapy was showing important risks and was controversial as a therapy. Alain Fischer and his team, who were carrying therapeutic trials on children suffering from immunodeficiency, identified serious consequences on some of the patients (leukemia) in 2001. Between 2000 and 2005, the scientific community has therefore been very cautious regarding gene therapy, but at the same time, a debate upon gene doping has been taking place in the sport community (Van Hilvoorde et al., 2007).

In this uncertain context, the possibility of gene doping engaged diverse positions, from biomedical researchers, journalists, philosophers, ethicists, or sports amateurs. The arguments produced in this context allow us to show how social actors consider the possibility of a future event, how they argument for the possibility of its achievement and in favor of actions preventing it. The existence of gene doping is under discussion in all the papers which compose the corpus: frequently announced, largely criticized, even though no case was declared or known between 1998 and 2012. And it is therefore relevant to analyze the strategies through which social actors make this issue exist in the public space.

The corpus

The corpus has been built from the exhaustive collection of French language articles from the general press containing the key expression “dopage génétique” (gene doping). The research was conducted in a press database (Factiva), and once the duplicates were removed, the corpus was composed of 163 texts from French, Belgian, Swiss national and local press (daily, weekly, and monthly) between 20 October 1998 and 17 October 2012.

Figure 1 shows the thematic distribution of the articles upon gene doping; 12 articles out of 163 are dedicated only to general considerations about gene doping. The articles also deal with other issues: 16 are general interviews about doping (with politicians, medical practitioners, and researchers), and 19 articles present issues related to detection methods. It is worth noting that concerns about doping in general media are strongly connected to important sports events (Olympics, cycling mainly) and not to science material (only four articles deal primarily with scientific and technological progress and innovation). This particular frame will explain partly the importance of normative positions found in the corpus.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Thematic classification of the corpus.

Figure 2 shows the importance of the issue of gene doping within the articles. Gene doping has been considered as a major issue when more than half of the article dealt with it. It is often the case for papers dealing with detection since the detection of gene doping is one of the most problematic points of this case, but also for opinion papers on the social and philosophical consequences of gene doping and often for papers reviewing conferences. It has been considered as a minor issue when less than half of the article was dedicated to it. It is more frequent in interviews, dealing with multiple points and handling gene doping in only one question or two. Gene doping has been considered as an incidental issue when less than two lines were dealing with it, for instance, when it was quoted by someone among other doping techniques, or as an illustration of the evolution of doping.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Presence of the gene doping issue in the corpus.

A longitudinal look at the corpus allows us to see that gene doping is brought as an issue in the media mainly by WADA, which was created in 1999, and by some medical experts appointed by the agency to work on gene doping and its detection. As shown by Figure 3, before 2002, this issue was nearly absent from the media. In 2002, the first global conference on gene doping was organized by WADA and brought some attention to the issue. In 2004, the Athens Olympics and the experiments of Ronald M. Evans (Salk Institute), who created “marathon mice” by altering their muscles, launched a critical phase of the interest in gene doping, until 2006 and the Torino Olympics. From then on, this interest decreased—except in 2008, the year of Beijing Olympics, when fewer papers were dedicated to the issue. The chronology can therefore be divided into three main parts: the pre-emergence phase (phase 1: 1998–2002), the mediatically hot phase (phase 2: 2002–2006), and the decline phase (phase 3: 2006–2012).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Articles covering gene doping per year.

The most striking point is that despite the absence of any proved case of gene doping between 1998 and 2012, journalists, politicians, and researchers keep discussing about this issue as if it were imminent or even already there. Speakers use diverse techniques to make their threats appear as legitimate and well grounded. This is why, in the following section of this article, I analyze the modes of existence of this public issue in the discourses and acts of social actors. Before presenting this, I may specify that the article does not aim at making these discourses appear as disconnected from reality or illegitimate. On the contrary, it is to describe how the social reality of a threat is built from multiple pieces of evidence which are articulated in discourses mixing description modes, normative principles, and action proposals.

