 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
! D. c4 |% Q1 G2 g. x5 i如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ ]; [: B% M" c0 X5 {4 ~, G* v, J
# ] C7 a, \4 A+ F; Ohttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html6 U0 h9 D: q+ R2 Q* e) O
5 H3 `1 } W& x, L# B/ a
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania/ o; S( P1 Q1 C F O% x- R+ Z
0 U8 ^! r# A+ h5 H: Q1 V" a8 hIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 j L; U3 i) x" ]
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
$ {4 m& a" J' A+ L6 ]% P+ }magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, _) R3 O; x$ y) [6 \9 y8 p
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the& i. [) Q7 q4 l/ {8 B
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general' y& W3 f7 P3 I, X" t" U
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
j, G2 |0 v3 v2 b' bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
: b" f# Z6 o) swhich they blatantly failed to do.! L3 ~( H4 X2 b* |/ ~3 l
. C( u6 y3 ]) W8 ^: \
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% J5 x: X- G, ~; d$ t3 ZOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& l' u+ }9 Z! x: M
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
C+ J" G% a- d6 xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
# k3 A" O3 x! b0 D- Q: Epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an% z3 a" B6 ~# p* O$ a: C
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: S2 j/ _# x; Y) [
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
7 U/ e2 ?" m5 k2 k9 y$ C5 N5 ~+ mbe treated as 7 s.* f! z+ N5 O1 y/ U
# f, [5 O+ J1 j: B3 L7 N/ S4 Z2 X
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is! c/ W4 u" |4 w& B
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ X6 L0 ^8 d9 E* F8 S
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.! ] a# n0 G5 N1 R+ i" k3 i- p
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* W+ G( y5 v7 ^+ k, W+ R8 ]
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 t4 \- L, y- ]" _( YFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an1 P4 E' L6 W& h. \8 C
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and E" J2 i6 n' }: O7 X' F( J7 v
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
7 a3 B3 S8 g4 B i" A9 a( L# l0 Mbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ y2 E4 A$ Z- b* ` E: y+ a1 K
0 s0 s* x. W0 ]# ?7 c6 ]5 C7 lThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook& ^4 T. G8 I$ i( S: O1 k( N0 D8 @
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 J# P+ v/ _. T, V {# u2 Y2 ]% [the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 {4 U& N7 c1 B8 m0 d; _* q7 Xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
3 b/ n9 ~5 i2 \, R* Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s, x% G+ o. _# P& _* o, X( z7 |7 U
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 D6 X9 g( I2 Q9 C8 N1 ZFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
4 N. i0 Q) E' N4 K3 itopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ M, |7 `6 ^) e- U1 u7 n) _
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
6 F: s2 z! d7 \4 w) t* {, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ b* t$ P: Z) M' _2 h. b$ P2 hstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds( A& n9 V& U) V3 Z/ b0 w# [
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" }- w" y* V: K$ Sfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting3 a( Y: ^* s! ?7 K! I7 T
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
5 y' f' y- d+ O1 Z3 s+ K, c# M' eimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.4 e" h$ E. _/ D8 V$ t( g& \- V! a
8 V: j0 ~# f7 ~, {1 e& f5 W5 F' xFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 m0 V; f; \: U2 ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* Q' R2 C0 [2 g/ m+ p) |' c. \
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s3 W* B7 V$ x+ d5 W4 g" E
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns, X- ]$ u4 u! {
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* S6 T. Z$ e0 r, {/ V+ TLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; n: e( ?- B' K6 x: Kof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% W( g9 Z* G: I4 v7 n; V% Hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) O5 K' j7 y! y. [% {7 hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
. I4 B" Y, @* F! Wworks.
1 L; ~7 ~& @! t6 X! o/ x, m' k8 X) O6 |, {1 D. p) `+ v) I9 O) G
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and4 }/ A# [6 W6 g! z- U" \
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" @" M, g9 ?* c- I( v
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that- k7 k8 c# i4 E6 n* @
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 i7 L" \- H1 m9 j6 Q+ }1 Lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! i+ `# [! [/ b$ x6 O: n* ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 U7 B0 Q1 ^4 M% J) @cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; ^/ b8 o! @) D! w" X/ S: Wdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: K3 `5 `/ J) @$ b1 n9 ]
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" D3 z# n# k- s$ {1 i- b8 l& v
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; w/ G7 N. f, ]) v4 B* w: ~! Lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 K+ M/ U4 B) G% V- w- p0 E8 @; x; S) F8 Vwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly8 I2 v7 b1 u9 _; E! h
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
2 _ }1 N4 n. `5 Y! Z, Npast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 x5 F r8 J& V4 \/ r
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: b/ u; z* y5 h3 v3 u, w4 z
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 d' I6 p' g9 \
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ b6 t. _8 m3 I5 O9 d, abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
R6 o7 T' u! B6 q' |' ^hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% o+ x# H/ F' Mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# g$ ]! w* a3 u) q) J, U( l8 H. t& m3 N
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
0 H. {, I, z5 p8 |% f& ^; c* [other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: W+ }: w1 F+ j0 ]0 Q
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is5 l3 N% M$ k5 Y
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an" j& L ?) x1 \- }) B# Z$ _
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- S* Y, M% W4 i
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. ^9 Q: ]: G3 c- j# i) ?" ?) hLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping6 {& [$ L8 b0 F: s! J I9 }
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for' i) A, @! c2 u( \/ [
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, e x# _& ^; L2 `% F6 o% RInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?3 y% o- w8 p$ C3 h6 V4 X4 w- K
: v6 m Q" N) P' v# H' K( M/ j7 D
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* a V8 P+ c: p
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention% T, T0 B4 x6 J7 |/ `% b2 |
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# v( O4 o# j8 W1 z/ b! {
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& F2 T) o: s: t2 JOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for9 M8 v' ~: ~7 c# x' n# `% _' d+ c/ ^
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic9 \8 p* F3 |1 j& [
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope! f K: r" L4 t& c( m
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) [# w3 i9 G5 F' [player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this/ l6 P$ Z- a' \
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
% y- h% b9 ~( N8 [
, L* O- g: F- `- y8 J' e1 UOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 U! l: F$ e/ s, U
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: U( Z6 O' ^* M+ `: E2 m
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 b; }) z- v2 t$ i, f; ~9 a
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" t& y" f% S, B/ s. I* J2 A- Eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& q2 [( Y( G9 B0 T# Winterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,( I& W& F9 B6 k/ U9 N4 h& s
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your# y! Z4 M5 l) N; d, Z. C O
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal# X$ x0 y8 `0 [ e) A# R- s
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ \' u( r6 G w' \9 e4 Oreporting should be done. |
|