 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
$ A9 t- S) @$ q; I. ]6 f如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
) x4 F9 W$ p8 [% a$ \
" T* e2 k: |) g1 N. `4 C4 ahttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html' x+ n( Z8 K% T- E$ _
- M, R# W h3 R2 ^: uFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania- B+ e* A# S* K- v
5 f" N5 c0 X/ m# J' FIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself# j6 W1 F1 B k8 w& u0 {8 @
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
0 `4 M8 q! M+ _5 l3 U: Vmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this1 v5 o- E* B) k A$ R: p! I0 J
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the- O$ V3 j7 U0 g s& T1 Y+ Y
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general1 i" V$ A, {' B7 X4 _) i
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
+ P4 |* o8 f0 gshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
' ?' } b8 L5 u3 J# Kwhich they blatantly failed to do.8 H7 t$ w' a8 F' _ s
6 t- A: S# e g& w& w- X) v
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 _2 I, e, g/ Y. Y* ?Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in% {, ~3 q( A( O7 u
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ ~# b3 T' |# R5 ]8 |1 Kanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous, M& z' v5 o) Y2 J# }4 k6 J3 c
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
6 Z2 ]& q2 C# |0 N( timprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
: o. F* f& v+ V; [difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 S. M/ F- e/ E
be treated as 7 s.
4 F( ~; }% `# F R, F$ T4 H6 c+ |& p3 z/ Q# T, l* n
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is6 }5 _, B( R. I
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
2 s) Z" Q3 z! h8 _1 f# E5 Zimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.; R1 Y8 I$ [ d
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
6 `' L0 p2 L# X/ k7 U6 H-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% x( L+ p) O( K- _$ o/ j
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
7 b7 H* Y( P% V G2 q- Oelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and7 C3 E% z' V9 ~- s/ h' \
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, X8 V5 @8 x- Y- Abased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.( k) V C) [% f* `8 u
& o2 f0 D1 m& k7 l K4 }2 E
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
. d& R k5 g4 Wexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in9 r0 c4 I" {) ~% E5 y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so& ^! e( q( i" d/ H' p1 ]7 |: g4 N# K
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 k, X" b X3 Z; C8 \$ e( d
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 Y3 B' b9 U, Ybest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
" o0 N) o/ b8 L7 AFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: l) h) P( p1 c" g! ~9 Q
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 {2 F. k; d( d
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, V% P. h1 F7 k" y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. h9 r. o: H- j' \strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
' U5 n, `. F9 jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
; }! \- E4 H K5 K* F& J9 ]: w9 W& \faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
& _6 o1 }2 o) w- ]aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 q1 K' z! N0 s" k( n8 Z3 W( Pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
+ `+ C/ @" O( `( G% c* a
4 N! Y5 Z. j7 UFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are: p5 w, V$ j9 s8 l$ ?- \' t
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.934 Z5 f, T; @2 n: x) I) y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
& W, v& e" I, D& _), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns$ M# {% X3 I1 v/ r' `; L! z o
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
" @7 }6 v: a5 y1 _& Q2 ILochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 `1 W* S1 e( ?. Q3 kof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ }. C( F }4 g. H1 M9 E$ zlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in5 w5 p+ V1 |1 @ O
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
- p+ k7 c8 m6 l& t( v( l' j- J. h9 tworks.8 W. K: E* O9 V$ M
9 C6 f- \0 ?$ N: F" ] O p( LFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 C0 F5 B! ]4 l; s/ c. C# D( d0 b/ t
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
* S% [" `# [% M9 b- Z; }. Ckind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; F) @) N5 A' c0 O5 f) w2 Q& T
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" l4 b3 l( W. i+ V
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
- A9 K/ G9 D# E- ureviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 e3 o0 i. H" {$ K+ M6 \: icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! n! R1 {. v7 a8 Q1 e/ O
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
- Q; e- l) o2 m9 _ b1 K r1 xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" M# \" o; \! A* P; |7 |is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ i+ K5 [* _% c
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he4 V4 Q ^# {8 `& K
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly" s# |2 I0 l* l9 V1 ~
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& p. w+ M9 ?% k9 \past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 e& j5 M6 o8 {: P0 m( f/ wuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation- O; w% @- z/ M/ g [% K
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, y$ q( h: p9 Q7 ~2 q0 v( edoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
; z3 {6 i1 G: b+ T6 S6 G: P6 I. Ybe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
* z5 `- P/ m. v( U3 s5 ?; W2 qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) S+ g6 u1 ^/ t' H& ^* G+ H( r+ Q+ M3 whas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. u& _! M8 U3 Q7 g/ ?drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:& |9 A: ?# D N
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 V5 T6 V. k) k+ i7 s, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
/ @! s8 T0 i, B* P' w, q: E' T, Sprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% l! S0 ]& x* n; X: n6 p
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, N( G4 p- ?' T) R, ~chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? W, B: y9 C& X+ n/ Q# [
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# S; X* Y9 p( z- Z, g+ _' I' |8 }0 Y- Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; G* p" I- g# C7 veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.* E& i. g0 y& g* Z+ k" C* l
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 } \: }, @* W I
+ h$ M% _+ e E- ^ ?) zSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-) | P& V# d( D" d) X; y
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
6 s, }, `9 W9 B6 f# W! ]1 Q5 x7 B. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( M0 L8 ^0 B+ E5 QOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London& X& V! O I* k9 b/ q
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ Z/ ]! X3 v0 U# g0 o8 G2 Odoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; u3 O9 w2 b0 `/ e* F, V. I, Z
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope7 i# m8 |' Y- b: J# K; s- R
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a/ D% p- q; I; T' d; m' v* C( ?
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 e/ u; }4 }( L7 P1 A- F4 Ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 ]5 _5 m( B- H( w+ a! Q
$ J/ u& Y3 W& p5 u, D. COver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (, W' F- S; K% n: t/ T! I
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 E3 w5 n% F$ ~suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ }7 o N; V3 Z. I: F+ j, }) m
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( @+ P5 F- o! k, `all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 U' G4 X* D' g2 O, \0 W+ G4 Einterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 O' ~7 k/ I& s {* d/ s( r
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
- ^ @% n/ D7 t) H1 f9 `3 Vargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 b, Q$ o9 C, G% G" D: o
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& x- g7 D8 k. e ~( p' Sreporting should be done. |
|