 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
* J+ S- o( A# V: Y, a( s如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。9 a, _; I* C5 ^* _2 m; G v
1 F& R1 t0 ]' n& C2 h5 T; ^http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
8 y- }4 w6 Z9 T& m& \
" u6 n+ ]3 Y% E, NFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
4 b5 b, J1 A! C
! _7 ^8 f4 w0 Y% S" SIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself# ^2 G" S* {8 X) }3 g+ G
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
9 G# O$ Q" G9 X0 q \0 vmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
6 u# \" O( n* m8 C, T% ?is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
& J* Y; A0 F0 m1 M6 }. Xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general+ }1 M7 `+ C- H
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 @. L2 |' V; Y I: a: Kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. w# L( i# O' f8 @& ]% y
which they blatantly failed to do.) C b: i$ k4 O& p k+ I% k
% ~- ]/ `0 |/ R& X, B C- \' [
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her! y( l# M' \" Z+ |7 J" c( ^
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in/ G0 X# a. E' T0 G* M
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& M0 Z1 a5 v6 `3 n/ z
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! g; O. ?1 d7 l; [7 z8 K
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an" `) u6 L3 M+ z1 { o. q9 k3 C5 U' u
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) R. [0 P H( t# J
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. \5 x2 F _# w3 ?, B" |" {be treated as 7 s.
: I& Y/ V" |, H% f& N9 A9 K* W8 h" u4 L7 a0 ?) s2 W
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is5 ]. G& g8 m) e7 \" B
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
f) r9 v4 _7 ^* T2 mimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
6 C- A1 |" V9 i8 a/ `0 mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 s$ d3 d' m* z# Y- @ e# I w-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16. ~7 C. |0 C+ j7 [# y/ i7 |/ f
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an- D1 w8 |! ~- d1 e+ T
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
0 o- v8 q' o, D% ]) ^/ ppersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 E7 P& _5 K# cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; R1 A7 G) J- W3 O1 }4 ~/ k) C) o$ _/ p3 X, t1 P8 V; r& W0 m5 T
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
4 V' D% e5 T" V/ lexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
|1 z5 I8 I0 s( @: d& }+ Z- e0 j) fthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so/ x6 D1 b' h/ w- M, f5 _
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
! Z# R+ C e! G% B! c& q3 E6 Ievents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ O7 G- d: Z L, J! W
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 Y# k: c/ b* b7 U
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another3 O; J4 }- K" {' Z* C
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 Y+ g8 u" u8 U$ V5 l" P; N
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
% e1 }, A: e3 R7 h; X8 M, K8 [, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
s$ m$ K" y+ F3 e7 bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 m1 C# F2 d- n
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam" _: C" \. A& z
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 c0 D* r8 U+ W) N
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that6 S. e7 x# A; p3 W
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.- i4 G3 z* a4 n+ C O
; W) W+ r( o a! H, K- s; b8 R
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( g3 F* X7 y* j% a) |four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% U' L" ~2 f5 E4 g0 ]5 L
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s4 X* Z h8 h* |2 \6 _# n" z
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns" g0 K: D) p' E X$ b) F
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 |1 R3 Q8 {+ w1 A) M8 o) _
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind6 k$ T5 {/ R7 h3 t' k
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
) W2 F7 s F9 L" I9 ^logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
2 G/ K5 [6 R) b! V9 z! Severy split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
2 H8 [% S# I7 W- \works.7 @9 o4 T6 ^8 k
6 X) z: Z8 I/ G! x9 A5 Q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
/ i0 i' _ G# ~& J( Z; Z" aimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! ^ T" u' b$ x0 P0 T3 T
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that5 O8 u% g" x [
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific- @- R# t: A! x5 M& B+ `% \6 s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; n5 I! M/ n* N
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- n5 @, k. a Wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ E) j9 d4 x6 B" ?5 z7 C
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
" \+ I. H4 }) X* B* Q& oto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample. m; c9 V1 n) Y3 u
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ d$ k/ R) L g0 T3 pcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he8 j, q2 T8 i8 I/ o% e* X
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
5 A. r2 x" p- Qadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
6 B9 t3 t0 j% b4 e i7 @5 o% npast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not" E$ w2 W6 ^3 _5 r/ Z" o
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation8 y5 s# o. ?5 M5 Q! P
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
: i$ h$ j5 a8 X) Wdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
% U, F r7 `: U( g/ Nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
) |/ v( h# {2 n& G1 ?( X: A' s1 uhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
6 c! R- B$ H- G2 m* i/ Bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a* q8 k2 B% _" U" Q# R
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
5 @6 V; A! I* D. v+ }- z) Lother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 B# d( F& a' q, |0 A
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
: j$ B& e' V4 V7 aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an4 q. W) E( E. W6 E; Q5 n
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 n, `$ ]* S- N* i0 |. c. p
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
' ^% w- O) { _( h$ RLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
* k, e/ |5 t# e Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 V1 a# C: T% J- [eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.7 T& {" V6 _& O* K( h Q
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?4 ]7 Z0 W, D2 n. M
. `; }5 m S+ e/ ?' y8 _! e
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-" ^/ b7 D& O1 H: r
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
% @: P7 ]/ J3 W) p' h% c, I1 d. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 C% ^: k ]0 `
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London! w O7 l5 H+ w- o
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 g1 T9 j! s: F3 t$ j! u9 Ddoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# x+ I9 x" \7 A# \7 ~+ _8 rgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
1 s% h/ x9 ]$ p# R8 \2 T- ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a* H' U2 W9 v! G
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" V0 I1 Y5 Q9 j! [' P
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
2 R( Z2 j- @: r. J5 Z2 k' y5 Z# H
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 G) O! K: v5 _) L" P
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too. J/ c+ n( q% g
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: X7 d) S$ F5 K8 b7 V3 @# ]2 A$ a
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide6 z2 Y: L3 c; Y8 C
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 i, x; D/ i2 O5 D- O# ninterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
; v6 t* i4 G0 i+ e/ Qexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your' V, g# P% ^* f" u
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# _2 N, {) o# c- e2 D! r# _such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or4 M$ M: }3 c( ^% R% ?# |* y) F( c
reporting should be done. |
|