In the following sections, I propose first an analytic conception of the predictions made about gene doping. Then, I explain the discursive strategies used by social actors to bring gene doping into existence as a public problem. Last, I analyze the relationship between these discourses and the action they promote.

Conceptualizing the predictions

Most of the predictions made about gene doping within the corpus can be summed up in a simple analytic model. They are characterized by the following:

These three characteristics (temporality, possibility, and value judgment) form the analytic basis of the predictions. But it is worth pointing out that it is very rare to find such analytic simplicity in the actual discourses. These are more complex and ambiguous, often blending different positions on temporality and possibility. This complexity can be seen at the text’s scale, more rarely at the sentence’s scale. For instance, one paper is entitled in a very assertive way “Gene doping will develop, according to one Australian researcher.” The first sentence of the paper modalizes this assertion with the use of a subordinating conjunction of condition: “Gene doping will develop if some countries make research in that field.” The second sentence modalizes again this assertion, in a stronger way, using conditional mood: “renegade scientists could develop an undetectable gene doping.” In the same paper, the possibility of gene doping is presented through three different frames: a strongly assertive way and two different kinds of modalizations.

The temporality is also considered through different criteria. For instance, technology and ethics seem to belong to different timescales. One of the speakers envisions the emergence of gene doping in a near future and opposes technology to ethics. According to him, the gene doping technology already exists, but ethics still refrain from using it: “Today, we have the scientific and technological knowledge (at least in the US). The only restraint comes from ethics.” ¹⁵ In a way, he opposes then two heterogeneous timescales: that of technology and that of ethics, which can be momentarily in conflict. The textual polyphony also introduces concurrent conceptions of temporality: “Has gene doping arrived in high sports? For some people, yes, for some people, it is upcoming. According to me, it is still science fiction in the short term, but I do not rely on conclusive elements.” ¹⁶

Feeling the intangible

Now that we have seen the global structure of predictions, we can address the second part of this analysis, concerning the strategies through which speakers make gene doping appear as something becoming real. How do people bring the future to existence? What rhetorical modes, what arguments, what discursive genres are they using to describe something which does not exist, and yet is becoming real according to them? In the case of gene doping, I identified four different strategies or modes.

The first one is already quite well known: the production of fictions, of imaginary scenarios in which the social, economic consequences of one technology and/or science are taken into account. This can be done in a collective, institutionalized way (technology assessment scenarios) or through fiction (science fiction novels). As this mode has already been studied by different authors, I will not develop here (Catellin, 2006; Delgado et al., 2012; Maestrutti, 2008). Therefore, it is notable that this particular way of building the future is quite absent from the gene doping corpus, even if some speakers mention “science fiction” and refer to “utopia” or explain that “the phantom of tennis players with bionic arms is now surpassing science fiction novels.” ¹⁷ In the gene doping case, the legal and regulatory implications of gene doping tend to exclude this kind of exercise, and few papers take a fictional angle. This is also in line with the nature of the corpus: newspaper articles tending to exclude imaginary scenarios.

The second strategy through which the speakers make gene doping exist is the insistence on an experimental chain which would connect laboratory animals, patients, and sports persons. If experiments of gene therapy have been realized in laboratory conditions on animals and patients, there is no significant difference between these subjects and the athletes, and it is therefore possible and plausible that gene doping develops itself. This rationale generally goes with the invocation of experiences led by researchers, mainly on animals (by doctors Lee Sweeney, Se-Jin Lee, and Ronald Evans) but also on humans (the “boys in the bubble” of doctor Fischer). The most frequently mentioned experiments are Lee Sweeney’s experiments in rats, which have been associated with the possibility of similar experiments in humans:

Lee Sweeney, biologist from Pennsylvania University, created in 2000 “Schwarzenegger” mice with 30% more muscle, by injecting them the IGF1 gene which controls muscle growth. He was then overwhelmed by the demand from athletes. They all volunteered to be guinea pigs, regardless of the consequences. ¹⁸

In that example, the existence of a demand from athletes for this kind of experimentation is presented as an element of evidence for the practice of gene doping. That way, it is suggested that practically there is an experimental chain in which athletes participate, and that this experimental chain justifies the intuition according to which gene doping may exist. This presupposes a causal link between animals, patients, and athletes.

