一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。 Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄： 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 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?￠a??a?￠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?￠a??a?￠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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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 2
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。 Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。 Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
丫绝对是歧视! 垃圾！ 看他的tweets Tweets 42m Noah Gray ?@noahWG @SaraZhang3 @flybarrel The piece took no sides. Is there a reason you feel so sensitive about this? Badminton perhaps?
这个**faculty也配做faculty啊？ 2012-08-02 06:11 AM Iam withNature said:
I tend to side with the opinion and suspicion conveyed in this article and I am afraid that these concerns have a wider basis than the facts relevant to the specific Olympic event. Speaking of this wider problem, I have to reluctantly admit that I myself as both a faculty member and a researcher have witnessed numerous occasions of striking dishonesty and lack of integrity demonstrated by my Chinese colleagues and students on a regular basis. Lets start with the GRE and TOEFL scores that we (in the US) often see in graduate applications coming from China (most scores there are nearly perfect). Is there a single University in the US that takes those coming from China seriously? Those scores are obviously and shamelessly rigged and are completely useless. Research. I do see very often pure and simple theft of scientific ideas and results by various Chinese groups, sometimes in a rather outrageous form. For example, the following has become a rather routine mode of operation of one Chinese research group that works in a field very close to mine (so, I am much familiar with it): they often publish papers which closely follow up and sometimes simply repeat previously-published original works by others, but intentionally omit citations to those original papers that the authors are certainly aware of (of course, the goal is to take credit that belongs to others). Speaking further about theft, the more well-known example is the Yao-Perelman affair. Based on what I've seen myself and heard from my many other colleagues, these are not isolated incidents, but a widespread trend. Working with my Chinese students, I have discovered to my dismay that some of them (sometimes quite brilliant and gifted) are pathological liars, who seem to have absolutely no remorse about twisting the facts around and lying, whenever they think it might benefit them. My feeling is that there is a serious underlying problem with ethics, which appears to be pretty much a non-existent concept in this part of the world. Actually, it is not very surprising if we recall that the political system in modern China is based on a big lie (Politbureau, communist party etc), that nobody believes in but everybody has to adjust to in order to survive. Add to it huge human rights abuses (that the outside "civilized" world including the US chooses to ignore), virtual absence of free speech, and yet all this co-exists with the obvious success of China as a country. So, what is the message that a young person gets growing up in such a society? I do not think honesty is placed very high on the priority list.
这个**faculty也配做faculty啊？ 2012-08-02 06:11 AM Iam withNature said:
I tend to side with the opinion and suspicion conveyed in this article and I am afraid that these concerns have a wider basis than the facts relevant to the specific Olympic event. Speaking of this wider problem, I have to reluctantly admit that I myself as both a faculty member and a researcher have witnessed numerous occasions of striking dishonesty and lack of integrity demonstrated by my Chinese colleagues and students on a regular basis. Lets start with the GRE and TOEFL scores that we (in the US) often see in graduate applications coming from China (most scores there are nearly perfect). Is there a single University in the US that takes those coming from China seriously? Those scores are obviously and shamelessly rigged and are completely useless. Research. I do see very often pure and simple theft of scientific ideas and results by various Chinese groups, sometimes in a rather outrageous form. For example, the following has become a rather routine mode of operation of one Chinese research group that works in a field very close to mine (so, I am much familiar with it): they often publish papers which closely follow up and sometimes simply repeat previously-published original works by others, but intentionally omit citations to those original papers that the authors are certainly aware of (of course, the goal is to take credit that belongs to others). Speaking further about theft, the more well-known example is the Yao-Perelman affair. Based on what I've seen myself and heard from my many other colleagues, these are not isolated incidents, but a widespread trend. Working with my Chinese students, I have discovered to my dismay that some of them (sometimes quite brilliant and gifted) are pathological liars, who seem to have absolutely no remorse about twisting the facts around and lying, whenever they think it might benefit them. My feeling is that there is a serious underlying problem with ethics, which appears to be pretty much a non-existent concept in this part of the world. Actually, it is not very surprising if we recall that the political system in modern China is based on a big lie (Politbureau, communist party etc), that nobody believes in but everybody has to adjust to in order to survive. Add to it huge human rights abuses (that the outside "civilized" world including the US chooses to ignore), virtual absence of free speech, and yet all this co-exists with the obvious success of China as a country. So, what is the message that a young person gets growing up in such a society? I do not think honesty is placed very high on the priority list.
