 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* r; n/ e/ f, f+ J" h
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。8 [- C, s" d# s3 s2 |8 a+ U
8 _* G4 W; i; Q& l# |# u# h0 Bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html C- t& S$ e; M
2 f5 D& s4 I( \" r; s6 iFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania7 A3 `+ o U o0 Q. H" G, e' {
8 I1 F1 |4 w" d' ~* D' g
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
5 I4 Z" [7 Q* Y5 E5 [* A" M, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 r+ o) W8 r9 umagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this2 {. Y8 b& ^- }# L& ^
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" ~! H3 x4 _ Mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
* E" t9 B! g. x$ [populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ p3 z% q$ Y0 B* p
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context, L/ @ B6 f" j$ g" v; x! R' S6 y4 M
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ e' q: E) I, g- Q* O& x
' h8 j# o& I* ~0 |First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
7 c2 k5 G: O, }# D7 EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in; E0 a" `4 M7 B0 ?! g) c
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) x2 o6 M3 H1 w% `- ?2 ~' D
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 e" C$ m5 O* a. x0 h& L4 rpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 j# F0 c, |3 Z2 @1 j+ {* f' N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: I" `9 K" N G8 ^2 N7 l
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
2 h" |5 `1 Y* }9 g/ _/ r4 ]2 ~be treated as 7 s.
% B# f) g4 z2 N; L& c% Q2 n/ S* M, B
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- X V7 I0 y+ O" T
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& B- [" c' r! y6 b, U( q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
. [' A1 x7 X- O& @An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
4 A* O7 D0 I# [: e' e" `! t% ?; A2 L-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# d6 C, R6 Q3 V3 X8 P: ^For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& i1 `% J: R, Z* |# n! {/ f
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and4 y1 R- W O" \7 E0 v. A
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) L( Y: J! z2 h4 ^' j
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% u3 V* e9 ]( Y' D6 c7 Q" b. c
) z: T6 b* d2 f) b; _5 D; mThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
9 y: T5 X9 v8 O2 {8 `example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in( l6 e9 E% a2 G4 r1 `2 h0 `
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
3 S1 `3 k/ ^- L8 r8 R- T% Vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. Q* w2 I& {( o4 k5 I" }5 Tevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% A% _: B4 M$ ?: h' x
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
7 l! G8 Z) n* N4 gFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% Q3 S: o) f- p5 \/ g
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
1 z9 m; a' y# \! a1 f7 k% z# Y, M4 Ehand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
/ Z2 K" f1 x8 ^$ T8 H, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
2 f+ C- e) @6 ^5 |- ~8 x: q( S) dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
+ S9 }' i$ S, T, Yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
$ ^$ \0 R+ r7 } ?4 dfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. _, }- g( o# J2 J4 n b: f
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that! ?' K4 Y3 Z, ]2 M8 }4 L
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.- @' I& e h K- C: `
" ]1 u% Z) |& J8 ]Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
+ i# N; x1 v9 O, ^four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
_7 I1 E3 V7 ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
8 C8 H6 T* d1 K! Z$ q), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" g u$ e5 k; A! E! Mout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 [) m7 V5 |$ d6 e8 d5 JLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 L) P! ?# f' z" R: f b0 B8 X4 Fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
- ^; Z9 D+ r5 \2 Z; _logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in6 K5 `7 ~1 T9 Y( w$ G! \: |
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* t8 y- I& ~8 uworks.
- r/ M1 w/ @; V, y( Z2 E
! o3 E5 [, ?. h, m6 xFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 H8 X8 F- u# x! V
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this5 j7 I( c, n% |" W8 b# X
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
* d9 I$ H4 A" @3 B4 dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" C8 s6 D! g5 q6 Q3 m4 P8 R( l
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 J" V; C9 ^( K' Xreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
$ X& d5 ~: f: L" a8 U% R" Ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* H( ~5 K/ a* f. m% }3 ^demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 X) O/ j% A0 A) v! @+ tto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 x2 j+ U" }: ^3 a% Xis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
5 D" {3 x+ K2 n' s5 ccrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 Y7 ~" g6 l @ K8 p8 m/ P
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
+ i" m! ]! p% x- `8 _advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
" s c9 m9 a b, {1 tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not) z. O6 w9 Y% c5 k- A# B
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 E0 s3 n* d5 A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
: e; S m* N Jdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 i. }, T9 M0 d! Mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 a9 j$ C: r' q: @6 d$ g' dhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# w2 {- t4 v0 ], ?
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a6 y, q5 M0 U3 d( t
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: y* | v- j6 F& a& v# Zother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& b7 _# S/ S1 [, D1 {% t! T, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
6 S) j( Q2 g( e' _7 Fprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( i; _) t- C9 j9 J. u g, T! cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- c1 q" ?% L( ^, l, ^) Bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 Y* ^$ C C6 u3 |+ B* b. {
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
* U$ v% p2 ~3 V3 L' \' Z7 D( Tagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 K; h2 l" V/ }; \3 R# U! E
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.6 U6 \; F x# J: k
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: ?3 ?) Q- |/ @) Z" w, Q) W0 R. T% F! [( ~# C
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 l3 o& a5 z* W# \7 P0 G
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
8 k& H5 N, C3 t7 j6 K. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for+ _) f: l1 a8 Z: K' W- u
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
) _. F! O6 H7 o: ~1 LOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for% E: V+ M+ W& {. t5 J
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
5 e+ \# X7 Q& d1 b- J% }/ _games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
_1 n- y6 b1 p" ~1 vhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. ^0 S# r7 z9 y6 r% U6 iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this+ Q' Y2 E) j: }. x7 Q. b
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.4 f& } I6 x" Q, p
9 J% Z5 N# E- R5 G1 Q% x% |# g
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did () ^. W+ M; x y5 X* G8 g
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ j; m) Y1 t( O) z# S5 K
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" N, D: O4 P' F' E: g) csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
* V9 J/ {0 P% u3 mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your# c) l6 X. _- O2 Y
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 m0 F( j, ?$ g4 E6 O4 p$ p& zexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
8 w2 a2 P# w0 f& v3 Yargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal9 ^2 O0 {: G3 z( f( U
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or* [5 w: q) |7 ]2 X% O8 S
reporting should be done. |
|