 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
0 Q2 a5 G& n! n' Z! l如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 r1 u& J1 c# g& d* d
4 J) Z4 v: E& n) N4 K4 Bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" {$ ]+ D T- K- j h$ K) N
' K; z# `; S& P, [# U0 A% x( R
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& |+ Z( }! s" _" G, R' K
7 D% X: p/ {( J# X. i5 J/ d& x
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" E( g, A, j" s! a4 t" [, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
* V' g1 G8 T# gmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: z* X! I9 l5 ?; }) j* N2 K
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' T0 m. A4 B" d# Ascrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ n6 q* O9 r; \+ N( s( h
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors, @1 M& }8 N& C8 S
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# C7 d& W& s$ D2 U2 O( U" c( ~which they blatantly failed to do.3 m3 x- h h# y; T2 g
P. l' Z4 H; [First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
9 K$ H4 D* a1 v2 G, k7 u( C0 lOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; S6 w' ~) W/ l# Q( w* v2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& L" X) d2 X6 [* l
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
6 c7 [! V1 y6 w% x. j9 v' s9 M& wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! x0 W# w5 Z, f! b! H3 k, Yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 \, }3 p, ?* R2 b4 r# H5 udifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 @2 @# l/ p# C2 P5 w
be treated as 7 s.
$ x! O% N/ Y6 \( L( T) G
# m& `& _7 r6 a' p- ASecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is: c: A) D8 f' ?2 u+ G. y! k
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
$ k+ Z! _) @( W9 o/ N! O* Nimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.1 ]7 f4 j, x$ T; v7 p
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ U2 s& M2 A2 I$ h& v0 {7 U4 h0 |-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
% ?; a% f: h( M; }* O+ y, oFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' j( b; c: ~( ~% aelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 s# o3 ]# n! @
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
. I ]$ h" m! }; _% I8 ybased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.% Y& M% s; c. A$ l' B" ?; ]0 @
9 h2 z& H& P1 K* uThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
( l1 s5 Y4 b2 l' oexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* j6 c. d! p( ~' x. H7 Mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so. K6 G) t' e, w; [1 {
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
O3 W8 J! ]) ~7 ?9 _ Tevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
3 V% O& S2 ^, E. hbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ C3 L" T: V8 u1 d
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
* i i- E5 x1 Dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
/ h4 S& j& @) }hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, H( F, x) {6 K, o( D' |/ K( U
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- e/ h. Y) ?( a3 A! q" o2 B
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) l2 K: q; K8 } Rfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam; T. }$ s, w' f, {% X
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting" |) C9 Z1 c7 Y$ ~/ r( ~/ H5 N
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that! O1 S$ u" V$ z" i U6 ~
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
' @% A, N% U; U! _1 u( P# g' W! h* R8 u
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
! F6 G8 F/ E' n: k, F1 Z7 b! _four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ t4 c1 }# t, Z3 ~2 F; c3 I; b7 u6 U- ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
5 {- k" ^, T Q! t; t% e/ j; t5 w), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
6 W2 u4 }1 S! @0 }: R) b+ @out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 H1 }5 m' U" \0 E% K/ Q F
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ Q* P& l, @" Y3 @1 g P+ c
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 R8 F% y4 o& k2 u0 p# V& D
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in6 o! ` @( m/ n- V
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' T3 f8 i" Y# i; R4 }* lworks.% ~- A1 R( x0 ?
' N" p! _! X/ ]. p9 {" N& {2 e1 PFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
@& F6 H6 ?) O# B; k9 Dimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this6 M, P2 X; ]( a6 P
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
) U1 J. [8 w4 j3 I$ T( n! }standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific6 ?" g7 i0 q2 u/ V
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 ^ R4 U$ `" R+ h( Dreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* H$ O/ n0 T2 R2 l, C# I8 h2 B3 C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( r1 l1 [3 R3 V, H: ldemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 j3 V5 P# I6 r: y
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
$ C& H4 _8 w4 [! r3 L. {is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
* ~" Z3 y( K5 R* Tcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he' U& F# v% z5 Z+ D, j
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly$ A6 D) H; n _2 h; V- N! B5 Y
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
% l+ p9 |8 f( S7 a+ P% Fpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ n& l5 g4 u0 k6 \* ]% E# vuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 }8 y' B4 d W
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ ]; d! K1 q1 [( c7 Jdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
[# Y# M; a& S# w& i9 g2 abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
) W( M) W9 n) A d+ I; G6 Ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 C* Z2 x u) @$ O; w' c$ T: _8 W! Ghas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
7 A- C; g- Q* ~- A, D& Hdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ b' A4 y* r" w% Nother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, T/ R7 y% X" F+ M4 l* k
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is4 y" W5 W- c/ J0 j* A$ J9 A
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
, e& ?: P6 H' b9 P( u- Dathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; q% s( c; b. O# ~
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. {' |2 m+ N8 h7 r! a0 SLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
% j! p1 t3 T! [4 u' ^; c) Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; h; z" i; \" R/ t, Seight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ Q1 s/ H. e" u; B& V2 U* m
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 H, D+ ?+ ]5 |/ C% X+ p
" R! O& p# R3 u! J) D3 ]+ P9 k
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
( v7 ?. j' M! }2 Qcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
' C. i# B* I' G8 O, W$ ]' U; x. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
1 A' j. S% U( F9 t+ tOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London/ x2 K' O3 h0 c; i4 x5 P6 M
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; j [) F% [6 x( Zdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
e. y4 P x' s% A4 e1 Lgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
& @0 e6 e V" d6 @( y7 Ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, u5 v' l4 q8 ?# u Y& q7 Y! Zplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this! d( g2 ]$ A% r" P+ N4 F
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 y3 M. b4 {: i
* A: [/ ^1 i% @7 g2 S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: l" j( b) z6 h7 k* q4 ~( t0 O; _) d5 }intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ ^( ~+ g! j& k. Z4 j
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a5 S$ c# l' N5 b$ p, d& N6 {
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide5 {3 F9 X2 t; g
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 \" ]+ ~. v2 [) N; [
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. Y+ J+ C1 B3 [% W8 e
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your# I# Y6 {3 g# G$ D# W$ x, B& W
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( W3 B: }( n o$ \2 ]3 { q5 a
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
. @1 x7 C. X( Qreporting should be done. |
|