以下是引用 xiaowuzhi 的发言： 厚积薄发啊~~~90后的孩子们上来了~~~身高营养一个都不差~~~科学的训练 海外名师指点，国家的训练条件更好了，训练方法的总结提高，参加大赛的经验多~~~最后才成就了新一批的........ ★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.56
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。 Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful. 这种论调是我最讨厌的，总是把中国人或华人这种自发的行为归结为有组织的政府行为，把对反对意见有意见归结为不能接受反对意见。还试图妖魔化中国人。
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄： 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 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?￠a??a?￠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?￠a??a?￠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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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 2
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄： 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 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?￠a??a?￠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?￠a??a?￠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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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 2
The first half of this article is a bit unfair judgement, the second half is kind of OK. The thing is you have to have proof to accuse someone doped. The only way is to develop a more sensitive and reliable assay...
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。 Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless
article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our
athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of
cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball
players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in
the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a
jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not
going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty
assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide
inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to
bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due
to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the
silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty
objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What
you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to
bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
以下是引用ostrakon在8/2/2012 11:08:00 AM的发言：
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄：
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 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?￠a??a?￠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?￠a??a?￠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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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
2
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
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:09:56编辑过]
不要脸+死不认错！！！
以下是引用romenty在8/2/2012 10:00:00 PM的发言：
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。
Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless
article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our
athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of
cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball
players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in
the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a
jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not
going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty
assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide
inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to
bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due
to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the
silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty
objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What
you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to
bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。
Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless
article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our
athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of
cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball
players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in
the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a
jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not
going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty
assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide
inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to
bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due
to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the
silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty
objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What
you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to
bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
nature.com的水平也太次了，科学讲的是道理，就事论事，搞些漫无边际的臆测还怕别人议论。真有证据在手里，对方说的再多也不会怕。是不是思维本身就有问题，以为谎言重复一千遍就能成为真理，才炮制出这么篇文章来丢人现眼。
Tweets
42m Noah Gray ?@noahWG
@SaraZhang3 @flybarrel The piece took no sides. Is there a reason you feel so sensitive about this? Badminton perhaps?
以下是引用cuteyhh在8/2/2012 9:30:00 PM的发言：
为什么本届奥运会，游泳队集体进步飞速？有啥秘笈？
★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.56
一个**faculty, 居然说中国学生gre, toefl cheating, paper cheating!
什么 faculty？？ID 叫Iam 的那个。
2012-08-02 06:11 AM
Iam withNature said:
I tend to side with the opinion and suspicion conveyed in this article and I am afraid that these concerns have a wider basis than the facts relevant to the specific Olympic event.
Speaking of this wider problem, I have to reluctantly admit that I myself as both a faculty member and a researcher have witnessed numerous occasions of striking dishonesty and lack of integrity demonstrated by my Chinese colleagues and students on a regular basis.
Lets start with the GRE and TOEFL scores that we (in the US) often see in graduate applications coming from China (most scores there are nearly perfect). Is there a single University in the US that takes those coming from China seriously? Those scores are obviously and shamelessly rigged and are completely useless.
Research. I do see very often pure and simple theft of scientific ideas and results by various Chinese groups, sometimes in a rather outrageous form. For example, the following has become a rather routine mode of operation of one Chinese research group that works in a field very close to mine (so, I am much familiar with it): they often publish papers which closely follow up and sometimes simply repeat previously-published original works by others, but intentionally omit citations to those original papers that the authors are certainly aware of (of course, the goal is to take credit that belongs to others). Speaking further about theft, the more well-known example is the Yao-Perelman affair. Based on what I've seen myself and heard from my many other colleagues, these are not isolated incidents, but a widespread trend.