One major element of justification of the “experimental chain” argument is the feeling of fast progress in research and of the possibility to hijack medical innovations from their initial purpose. To some actors, the results of the first experiments in gene therapy are spectacular enough to envision the possibility of gene doping in a longer term: “research in this field goes fast, for gene therapies raise great expectations regarding cures to fatal or severely disabling diseases. Some people already think about hijacking these techniques in favor of sportsperspons.” ¹⁹ But the idea of an experimental chain is rarely self evident, and the solidity of such a chain is discussed. Can one consider a continuity of applications between laboratory rats and sports persons? Some speakers underline the difficulty to replicate the spectacular results got from mice on humans: “What is possible on small animals is not valid at the human scale” ²⁰ or

It is not yet possible to create transgenic human beings like Dr Se-Jin Lee’s mice. And to get the same results through gene therapy, it is necessary to remember that a rat is 1000 times smaller than a human. To get this result, thousands of injections would have been necessary. ²¹

That way, gene doping is only likely to exist both theoretically and experimentally. However, despite these precautions and the differences between humans and mice, the “experimental chain” argument or rationale is frequently used to legitimate the possibility of gene doping.

The third strategy is complementary to the second. It resorts to confirmation bias and relies on abductive logic: the major premise is certain, the minor is only probable. Two major premises are used alternatively: “the technique is already known” or “the physiological principle is already known.” The first premise claims that the technique “exists” or “is known,” but its applications have not been determined yet. Olivier Rabin explains for instance, “We have no evidence that gene doping has already been used on man, but the technology exists, even if it is still experimental.” ²² In a more cautious approach, biotechnologist and specialist in doping issues Gérard Dine explains that technology is “accessible”: “The genetically modified athletes may already exist. Technically, this is accessible. And not more expensive than current processes.” ²³ The minor premise, which follows, concerns the applications of the technique and is more nuanced: the technique is known, but its applications are only possible for different reasons. The actors first take into account a whole series of technical and discursive mediations which give coherence to the interpretations and constructions of future. For instance, the passage from theory to practice does not go without mediations. In the above interview, Olivier Rabin explains “On the paper, yes [gene doping already exists]. We already managed to increase dramatically muscular masses on animals through genetic manipulations.” In his answer, gene doping exists “on the paper,” the technology “exists,” but for some reasons, the existence of gene doping practices cannot be certain. They are dangerous, hidden, forbidden by the political and ethical framework and still “experimental.” Therefore, the antidoping institutions must act as if it existed, even if this cannot be proved.

The second form of abduction claims that the physiological principle is known, and draws the idea that once this physiological principle can be manipulated, gene doping would become possible. A striking example of this can be found in the following quote:

the principle [of gene doping] is simple: genes, in our organism, build our cells and order them by telling them how to work. Introducing in an athlete some genes which would code for instance the increase of muscle mass, would lead to some kind of “Superman” with multiplied performances. ²⁴

The journalist starts here introducing the biological principle. From the principle, he draws the possibility of a physiological modification through a technique whose functioning is not known yet (introduction of gene in the cells), and adds to this supposition a qualification of the modifications (a kind of Superman). This example illustrates the frequent use of both abduction and extrapolation: from deeds presented as known or mastered (a physiological principle, a technology), speakers add suppositions, interpretations that they qualify and which form futuristic visions. The abduction rationale, with a major premise which assumes the existence of the technique or a sufficient knowledge of the physiological principles, and a minor premise which expresses a hypothesis on the passage from technical or physiological premise to an application in gene doping complements that of the “experimental chain.”

