VimIy微民网,让世界倾听微民的声音! 设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 网站地图
当前位置:主页 > 微博精选 >

节操?人类希望?尊重事实?讲究证据?科学的态度?《自然》?

整理时间:2012-08-05 17:11 热度:°C

原载
   Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions
   
   'Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.
   
    Ewen Callaway
   
   01 August 2012 Corrected:
   
    03 August 2012
   
   Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen broke the world record for the women's 400-metre individual medley event at the Olympic Games on 28 July.
   
   L. Neal /AFP / Getty Images
   Article tools
   
    Print
    Email
    Rights & Permissions
    Share/bookmark
   
   At the Olympics, how fast is too fast? That question has dogged Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen after the 16-year-old shattered the world record in the women's 400-metre individual medley (400 IM) on Saturday. In the wake of that race, some swimming experts wondered whether Ye’s win was aided by performance-enhancing drugs. She has never tested positive for a banned substance and the International Olympic Committee on Tuesday declared that her post-race test was clean. The resulting debate has been tinged with racial and political undertones, but little science. Nature examines whether and how an athlete's performance history and the limits of human physiology could be used to catch dopers.
   Was Ye’s performance anomalous?
   
   Yes. Her time in the 400 IM was more than 7 seconds faster than her time in the same event at a major meet in July 2011. But what really raised eyebrows was her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men’s 400 IM on Saturday, with the second-fastest time ever for that event.
   Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of doping?
   
   No, says Ross Tucker, an exercise physiologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Athletes are much more likely to dope while in training, when drug testing tends to be less rigorous. “Everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing,” Tucker says.
   
   Out-of-competition tests are more likely to catch dopers, he says, but it is not feasible to test every elite athlete regularly year-round. Tracking an athlete over time and flagging anomalous performances would help anti-doping authorities to make better use of resources, says Yorck Olaf Schumacher, an exercise physiologist at the Medical University of Freiburg in Germany, who co-authored a 2009 paper proposing that performance profiling be used as an anti-doping tool1. “I think it’s a good way and a cheap way to narrow down a large group of athletes to suspicious ones, because after all, the result of any doping is higher performance,” Schumacher says.
   Related stories
   
    Performance enhancement: Superhuman athletes
    Science at the Olympics: Team science
    Racing just to keep up
   
   More related stories
   
   The ‘biological passport’, which measures characteristics of an athlete’s blood to look for physiological evidence of doping, works in a similar way to performance profiling (see 'Racing just to keep up'). After it was introduced in 2008, cycling authorities flagged irregularities in the blood characteristics of Antonio Colom, a Spanish cyclist, and targeted drug tests turned up evidence of the banned blood-boosting hormone erythropoietin (EPO) in 2009.
   How would performance be used to nab dopers?
   
   Anti-doping authorities need a better way of flagging anomalous performances or patterns of results, says Schumacher. To do this, sports scientists need to create databases that — sport by sport and event by event — record how athletes improve with age and experience. Longitudinal records of athletes’ performances would then be fed into statistical models to determine the likelihood that they ran or swam too fast, given their past results and the limits of human physiology.
   
   The Olympic biathlon, a winter sport that combines cross-country skiing and target shooting, has dabbled in performance profiling. In a pilot project, scientists at the International Biathlon Union in Salzburg, Austria, and the University of Ferrara in Italy, developed a software program that retroactively analysed blood and performance data from 180 biathletes over six years to identify those most likely to have doped2. The biathlon federation now uses the software to target its athletes for drug testing.
   Could an athlete then be disciplined simply for performing too well?
   
   “That would be unfair,” says Tucker. “The final verdict is only ever going to be reached by testing. It has to be.” In recent years, cycling authorities have successfully prosecuted athletes for having anomalous blood profiles, even when banned substances such as EPO could not be found. But performance is too far removed from taking a banned substance and influenced by too many outside factors to convict someone of doping, Tucker says. “When we look at this young swimmer from China who breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or two.”
   EDITOR’S NOTE
   
   The comments below are a sample of the outrage with which this news story was greeted. We are sorry that it has offended so many readers, but we stand by the piece. We strongly reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias or racism; our intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy arising from the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph states that Ye has never had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of her win “has been tinged with racial and political undertones”.
   