Working with my Chinese students, I have discovered to my dismay that some of them (sometimes quite brilliant and gifted) are pathological liars, who seem to have absolutely no remorse about twisting the facts around and lying, whenever they think it might benefit them.
My feeling is that there is a serious underlying problem with ethics, which appears to be pretty much a non-existent concept in this part of the world. Actually, it is not very surprising if we recall that the political system in modern China is based on a big lie (Politbureau, communist party etc), that nobody believes in but everybody has to adjust to in order to survive. Add to it huge human rights abuses (that the outside "civilized" world including the US chooses to ignore), virtual absence of free speech, and yet all this co-exists with the obvious success of China as a country. So, what is the message that a young person gets growing up in such a society? I do not think honesty is placed very high on the priority list.
看的我气死了！！
一个**faculty, 居然说中国学生gre, toefl cheating, paper cheating!
什么 faculty？？ID 叫Iam 的那个。
越南人？
以下是引用QQtang在8/2/2012 10:55:00 PM的发言：
这个**faculty也配做faculty啊？
2012-08-02 06:11 AM
Iam withNature said:
I tend to side with the opinion and suspicion conveyed in this article and I am afraid that these concerns have a wider basis than the facts relevant to the specific Olympic event.
Speaking of this wider problem, I have to reluctantly admit that I myself as both a faculty member and a researcher have witnessed numerous occasions of striking dishonesty and lack of integrity demonstrated by my Chinese colleagues and students on a regular basis.
Lets start with the GRE and TOEFL scores that we (in the US) often see in graduate applications coming from China (most scores there are nearly perfect). Is there a single University in the US that takes those coming from China seriously? Those scores are obviously and shamelessly rigged and are completely useless.
Research. I do see very often pure and simple theft of scientific ideas and results by various Chinese groups, sometimes in a rather outrageous form. For example, the following has become a rather routine mode of operation of one Chinese research group that works in a field very close to mine (so, I am much familiar with it): they often publish papers which closely follow up and sometimes simply repeat previously-published original works by others, but intentionally omit citations to those original papers that the authors are certainly aware of (of course, the goal is to take credit that belongs to others). Speaking further about theft, the more well-known example is the Yao-Perelman affair. Based on what I've seen myself and heard from my many other colleagues, these are not isolated incidents, but a widespread trend.
Working with my Chinese students, I have discovered to my dismay that some of them (sometimes quite brilliant and gifted) are pathological liars, who seem to have absolutely no remorse about twisting the facts around and lying, whenever they think it might benefit them.
My feeling is that there is a serious underlying problem with ethics, which appears to be pretty much a non-existent concept in this part of the world. Actually, it is not very surprising if we recall that the political system in modern China is based on a big lie (Politbureau, communist party etc), that nobody believes in but everybody has to adjust to in order to survive. Add to it huge human rights abuses (that the outside "civilized" world including the US chooses to ignore), virtual absence of free speech, and yet all this co-exists with the obvious success of China as a country. So, what is the message that a young person gets growing up in such a society? I do not think honesty is placed very high on the priority list.
厚积薄发啊~~~90后的孩子们上来了~~~身高营养一个都不差~~~科学的训练 海外名师指点，国家的训练条件更好了，训练方法的总结提高，参加大赛的经验多~~~最后才成就了新一批的........
★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.56
以下是引用walkingtree在8/2/2012 10:58:00 AM的发言：
Science is better than Nature.....
建议我们把这篇文章和评论广泛流传。不仅要着sb丢掉工作，而且要他以后再学术新闻界无路可走！
以下是引用romenty在8/2/2012 10:00:00 PM的发言：
Your country, due
to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the
silly collective chip off your shoulders.