The fourth strategy relies on a general semiotic activity similar to the indiciary method analyzed by Carlo Ginzburg (1989): looking for signs of existence of gene doping and interpreting facts as actual pieces of evidence. It involves looking for evidence that gene doping may exist and extrapolating from this as the basis for making further claims about possible gene doping activity. The corpus shows different cases. There are first pieces of evidence lying on supply and demand. I mentioned earlier the fact that one researcher had been approached by sports persons and coaches (demand). Another example is a regularly invoked TV program, broadcast in 2008 by the German television, and showing a Chinese doctor trying to sell what he says to be gene doping to the journalist who pretends to be a coach. This document is quoted by the press: “German television has broadcast a program on the possibility of gene doping in China, an astonishing revelation for antidoping experts,” ²⁵ “A journalist from German television, was offered gene doping treatments in China, as he was pretending to be a swimming coach,” ²⁶ “in 2008, before Beijing Olympics, there was a buzz around some Chinese scientist who would have offered [gene doping treatments].” ²⁷ The program does not prove that the offer made by the Chinese doctor is genuine gene doping. But the existence of an offer leads some players in the case to take the existence of such a practice for granted. Another case—on the “demand” side—is that of Thomas Springstein, German coach who was sued in a doping case in 2006. Investigators had found an email written by him and explaining “It is difficult to get the new Repoxygen”—Repoxygen being an experimental treatment in gene therapy. From this email, some journalists deducted “proofs of gene doping in the trial of a German coach,” ²⁸ or “The trial of a German coach […] is bringing the evidence that gene doping could already be a reality in contemporary sports.” ²⁹ Once again in that case, the inference from an email to the existence of gene doping is tricky, but it is one more piece of evidence to the case.

I identified four strategies through which gene doping is brought to existence in the public space: the production of fiction; the elaboration of an experimental chain between animals, patients, and sports persons; the resort to an abduction rationale (in which the major premise is held for certain, while the minor is only possible); and a general semiotic practice which consists in identifying the signs of existence of gene doping in mediatic cases. These strategies are used by members of regulatory authorities, journalists, researchers, and doctors to build the existence of gene doping or, at least, the existence of a strong trend toward gene doping. But why do they need to legitimate their views on this practice? Why are they trying to analyze the emergence of gene doping, to predict it? Their discourse must be connected to the kind of action they ask for—as Sunder Rajan has shown, predictions play a role in the elaboration of scientific, economic, and political projects. Political institutions, researchers, and journalists insist on the importance of this issue since they are seeking for more regulations, research funds, and public awareness. This brings us to another essential characteristic of these forward-looking discourses: their performativity and their relation to action, which I discuss in this last section.

Anticipatory pragmatism

As this corpus deals with predictions, the majority of discourses are forward-looking statements. As other works have noted, these discourses play a normative and performative role (Brown, 2003; Lösch, 2006; Michael, 2000), contributing, for instance, to the organization of the agenda of innovation players. In the case of gene doping, the social actors who take part in the debate are not only trying to offer a proper description of what the future will be; they are trying to formulate what would be the adequate reaction to prepare or to avoid this future. In that sense, the discourses studied above make the future exist for people by framing actions and promoting specific future-oriented decisions. They support an anticipatory pragmatism (or future-oriented pragmatism) in which discourse and action always interact. In a way, this is not new to pragmatism, since pragmatism considers objects mainly through their social consequences (Dewey, 1989) and therefore leans toward taking into account future events. Pragmatism may always be anticipatory. But here, “anticipatory pragmatism” means a type of pragmatism squared which is attentive to the consequences and effects of discourses on an event whose realization is not a given fact. It is not only a pragmatism which would consider things through their effects, but rather a pragmatism which would consider things through the effects discourse has on them—on their conditions of existence. This is specific to a protest against something which has not happened yet: it tries to set up actions (regulations, researches) which would prevent other actions (gene doping practices) which are not certain but only “potentially possible.” In a way, playing with the famous Mertonian concept, we could describe this as some sort of “self-unfulfilling prophecy”; Jean-Pierre Dupuy (2004) puts it differently when he advises to get prepared for the worst in order to avoid it. In that context, the entanglement between discourse and action plays a major role.

