 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 JIANG7 s# t8 ~& P, [, V& a
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。; ^0 G: |$ |3 A
# `7 t0 ?) l4 a2 {: E7 N3 t& H
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# Y: M7 i2 @' M. {% M5 ?8 m6 u/ {4 G/ Q4 T, c
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
3 l+ ~' |. p8 O' D! \, M- Y3 D6 `8 }2 i& S f+ O
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself/ c H- l3 g$ A+ q" j, R
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 X$ {6 k0 S B ^
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
2 M+ \6 `2 \* ?5 [5 }* [* R/ Fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
0 H. F4 I7 J8 c1 e* qscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
3 _9 U% @( n/ q! H p# Fpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- _7 ~% z+ N* l0 w5 h% c5 Tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
' L1 K& f v% F2 mwhich they blatantly failed to do.' \7 r+ X( Z' |# ?
; I$ @9 P1 I$ HFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
4 P. w7 R) I6 cOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in6 H" d' |- {5 }' |
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 d" e$ |1 |8 S7 _$ i5 i
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous U( J, h5 }. M7 j/ t0 D
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 P( c q* \4 R6 v
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
- w% b0 p% e: S, B! ldifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 G5 _5 h" u1 S! [* N: Mbe treated as 7 s.
) B' Z& q3 i# N' c5 P1 M. q& Y/ Z A- Q( b2 g
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ v- ?5 ]4 s1 [still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& U# ~1 [2 i2 W1 s Vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
d5 _8 Q8 a* C- d* o! r/ A" [An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( h2 I+ |/ V4 k* L% {1 v-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! f. o9 n$ m* I- m% T: R& P2 k! ~
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an5 ?. T) E$ A! Y# x+ t3 I2 e
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& r1 H4 |; E7 c/ C+ n# V3 {4 K
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
6 J$ h. h. ]9 P2 s8 {( O1 Obased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 f; d4 B$ E9 j, y9 U5 C" {9 {* g: u% f2 |* k
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook: [0 @# d7 {1 J
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ }/ B8 J, q# n* tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, P( s5 ^' ?, X5 b$ Z
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: M! V9 G4 d5 ^1 {/ M
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# u3 G! Z5 r" Q2 G* f& q; [best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) Z) \- ^0 S% @) @' n/ w0 PFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. S4 [, |9 t( e& v0 t7 m" Qtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
9 G- E' h) \* | M6 T Bhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* B- B0 T+ y, n0 f, x" ^, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
2 l. t9 x0 p+ }3 J9 s- Pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& H7 r$ H# b5 ~% d6 V5 A$ O
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ ]9 M. _6 H; o0 u
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ l7 @7 |7 U2 R# z/ k
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that6 H! x- C5 G& R6 e6 ]% z5 I/ L
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." J; W, y3 C/ U, L( u4 Q: m
" b8 m! [2 r% y% q3 y6 X& y- cFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( y, k2 o! o. Ffour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; R0 p; t6 B9 B; F
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 b. f Y5 R% h, B" T5 |), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& S( H& H( g) v+ J( O- |
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,1 q5 N# m/ h8 U+ l- S: m, G
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
! o' X/ t' ?' d0 M% x! f! lof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it# |: g5 K% A% w8 @3 T
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* J0 i/ W4 c2 d# ?( Hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% k% k5 }9 E+ r0 o4 m5 G. V4 P4 ^* a7 Wworks.
5 k8 j# A( X: T( M6 w+ n5 P3 B
. H( K$ K/ I2 WFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
- w2 S: o7 m( k- `' \( r4 r. Rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
. y8 b% z( G- j; x2 _$ [kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, ~. I6 T6 C4 K' ?standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific, k1 ?, ^4 x1 i" I3 C
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 d$ Z8 l* g, R8 Nreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One7 {: }/ r3 a6 {
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! u& l! Z# P% a7 V" j& C! ]
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works+ u( W+ Y% ~. f9 z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" q5 W6 E( r$ w: a$ c- O! V. P. fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" b3 S" i! N. Z N, p# |% n4 |+ rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& E7 d) o# y- p% D9 W0 Iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly8 ~8 z Y+ J4 C8 V' I
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
1 m9 e6 j5 F+ R8 i# }past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not: I/ f& Z, ]0 _8 [4 U, W' y
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& _* l' e9 Z2 u- y% A+ \5 q+ Q$ ?9 i. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 m! m% n. `7 }doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) |, \, P2 z8 N8 T0 p
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& h n1 v4 b3 ]( i8 b
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 y) j/ i1 F8 m5 P6 I
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
0 Q+ J: J* K! Q. u; W- ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) B* `7 p( o+ u' N3 \
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
( [- |. {( {" _! u# D1 u( E, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is+ W9 O/ P4 b9 [6 B. s* v
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 w6 \4 _6 S/ d3 G2 D5 a6 f/ \0 S
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
+ Y5 d- C5 {3 i" T R+ l+ \chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?5 S1 K. q# o# W) e( _
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
5 d0 B, f& W5 _; y) `" @. gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* s8 f' \6 Q/ P L; Z1 Y
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances." K: I1 n9 m; e- z# P
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?3 X2 w# J+ l6 b$ i2 X
% |4 h$ N; j. q
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 i$ O9 R0 h! m7 @6 Ccompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
7 E0 v6 l( m4 n) N( Y. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 z5 R! p4 x$ O) Y/ A ], F) K2 [
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
5 p6 |1 p0 D6 ?: D( ~4 NOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
) P$ g6 V2 a3 b$ J/ j) A# _doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
. t2 S* l& l: ], E/ ngames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
2 C% d4 ]8 O6 Y8 nhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
1 i8 Z" N" N5 ?/ R: splayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
" Q( H2 B% w! q2 y, @7 S; ~possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ ~) D/ B2 b- W2 s, S
+ Z$ G; M+ t3 x5 S, r+ BOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- Q1 A' x& T W: Q6 |7 Yintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
( P3 g. G' X. C; V& I. C G! Zsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a1 f6 D4 s+ D9 }, |) _0 r2 y
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 k3 a9 w+ ~+ j7 y% P& U" \1 `all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
$ q2 i1 P! d! D$ r0 _* Rinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" u) R" V" q$ z" `4 Dexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your" j$ E3 p! X2 F& w: T) E& r! P
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 s1 ^* Z3 |, x/ d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or7 [. W, G7 _8 B# x& y( ^; m0 o
reporting should be done. |
|