支持一下！！！
没有学过统计101吧。。。。
一直忍着，怕自己出口成脏，一看你这个我高兴坏了。
他们一直叫嚣的言论自由在哪里？？？
以下是引用primenumbers在8/2/2012 8:23:00 PM的发言：
nature 确实删了，包括一个叫zhenxin zhang 写的也很好的，也被删了。我的页面正好没关，刚才把他们的评论都截下来了。
比如说
A 勤勤恳恳干了好多年终于做出了某个结果来投杂志
编辑一看 哇！跟我"老相好“B做得东西一样的！
赶紧发个email给B:你的xx结果怎么搞的！人家A都做出来要发了！
B赶紧搞结果搞不出来也就罢了 搞出来了速度赶一篇paper发编辑
结果就是同一期杂志AB同时发~杂志说:这个东西多么重大多么重要啊！两个paper都讲这个事呢！
中国人要是不搞关系就只能做A
以下是引用violetmemory在8/2/2012 7:57:00 PM的发言：
我不是博士，但是我知道板上很多mm曾经或者现在是博士。看了这个叫Noah的编辑在twitter上面的推，感觉挺看不起中国人的，估计他也不是Natura里面唯一一个这样的，那你们发文章是不是会受到这种偏见的影响，是不是比欧美国家的人要难啊？
忍不住了说一句，原文作者不是博士，且没有任何在运动医学，毒理，药理，或者是生理方面学历和training。可以说，it神马都不懂！！！
他的学位是微生物硕士。。。。也就是研究细菌病毒的。。。。 他怎么qualify写这篇文章的，简直匪夷所思。
铁定有猫腻啊！！！
硕士研究个毛啊，生物这块儿，通常都是过不prelim了，成不candidate了，拿个硕士走人的。
东岸人民洗洗睡了，西岸人民继续啊。
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。
Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless
article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our
athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of
cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball
players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in
the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a
jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not
going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty
assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide
inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to
bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due
to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the
silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty
objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What
you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to
bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
这种论调是我最讨厌的，总是把中国人或华人这种自发的行为归结为有组织的政府行为，把对反对意见有意见归结为不能接受反对意见。还试图妖魔化中国人。
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄：
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 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?￠a??a?￠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?￠a??a?￠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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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
2
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
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:09:56编辑过]
以下是引用 justfadeaway. 的发言：
通篇读的话，这个文章还算蛮客观。。起码以我的三不沾的英文水平看。。
★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.51
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄：
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 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?￠a??a?￠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?￠a??a?￠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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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
2
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
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:09:56编辑过]
mm太明智了 保存了证据
没事，我给捅到facebook nature的主页上去了，让那边更多人看到他们编辑都在做些什么下作事，就不知道我的帖子什么时候会被删掉。anyway欢迎大家都去他们主页吐槽，他们有十万liker呢，不能任由他们装逼
facebook 看不到npg了。 咋那？被口水淹了？
The thing is you have to have proof to accuse someone doped. The only way is to develop a more sensitive and reliable assay...
现在comment都不能发了，咋办
原文如果是扭扭捏捏遮遮掩掩的傻x 这个editor's note就是赤裸裸的傻x
人家当年gre作文分就不低。
这人有什么来历么？大牛？
哦 那以后发paper都一言堂吧 凡是反对的paper 都不准publish
看了他的twitter真是恶心死我，他是越多人回复就越高兴，像那些变态杀人犯的心理。
建议我们把这篇文章和评论广泛流传。不仅要着sb丢掉工作，而且要他以后再学术新闻界无路可走！
以下是引用romenty在8/2/2012 10:00:00 PM的发言：
一篇新的针对中国的歧视回复。大家去留言要冷静，有理有据。
Mike OReilly said: The predictable Chinese outrage about this harmless
article is laughable. Most Americans are willing to hold up our
athletes to scrutiny when they cheat or there is a suspicion of
cheating. Look at how we went after many of our professional baseball
players, sports icons, on the subject of steroids. Many here in
the US are even rational and level headed enough to look with a
jaundiced eye at the achievements of Lance Armstrong. I am not
going to condemn and entire bloc of people by making the faulty
assumption that this is the result of some kind of massive country wide
inferiority complex. But seriously get a grip. Stop trying to
bully Nature with your sheer numbers of angry posts. Your country, due
to it's size, has the potential to be very scary if you don't get the
silly collective chip off your shoulders. The article is pretty
objective and does not say Ye cheated. Do you get that, it does NOT say she cheated. What
you are all doing, what your government is very good at, is trying to
bully any and all opposition or even a hint of opposition into silence. To me that's shameful.
求link
https://twitter.com/noahWG