This is particularly visible in the discourses and measures upon research concerning testing and tracking gene doping. Some declarations ask for more research on gene doping; but at the same time, these researches play a role of dissuasion: if tests are set up, it is no use for cheaters to try gene doping which remains a risky technique. Following that logic, ideally, the only mention of the existence of tests would divert athletes from doping practices. This is exactly the mode used by WADA: “gene doping will be used one day or the other by sportspersons, as predicts Olivier Rabin, scientific director of the WADA, who already launched research programs to try to forestall future cheaters.” ³⁰

This quotation sheds light on different discursive mechanisms on which is based the production of predictions. We can see first the use of a forward-looking statement, underlined by the Agence France-Presse (AFP) journalist. This prediction is made, on the discursive ground, with the use of a peremptory future (“gene doping will be used”) coupled with a vague modalization (“one day or the other”). The combination between peremptory future and vague modalization is an essential characteristic of this prediction. But the study has also to take into account the actions and social investments made by actors. The actors do not live only in a discurive world and the construction of future relies on discursive mechanisms as well as actions, institutional apparatuses and so forth. Olivier Rabin “already launched research programs.” There is therefore a combination between discursive practices and investment modes which participate jointly in the construction of predictions. Anticipatory pragmatism leads the speaker to consider the issue through its envisioned, imagined effects, and through the institutions and practices which would be necessary to frame it or to stop it. This appears in financial investments: “WADA announced on Monday an investment of 1,8 million dollars in 2005 in research on gene doping, to fight against a scourge which is still science fiction but already threatens 21st century sports.” ³¹ (AFP, 22 November 2005). These investments are made not to be taken off guard (“The antidoping fight was late for cheaters at the time of anabolic steroids, but this time, we will be ready when gene doping arrives” ³² ). The actors therefore have to start from an assertion of “science fiction,” to implement research and make investments, mixing temporalities and modes of existence: a science fiction scourge which would already threaten twenty-first century sports—in other terms, something which does not exist but has already influence and impact on social practices. Anticipatory pragmatism takes place in the space which blends reality, fiction, and imagination, on one hand, and discourses, actions, and social investments on the other hand. In another interview, Olivier Rabin is asked whether gene doping is a fantasy or it is real, and he answers, “Neither of the two. Our role is to anticipate tendencies and to consider the measures which could slow them down.” ³³ His assertion here reflects the heterogeneous nature of the space in which people denounce and protest against “unhappened events.”

Conclusion

This article follows the trend of sociology of technological expectations to analyze the importance of predictions, promises, and forward-looking statements in social life, given the rise of an “economy of promises” since the 1980s. The contribution of this research trend is important since the works it gathers document the actors of prediction and the tools which are used. Above all, these studies show how predictions participate in the reorganization of scientific practice and social life. One way of building upon the inputs of the sociology of expectation is to analyze more carefully the dark side of predictions. This is what I did in this article in two ways. First, I proposed a schematic model of predictions, bearing on future threats (temporality, possibility, and value judgment), while showing that the corpus is characterized by the blending of multiple timescales and assessments on the possibility of gene doping. Second, I identified some of the rhetoric modes used by the producers of predictions to make the future tangible: fiction, elaboration of an experimental chain, use of an abduction rationale, and semiotic practice. These modes may not be the only ones, but I insisted on the importance of their articulation: they all participate in the public existence of gene doping as a social issue. I also took into account one major input of the sociology of expectations, which is its analysis of the performativity of predictions. I specified the kind of performativity which is at stake in the case of gene doping debates, and which implies an anticipatory pragmatism mixing discourse and action, reality, and fiction. This approach shows the interest of a deeper association between science studies, discourse analysis, and argumentation studies.