 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- e/ w! N$ l: f: p- m7 C
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。5 A7 \- i& o* q
- m: p" y0 G" x& ` @6 T) W' i+ e
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 `; C9 }$ h; I3 z' j- ?* E6 O
& C% T. u; K* H# f2 A' bFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' ]* u' R1 O$ m7 V& W( Z5 Z9 Q) t. [& ^% t" C( Z9 B
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 ]) f4 W) R3 q0 b x6 G/ Y5 Y: Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science9 T# s: b9 t" Z p# Z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ I* Y6 B2 v5 T. A+ f6 G, d5 P
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" A+ h! y& F5 \/ o2 _scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
( Z! i- u$ ]/ q& xpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors& J' W( R7 E; d2 F$ H
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,+ V& B* t6 d2 Y# b+ O
which they blatantly failed to do.* W5 `7 D5 [. j6 a6 h( y
- g8 a; t, v, z2 Q$ [8 X/ i
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her; n7 a) b% c+ H. E: L/ h' Y/ C
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 r/ S1 d5 J3 N0 O& E( h
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: e7 D1 T, o8 S5 `% E# v& ranomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous- g# s: M8 D ]
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an. o' ?! s( @+ E
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& h& K, W1 O( ^+ ]
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
( q# N9 ~- A: wbe treated as 7 s.
0 `' a4 X* p4 J4 N3 F7 r" W% U5 m+ s c0 C6 i% Y3 {
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 a' f7 [4 U7 b' o) w; z/ `still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
3 N# {. @# ]2 V( @. S3 [impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# F4 c0 W" R' i- D" z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 x; p/ Z; C( M9 d. |9 l" \. I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) c9 \$ i0 }' O1 p3 {, |For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 {6 p7 H2 H5 b0 p) I- I1 K
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
; {/ y5 n2 j! Y4 D# H2 bpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”: m& S* b8 }3 j% M3 P" G
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ T, m, h4 Y/ x
3 e0 D- f. c! D. R5 gThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
' C( f$ z3 T& V( Dexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, w, }! T/ a% q" m' N9 T( c
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
x0 |# \ S# U7 Zhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later# u6 _! A+ p6 \0 F9 g/ z
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s/ U- V! z* s4 P# g- v- @- l( }0 C
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World, ]* s4 A6 x! {; s% Y; j
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* S y7 J3 X( w, z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
2 w' w& k: ~' F9 d( n% Shand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
( ~& g0 V. T, f8 z$ J, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! G' R% Q: G7 \* q% W) tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds* u+ a1 J! N6 ]2 C$ Z) ?
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
: h' _8 W+ X/ E+ C# e# k: B2 Jfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting2 h- o6 N! f# M, f( t
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 Y, V1 j8 F, X, E4 [" _implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
" r8 _8 ?: Z, f3 e N/ n6 }2 k/ \; F& {4 E; ~8 y+ T/ u
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 H. l1 y+ E, U" x
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93, U- I( C' e- B8 f1 y% D0 u
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s9 w" ^. A- c1 X& t: \% O. T
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
, f5 t4 M+ _0 p2 t% iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,( S t% a" k9 u1 A0 }- X8 `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind$ u- u1 x& W* o2 m
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it: C/ _7 C* m5 K# P- c* P2 H7 m, r
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in# n4 k9 _% o- ?# W) [' } o* [
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" M# f. `5 Z7 T& F3 t
works.6 \4 }# [6 x( j0 C1 U5 K
/ K2 {9 e" j/ L9 w" ~ X* x7 k
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 E/ b* A& f5 `# E/ gimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this7 R# y3 k2 z/ `
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, K }, C5 W+ Y, f' [
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; g1 T( C9 f# O1 D
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and( {: X1 a7 f8 k* n$ B. T
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
+ A6 F: J. e/ Z. s& h0 l6 Xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 P( q( a% a( x# Idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. p+ y! ?% d1 Vto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( N: C( [" i: G' O
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is' `$ p- `5 e7 u& X$ ~
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
R7 ]- G3 B" q# l; G/ }$ p7 _$ U! Qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 V+ e& W& X9 nadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
4 V9 D2 X' ^; D% y; d( D& U# hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
# M, y+ D, f: H6 F8 k& E1 {' fuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation8 F# B* B3 d+ a [, Q
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
8 U. S! e; b) p+ m3 G! idoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! x3 a5 `& o: D- L3 T/ Fbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; t5 q ?3 r8 g. K0 l$ w- q
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye! ?9 w \, V" [. C) [( s
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
6 b( N: m( {% v- u0 ^" I9 H2 Ldrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; r; a7 u5 P, P5 D b: _
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
8 D9 @, I" m: L- w7 q# u& v2 M- j, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! n/ z8 k; ^+ z4 `& O4 Y" L P
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
) R) K$ c0 E% p6 l5 qathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight" E7 n4 p7 n# Y
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?( J2 Y1 ^- ?$ Y
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! `6 o( L; q2 l3 c7 Xagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 w* t E( ~/ j6 l
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
0 R/ w j5 p- V* QInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?, Q) X% k( W0 }, }' A7 r! S- Z
6 i% e3 ^" \" |0 l& ASixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
( T, |1 `$ B9 @% jcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
# I; \1 E* ^/ m/ `) C ~7 k. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
e5 H W: d/ L& s- N P3 mOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& e- _3 ~: f" `Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for& g9 b- h2 X0 m, f
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) ?5 J9 w& S, z6 R, b" g) Qgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
l" S# p) @9 V! z( R* u5 J% ^7 shave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
- f i2 W6 v& t0 [& U( nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this3 I7 v4 b0 v# h5 `
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 l. x' ~1 |5 g f. D& ~7 O- J
$ ~* j0 g r `: b BOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
8 Y+ ~8 z' H7 Dintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. x1 t( {# O/ A d8 g: |suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 T" p) Q4 o6 ~' T5 Gsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
% U% [0 C7 a$ w8 U: B6 q) Wall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
* W3 c) i* z+ Z4 L/ c' Winterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 U/ `. m, o Z# M L9 \3 {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, ~2 h1 U: M/ q5 T _7 g; X
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 p. q2 J0 Z# [: {2 n1 r
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' P; s! E# k9 @+ @
reporting should be done. |
|