自由自在分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/nyouyou 举世誉之而不加劝,举世非之而不加沮。定乎内外之分

博文

Nature 真热闹 精选

已有 87522 次阅读 2012-8-2 20:49 |系统分类:观点评述

奥运害惨了我,每天凌晨看游泳把生物钟进一步打乱;为了羽毛球双打心疼两位选手忍不住地刷微博(规则有问题,就回去好好地修改规则,凭什么让辛辛苦苦备战四年的选手们买单?运动员没有义务娱乐观众,鄙视国际羽联!);迷上了小叶子,不断地看关于她的各种争论。
 
这不,连我最喜欢的学术期刊也跟着凑热闹 -- 一篇就小叶子夺冠展开的新闻报道“Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions”(提醒:这只是一篇非科学家写的报道而已) 在Nature引发了轩然大波。下面跟的讨论亮点不断,各种认真讨论(加了reference的),各种神吐槽,太欢乐了。我copy一篇放在这里:
 
补:不得不说,scientists认真起来,那可比一般的free lance强太多了。不到12个小时120多篇评论,除了喊Nature回家吃饭的搞笑贴,各种数据、分析,洋洋洒洒,随便几篇都比原文更有理有据!好样的!太有才了!除了Lai Jiang这篇可以直接投到Nature做correspondence的神文,还有搞笑的,也贴在下面。
 
不知道Nature会有什么回应。因为他们的news未必是科学家写的,所以不像科研论文,在新闻里有纰漏也不止一次了,但印象中上一次出错,道歉非常及时的。
 
【进展跟踪】:估计Nature是第一次面对这么汹涌的评论,刚才去看,已经做了以下改动:
1.副标题从以前的暗示性太明显的“Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in sports”改为现在“‘Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.”
2. Nature这篇新闻下面加了一个corrections:Corrected: This article originally said that Ye’s time in the 400 IM was more than 7 seconds faster than in July 2012. It should have said July 2011. This has now been corrected. 不过,这个错误是原文的关键论据,作者不该无表示。
另外,好像Nature可以display的评论数有限,以前的很多好帖子都被挤没了,还好我把Lai Jiang的copy在这了。
 
“2012-08-02 02:18 AM

Lai Jiang said:

It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.

  1. First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.

    Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not imagine it is real" is hardly sound.

    Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one's best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.

    Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.

    Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let’s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?

    Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to mention. Per WADA president’s press release5, drug testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing”? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.

    Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.

    1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
    2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
    3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
    4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
    5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference.

  2. 2012-08-02 01:08 AM

Bo Huang said:



我看奥运
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-65865-598417.html

上一篇:【广告】帮“师弟”招postdoc -- 斯坦福大学冯亮实验室招博后
下一篇:Nature道歉了,大家就别抵制了呗 :)
收藏 分享 举报

107 武夷山 袁贤讯 刘全慧 陆俊茜 汤治国 曾庆平 姜世金 郑玉峰 肖峰 王国强 郑融 陶凯 刘士勇 余世锋 翟自洋 唐凌峰 黄伟 叶威源 王衍伟 季斌 李培光 李延谦 于锋 陈小斌 陈学雷 任晓丹 孟岩 周华 邸利会 徐笠 马陶武 何红伟 高虹 刘瑞亭 李学宽 柏舟 严少华 彭勇波 王军强 谢志强 范威 尹维 张钫 王云才 杨逸凡 雷世文 官觊文 曹雁冰 司廷 王凯 彭真明 刘焕军 金小伟 杜向军 蒋德明 任胜利 贺乐 蒋兴鹏 吴明火 邱青松 陈铁喜 任健 方琳浩 姚羽 杨建锋 赵继慧 任立伟 孙学军 徐索文 刘军胜 吕鹏辉 傅琳琛 郭新异 黄长平 张玉秀 王桂颖 范杰 孙中华 王兴中 于涛 温思萌 李欣海 周里钢 呼延雪莹 耿爱莲 苏金鹏 闫佐 孙庆丰 王刚 李升伟 陈昌 crossludo laifuzi qianxun1991gmai tianyuthu huangshan qinchuanq dameidebing bridgeneer jurassicdog connexin26 yuyuswh ypsnuaa chinasciens Februar songshu123 rosejump

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (190 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2017-12-17 14:15

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2017 中国科学报社

返回顶部