 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 ?, A. Q% M+ t0 H如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* D* j, |* w6 D4 c! o! G M/ u
+ \+ M7 c2 ?# U5 Z! f4 khttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html. P Q9 S5 k0 ?
3 n2 |( Z( d+ f, J! U, aFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania' h$ T( [! C1 q$ u
3 e( N" ^+ F7 D7 x% \1 A! s3 s
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself$ V! A' ^6 Y1 c5 }# m) X
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 b, W1 k- [6 m# Y- Y; T+ o
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) C w9 X+ }8 t0 K
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the# i1 x# C5 ^) \% T t
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
3 E L. X4 c- O4 I$ l9 v* dpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors' H+ a# X8 W4 K2 E0 }5 h8 a) N
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, X! v! l5 m1 i* }which they blatantly failed to do.5 x$ ?! Y. x( V4 f9 E
$ u" f: }* s! ]1 S: ?% o6 o+ U f
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. Q z. x* }; `# J
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
3 Q- Z( o* y8 @; a) M3 |# {2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' b5 P8 o" R r# i; h
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( K6 w1 [$ Y/ a9 b/ z) x
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* n3 k; I- k5 u) z( [improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 K* c" y* e8 v8 _/ kdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% a9 c5 c7 S) }9 sbe treated as 7 s.' m( m3 P+ y. V
% c5 S) o0 t2 YSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
; S% l+ p/ G1 x* Gstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
1 a/ l+ M7 |# }7 uimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! A* ]' z! Y& t+ BAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- C ^2 H2 q5 j& D6 a, E-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
- y- S' {- L2 ]4 M: N& o$ nFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
7 U6 ~5 |* i/ [- ?) y6 v, ~% e: Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and9 s! Q# l6 M. g G2 f! l
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' `7 [ {4 g: o) i3 b6 t
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 f" l' q9 O( ]
/ Q! Y$ c' P$ E1 R3 }6 [9 XThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ O. _9 r5 w' S2 a3 ?: G9 aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 c/ t3 j& f3 i/ C
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
( B ?+ N2 @3 L' p8 J. lhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later6 \: R6 a! t" w% R" K3 l5 \
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" g4 |) c( }3 J: A4 {) h! \
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ q$ |8 s3 ]! t2 j2 ]: V* QFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another9 W2 h7 J9 }3 |$ Y6 v. A
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ K& h, K4 J4 y1 _: h& k& j
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
2 a, g* U, P+ ?" p0 z' ?* o8 G, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- C, `) C( Q/ u% g+ {. E" k: N
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds, \! c! j; e7 E, R9 x& d g3 n9 m
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
# N/ x% D8 |" }) ufaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting2 M z' {* L: n. h$ p
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that! w; Q% \" f% {* h+ j# k) D5 P; c
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.' K! V2 M, [; c' y2 H- y
! }( q# p5 x* jFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
% O+ P6 a( s( x# n- M$ wfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.934 V8 R# T+ U" T3 W/ _
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s9 q( e$ ]( R: g7 n( C
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: H9 |7 m& W) N+ M% w0 l0 jout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! G4 S) f( S' d0 }8 t$ Y
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind$ r( W) M7 M6 `' H/ V3 {3 e
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
# l4 R( d) C K2 j/ i, m( ylogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& K2 q# _ B: q8 p
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: Z" k7 s0 m# o3 i/ H/ E3 ?" g% Sworks.
, P0 z' ^( j! f# ~7 o" z, j, ^& W' d4 X$ d6 t9 g3 a7 O4 d& |
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 j) B, |4 z; [+ c+ `/ `- \. v
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
( V. l! k! W+ m! R3 s# x; Gkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that9 K( ~3 x4 c! r8 I4 ~) i
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: i. b- D2 S3 |+ f4 H! C; h/ V
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! c& q% b9 D+ W; Jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 I+ ?/ _, P9 S* \% Y- ]
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 Y8 x: Z2 t* m9 X% V6 udemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% @3 S5 a8 Y" N8 E+ ^
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 b6 t( o4 w3 u) A+ h: p% wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
1 y/ v* E" ~, A# Y/ F4 r) l/ ncrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ E! b) }/ _9 T8 f* S
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly2 D2 e6 j: B6 Y7 {# F- _* ]
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 O3 D5 K+ P" T& k! s7 R8 F7 G
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% j2 f3 ~, [: E9 ~, v2 {
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
% |: E6 W: T) p' Z2 `. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 a. l' U$ L" O6 a/ q( B
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may: h* I; i9 i* t
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 o0 Q u0 \* L) f$ @; ]3 Ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, C4 m& e4 @& g/ w# p; v7 f
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a+ T( S/ F1 s6 F
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:# X; S, Y' L6 Q3 t, ?! F2 A
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 D! X/ H+ C9 L( [! f1 l) a, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, J3 Y3 g9 G% ^& X& u7 f' T. ^% a
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 n- {6 p7 a. Q6 F, y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
* ~4 A. O& t7 U3 l0 achance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?$ v" \. E2 X# ^, n6 x' |5 L' f/ {5 N
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping( a! D0 V. \8 d2 `" [) K8 W# k4 s
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for: T3 A1 l( ~3 t0 h8 P
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ {2 ^% @! [' B! C5 e# i9 R
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?$ O2 T: l0 V5 n! |
( L% g/ x2 d9 LSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# W$ i; y/ K; q! b' z5 x& Ncompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
8 H3 C- B7 g; e4 f. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
: Z' ^1 h6 x- ~/ a# DOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London8 P6 h$ B2 e! N. q' i; a- P2 m) v) V
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; c$ ^: y3 h3 n0 q3 ~, G
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 r0 H- O2 o* F$ S7 |: k) J: l; u
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope6 _( H8 D: ]+ G2 |- X. Q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 {0 D: ]1 @9 m
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 r( y# e3 B" \) t4 O8 u
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: n4 h2 ^. Q2 A9 `7 t" l# U
+ ^) Y: x; Q7 F% m* l, ^Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
& s7 Q6 L; x7 z$ |) Sintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) d5 o( n0 K( Zsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& \# R+ h6 X/ e9 csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
0 ^9 q5 b, ?0 k7 L- ~all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
0 a* n6 x* I! J/ n/ w. tinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
- J" ?1 a( U! }" x6 `/ a& }0 eexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your$ L9 ?. @" O, I" j
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
m7 V* W& ^0 h7 c% _9 Asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
9 ?# ]" o' m o- _reporting should be done. |
|