 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 M% y' n0 q, F5 w* r# q3 z3 b如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
& @6 F4 c9 @/ F7 `! s/ W0 v4 N8 F
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- F* n5 x) U& z1 j4 ? M1 C
+ w! ] `, _% V
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' m2 G* C% _' d5 N8 O8 Z* s- D
4 o. J9 c1 p6 v4 w9 yIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself' L: Y0 ~, W! v* _! h+ T, ~6 l
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. s- t0 a8 g0 U( L+ F+ w9 smagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# [! r- n9 N+ V9 {5 his not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the6 N( z5 F: Q+ W' m I$ f; m* g3 q E
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ K0 T: a e$ [' z& @, @5 _7 r1 [7 ?
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
. q; R, P- _3 i9 w$ U% p7 W; \should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
6 A. T+ i" r& K6 R! I4 jwhich they blatantly failed to do.; @0 X, b7 L2 b
) Q! b6 M) ~- X) E0 t' r- q5 z
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her% n- m9 }' C0 {& D( E3 k
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in. y( [$ ]5 ?6 n% v) i; x" [2 S2 M
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 G8 G' N2 q$ q' P5 H' G aanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous7 H6 p- Q# w) o# ^: I
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an3 [* Z" ^6 L+ h+ k w" v! ?/ s
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the; O I- i- W; ]- O' S, ^; Q* a" r
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to i5 a. O2 B/ O; [; Q" A
be treated as 7 s.0 w. C3 b( G" M, g; q, I
- w p6 {# {3 T2 n' r( t6 }8 ^1 Q
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- v% w: e) d/ C
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
- B' T, l( M2 Y8 oimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters. \) t/ Y( M9 \2 E8 P
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4008 U3 N, n5 i* a+ Y" u- H2 u2 y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.0 q& `; h& d; O% p2 ~; }2 ~- U; [' A Y
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an8 |* J4 Y& W+ e) g) @0 W
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and, O; `# K! O% U4 Z# d" d; ~$ b- d
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# |, c$ G- g( E! K( dbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.) v$ A7 f7 R+ | [1 T( ~' e
8 V) Q4 D5 `8 z- v% I4 \
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& b" T }- U4 v0 Kexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ o- z. L7 \; F/ `) s& a/ @
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
% H: L H$ e# ]4 m' Jhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
9 U& `/ A# E7 m0 a1 V5 V2 ], b3 Devents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
O U1 s+ F, k; f5 r$ rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ ^# L, |7 p! T; m( I7 kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( C- ?! S/ j, d d8 c( @7 T1 `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other c2 M+ u ^( ?4 [$ g$ E' N
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 G( d5 e3 J1 z# R5 d& c5 l" n e( _
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
5 M8 v/ R/ ~6 d( l6 istrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
; j! Y3 _( L) S, K( @faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% d! ]! \% r0 b. L6 |0 P9 d
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, S- W5 h6 @% A4 oaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
5 p- B+ l, M8 T1 zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.4 ^4 |* \9 }# \9 k
( r4 p4 B) o& }Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are5 Z$ `% c8 r2 Z' Y
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
+ M$ `& M% d' ^ J9 }$ | U7 ys) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& ]9 H6 [$ v9 H$ x
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
1 t. X3 }4 ~* i) b; r% Q2 ]7 K+ Vout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& y! P$ E7 l9 G. @) TLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& b& l9 `' A/ Y% Cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 R7 G; E j) Klogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
' z; }, u4 N- j" c4 e" A) Xevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: |6 `4 v/ `( f; c+ a3 t8 kworks.
2 m# c5 M8 G" m5 d
# p7 B$ v7 k" FFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 S7 D/ h/ k+ g+ k( y( D
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this) v/ }9 y, i) @9 L
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
& k& B( G% i$ g6 O$ N4 ?5 zstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
* O, A+ }4 O3 H& i+ Spapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 B7 \" Q ]7 n0 K, f+ H' z( ureviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One9 T/ V' Y* m: }9 H# C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 O% V$ M9 n6 D( |8 u0 `6 G
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
9 o( x9 r$ `; H3 {4 q2 w; z2 _+ Jto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample+ \. Z4 n- k, O0 w' b
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, ~. P) Y3 I0 r/ R* g% Hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ J; o: [, d: v0 N; k( k: V
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: i8 N/ w4 H2 C5 h( P Q/ }6 w5 g
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the, z0 j* ? ]+ w% a* @" J3 I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% d- p% A% e7 u0 W
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation6 H9 Z* n9 y6 @! e! I( {
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are" q2 ?4 }$ O( C. p5 g3 J0 l
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may( f( |# a/ C1 d, F# f
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a8 T/ ]' q& s; R1 z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye h" {, H7 n& B: y
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 C7 C( _: o+ s0 g8 [' L+ s& n: H1 q+ `drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:$ o7 K8 F1 t# ^. |
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# j7 r8 m9 t! r o1 _! _, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! _: C, }0 A, b4 O8 qprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ s6 }; |5 v, u: O7 Q7 E- mathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight& l1 J: ?( O, H" D
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 D, b3 Q" \8 F
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 G) \) Y# X' S6 g N2 Z& pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for$ i k+ _) V1 w, Q+ i
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.; C( v( _2 W0 B, F* h
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
9 [; i+ W2 ?' _8 c4 d# p( u' G
7 U/ H# o% S$ ]* ~ l3 `5 iSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. e& n$ `' B1 U8 c2 F
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
( l* X3 B7 u8 g/ S" t. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for- d, s) F+ F! u$ Y1 R% P
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 l7 F2 ?7 m0 B; H! J! t6 ^ c
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
* _9 t! v8 C2 W9 f: D' F9 ldoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 G7 g7 y9 ~' r" ^- H& U- _" tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
3 D) a: j. Y! g* j" {1 d4 khave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a! g. a3 z2 n! E" k( J; \
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
$ M; N1 ?$ r7 U$ @4 ]. fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.8 U$ p6 G( M4 W8 s
$ Y- X2 Y( m: g! x5 D# B
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
) v8 m$ j3 D; L- t- H0 S( |; bintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too5 U- {; W$ v2 `9 N; J* y
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a5 z/ [4 | o' V y+ W
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
) z4 v5 D3 Z5 _1 v, _. [$ Vall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your2 j7 f% y5 {* \7 z/ s$ [- v( {! q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
, ~( `9 L* y, Xexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& e3 r; y" A% @
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal; l9 P! L1 ]+ `
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
* X0 K b: X4 Greporting should be done. |
|