 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
' J' K$ ?* J4 j如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。4 `9 A+ p* F5 e* Z2 Q$ Z
6 J) `- B S$ N# f( k$ @! t
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
; x& Z5 P. p1 N+ {3 O8 [3 I) P, k! U& R# I% }) V
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, G @6 o. X/ I: G" ?+ ^% K
4 r1 z2 O9 f) q3 E# F: W: x" V! Q
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
- k: c8 j2 b7 W, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
/ j& K& i$ A0 P) Ymagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
2 R( @) Z+ v+ ~is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
& d% m9 A8 p: `3 \# ]9 Sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 F/ X$ b/ D" f* i3 J' l
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors/ D8 n" t% G9 e& P2 p7 k
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,+ X" D. q% e- V. A1 b* P* [: W
which they blatantly failed to do.
3 |, f( Z/ Y+ S) ^$ n# b7 j# d0 ~3 `) T; W6 ^& U! U& ~
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her3 f/ H+ s, V5 J ^
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 D$ ?/ @' k: b C8 a1 u2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ _0 m. g v& q7 d4 n; v) ]3 i
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
$ ^. w: H; w* u, ]: d7 j8 Q$ Upersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an3 D) c! l- c$ G; x" N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the9 Z. B! ]4 Y# {
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* d, O8 e2 S$ M5 C$ c$ M8 V+ {! \be treated as 7 s.& x9 I& S5 U- B) I' P/ ~5 G
, u' k1 B- f, D- a- RSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' Y" v2 v) |" Lstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% F6 X) `, I) z4 [: d
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.& C6 G" S. a+ z& D; u
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ \/ b4 ^0 e% u% b7 U2 o6 m-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.6 N7 U$ q: P$ p4 n" A5 O7 }; Z3 u7 g
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 w3 v/ w3 Z4 o! Y, k( N" F# e' q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and, C5 k' \* d& s2 ]9 [8 G
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”, O9 y( `: q6 |* g6 \
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 s; k2 {, E0 T$ r0 Q1 P
$ u+ I. K# G# t1 ? W! ]Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# }, V& }) F- w+ d3 k) nexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
- O* t3 b( K% Cthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
3 x! ?3 _# y7 `: t. jhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% {6 \4 u& K& x9 J
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
1 S" d9 p" A% P7 P. t5 l6 ubest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# C& l: Y, q" l/ eFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 i3 O' B8 O" K8 Xtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other+ k1 X& `+ I) m) |( N8 d8 Z: S. C8 O- X
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 Z; M% M2 a6 f. H2 i* {# b( x
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this p7 [+ R) h$ W1 ]+ f( ?
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 A- p8 ?7 K, c: { d6 T' pfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. J$ A, F6 X! d9 ^+ u: e. E
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ x5 M, R* h% S4 _3 x3 @) V8 F
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that. |' s7 A/ \) _ A$ d# q
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
0 g3 N1 X# _. b( j% [% C8 N
- p- A1 i7 C% W7 EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; B# }- Q" X6 j$ e" P3 yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.933 n+ s: z) `+ T* w" ?" T3 Q! U0 N
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' x8 h' k0 K: E0 P), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ o! p0 |" v8 x1 Z/ v8 \( I- Cout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 |( Q) O) h I8 y6 J) pLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
9 v9 V4 f2 Z8 ]+ k7 I' pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! |5 t, ?- k5 T8 }1 N0 m ?! c
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in$ t8 f6 S7 _4 g/ g
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science* r9 `) v R3 [1 h
works.0 T) [! X/ S) h% h& J6 X
- {: L$ X) @, h) E8 [/ g. r
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 l4 S0 S$ K B
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ `( t+ I0 o) [# a+ E, R' p" V
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ [, \7 K- G: c) [3 g9 _
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific- X% W( A8 Q/ d# J0 F) L
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 B/ l, v+ i7 m2 f: c1 E* E4 Rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
+ g- V. F' m* @0 } K* r, s- ~cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 x- ?" [0 [8 Q$ @demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" B9 Z! J$ J O- ]6 g
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample9 \- y& u) \ s. `6 s. G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% u& N% S) X! x! y- _ r+ ?0 Hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
. K; \" s6 Y; _wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 F, @ E) o' B5 _7 h# Radvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
! ]" X/ g" V; ^" N' x4 ^past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 I! k4 F! o7 a: E% G
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! I) |+ P7 K/ \ f4 ]2 g
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 A: W+ x @, s' Y' n5 H2 M9 v0 h
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 x* G# _) ~1 A+ b
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
7 }3 c2 K; o! [+ j' bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
4 h, L: r& X/ Z* lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
q9 Z6 |5 F8 d7 V u) d; mdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:, c: A) f+ \2 Z" `
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 q5 j/ R( ^6 h, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& \0 Q/ M" {$ s5 Q' o6 l
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ _# {4 B! K; h3 v2 L; @
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: B. Y" G0 J0 J+ b- R/ R, ~5 r0 z8 f9 _# h
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: D, M. r/ _; H8 J) M: VLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
1 D: q# }0 t6 `agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for/ Y; m& `4 e+ R( Z' R# j
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.# T6 m' _6 w. B8 D2 w J2 E, g
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: A; }0 r: Y2 Q8 h
7 J5 m; h' J, u6 [
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-- r/ i* @* }# Y% x) E9 ~7 l# L' N
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; ?; {1 z5 G4 O, C/ ~
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for+ o J, _/ S- n% F" x' _& G
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London* Y. C+ L% B( d4 X, ?2 U: Q
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- E) @& p, d e& k1 B
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. P1 m, ~0 l' z8 x
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
% ^9 Q' X( U% C" [$ t! q" @1 Chave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a4 U0 \5 K% B# r0 O2 j: P
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, M% g& C4 G0 Upossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
4 k' C- ]! ]0 {0 z5 Z8 e3 Y q, [$ _8 {. t8 R
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
( z. g+ I) _' o G+ g9 h; C% X8 A3 b1 [intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 {( X. C# H( e1 g& R. c; v
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
~* `' g: t4 hsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- X; u$ l1 x6 Z. [8 E. L% Qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your! y" O0 A9 c4 S5 [) [4 v! J
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," m+ I1 v8 C4 x. E
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
# [" d1 d" m. s- g& \2 Dargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
N K6 z4 `6 |$ osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
7 {) Q7 t* O# N, ^& b* yreporting should be done. |
|