m*********o
发帖数: 7545 | 1 FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
magazines — 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
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
which they blatantly failed to do.
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
be treated as 7 s.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
works.
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach 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 to
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
. This article, 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 the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
other than the athlete taking a 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 so there is a probability that the drug in an
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
eight years after 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 Callaway failed to mention
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. 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 showing only evidence that favours your
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
reporting should be done. | w*****2
发帖数: 2108 | 2 牛肉来篇反调？他写6点，你三点就能让纽约版火了。
myself
this
editors
【在 m*********o 的大作中提到】
: FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
: It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
: , regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
: magazines — 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
: populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
: should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
: which they blatantly failed to do.
: First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 3 你一点就可以了。
【在 w*****2 的大作中提到】
: 牛肉来篇反调？他写6点，你三点就能让纽约版火了。
:
: myself
: this
: editors
| w*****2
发帖数: 2108 | 4 你下午一点就可以了。
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 你一点就可以了。
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 5 可以什么？ 吃午饭？
虽然中文很差，可是还是明白一点，和下午一点，一点儿也不同。
【在 w*****2 的大作中提到】
: 你下午一点就可以了。
| w*****2
发帖数: 2108 | 6 下午一点比一点多了十二点。
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 可以什么？ 吃午饭？
: 虽然中文很差，可是还是明白一点，和下午一点，一点儿也不同。
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 7 估计你数学不及格，连我不及格的都知道。
【在 w*****2 的大作中提到】
: 下午一点比一点多了十二点。
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | |
|
