 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
9 B4 H$ |1 c( [- G- b4 m如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 [ |- o/ n8 E4 o
4 R$ S7 w9 e' n4 q0 }& Y) phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html+ B/ W* I- I8 ^0 n2 p
+ L3 l/ C9 @) C0 d2 Z7 T( l7 _3 e& e
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& B3 X, @( N1 h' @* M8 Y# j2 d- Y9 o6 ^6 m& j" |5 V
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. Q% }. k- P! C
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
2 \, M: X$ c0 B z& b# E# |+ Bmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ `; `0 g5 ], {( |& r* w9 u6 e
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
, v2 M' t% k7 m# q* B2 ]% K, x6 lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ u/ K* j1 b4 X2 e$ p9 u7 A1 G A: r2 V/ Tpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors, V5 F) p' T. E z- P9 J& Q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, F; n+ g2 {# x/ _7 m, O: m! Xwhich they blatantly failed to do.. _7 O# [1 N& f/ `9 Z
" `# V+ p8 X9 }: e
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her' B) n6 V" i* U
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 ^" y+ b1 w: e. x
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 g2 i* B5 Y+ p9 T6 V
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 e' J' n: G; rpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ r, P9 {! V6 L4 g s1 ]improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& Q& p8 x( E& W$ {0 i
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 Y; D; s- j; X7 {
be treated as 7 s.0 |* X/ @+ n# Z: [7 w; \# {
7 Q% `: Q: P9 b/ i
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ N! b: E, K$ b1 n4 Z# Jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
7 ^& c0 J5 V5 t. B8 Cimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.+ q1 p' o3 U3 L; n1 b7 x# V8 f
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* V" D( |, ?7 e" k* z1 t
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
6 z/ z- N+ X" C7 [For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an$ p. `& ^5 O; a, r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 u, V6 \! @) \2 y" hpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
/ Q2 w5 B2 e: }+ q! qbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
1 C$ L3 `+ f) R; p* a% K, z* U! k$ r8 d$ n& j. y$ D1 ?
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& ?0 d A" V* w' [* G9 Gexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ G. s% j E) P
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so8 P4 W/ l: K/ k) Z! k$ @8 J
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 x; Z! ]! D6 b$ d) i/ F
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s4 T3 p: i. L5 I \& \8 ?4 _
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
% c8 F+ `* I) h+ h- F- _Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another# E, N* n! z4 p; M& V
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 m; J- n* ]9 b7 v) C+ y2 e
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
+ X$ k) K* W6 @! O7 L+ L: Z/ X5 Q5 z" [) H, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
9 C2 x! @$ K: W: S7 w# }1 m, astrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
+ p I6 o" W# q) M% h' e5 Mfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam1 ], x: S$ a% f0 a. b3 D
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
1 R5 \% ]1 R# e, ~/ t/ S( kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that n1 |1 T) N4 S" U. W
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! o+ W; ^) e* Y: M; m- q
( h( z3 L, P6 M. g3 b- i0 Z/ k# YFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ u0 N( J' X8 v: H, q$ ^4 ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93- k& O$ `0 I1 G
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
1 f9 v' I' V. V( \2 s9 n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns. d: a' b7 D2 t& j0 G% l z
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. S$ w }. ~4 h
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
! I$ p4 J+ U: i/ K% Pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it8 m. j k/ @4 {) l' x8 W( j
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
0 k, Z. P4 i3 ]every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science: G1 B$ z+ |. G& }' w* @6 }" ~+ U
works.5 H" w8 O- _% ]; E% n: A& i! @
, K) [- c, |; q9 ~; E5 Z/ Q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and3 |& {3 Q2 N/ d6 N" z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this; T1 }( ]+ F1 |+ t" | @6 h$ ^
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 _9 p9 e$ |# U# O7 Y( _: b5 |
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
, h" [! ]0 n3 z' d/ t& Z9 V8 {3 Dpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! q, j6 u& ?. Y! n+ H8 U {reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
+ U* i8 C' z5 b$ J* V. P; Pcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' G4 [8 Q- }: U; K! wdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works0 Z2 F% d3 y( G7 T( n. E
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample. X! A, f" W0 m( u( F
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
' n. D) V: x! ^2 i3 n4 A, w Xcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
) U& v+ T8 O! t8 V6 |* R( swrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 u% p+ J; G, Dadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) j v T2 B- r4 ], k# dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 t1 j9 B4 e8 I8 S
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
. _3 i- p. \- ]& W1 J; q E. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, L. i/ |; o4 `doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) q" j8 j8 f, v( A$ d: fbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
; I; J0 l7 f% O& vhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 x- `* e/ `" ^0 Z) p5 M9 t$ r |has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 {* u6 v2 Y; ~( Z, `7 d0 O
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- s: Q' k3 g& _/ J4 H8 B% F
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
. Y, ^) e3 d; Q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
; j, |( F% @! u Sprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: T* c4 Y- W! X$ w- Vathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# S$ V {' T6 ]" |. s( D' lchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
9 A; J0 P) h) I4 z( i* \& ZLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping ~5 V1 f- `; q3 C: M% ]( S P2 Z6 ?
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 ~+ [6 ^4 B/ Y6 t
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, Q1 v# g* n' U' d1 o0 eInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?3 A0 X* G6 m. D1 w/ T$ v p
8 _6 G* X6 `' d% a
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 m4 q( a7 @, `/ Ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* N" p; V' V, }/ p
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
! @% @' {" j6 h6 D0 e; w& R) KOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
0 k- V. y* d$ bOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for! \9 [ H' V$ m9 Q$ s2 N
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 i4 N1 j' D; P9 [# E1 H, [games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
, G0 S4 b5 b6 p. i" C \. D; mhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' X" k: _) y0 J* Hplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
9 B* s; ?- q" ^possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' t9 {/ E) N4 H; H# D" i8 i9 G6 U1 T3 N: o6 {2 E- G
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (2 g( \# v4 K' Y) a' Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 ~9 c9 k* X* l0 m7 Lsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! m& _. @$ i+ j4 _/ J5 d8 Vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
/ N$ e' e2 [* K+ qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your& p* ^5 R1 s# ~# K( Q) h8 @- ^
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. k6 W) a3 s0 K, j$ Dexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, q8 r o+ @! r# K( Y4 M8 x( e
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, B u! \+ [. V9 |1 f# xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
) ~3 [* }/ q. Ireporting should be done. |
|