 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|

楼主 |
发表于 2012-8-14 00:55
|
显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG* t. K" k& B9 v' d. J) ?! V$ f1 M
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。: E- T& x) M6 o$ U" ~3 d
* V4 n: m& m9 V; G
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 G2 p1 y; m& ~9 b3 B! f/ R: m+ ?* r. L5 m3 a" \) A6 ?
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 E/ X* Q. _3 n7 P# R7 t
6 r' T" P! F6 P. |- }
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself8 z# z; j8 H. h; S
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science: `# t' A/ \9 e6 ?! i U' P9 b
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
5 c3 I$ L& t7 H! m1 jis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
/ g; B* x) V0 Q) M$ D) l9 lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
5 `( I7 D: l6 ^& P% tpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% o% f9 ~! T4 B) Z+ T1 L/ D
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 c8 Y( e! L3 q' r7 ~) cwhich they blatantly failed to do.
" S ?: w* i; K
' |; Q. Q0 o- b# @First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her5 u$ L4 R$ `' p) Y5 T
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 @, |/ t- C$ i) ~5 h5 L/ T
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" C+ K1 d' F _
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% j: |& G4 w/ i, e
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an' y& G- F) r' s$ G& G g( A& B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
% H5 A5 j, A2 N, M2 k1 Idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
N2 I6 d4 f' Qbe treated as 7 s.
`3 B5 L7 ^' }1 p: M
5 Y- ?6 a; s JSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 j% V6 X; j- i. b% N7 |
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ D* S) V1 t( r; y9 P
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.( a( r7 ?2 q: [, _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ e: Q" L+ g5 U, f& v7 M-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 V9 S* J7 S' }% i7 W/ c" L; OFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
" [' r, L. j/ h% \* M( Velite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
. K& P w9 K( z* ~0 G9 mpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
+ y4 x, u7 D. F! a( jbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! S% Z" |* W1 |
1 ?; W H* G& L% m
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
4 ^4 T! ?+ G8 b' P7 a4 u4 Nexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
1 a; x4 P; g( [+ \5 K& Othe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ O% J% e* k- P2 P6 `
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: x. W6 {) b# Q, {2 R1 z) t2 a
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
3 J) g# E* R( D& F: Cbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 u% s% Q' H( O; j; V7 S+ E* _
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
: i+ R+ X f e% `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other0 Q$ n0 {$ w* _4 K# f
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& p' m; e; m2 T; T0 E; w, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- m1 Q3 Z! k. Q1 Ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds; h5 s" t6 U/ Q) e* m
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- }; H4 ]8 T6 y0 sfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. w5 g$ k3 |; |. i5 x( l6 T# I. ]aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that) a+ k) C0 v9 o! e% f
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.' D1 N, @8 V9 c$ p
0 u/ b# v# u% i: b+ b. h2 f9 F8 PFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 c6 H; [+ Z5 R4 }# S* ofour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 G1 M4 t. W$ P) j# S' Os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 }! C+ G& W& c2 T), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 v$ r$ v r8 [& [) B6 N
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
9 ]2 d/ c5 \9 t8 U8 d2 j6 P) H9 ^Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* P! Y4 S( | j' [7 V/ _of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% Z7 Q) ]4 ~' u! L' Y" u; M7 Alogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
: J$ o% I3 k e# j% Nevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' u& {7 ~' J$ C0 P {works. l& z5 l# O& a) J) ?
o/ V7 h1 L. Z' ^9 m. K, K
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% F+ N0 ] s( I* q5 v
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' s% w- w* m$ }; L/ e* Z
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( T* C- i2 q6 Zstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 T4 t1 J# e4 ?+ i D/ X3 y
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and8 a# ^+ W2 n% |; C
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! ?# d8 l: f0 [3 u0 a) bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& X1 k+ L/ B9 k- ^demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
, {5 \: {& m1 \to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ Q2 ~0 ?4 j' |, g0 V, H* r. \
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
2 ]& v0 c* c) Ycrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& J* ^2 s+ O' X& o% a/ W* Mwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( T0 s3 ?+ M. n! f. f1 w2 `
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- [- J1 Q w9 v, P) t6 e
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( j2 m5 K! ? muse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( n9 C" W K8 G* X6 b4 w
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are5 e7 h4 z+ d: E
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
, i) c/ m# F7 K* Pbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 d( [6 V9 k* N W/ Rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% O, Z. }/ d: w
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a5 t. A2 B( i$ L9 K, p* m
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:# \: l1 E- I& N0 C6 U
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect! K3 q" I! f5 k. e8 }/ \" q
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. T& y Z3 m+ r# w# cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% r" {/ I# v+ g6 ~* R1 @athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight% b4 Y" E: s1 f3 R' g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
I5 G7 W5 H# d/ }4 n9 mLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
5 P2 k9 b& W! j: Aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 V7 W. H3 y3 W0 d( Height years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 N8 ]0 W7 \0 f: s5 e1 Z" Y
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& X* k0 q* R' b G O W( @
# V0 s0 F( X( V- K) F3 @
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. q" \ N% b. O+ p# ^6 D
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
' }1 _$ p( G) g* p) V% `. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. n6 O4 N/ p3 I3 l$ V+ t6 tOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 V4 `. E' b* b2 S( kOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 D3 Z- P2 G. J7 K9 @- }, }7 C
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 _, B4 ~5 |4 Z: H/ U7 d) igames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope9 {3 A {+ x8 b6 n0 U: w
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a( [0 s' P4 Z& _1 a6 k/ y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: n4 J4 F* {- xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.) f U. K) b t/ S8 f/ A7 r* b4 ^
, N; d7 o! r* b. Z6 T1 a0 @8 E+ GOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
. g9 J; v/ f" A, C8 W4 zintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too9 Y% ?3 n1 a5 K) y4 m
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a ]5 _' ^$ W5 s& R% A' q/ P8 H
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
& o+ h5 Y5 D1 O) M/ \% m2 Xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) |' S# z! F' `$ E7 h1 h& @
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: j" J6 p" W4 J7 y$ E$ C; Q4 R
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
/ @# s" S8 k+ ^0 a4 Zargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal; X! ^3 F+ m" x8 g3 p) k
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or! y4 b4 v: L5 ?- v9 A0 A0 O& Q/ o+ b
reporting should be done. |
|