A pioneering Australian 2003 study established a link between ACTN3 genes and sporting capability. Now a company in Colorado is offering a DNA test kit that claims to forecast athletic prowess in young kids. The company claims the testing can determine if a child might be better at endurance sports (long running and swimming) or power sports (weightlifting and sprints). Others say that checking only 1 of the 20,000 human genes is insufficient as an indicator. Of course, others will question the wisdom, morality or ethics of such testing - beyond whether it works or not.

We wanted to know what you think. Well, the response was resoundingly against such testing. Some of the comments were visceral and extreme in their condemnation - and fearful, too. For example...

That's just stupid. If MLB accepts kids that were genetically altered it would ruin the game. We wouldn't have the people who worked at it their whole lives playing in the MLB. It would just be a bunch of kids that had it handed to them.

But such comments also show a misunderstanding of the topic. It is about gene testing, not gene-altering. We are not talking about engineering athletes.

There was also, as the first chart below shows, a misunderstanding about when this would happen. Folks, we are talking about testing babies - before they know what sports they might like - it's about determining aptitude through DNA. And we at WebBall do not have the same problem which many apparently have with that notion. It is testing for natural ability, for the skill set hardwired - gene-encoded - into you at birth. To go against such natural selection is not (in our view) the route to happiness in a sport or any other endeavor. But every day, we see otherwise well-meaning parents chase the dream. And we see equal resistance to new ideas in training approaches, as well. So go figure.

The other charts on the menu reveal more voter opinions, but to really get a flavor of the responses be sure to read the comments below.

At what age? Is it a good idea? Future standard? Would you test your child? If you favor testing, why? If you oppose testing, why not?

This may have been the most one-sided of all recent topics. As noted above we believe fear is causing some people to miss the value in such testing and so we interject some counter-comments from WebBall's head coach, Richard Todd (identified below as the RT response). He wants to point out that he is not absolutely on the other side - just would like to see more people keep an open mind.

Labeling a child is not a good idea. Let them try different sports and decide on their own. Most don't have to worry about making millions in the pros-just have fun and the child will gravitate into the sport they like the most. RT response: Not labeling, identifying ability. What about gravitating to a sport they will do well at?

Sports are just that, sports. They are supposed to be fun to help kids learn how to play together and learn sportsmanship etc. I talked to some major league scouts and was told that out of the two minor league AA teams we were watching, possibly only two players would ever get to play on the Major team. The rest would wash out in a year or two, some quit because of injuries, some just get married and have a family and give the sport up for a better future. That puts baseball in perspective don't you think? Let all kids play equally to learn the basics of baseball, take the emphasis off of 'winning' and put it on 'improving' and the cream of the crop will still rise to the top, but all the players will gain life lessons. RT: No argument from me, not talking about what happens at age 25 but before age 4.

This topic sounds like it may eventually cross into the political arena, and take on a "morality" label. While there doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence to support the accuracy of the testing, thereby limiting the reliability of the testing, I also feel the concept and goal are flawed. There has always been more to competitive youth sports than just playing well. For many, trying out for a sports team...or actually playing on a team for the first time...is a significant character-building moment in an individual's life. Creating/administering a test that potentially deters children from: (1) taking part in a tryout - and having to deal with the failure of not making the team; or (2) making the team and learning how to be a part thereof, is not a test that I would ever support. Adversity and defeat are integral parts of competition. To effectively remove the possibility of these, by telling a child they do not have a future in some sport, is to eliminate the big-picture lessons that organized sports - as a whole - try to teach. On the flip side, the pressure created for those who are "genetically engineered" for a particular sport, will be tremendous. Now these children will be expected to win. When they do win, there will be less joy and sense of achievement, and when they lose, there will be greater self doubt and depression. No one wins from this kind of testing, except those conducting the tests and making the money. I read about a society divided by classes and roles in a book titled,"Utopia." In the end, such a society cannot and will not survive. Sports has its own way of allowing the skilled to rise to the top without excluding any from participating...let's leave it that way. RT: I was surprised by the use of the word "deter" - even within my own familty the talk was about "limitations". Am I the only one who sees this as identifying greater potential success, not as a restriction? Again, it is not genetic engineering, it is testing to spot what nature has provided. As for the money question, well, consider the money you put into sports - what's wrong with knowing if it's the best choice of sports? No one said anything about eliminating sports and the team experience.