   The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate. It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the unfortunate suspicions that the most extraordinary athletic performance raises these days, whatever the nationality of the athlete.
   
   We are no longer accepting comments on this news story, and because of the volume of comments, some early posts have disappeared. We intentionally deleted only those posts that violated our Community Guidelines.
   
    Nature
    doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11109
   
   这篇文章是由某老外硕士写的,据说该硕士还受过学术写作的训练。但他写出来这玩意儿,唉,简介如下:
   
   
   
   文章首先默认了叶诗文事实上服用了兴奋剂(缺席审判,无证据定罪,牛笔),然后文章围绕如何在没有药检的情况下(这太牛了),通过统计分析去捕捉那些疑似服用兴奋剂的运动员。
   
   
   
   然后文章提出了一个核心概念,叫做“成绩档案分析”(Performance profiling),以此为捕捉服药选手的利器(我看是“抓女巫”的利器还差不多)。大体技术手段是,通过对选手过去的比赛成绩进行详细的统计和分析,对比选手在当下运动中的成绩,然后通过统计分析(作者的统计分析简直惨不忍睹),来判断选手成绩的提高,到底是过去成绩的合理的“自然进步”,还是“异常的突飞猛进”。如果是后者,则暗示选手在自身实际的进步之外,还掺入了其他促进成绩提高的因素,即暗示可能服用了兴奋剂。
   
   
   
   作者还得意洋洋地说,这样去分析诸如叶诗文那样的作弊者,就能让他们无所遁形。他提倡推广这项技术,因为大规模的兴奋剂检测太费时间和钱,而且难免百密一疏。如果先用此项技术识别出可疑选手,再结合更加严格的、有针对性的药检,叶诗文之流就不会漏网了。
   
   这就是国外的月亮啊
   
   转帖自
   原文下面还有翻译的回复wow 统计分析哎,正态分布哎,我都不知道再说什么
   楼主不要胡说,人家是人类的希望,还有很多人等着带路呢科技先驱,膜拜一个呗!我来接龙转后面的吧
   
   原文下面有一段非常重要的打脸评论被《自然》删掉了。。有理有据有实。水平非常高。。但是这条评论已经被多方转载。。打脸来得更猛烈些吧。啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪啪(重新排了一下版)
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   我相信包括我在内的科学工作者们看见自然杂志,这本享誉盛名的,几乎是纯粹的物理科学杂志,刊登这么一篇几乎是不加掩饰的偏见极深的文章真是耻辱的一刻。假设,这篇文章并没有经历同行评审的科学文章,也没有由挑剔的评委把关,而是作为让大众接触科学并提升他们的科学素养的一种渠道的话,作者和编辑都至少应当在文章中向读者提供准确可靠的数据以及客观的事实,但是很显然,他们没能做到。首先,为了表明一名选手的表现的提升,作者使用了叶的400米混合泳成绩和他在2011年游泳世锦赛上的成绩,分别是4:28.43 和 4:35.15,并且得出了他的成绩“异常的”提升了大约7秒(6.72秒)的结论。事实上,她在之前的个人最佳成绩是在2010亚运会上,成绩是4:33.79。这使得成绩的进步幅度缩小为5.38秒。在体育比赛中0.1秒都意味着金银牌之间的区别,我觉得5.38秒可不能被等同为7秒。
   
   其次,正如之前有人指出的,叶仅有16岁,她的身体仍在发育。在两年内把成绩提高5秒对于成年选手来说可能确实难以实现,但是在青少年时期却十分常见。对伊安·索普的采访说明他的400米自由泳成绩在15-16岁之间提高了5秒。对于包括作者的常人来说,可能很难理解顶尖的游泳选手在科学和刻苦的训练下成熟后能达到什么样的高度。但是因为觉得“天哪这太难了,我可想不出这怎么可能是真的”得出这样的成绩“异常”的结论是缺乏说服力的
   
