 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
6 j5 E$ \3 M$ y+ `% r- K% V X1 [如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
% T8 }- _# E$ N4 T/ i. b# W [& {( V
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html4 d$ W q+ `/ |7 A/ ~' n/ n5 D/ v
7 C, Q* }/ O) V3 }
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ y- B" w" b. U0 F- u- J# d" F' a; a* L9 {2 |
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself1 {* F9 Y( m% ?- f, u8 s
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# v' f; N4 x" E
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this- a9 k; V% e4 |0 s& }1 ~
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ m5 D, D; r1 [' J. e' l$ L/ tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( V3 J. Z* x8 p
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. h/ D4 {% G+ |: |9 G' S# V2 {0 v
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 n" @9 g/ r2 c4 Y$ H7 [. Bwhich they blatantly failed to do.& _$ y1 g3 Q% B
' h: x0 a5 I: `6 u: WFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
?0 \; G( s* J" X( lOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 ^. }* B1 d9 a- u2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ z- c1 m2 W5 Q7 Lanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
/ V. l; z* l6 x; j& B, W# }personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: g) l2 z" ~% B+ t- a; eimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
, i4 v4 Y! c6 fdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' o% F" T. ?, p
be treated as 7 s.# [/ F9 L$ f3 @' W9 Q3 {
2 N! K1 ^1 W8 |# d8 _. \9 cSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) q' T: H; t" p6 R6 X3 B' n
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
! Q4 ^1 W7 M% H7 h; o9 S9 ^impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
6 l5 F' V& G k4 u" ]' hAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
6 j* u" ^/ B( o+ {& [8 ]-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ l, T7 P2 R/ ?# n/ r; c
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( n/ F: A; Z9 h* r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ I+ U( r7 G1 Q0 ]1 @6 {persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; s' ~( K% L9 v" o3 M& U
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
! }. n3 L& ?; e6 |6 \# \- G
! R+ |& o# Y1 C* p. O( kThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook# u I) j3 p, g1 D9 w3 Y$ b
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 G- p$ e) X; wthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so2 u$ k% |1 z% g2 u1 B' S5 _
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. B1 f* C: N( @( Hevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s, C# Q1 {, y- B& l, C' s" j
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ N. T% v% y3 p) k4 N
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' o4 i+ a1 d& }7 Ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# r! T6 g$ t1 D! H% t8 q1 T8 `% fhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle& h: h3 ?4 |5 ]8 R+ x8 C/ r
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! i- A2 I D5 @# [+ ^! v( h& Cstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) C3 f* m# Z+ f- L, p1 yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- G7 L0 w; ?% D+ g: M
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. C; E. U2 I) T: zaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; y* P( [8 j' {2 o' n, \( {' qimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 }; ]* p! P! T" ^- ^5 G! S
7 B* `0 o% e( Z' s% [Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ M U4 S0 ?9 N/ |0 ^2 n1 h+ Wfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% F3 O/ e+ s& v
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
( b; ^, m8 T1 c# y! q# e), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
* f# h' h$ V6 p9 uout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: ?7 |3 ]: b6 _5 P6 O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
0 q; D# v4 T- [8 S" _, Eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it& ^! x& @& ~& Q* g' R6 Y
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in4 } V8 t& F1 i* u- U" E
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! B! H* j2 P6 v( X# M
works.
5 K3 U: j _ ~8 W6 K& r! B
: l+ d# w( s+ DFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- h \- _7 v3 D. d% F
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" T/ c! n1 k3 N
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. p/ ]5 h2 X/ E1 I$ E, S; X, _; c- F
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
0 g) B. ~, U3 @" Qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 Z8 `% T! F3 `; r* t' xreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
& K l e l+ r% M$ l7 B6 Vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% l' Q/ Y! y1 h# T0 a1 Zdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
1 w1 O, ?' M$ x5 {! e) Nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: `/ x8 i/ m% v- ?
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is6 o3 Y5 `. h, M
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ e+ H8 N% h# I( U! I# j( X: jwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ P" W, h3 T, X, vadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
% g5 D$ b/ h# e J/ ^past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 A$ c( u3 L* o- [" I5 D
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 Q% S! P7 Z; z" `. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are' F) t7 m7 {# U0 n/ E0 |
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) G5 Z' Q$ f8 B7 X& g
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a* S5 t1 Y9 T$ J' r
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye) ?2 G: `) A8 _7 z. G& p
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 p* t$ _- i2 ]) C9 F- b* i+ Idrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:0 }" ]5 I4 B& W0 e- k( L
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 f% H7 _7 W' y5 l3 a- H
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
/ k+ ]3 m, X+ C7 R9 Yprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 u$ ]4 n2 u1 y$ R6 l$ Q7 Y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
p8 p* M/ F1 tchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
8 o) ?, \9 |" D$ G( k* a9 v6 Z# J) gLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping Q6 P9 @0 x- t: f8 D& S: x
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* W, E4 m# c7 o) X1 Z/ H$ X
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.6 r- |- P$ X9 X6 D3 C2 L
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
`' O2 F+ k a- }1 r8 @8 a* e* L; S% b- b' `" T
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-0 D0 T% G$ i- E' T
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& W* N8 B' @) |. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( M' p9 F- Q1 ]" gOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
( `6 Z% g w0 c4 ?. t; n9 ROlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
: u$ I# k3 [% ^: q: B5 ndoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic* w6 v3 j. N; v1 w5 g# ~6 m
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope, {' W/ A9 ?% D0 M
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% H) N( M$ s6 V% \9 _
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# v7 v% M' J& O- Y. ]
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 q7 c+ H* C. A+ y- S Z5 U
! I& U! c/ x; Q$ H# k
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' ~( \5 Z1 @$ _% C* ^0 a# Wintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
3 D/ L; y" S4 {0 i- Ksuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 i8 u4 M# i1 m+ U
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
) W7 a% e5 \1 E( [0 _all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( G- E6 ~% w: T5 Xinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# e- G$ d% G7 z: g' p/ n' x. P8 D
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. ^ j0 L/ `! K5 E9 R$ S. [
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 E# V" ~. d) ]7 q9 qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
7 H9 V2 n0 U: Creporting should be done. |
|