 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
8 ^1 _9 ]" c1 ~如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 v* W1 F0 _8 c( |5 h
2 W4 y0 a N$ Q, k2 j1 fhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html7 N5 ?7 o! ]$ j8 q3 C: Q0 |
6 U/ I7 Q# H7 r h5 j ^3 Y. P' dFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 {* I# |/ z6 T4 k) [
/ K. q( g# v7 O. x# z! I: A' a6 U$ H/ tIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
' R( \4 S2 k! I1 ~5 p, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science' ]/ b9 U- {& b8 w( P0 n
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this# G9 c* g& |, v2 l" |8 [
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
3 u) D _8 z: q& n& I- Escrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 a4 X) R' {0 F$ N# n6 T4 [0 C
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors0 h( g& n5 w( ^3 P
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 e( o& G2 o7 J$ A, w; b8 r
which they blatantly failed to do.
1 d3 D; Y% U6 G( E4 Q4 y7 C$ \7 R5 `: Q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 z' c" ^2 A3 D" @
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ A5 w4 ~3 K/ }0 a4 O" z2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: o0 B3 m0 t0 r4 k+ janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
4 ^, ]& m: j9 H5 k/ ]personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 h2 f: t: C; v$ _8 Nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the9 O$ d0 m1 W$ K( v8 u! K& H |; ~
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' n- M# W/ d) D
be treated as 7 s.+ a2 ~" Q$ M, e7 M {$ q3 j0 ?
( q% K. N- l3 [* L# c2 n
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
% U8 B5 D* s- k1 V Wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem6 i! B5 Q, ?6 X& H0 D0 X
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- o7 d# K) L% z a9 z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
' i+ Y7 N* N" Z$ M-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
8 K! F4 t! A! S4 k* D( eFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) ^ i# i p+ Q, v( R
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) c6 V1 h9 d5 w6 C" i/ z5 [
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”$ U. `/ _5 D7 @) [5 P% d4 F% ?2 L
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.. d+ L+ o8 @* u2 b0 X9 }+ t
% Q, H- Q' i3 ~
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
( q1 Y5 b+ ~7 W- f% U$ r4 t" Rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
' d! G' ^, P0 t: D& Y8 G4 ~the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so2 z& j" w) E& Y* A* t$ M( l" y) ?2 t4 |
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 _( f- v% n9 p) Q% x& ]events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
7 S3 d' e: m9 E0 e3 ?4 F# kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) y0 K! F& j, D; w9 B; q5 ]$ GFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ h" `: ~0 D! l( X) r( ptopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 Q7 L4 u8 s9 c$ Rhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
/ S* s7 W# `7 W: Z' p* Q, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ z2 R# O5 K8 b2 jstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds m: H# m# X& \/ G
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam3 a% T: X' T7 o; P, |) i3 A( E
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) n2 W# h7 W7 `' Saside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* }1 k& Z9 D/ M! x2 Q* Kimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.. N" Q! P; K5 c- {
9 P' F( y( t" B- ?Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ X# h+ y9 {; R: w& H/ e7 I1 X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93. I5 S; q* P5 e# u' t
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 S3 k0 k5 Q3 V2 q% O6 q; X
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ N/ W2 y9 r6 ~8 ]# E6 ]: @1 ]
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# d) v* [; l9 o9 ~5 b5 i
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
' b* ~3 B0 k! I( U+ y5 N) D- T2 qof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
J9 L: `; S' K' k, Jlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- y1 C$ g; }! ~) q. B0 }
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science) N7 k- b5 V3 g: t0 Y5 s5 _
works.: m( W9 b. j" O
. _% c$ \$ ]3 T+ ]; p: IFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: _2 I/ q2 a9 K+ M3 N: Himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 a" i0 D; T& @1 c7 i) ukind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% |# d; U) W" ^2 V7 p! \; t) {/ }% o2 G, Cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific# ?: v! Z- e" D0 M
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and7 [ C$ l5 m( s4 f F
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 N& q+ j# k9 G# ?cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( A4 s" ^6 A6 \! m/ }demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 i: I5 T N) l Dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
% {: {/ e' i" V. h& {' Pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% ~6 l2 Y; [# }- f5 `! H3 t+ Ocrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
5 |4 m& W4 k5 Z' Jwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; F* @# I0 V; w7 l( ~ I5 d
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ s$ D, o; T% p
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not. @ a$ y: B3 B2 {! {! K+ e3 Z' o
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
$ N' q" B( A- j% c1 s" }: p8 x: A. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 G# L" Q f9 Z& t Zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) k* A. _/ R) O% ~4 Y1 bbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) J! `4 a1 V* \+ T' B
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
0 m( ?2 e4 m2 Y* ~% E7 thas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
( e, ~8 b/ O/ zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
) ?. t! R6 o/ o9 b% K7 X4 ~other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 l ]* |! ]# b, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 r( \8 V I8 d
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
# `- \" o! n0 J. v( l; j* q8 lathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight1 P+ \8 p. ~* o% \( @! N2 ~8 |8 v
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, x+ G+ N5 H; T4 q! B
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ S: I! _1 a3 d# J0 Gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for0 ^& H0 N( x" j1 E. x+ @8 S% h) _% E
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
" m. G7 D5 P* ?2 @% u: g+ HInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ ]' ]) k# O* i% a
6 S, }. i d$ @' V9 I) L6 a& R, PSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* y0 r9 G" S2 B) K, S" @
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention, f1 {& R3 C: l U1 H+ i8 n" H: b8 R
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
0 ~- L! j8 F6 _' \: J- `; QOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
" k* k5 G( ^$ j v% f8 o0 A* Z* QOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for0 M$ L- d: R1 N/ a }7 t7 f
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: W7 Y \# v7 C v! W
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
) e1 ~& y+ O( Y2 p, {have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- U% n4 e3 g" k* W
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) U t. _ n! m/ z% M
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ L. m% K5 ?: u7 K
k) |- s5 l; b7 L; D
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 z* H: X$ |# K8 Q9 y$ M
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. P, G# j* S1 x4 W* k2 Tsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a" g; K0 h" @0 F8 b
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" o" [2 |9 l. `1 nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' }7 w8 r- b8 S/ d: T! Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% v3 F }% A( n- g f; \
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
4 n! d* I; @" W! K9 ^" t/ Oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal/ Y% E* w6 A* D7 I" R
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or; Z. C" f7 H3 B% k& L
reporting should be done. |
|