 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( o$ }1 `7 p+ J/ \8 G! s) a
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。9 T. F9 S; m( R5 I5 y, H
- Q& |! q4 L6 S0 d3 B
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ @) }* k8 M$ {0 p
: h, ?3 L$ m% {2 yFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 k* X0 {# X# y" A9 P! Z0 }9 w' v
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% u, s, J! q& v1 K% j, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
+ d: N" h) [9 a) j+ {+ emagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this y* n# U/ R5 T4 L9 ]6 M
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
9 r6 @1 L+ k2 E5 bscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
% [1 w4 }8 \, F" r5 apopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors9 C- S+ t7 A2 t# i* c; e5 P* N
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
$ n) O! p1 T! u+ x2 ^ @) @which they blatantly failed to do.+ Y% u9 V* x% P' D& R( s" ` r# u
* O9 k8 Z1 n: J. V1 }0 jFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& o; c5 W( Z& K& Z nOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" a* F5 g: S" E& G# W
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
1 i1 A, L D4 ~/ Y7 o0 N; sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) @+ |. Y4 A epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an4 ]: y& {: A% p: C/ S7 D
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the! {( y5 T- T8 J4 T+ u
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ w9 W( |! }: V3 S N6 F
be treated as 7 s.
" T( K; F, _" }- o& L: B9 K9 s! t3 q& z2 X
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is/ O) i% I( @: G0 Q# I/ a$ Q: I4 E- ]
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
- O0 R6 J) R6 q4 S# Z: vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. u- a& m& F2 a, H; D- q. j
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, f# A$ ]1 P7 S) Q
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.$ m. A% _' l! [; c
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# Z. W, }" q; J" g' Z! ~* q& L% ]6 Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 L( ^ X1 i3 u z2 y
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 ?4 m8 g# @7 ?( fbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
/ r# a2 d; d- Q4 o3 f4 F8 ^) s9 W: n; j
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook) z8 }5 V9 q" J: M" O( ~# U! ?" R
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in. `1 E1 F3 c/ z c% }
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
! w! F: ^3 Z! d7 G+ Rhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later! z3 ^4 F) w; X" j; T5 o
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& V0 W0 C1 ]) }best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) S: \3 M$ q1 }: \* m
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- [8 n5 }2 j$ o1 ]/ g7 O5 T
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 G5 b G! c* R0 M; b( c$ Jhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
/ s8 m* }* K% X9 l$ i, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this7 y: G1 H' h! `# j6 O+ e
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds" }; |# ?* ^) |2 z9 ~/ t
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam; A% y% g) C$ Q( Y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; K" m( t. k) i6 paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' {4 {" ?4 g* @/ O4 J
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.- {+ l* K1 J: P5 w# v( V: c. M
8 F# a+ V2 {5 W3 F1 F! U5 T0 lFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are# y: Z* D6 x; J h9 T. k; k
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.934 x/ e- V4 N0 g' V
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 T4 h" P1 l% M6 [), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
! }$ |4 V8 `, o( k9 B& ^* \) Y) xout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 c0 s% Q# W3 B3 x' u+ V
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 c) A. V2 o8 T& V" w$ M
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ n# @+ E, D7 ~- k E! i% U9 v
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" N$ M1 |3 ^- @1 r6 W
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" Z8 }8 L, d+ l$ ]$ c
works.
8 k6 \- ?9 T0 a* ]2 c# e- S0 j- ]8 Q) \. r
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
- V0 l1 h6 _8 p! l/ @implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' \( W. [" J$ B
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that( ?! N7 Z3 A, a0 r! E
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
5 N# `9 a. A( u- A* `% y1 vpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 p+ M7 g1 W# o1 ?' {0 `
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, O. l1 a3 m4 L t4 o
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to4 J, {7 u3 u: V2 j- L/ U' v: q
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
0 {: x) Y1 n( [2 gto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) K6 G* Q3 e! y) o- w- `2 I
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 c2 H. |/ }; d g0 f' N! ?crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, B* x; g: Z- r4 D+ m2 ?$ \7 J& H2 ewrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
& X4 u$ ? E" n9 r4 b& fadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
' u" } g+ B! I6 a# ~- C8 I& \past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( _( ]& \& Z8 H; k3 |" \. Ruse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation& W5 A( n) c- Y- X5 l; v3 ~
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are6 p, s4 K0 U# E3 x
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may! A6 R/ c- J1 T, C/ J5 m
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ h8 W8 j, [& G2 @& S" M" Yhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye2 W. Y6 e+ c: ^% w/ g* z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
! `2 V F$ d1 Q1 j9 Cdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:9 f* e, t# H7 c: i0 [) {, l0 J i
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 j, l2 }1 z1 f" D, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
: e+ E8 c2 z% N: jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- A7 d8 m, ?9 n& R/ H# K2 X# Xathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( v+ [( a! \* Ochance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?% j2 Q, K: X/ c
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping- s a, w& [" Q$ f# V
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for2 Z8 n) f* m2 Q3 O+ s
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.1 [& z w# a7 j3 r R
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. B2 H9 B7 d7 I2 V" V* @' a6 H1 @
% ~/ K! M" A4 z7 m# K/ pSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of- ^/ _0 h! j" b- G
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; X7 Q1 H6 B% t1 j* m! o
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 \7 o& @* u7 j; t/ w! C j" NOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London! x& W2 c% W8 \- m* w5 O9 k- D
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
G6 z B5 r _0 A6 j1 ~! U! [doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ a$ _" {" K2 R1 i; `3 `& q/ [games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope, [7 Q# K2 a: Q5 t* [& K
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 _" \( k' p* N0 O5 b8 \6 Q' Mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this+ Y) N+ P& I6 ^: m. }4 b
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 l, o3 c G* v, [6 t" s
/ b' n B/ o5 R7 b$ u
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' [* S6 _* J( M! {intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too- I; z( ]- o9 l7 Z$ o7 Y
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a1 l8 p8 a% X* ]( G- ~' Y
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
, H+ E [, ] v' t3 _all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- i, W5 \6 G+ Q% `
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# o' }. k4 Q+ _, w6 J: o) F
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- n" S) G' N4 j! E7 X/ P
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal3 q2 ]' Z' n4 ?/ K- ^% c H+ t8 z: D, y& L
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
, Z, q9 x& s! ^. |reporting should be done. |
|