 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
. e$ Y1 U) x6 l. O- ^( G如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。) R$ [2 s: S. R5 f+ i- _
) }7 |0 w# @4 a8 A8 r+ y! g, k! k
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html x/ ^. R9 Y7 V9 _2 Z0 o
9 T1 o! S6 R0 r
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! z$ s' R& }. Y; z9 O# o9 q. e/ i6 h8 V1 t( O' ^9 s; N" @) D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself' Y. K; I# \+ a: G/ i; d- w6 e
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science- y6 Q4 q, c4 J, n
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, D( _& Y: k5 W* a% u4 Q0 C
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
! ^) q( \* L! f. |+ {- d) W6 R/ yscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
6 U5 q: z% C, ?$ M, Xpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. R' m X: `, ^% H; H7 @) Y) k
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
4 g( I, f% X8 i2 g- r! t' Fwhich they blatantly failed to do.
. D+ h$ g) N& ~/ ~% N) O& y) T; p c/ O2 ]+ w+ W
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her+ Y. v; Y; o3 s: ~& P+ c$ c, _: t/ ^( F
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
8 U% _9 f4 }! }# W1 Q, g8 L' d2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& k: @2 X; I u$ \% E) W- f. V
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
! C/ C9 h5 A' I# wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
8 |3 Z2 P' A# limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the. }3 N* p, y4 Y$ c: r6 a
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 T% F" B2 @9 V6 r/ v, ^be treated as 7 s.' ?5 F: {& J* [) \& s+ f
$ \5 x0 n6 M; S+ o" o% mSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 O0 K- w: _2 P: n. l/ `, lstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
$ I1 h: [% F1 a, mimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- P# l' b' n" a
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400/ l8 Y; y: J+ ]4 F
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! S8 ?8 e/ Y7 J: k R- Y- N: c
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' [/ j3 ?; }3 |0 Ielite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 H) e' Q) r3 F7 s; _8 W: X+ C
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
1 s/ v# @6 k8 T& n) ^: |/ @9 [. S2 ?based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.) }/ x9 J* b& s3 I
$ ^! r% J; q- N$ S$ G/ SThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; s8 i& G4 [7 v
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in) G/ \ L9 L' D* B {- o: z, `. ]
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so* g# t/ I; ?, m0 J) v. O( O
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) L2 v6 [/ W8 j/ m3 _events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s/ j6 J# Y+ ?) G/ ~; @' U- W
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
( A& P$ v4 X( uFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another. ?$ ]6 V; d3 D7 |1 P! K
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 ~+ _! ?; B) L; s$ J
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 O! s2 t1 }' B- b- h
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ a/ ?8 s, R' H" F6 H# [" d2 qstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% P0 Y p! Z( r, h$ l" `* ifaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
$ R/ D+ `' F4 h! }& m* Tfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ g% J; q5 V1 @aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
( ~9 e$ O# S& v9 W, Q8 Himplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.) t% f" W# _ ]8 y( r" E: F+ a
' b2 _2 k9 k3 L& t/ s
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
2 t( h$ d% i2 L' V: g" b; {four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.934 n# Q# l: t* Z$ B! h" s
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& ^# n1 v6 Q& }5 M
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 a/ N6 ]. P, o: l% N
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
7 h( }# W5 x3 JLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind& ^9 Q3 ^4 ^/ C h2 `
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
; e6 Z- I0 o$ I/ K' plogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& X5 Y( c0 B G2 n9 @1 r
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
& r" ^& q! [/ W8 v* Iworks.
* r0 M8 B. j% X, x* b1 N
: Z1 G+ b, @% R, I, MFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, W! i5 @# C% X. e! x7 T; j
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 q* X' N4 E% W' ]& hkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
& w! l7 D/ R5 t' b4 Y( E) U8 q& }4 Hstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; l6 o/ n! X( v9 {, N" `8 r
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
- E; J; s& b7 W, G' X/ n. v+ X+ Qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" c/ V+ m" F/ t6 S: n* \cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ Q: p" A" m. n) C9 y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works L: G+ u% \! k" [
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& _* b2 C4 }# l1 t0 D8 |
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
1 u$ M3 _' V% c0 w3 i i9 U9 h9 Rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he6 S8 \( X3 q% }8 ]; m8 i
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 \0 V/ N- e M; u4 @3 r
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the7 W/ k' j1 k2 @' O* V" d
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
; O$ ^/ Y# ?) ]1 M9 ^use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' M- s( m j) z+ n$ A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 b+ ^8 M/ `5 }; Q% Z+ i( D
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
8 K. ]* x1 k7 T& V( e& Tbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a% c5 d2 h; [) A9 n6 {6 \
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye' W, S. @' `7 S( N) H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- |. a; g. [7 H: _ U9 Z6 i5 o
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
( m) c9 R Z6 Q$ r. ^other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 Z! |2 z, ]8 U2 Z" p
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
0 A0 i2 u- _3 tprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
' ^; c- d& m4 @" bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ q' ~' q& i% H
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 u$ a/ p+ Y: ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! @+ Q" p; u2 n( o" H
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
- j6 U4 D) I1 K% ~5 ]0 neight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 e: z1 D$ e' ?' v' [$ \1 F R
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?5 ~/ I1 _# U; i" U1 r* }# e" d
3 w, S% x$ Q. H# m9 s! S8 xSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-) w7 l/ O( I' H5 g/ W
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention5 e. f6 ^4 o% D7 D* {
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, y2 F- v7 |' L8 R6 Q, j# w; q: bOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
( G% S: m' O8 j: @Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
- W3 T" d: p7 K# c# A E& \& Xdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic O- E$ [7 {. x% w: c3 N
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope- `$ ]1 c m1 s
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: _1 V, { M* h3 ]0 r& \( h; k
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this5 N0 i7 N7 A: c+ J( O; Y# m8 N6 R
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., T# S) e$ n6 k7 `3 y: q
0 j5 ^; y4 f! I( S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 [% m* h/ t/ s" e8 pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
& ?) s% i! @: j# n% ^# @6 usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a- W7 G3 l. d6 Q8 q& x
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- Q/ p3 h2 E' call the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your Y& ^" [" Z \3 y& ]: n& y
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. f* h, n G2 o' qexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your/ r3 O* f0 w' `# r7 ^2 N0 i' S8 _
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal7 D6 x% o7 R$ _6 ~- Q# \; C
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
. F, g9 O7 F/ h9 {reporting should be done. |
|