   第三,将叶和罗切特的最后50米对比,这是我们称作“有目的的选取数据”的行为的教科书式的实例。是的,罗切特在最后50米里比叶要慢,但是(正如Zhenxi之前指出的)罗切特在前300米中具有巨大的优势,所以他完全没有必要让自己全力以赴,由此可以为之后的比赛省下能量(这行为搞不好也会被人指责是有违奥林匹克精神以及国际羽联要求的“尽全力在比赛中取胜”的要求,国际羽联还因此取消了4对羽毛球选手的参赛资格,这也挺值得讨论的,不过不太适合在自然上讨论吧。)与之相反,叶在前300米一直落后,并且她依靠自由泳来挽回形式甚至获胜,这是她的强项。没能指出这样的战略区别以及罗切特在总体上比也快了23.25秒(4:05.18)的陈述向人们展现了听上去不可能发生的“女人游的比世界上该项目最快的男人还快”的假象。抛开性别的问题不看,我认为这文章的论证方法还是使读者产生了“有内幕”的想法。
   
   第四,又是“有目的的选取数据”的例证。在同一赛事中,还有四名男性在最后50米中游的比罗切特(29.10 sec)和叶(28.93 sec)都快:萩野 (28.52 sec), 菲尔普斯 (28.44 sec),堀畑(27.87 sec) and 弗雷泽 - 霍姆斯 (28.35 sec)。当我们对比400米混合泳最后50米的成绩时,我觉得罗切特绝对不是个好例子。这作者真的试图向我们展示他在论证中的科学严谨性吗?难道因为罗切特是冠军我们就应当认为他在每一段赛程中都游的最快吗?要是想通过这样的论证来向公众展示科学论证是如何进行的话可是个极为可怕的反面例证。
   
   第五,也是我最为反对的一点。作者引用了Tucks 并且引申为药检不能排除嗑药的可能性。难道自然现在也要用这种狗屁不可知论来教育读者了吗?要是自然现在采取的审稿标准是这样的话我恐怕自然经过同行审阅的一半的科学文章都要撤回了。怎么能有人说服编辑和审稿员,让他们相信这人的理论能在所有你能想到的场合下成立呢?没有一种理论能够做到。科学的论证是:选择实例,应用理论,然后(希望)这理论能够在所有的情况下都起到一定的作用。这样的文章才能被发出来,直到发现反例为止。
   
   我能够想象到,作者有着质疑精神,这对于科学思考有着至关重要的作用,但是他应当把这样的精神用在更好的地方,比如写篇文章讨论叶用了一种中国人在过去四年中发明的极难发现的兴奋剂的可能性(4年前在北京他们显然还没弄出这玩意来,要是有了的话他们干嘛不在主场用来让自家观众欢呼呢?),那样的文章好歹还能可以以翔实的数据和合理的推导为依据。而我们看到的这篇文章,可以被如此解读:所有的运动员都磕了药,管理机构就是没法抓到他们。从逻辑上来说有他的可能性,但是哪怕FINA真的为了叶是不是磕了药开个听证会,这文章的逻辑也没法定案。问“是否可能磕了药而在药检中合格”在我看来,是个具有暗示性的问题。那当然是个具有暗示性的问题,除了用了不再检验列表里的药以外,任何一个读了《量子科学101》的人都会告诉你“世间万物都是具有概率性的”,甚至还有个可能性就是就在做药检的那一瞬间,所有的药物成分都从这名运动员的血液系统里穿出了。多么小的概率啊,我们大概就应该因此无视所有的药检结果了?现实点也讲讲理吧。承认国际反兴奋剂机构能做好他们的工作。叶的尿样在赛后要被存上8年以待之后的技术进步呢,我们有种做法叫无罪推定不是吗?
   
