 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
# i6 j; G/ b3 X4 I% ^, s' d如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. q: [6 u( U; n0 Y1 M5 f
: e @* ]9 w, r' J) U) |http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
; ^' e9 R% P* f
" @# S1 v+ O: q) `+ G( hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania) Y4 V$ k" E! J, ~5 \) ^
' X+ A' ~5 s1 _2 J# z, U( W8 Y
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself/ w9 ~3 P7 l8 [3 j+ E( B/ W
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 k0 l1 M' R( ^' h( n Bmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this3 M* G4 Y+ i9 e
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
5 D4 s# {8 s% e* wscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general' s$ t3 U/ L% |, }: q3 ]- p7 w
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" z1 n- ]# o- s( C% Nshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! v7 J/ j; f. R. ?. b
which they blatantly failed to do.
! `5 d# s9 O" ]8 z% \* a/ ]/ D
: q& u, p+ Q/ U) L/ O. X4 ]First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her* I& V1 k) K# U& i# a" l7 h. d, D7 a
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& w* {& S9 j( D; ]% l1 {1 s/ ]% _8 L
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' D) G3 @" h7 v
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous0 m; x3 i0 _9 q1 d& h
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
\" W# y$ C+ u6 i: limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
, C* `. ~* R E+ y D6 g5 T4 Mdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
! _3 x9 f2 L: ^7 N+ Y8 r& _, Ybe treated as 7 s.
. X2 A" `9 F4 X7 x: R) _
& k, w! `8 h% @$ OSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is. G3 l# o' h. l& o$ b- i
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem( @9 m0 U& J9 R# C; [; a
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
# Y9 O; K9 D/ |4 U; B% n" ZAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
# P" o! ?) [+ u: ^-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: z" A" y. m$ |6 D3 \8 z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an7 T- L9 ]4 e) S2 A/ w
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
2 S& f' V5 O! U- b# M, j' L) w$ E% jpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”, v4 r$ P* m% @; U- k
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ F/ r `) b! B9 L
+ v- k8 w. _8 U0 a
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 {1 @' N# N3 L* j' b5 U6 \! z
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
! K) J1 P( f ]# u8 H& I6 mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so1 I" {! m% I1 e
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later$ Y8 ^1 v% G% l& h4 ~
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( X5 D- W& n/ rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
5 v& X0 u+ _/ w- P# k* Y; hFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another0 v( T8 @: i1 P
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
: u- M- z- r& b# b9 whand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: n, o% M; F* z7 ?% W, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 i) [' f0 y2 n
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& k) E+ O0 B$ X+ Z( [+ k; q. W, afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
' M' J$ p' ?& ^faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; i: _! [% z# i( L1 e9 R7 L! F# Jaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
0 R# P; O- c: ?4 s. m1 E; ?. Rimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
+ P( \4 W7 C Q+ Y% i' G, |, N% ]! k1 c* M& o. D9 D
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" ?2 n; y/ [) q" |+ q: C+ T% D7 s
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
; H9 h7 |& O7 [ A: T. D' q9 Js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
$ \: y2 k5 M% ^: `! @' S- ~), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns' _% E8 Z# y& b/ n5 V
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 @9 r" y6 U5 b2 R. O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind* k. X# p/ m# K Y( \3 {- q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it. x5 h9 e4 k0 Z: K
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) K+ t# U) a9 q2 n
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" {4 Y8 r0 h, O i, g) E
works./ W! A) V6 Q6 @7 |, G$ m) y
! a3 k+ |# h2 D7 d
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! f3 y$ x+ R+ q( F" l3 `
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 K& S* e1 I9 wkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that4 U7 o1 E; d! b& p, R3 T. H; d
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific7 |$ P- @! y0 r( P9 K
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 ]7 A4 C5 r. |. w$ |* Nreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One( `0 k0 s4 y0 ^6 b a3 E( `
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to9 D, V- b r# q% o2 D9 I3 M
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 {% l, w0 I* X. {& T! }' j6 _7 U
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 W/ z7 K! P7 y9 ~( N% n4 K& @is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is: L8 V$ ^1 B1 o" N
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 n: y+ O' Z4 K, }
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 S; E/ W" N5 m- T* vadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; X- X' ?9 r- R
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 V, S* ]" \% B9 E5 ^1 a3 @2 g4 v6 j
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* q% m4 z% X: }$ Z3 z
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
4 c9 a8 ~) k8 G% S/ Q8 m/ F s0 |doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- n' I8 Y( s4 h; K$ ^3 y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 @* c* }8 v, ?; u7 ~% W% F' ?hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 z! b- z4 o! y" \1 dhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, h, {9 ^+ \6 F& I& q/ wdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: f+ H! }' g1 p& M* p/ ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect; o# R1 `5 ]* I; V
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
% K4 ~- Q+ }& gprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an# t4 @2 \* a) [( p
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 U1 U! a3 V3 Y2 g) S* r
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
4 i- w8 a1 A; d( PLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ P7 i# h3 q$ d$ gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 n4 Z3 l S1 z4 Reight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.: w( {* f, a) S) t7 s+ }% l1 y
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?8 i# N: V+ [6 X# U; Z
7 @7 w& X+ }! S/ TSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 c" l. U& |5 B: |, t
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ z, O) H7 _6 G% x
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% Q4 z6 i g' g' O
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 V, e3 W# j. p' Q0 c
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for( }( I; F2 x X: _
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
" J" I2 h# ]" l3 B. vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope F* n0 W- F5 R/ Y5 l- ]% I
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% k0 d$ {& R' Z/ b* N3 h+ P3 I
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
8 z0 Y4 |5 [- p J* xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.6 ?, z, M. S" c0 p! x! E) p
1 N: V, G. |1 w6 |' [* Y$ WOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# z" j8 T% k9 R" z! c1 iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 c, w3 ]) z; k" P' K* Isuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
9 I8 _, O6 m! J x0 j7 T7 L( Hsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
/ G N, `. y6 E, lall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
. g6 n* Z( o) l2 I) x* m/ ~interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: T, F' n' T7 Z4 B7 k' y h
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
4 _: i( C2 E0 |1 G9 p, cargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 ^* \) e" |5 t8 I3 t# `! V8 Q- xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ D( t* E6 M N: Y# O6 _9 \
reporting should be done. |
|