 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
) Z, \4 `; a: S* h6 f如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
V; ~, |- _0 n) ? ?2 Y9 P. A$ Z8 q6 u- ]" a7 D6 m/ }" D5 a
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html6 _' d& D) w: c3 {
; U5 M8 d8 p4 I7 s! r1 o! E, g
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, J5 ]& V- R& L0 c
5 b; w1 o3 |7 _) s6 ~& cIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
; z0 K$ M+ {% C, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
+ W+ \. s- X/ p5 J3 umagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ Y, n' ]+ O/ U
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the* c& [$ i* L' C# Q
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ G) ~" v3 ?0 W8 l/ D" l3 Ppopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
: L0 l% [6 _; k+ l. zshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: `& e5 f; c9 a) U" ]7 {
which they blatantly failed to do.
7 U! a7 u8 `- H/ ^) A; G4 }, o- c/ V; k. X; n# y K2 F
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
: n4 s& y4 a* A5 KOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 g2 S6 @2 H* P) b( Y( r2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “7 l+ ~1 P6 i$ H% K
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
; k* G# {) a, [' U/ X- Q, w. j3 apersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
; T' V- {2 }. l5 a0 eimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
9 w. |1 p1 Z; e0 ^" H$ Z) ^5 P0 A% odifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 ]& e4 H0 a v
be treated as 7 s.7 |- V7 P, [/ m; ^
' K! y* Z- g$ e5 R* z2 u# m
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
4 _+ Y( @7 w9 w7 t- v0 h1 A8 ^still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem8 e: S! }. G; e* s4 N
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.$ N1 a& D1 L! H. N% k
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400 W$ e& H! G' a& |! `( z" A7 K
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.& T, I. C+ q( Z2 w; ^0 Y- F
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ e& f" {) \" R" Z& q A
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and$ {9 l: {1 t! m5 j) U0 P. V/ X" i
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”( p) r+ V6 c6 E. @4 K5 e" N
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ a8 Q g1 t/ p6 ^
, p! o6 f: j* ]* h
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 @* n* }. @3 W7 W$ \
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; k3 D: S! n* @3 Qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so9 M3 Y1 C2 e1 @( o" Z
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later$ v' Q' V3 H$ [2 H( ]* K) }
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
, l+ Q' ?$ ^# H# r% [best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ M8 b I. F4 y9 [Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 O6 }% O2 H6 p0 Z0 v4 c: q5 E
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# ]4 D4 @9 k" \0 nhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, }: K$ \* H; n% c( _- g v' S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this8 _5 R( c. p" L1 }( v
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 Q" v) d6 B- B" T, A# j* ]faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" E/ V, B# H6 b( U+ j$ hfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
9 G& A' G, `7 [" q* D8 iaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# H; {' R& b. n! I/ r
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# B/ x, ?2 p: A0 O6 y
2 t2 v. D/ C' \5 T l$ z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' C, P5 C# T2 f/ b& j
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 q. ^0 e* l5 `s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: G; c4 v. I ~, S4 C, h r
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns F! v7 o( O6 g6 s
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
" Q) ^: b+ H# }3 M9 d' |& W. C$ w2 j$ DLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind( ], n' ^. ?- q. L! z& C2 r1 ~
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 ?- \5 B# R1 V3 X' elogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: g; s2 B f% T+ B0 P% {( @
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science6 z" j& w5 c1 z, E( r* X
works.& ? {3 b/ s1 Q1 e, f% r2 \8 x
3 m5 ]2 V1 Q' s% C5 q& }8 UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
1 k( z' w6 S. N' S/ pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 t& w4 R# D. m( F7 F; N! e8 J, Hkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
# t5 B, q3 e- C) m8 S7 Q9 Z$ N5 C4 Istandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
/ ?9 a& p. b5 b1 w( s' `papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ P0 K2 S9 ]$ ~! Z% R0 h7 c+ v$ X8 X) r1 ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. B2 ^: Q. j$ n9 h t" X& F
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 g( Q7 B- [. {/ t4 edemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 U, p! s; q0 p) u3 n* W D$ F
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample- ]" \: O. _; M/ j; O
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
- |2 ~* d" k9 G- J( bcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! ]8 P3 ^! c" Y: K; p6 Wwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
h# a& z$ [' i/ kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
+ e7 s$ n# S; y; Opast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
, f& q8 G% g" [5 S" @1 B; yuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 N# d, k- F9 @. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
) o& f4 j( l; p4 L3 Qdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
" M7 L# L' X+ I, t5 c1 B1 A6 [be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 G3 J, l6 V+ {& L1 O, thearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 Q" f2 S) L- h! Dhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# {) s, [6 a# L/ M- _5 Z
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 v- ]; R+ H5 B( p( a4 b: P
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
! w$ x' |& P2 l- u, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
( w5 i% h& ~% D, `! u# t4 E- T8 nprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
, d7 u+ x, B- k& I3 P* aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 X5 d5 j/ G5 S- r$ N3 H) z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
3 u- N+ @; Q; k# kLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
. ~$ `, }( V9 { Aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
+ m; Q. t" {: yeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
5 q _/ a [' SInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
( |/ [6 k+ A4 k8 b) P% Z3 C% K x7 h& O# b% j7 }. O% C3 M5 B' U
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! V q8 d, p/ Y4 ~0 w$ D, Q
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
+ V( X2 y! x) B8 J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for: z9 A* z; F; J8 K
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: c9 B3 B- J2 | T P1 }
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. r; f3 N- W, e+ W# `8 R
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic6 W+ T1 o) g8 f* r
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope2 i6 c8 l9 e! v0 B, T8 M
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 q; l$ d' P8 l) ]
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; E- M. Y* }$ d1 a( q9 p$ Z& O
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ r# m; Z. m( H1 h9 r. P7 Y% l0 D
6 l; |+ b) X- g+ u$ V. cOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (7 v* Z y0 F3 t$ B
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too& M3 R$ L2 m0 p- O+ T( n7 i
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
4 K! ?! e4 n0 ?. nsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; b0 X) L3 P* d$ Tall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 a) f/ `. E2 k& \
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,4 v: K( o; B! _4 p" j: {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; K- T5 `) h3 R; d/ C) d9 Aargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal# t! d/ u9 Y9 D4 \# a2 O4 d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 Q1 f4 W* m/ e( I. h, M D. ]0 g4 lreporting should be done. |
|