d**o
发帖数: 864 | 1 写了一简短的草稿,我文笔不好,请大家补充吧,结稿可将此事在人人微博上广为传播.
有些证据我没保留下来,还请有存档的人补充.
如Nature原文,原Editor's Notes
---------------------------------------
事起Nature的编辑Ewen Callaway在8月1号发了一篇有偏见的news article,Why great
Olympic feats raise suspicions--'Performance profiling' could help to catch
cheaters[附1],暗示叶诗文服禁药.
此文被Mitbbs上的Biology版的WSN们首先发现,引起众怒,纷纷上去评论反对此文观点,
其中不乏用科学的方法从头到尾反驳此报道,特别是Lai Jiang的评论获得广泛支持[附2
].刚开始Nature的Editor们还嘴硬,并且Senior Editor, Noah Gray在twitter上嘲笑发
表评论的人[附3].
于此同时,WSN们纷纷致信Editor in Chief, Philip Campbell.可是此人休假不在,另外
一个叫Roseann Campbell(此人在editor列表中找不到,链接)回复了个editor's notes[
附4],只是修改了几个低级加减错误,丝毫没有道歉的意思.并掩耳盗铃将副标题改为'
Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.
WSN们于是联系了老在Nature上灌水的著名中国科学家,饶毅反应很快连夜写了一篇抗议
信给主篇,致《自然》杂志总编的信：有关叶诗文的新闻报道,和另一篇博客解释了他的
动机, 奥运与我何相干.
Nature终于顶不住压力由主编出面道歉[附5],删除原来无诚意的Editor's Notes并更新
道歉的Editor's Notes并将Lai Jiang的评论直接附在原文后.
PS, Lai Jiang是一个帅哥.
-----------------------------------
附1 Nature原文
附2 Lai Jiang 回复
附3 Noah Gray twitter截屏
附4 原Editor's Notes
附5 更新的Edito's Notes | d**o
发帖数: 864 | 2 埋在大水中了...
great
catch
附2
【在 d**o 的大作中提到】
: 写了一简短的草稿,我文笔不好,请大家补充吧,结稿可将此事在人人微博上广为传播.
: 有些证据我没保留下来,还请有存档的人补充.
: 如Nature原文,原Editor's Notes
: ---------------------------------------
: 事起Nature的编辑Ewen Callaway在8月1号发了一篇有偏见的news article,Why great
: Olympic feats raise suspicions--'Performance profiling' could help to catch
: cheaters[附1],暗示叶诗文服禁药.
: 此文被Mitbbs上的Biology版的WSN们首先发现,引起众怒,纷纷上去评论反对此文观点,
: 其中不乏用科学的方法从头到尾反驳此报道,特别是Lai Jiang的评论获得广泛支持[附2
: ].刚开始Nature的Editor们还嘴硬,并且Senior Editor, Noah Gray在twitter上嘲笑发
| m******s
发帖数: 367 | 3 有人可以转天涯八卦吗？那儿的人比较能顶，我的帐号不能进了 | g*********o
发帖数: 4653 | 4 1。要具体突出Nature以前科学伟光正的形象
2。要突出这次他们如何具体搞的偏见
比如成绩搞错，含沙射影的标题，后还改过一次标题，选择性删除理性富有数据说服力
的反驳留言
其他各为补充 | a******m
发帖数: 1112 | | G********e
发帖数: 1720 | 6 我也写了个总结，发tianya上，居然要审查，没发现啥敏感词啊 | d**o
发帖数: 864 | 7 顶
great
catch
附2
【在 d**o 的大作中提到】
: 写了一简短的草稿,我文笔不好,请大家补充吧,结稿可将此事在人人微博上广为传播.
: 有些证据我没保留下来,还请有存档的人补充.
: 如Nature原文,原Editor's Notes
: ---------------------------------------
: 事起Nature的编辑Ewen Callaway在8月1号发了一篇有偏见的news article,Why great
: Olympic feats raise suspicions--'Performance profiling' could help to catch
: cheaters[附1],暗示叶诗文服禁药.
: 此文被Mitbbs上的Biology版的WSN们首先发现,引起众怒,纷纷上去评论反对此文观点,
: 其中不乏用科学的方法从头到尾反驳此报道,特别是Lai Jiang的评论获得广泛支持[附2
: ].刚开始Nature的Editor们还嘴硬,并且Senior Editor, Noah Gray在twitter上嘲笑发
| g*********o
发帖数: 4653 | 8 国内的公知能不闻风而动吗？天涯也有人家的势力
国内CNN渗透得很厉害的，看新华社背后捅刀子就知道了
【在 G********e 的大作中提到】
: 我也写了个总结，发tianya上，居然要审查，没发现啥敏感词啊
| z********e
发帖数: 8818 | 9 别忘了把最近nature主动联系laijiang的事情加上 | n**********1
发帖数: 1534 | 10 请给为给个在天涯上的链接？
lz的附近怎么都看不到？ | s*****r
发帖数: 187 | 11 附3 Noah Gray twitter截屏
这个谁给贴一个？ | w****a
发帖数: 2049 | | w****a
发帖数: 2049 | 13 2012-08-03 01:08 AM
Report this comment | #48154
Jingbo Wang said:
Lai jiang's comment (#47487) has been "anomalously" deleted by online editor
. I re-post it here:
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.
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 2010 1. 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 16 2. 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 release 5, 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.
1 http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5 http://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
【在 w****a 的大作中提到】
: where caan i see 附2?
|
|
