 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( d" u+ q
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。' ~% g6 U/ I+ v3 w. [# e( V
( h' |0 x1 ~ N. j8 L( l+ thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' A: _# S( e' e6 g
' Q: y& F9 ~ z. W+ rFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& S, q3 m8 L, P, x: L/ @! K$ F( @3 w' O4 m1 U; R' X
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself- h+ V: d1 f# |- |4 y
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science5 f# h! z# Q- C, a8 y
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( _% }$ B, L) `- A- @is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
3 a" j s3 _! N9 s4 F: Z4 hscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general5 j% w( J/ @4 P( X( e0 Q6 T9 b# L
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors: }1 O" k) x' W: k/ g- v
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,3 s1 [0 @+ ?8 W) E. B h
which they blatantly failed to do.8 b* Y/ p1 _ B1 Z1 Z
1 {; i0 {5 n4 ~+ x, [$ L' [0 j. rFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, H% K6 d( t' P9 pOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# W5 ^6 W1 Z0 W1 T9 r0 e; z2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “. M& k) d, g5 J7 l) r1 w
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous$ O) o2 `$ @; {" v7 o* _- A
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! i, @, B) d2 @% C7 N Eimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
/ i( I- k; N% ]0 A& Jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
! n: \, _ D) U5 T6 {be treated as 7 s.2 F( O3 I* k2 `# Q) F
5 j" X* ~7 r( L, eSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
7 |- F$ k P( |; _5 `2 Wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ \2 i7 R* q' ?& L, {* V; `
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.8 f% p3 n6 S: U e, j! y# F
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400' \- E; y* h5 N! s( d
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! O3 S# e' g" l3 S
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
7 e7 e" `9 f5 L: U- T- relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and$ j: H8 Q* L$ J& i0 i
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: F* |/ |) |$ n+ Q0 n( }% K0 \( ~7 B: {based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.& f& F& [! [! W ?! X
' `3 O L* W; _) X; t
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
9 t" Q: y, }8 V$ U8 w6 O1 _* fexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 ~) O/ ` u8 P5 y0 J+ |, \0 a" W
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 H8 s7 V0 O' she chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( ]& B7 i& P7 ~0 R3 \9 S* r
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: M" |5 q5 N' ^/ ~3 G3 @best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ ]+ v8 E- w4 t1 L/ i; \; T# sFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- ?5 C9 }9 w, v$ ?, U/ H/ z. ~5 e
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! m- x w" a4 G$ {hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
. W4 x5 B: C; ^ T, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
* a& |* C' {& Q& n, hstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 s: j: J% v9 \faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam5 p- |& D m0 k$ x# v
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 i# G1 n! B8 p/ f1 ]
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- N. i& i, l, n' t6 C8 ?, z
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! h# t2 J' j( Z/ C) I( t3 E3 X" ^/ {
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
+ h2 L+ u9 _8 ^four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93 z+ d @; q5 |! c
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. ]! k9 Z+ G' [$ x
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 k& O6 Z' ~4 j
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
0 a H- l. }1 [( {% z, A: i jLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
( }' j; j4 ?5 G( E: Yof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
& j5 s) G1 u' Nlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& `, N- `2 |' K1 }: o) ^- S! W
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! V/ A! R0 F& o; Uworks.) x! d& q' U! |2 V3 m& \: a$ u" ]. }
) F) L3 Q; d8 ?$ D5 ]7 ^Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) U( ]- A5 @- w) Y0 ~; A
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
4 S! H! A5 O/ B( A+ Mkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% c3 f- z* W4 Z4 ostandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific1 y. z1 d7 q) f
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
% t3 }& ]+ B9 n7 y j0 Ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
( ^5 w( v) U' ?2 p+ Ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to4 B5 R3 b1 _" F8 O" m. c6 X8 M1 l, O" Y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works K9 Z2 t; z2 _6 x$ A
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
% z) i5 K5 U9 ^' e' F" [5 }is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is$ P( s2 h8 L# t$ G
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
# v$ A- J+ }( D) twrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% R. N i( d* c3 Z! q, ]advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the9 `; _. F( y2 E+ `& M: w; N
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 m" C5 W# A; g
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation% k+ v+ g7 y% ?: U5 t1 j5 f
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, {0 p/ d$ ~$ H
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 J, r* {1 D' h9 }2 G1 Kbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 {! k3 F ?/ |, D" S8 g9 P$ Lhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
; J' \( v/ f& p! j& Z9 L( [+ nhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a' P7 {( ^4 A- S7 i
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
{* ~* `8 z3 z3 h% ~other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' W9 }5 y9 f6 |, q
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" o! H+ p) Z" r' o* k" mprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 d) R4 v* V; mathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight0 C% k. A$ B9 A6 b- B1 j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 s0 t' O U9 `4 w2 b0 c8 F2 s
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping- F& o/ F2 {- |
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 d5 ~3 d9 `2 E
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances. {2 Y5 [) L/ k# ? a
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 z% h4 Y9 _* \; w) X% s# S
3 n8 k6 D9 z; n: f5 g, [Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
& \; q: _# N* D& ]" j3 tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention( |) D+ J+ w- L( N$ j0 G
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 m3 a$ U) s8 m( k6 ~. LOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: T9 X6 r+ g4 c4 H% W m6 WOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
: C( {$ f) P3 M; H$ w$ r/ hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, [# K* S( [3 m& Y( ^6 Dgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
- _5 K2 [9 l. f" Whave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& w3 `. m K5 c0 ]* _* ^4 I
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this/ d0 I2 R0 M2 e4 h, o+ v
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 B5 M3 [8 V1 G) t( G
6 c1 m* @' c8 \1 O' y; o7 m% S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ |0 ~) T+ a; Z1 k+ q
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 |# A5 B* L+ B
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ r9 V( J) O* z: Lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* Z3 l9 v: }. d) R K$ c2 {
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 y% P; [) w* \8 j! q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,& W& V3 j* x; o( H% I0 ~, M7 I9 B: h
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your9 }5 y& ]) q4 a5 x2 z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 u1 y) b1 }0 N
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' E3 x& n+ m+ I( w* V
reporting should be done. |
|