 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* [8 j4 E" y! Q5 q- f5 i
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# t" }1 J- {$ U( _
! g" h, r, Y+ W5 I9 ~, _ ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# }8 o6 g6 r1 N2 Q9 `5 A
3 M, R, t0 F6 W1 e: eFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, f6 v; R5 ]/ i# N/ m/ `8 F/ h' i
; U2 s- r" i% {& k, O) h
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself6 P/ A$ M( d2 }$ e. o* r( W9 n; ?5 q
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ z9 f8 Z' H3 t" m+ w7 E* p
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, H" ^: v3 ~+ Fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' d5 J2 X; o; n7 ]scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
0 A+ Z# D8 f k% c; E* epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
& X; p8 M: }9 t4 M+ C# }3 y$ rshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' M* v" I0 n! i; Q# J" i: i. O
which they blatantly failed to do.
6 I0 g, u4 [" N6 c v3 \
$ Q1 R1 d2 E+ m4 s! `5 HFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her5 [+ k+ W% W8 D: _/ g6 Y2 ]) h
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in* ~9 n7 Y7 S$ R0 ^) W
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* w) S8 j8 q+ F, H
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
0 u8 X: @- ~' ~# L6 R, K& q8 fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
& ?. ]8 z3 B b2 K, n! Mimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the9 E# K1 W. S2 G' I- P8 B1 `
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' }" k. \# }& t4 U d, @, W
be treated as 7 s.8 \1 Q, S4 D; o* o$ }) t
# Z8 i# K x! X8 m" j2 L/ j7 h+ c; ^
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
* s4 r7 z# j- C4 }2 _1 Mstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem. b( O6 i$ R' C8 d& K/ O: n- ?6 S1 w
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ p) C1 J' p9 cAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, C5 R) J8 n* F
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
! x4 {- t& e* \: H# M' BFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
" y; V+ y6 Y( i9 Z+ Welite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
, {4 n, ^7 z$ i* E9 Hpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, W# {6 a( ?( Vbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
) Z6 [& s" l3 V5 H8 f
% l+ n2 h4 g, n E+ F) TThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
, s/ q9 k8 z4 C$ o( }example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in6 Y% h% b2 g( L: A$ D
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& J) M- F$ x+ V& u- the chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later5 W/ x5 L. o9 a. i4 W0 Z2 H
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% z6 w/ S5 H$ u1 l% u0 ^best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World3 F) d$ R( h# G, X" y0 {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another8 g9 I0 w+ e# `2 [9 ]( U
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 d" m/ U" O+ y: D
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle B6 S; m; A( b
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! a" ~% c& e Q- tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
# U- k |5 N- r: K# k3 Ufaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 p# ?6 t7 ] R: h/ e5 Xfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting; ]7 P) ?6 C, ?4 B: l# O# `# h; _
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 K Y0 z9 I* ]( F
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." ~* F4 V2 ^" |$ p7 {! u& z2 k
$ d8 x: }* f( ~) U, f* KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
0 x& ]" E2 _) I. F$ X1 Dfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93# X& J# n( O8 \- r6 r5 V0 r
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s# J" f1 `/ F/ H. }- M: ^ F
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns: W+ V7 C! L2 n7 B
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 K2 \! D0 }$ y$ ?/ b! o
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind' c# b" i# m* Q2 W3 T& Q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
& U3 r! ~6 {8 S, C* @" ~7 V6 Ylogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
$ c& i2 A8 v+ p$ c( C7 |# zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, u# M' ?7 D% N
works.
+ t( q# e9 R+ }* R1 s* F- I- D' D9 `' C
- t& `! P& O) Q- M' CFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
4 ]' t+ s% D& u; {% }; u: y% ?$ @implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
J/ F/ p/ _" W7 I) D: h$ |kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 z* L8 Y) c" F6 H0 x- {" fstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ [1 t# v9 ? c2 S( y+ cpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ j6 L2 m: V8 c9 d a
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 P: \9 n7 e7 S3 {# }cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to3 a- i# _3 _8 i. L2 P1 w# h
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. B% r4 Q( a: ^8 }" m: ~2 Eto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample6 K' f" q( _: N# _
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 L* O8 m% Y8 j" L( W( `$ dcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 {$ j# w; j1 ?" \( rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
( Y Z1 w9 g+ u$ {3 L7 |, {- T. N" Yadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, g2 R3 T/ s, ?; N# Z! upast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 v' M7 z. }1 h+ u9 L4 d& J
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation0 j4 z( T6 C8 }' J2 d6 ^. R
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
; c* ]$ j: ^ udoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) W4 ~1 A" }& ~4 s, F: ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a7 D. A7 B- e5 x. f* }0 B
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye9 Z. Z3 k# \' J9 t( P% T
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& _. r# p) I, ~ b
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; i& R8 y# {6 Q9 E+ j/ B: m+ ]8 F
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- p/ h( z* a! G, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is* G" m2 b2 B# W( v; x( G# _3 h
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( A0 n# _' H& z: yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( ]8 H" [1 c* j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
9 F1 I* _# W# @2 v% {Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
6 `) w, g& }; xagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 I5 W" y& ]5 `" k
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
9 Y2 L( k6 S9 ^8 x$ l( EInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
8 c& a0 j7 H& z4 b# Q) c+ U8 C0 p8 a6 t4 N1 _3 t) ?% n
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 a4 d, s S$ `: v3 c3 u1 Tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention- q6 R4 p. C( B1 t% y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# S9 T* O4 l1 Q* L0 f* I
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& j- }' b) a e' b4 mOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 r2 l- i! L" |$ d; q2 m2 Idoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 P# L( W. n4 x6 z7 E5 k% N% ngames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope4 W9 t" K& w& c5 _0 @) ~) s) [& z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a; x, C5 w! g' u: T* B9 Q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 K9 Q9 v. R4 c5 B8 E1 i8 kpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
6 h( ?# k" r b0 t. K3 }. Y# S% `
( ]* F+ m2 z' [6 B8 w4 JOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
% O+ N; h0 D D mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too5 S/ d# \- d3 D5 C: X% S7 J; o
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; z! h% k) C' l k
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
! T% L3 b% q$ z4 ]# Pall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: a8 ^6 m, T' T, t% o1 Finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. k1 [; a2 u' c; u
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 }6 J5 k# `: L2 ]2 s. |
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 G6 y" k: D& w* K, {- c8 \such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
( P4 I; y: l9 r+ F# Q7 ^$ [- Y. freporting should be done. |
|