   第六,也是我要说的最后一点,作者从来没提到过,但是赛外药检已经开始实行了。根据国际反兴奋剂机构的主席声明,奥运选手从赛前6个月开始接受例行药检。更进一步,已经有107个运动员因为嗑药被禁止参加此次奥运会了。这恐怕才是为什么“人人都能通过奥运会的药检,几乎没人是在奥运期间被查出嗑药的”——因为嗑药的已经被处罚了。作者确实能够随意的提出这样的质疑:一个选手在之前嗑药并且愚弄比赛期间的药检,但是这种可能性在叶身上已经可以排除了。
   
   总的来说,尽管作者没有伪造任何数据,但是我认为他确实(无论是否有意)“有目的的选取了数据”,使得文章过于具有暗示性而无法被称为毫无偏见的。如果你要用一种科学的方式描述一个有嗑药嫌疑的故事,不要提供片面的信息,把所有的事实都晒出来,让读者去评判。你可以通过解读事实和文中的语气来站队,立场鲜明的或隐晦的皆可。但是仅向读者展示对你的论点有利的证据恐怕不能被称为“科学的”或“有新闻道德的”。在自然这样的期刊上出现这样的文章可不是一个可以展现“科学研究是如何进行的或如何报告”的好例子。
   
   以下是这哥们写评论的参考文献……
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   #142 迂回的青弹1
   还有一个据说是加州大学伯克利分校的神经生物学家,也是反驳了这篇文章。
   
   他认为卡拉威先生质疑中国的16岁的游泳选手Ye Shiwen,但是这背后并没有已经被证实了的证据,Lochte虽然在之前是领先的,但是最后50米感觉已经力不从心了,即使只在最后50米的表现看,女性游得比男性快不能被武断的判定为“异常”,英国游泳选手Adlington在上海锦标赛,夺得女子800米自由泳金牌。她在她最后的50米(28“90)所爆发出来的速度比Ye Shiwen和Lochte在伦敦更快。
   
   另外他还指出,卡拉威先生在逻辑上不尊重运动员,因为按照文章本人所表达出来的观点看,在没有任何证据的情况下,卡拉威先生可以很容易地指责任何运动员说他们服用了违禁用品。具有讽刺意味的​​是,据他说,那些被指控者没有办法证明自己的无辜:即使他们通过严格的药检,他们仍然可以被怀疑在不同的时间,掺杂了一些身份不明的药物。无罪推定(无辜被证明有罪之前)这条原则看样子在英国毫无作用。卡拉威先生虽然声称他试图讨论科学,而不是“种族和政治”,但是我们读者可以很容易地嗅到隐藏(但明确暗示)种族主义和种族歧视。我们都同意需要对反兴奋剂的努力,更好地为药物测试的方法。但是,为什么从这个16岁的天才游泳运动员惊人的表现可能会导致这样的质疑发生?
   
   最后卡拉威先生推断中国的体育人才和培训,都应该执行不好,从来没有打破世界记录,所以他们应该受到质疑,怀疑和指责,问题是通过技术的进步和更好的培训系统,体育运动员往往能把他们的能量最大化,从而产生更好的成绩,每年都有世界纪录被刷新。美国的菲尔普斯刚刚赢得了创纪录的19枚奖牌在奥运会,他已经打破了多项游泳世界纪录,那么我们是不是应该怀疑他的“反常表现”?
   
   自然被认为是在世界上最负盛名的科学期刊之一,许多科学家,包括他自己,都在自然上面发表过论文,卡拉威先生的文章不仅仅是误导,也充满了种族和政治偏见,已经玷污自然杂志的声誉,在科学界和广大观众面前。除非自然需要采取进一步行动(如公开收回这篇文章,并向叶和所有运动员道歉),我在此决定不再向自然写更多的论文了,而且我相信这不会是最后一次抗议。
   
   Liming Wang,
   PhDBowes Research Fellow(博士研究员)
   Department of Molecular and Cell Biology(分子与细胞生物系)
   University of California, Berkeley(美国加州大学伯克利分校)
   CA 94720 USAbrick house and scream beast have no national boundary《自然》是一份在英国发表的周刊,其出版商为自然出版集团,这个集团属于麦克米伦出版有限公司,而它则属于格奥尔格·冯·霍茨布林克出版集团

关于网站 | 网站声明 | 用户反馈 | 合作伙伴 | 联系我们
Copyright 2012年2月8日 苏ICP备12030052号-3