Baseball, and athletics in general, are played because kids enjoy playing and being a part of a team. I feel that in the USA, athletics is the only place for our kids to learn to deal with failure because the public schools give the students as many chances as necessary to pass tests/classes. RT: Enjoyment, sure, winning is fun, too. But the lingering Puritan work ethic of suffering of dealing with failure, I'm not so sure that's as noble as it sounds.

Most parents probably are unaware of the degree of their attempts to direct their children into activities with a higher potential for "success" however that parent defines it. Genetic testing, whether an accurate predictor or not, is merely a tool which can be used or abused, depending on the skill and intention of the user. RT: Now that's what I'm talking about.

The human mind and heart can not be measured when a child loves the game he plays. Athletes come in all shapes and sizes and there is room for all of them to play at the level they eventually end up at. I am a coach and can see who has it and who doesn't, but I never let this be known to anyone else. My opinion is mine and should not be given to anyone else. Unless I was a scout for a Major League team or College, then that is when some opinions on an athlete's ability should be formulated. RT: Testing though is not subjective opinion, it is fact-finding.

Well first of all ACTN3 is a gene that's related to a protein in the muscles. Also the jury is still out on whether this gene becomes more or less prevelent in the muscle through certain types of training. So this discussion may be a bit pre-mature. My own feelings on this is becoming a world class athlete is a very comprehensive, but what most have in common is a commitment to continuous self-improvement through deliberate practice. There's a great book out called "Talent is over rated". This book compares not only sports figures, but aslo successful people in business music, etc. One of examples they give is a comparison of Tiger Woods & Mozart. Both started in their professions at age three, both had professional coaches at age four and both reached the pinnacle of their professions at age 21. Tiger winning the Master & Mozart writing his first concerto. Some called them child prodigys, but in reality they had both been working at their professions for seventeen years. So what it really gets down to is something most of all of coaches have been preaching for years, focus & hard work equals success. There was also some great quotes in the book I would like to pass along a couple of my favorites. Tom Edison: "vision without execution is a hallucination". - Coach Moore. RT: I make it a habit never to argue with Coach Moore. I would also cite Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" and other books that talk about 10,000 hours to get good. What, though, if we knew those hours were better spent in the swimming pool or on the ball field? Starting at secid base: Michael Phelps. Just asking.

There are too many "variables" to consider. But more important, it is contrary to what we all preach to all young children, which is to play for fun. Now that we are finally teaching our children the brain/mind/physical connection, we want to say the brain/mind does not matter? My son has kids in wheel chairs in his martial arts school who have profit enormously from the sport, despite their huge disadvantage, do we now say no to them? Do we say no to those who may pitch in MLB because thy have just one arm and not enough "fast twitch" muscles? I'm more for DNA test to eliminate all the bad coaching!!! RT: Not the only voter to direct testing at coaches...

Maybe we should do gene testing for coaches. What will happen to old fashioned coaching? Please correct me....Isn't it our responsibility as coaches to instill the qualities and skills necessary to become a competitive productive player? Sure, there needs to be a desire in the player. But, how many have you coached a non impact player with little or no ability and through repetition and time seen improvement! Make the kid a believer and instill work ethic, fundamentals, repetition and voila you have an achiever. Genetic testing I'm sure will have its place in the future as well as impacting sports industries. As for kids...c'mon guys!

I feel strongly in using science to help develop our sport and our athletes, however I have a number of concerns when it comes to this particular test. First, I believe that there are a number of factors that lead to success in baseball including genetics, training, nutrition, instruction, work ethic, etc. I am also against anything that labels kids as superior or inferior at a young age. Don't be a dream stealer, let all kids enjoy the great game of baseball without expectations, or predisposed limits placed on them.  RT: Not suggesting we steal dreams. The testing would identify the child's best possible dream. The problem I see is that it may shatter a few parent's dreams - if they want Billy to be a baseball star and he's better at track and field, or dance. Never underestimate the parental hope to live vicariously through their kids - that may be the number one reason parents will never pay for the testing - what do you do when the truth is revealed.

Thanks, everyone for your opinions. While this formal survey is closed for now, anyone with a comment to share can email us or post it in the open strategy form.