 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 JIANG4 x# V# ?3 }" D6 r
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。0 l. I8 q3 y- e& e" V9 f
( E4 k% I! E" `3 R8 W1 m4 ? T c% o
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& _$ U. ^0 `( S, Z# }- C- S5 m1 n% \
6 t6 x, h# W+ x: T( o9 M1 v8 S' e# @
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
( B- Z1 h7 z: q1 {6 Y
2 {5 I+ y- V- v; jIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 a* x3 B4 O5 n. p3 ~0 H- p( f, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 J9 x$ u, `2 zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- D& w; y Q/ ?/ W0 y: Iis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the6 J, i( ~1 q% o0 N
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ I" A9 a7 q! f& e" \
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. Y3 L: K; [: e# s
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ D# W* B) `1 L, q- q; {2 r) s4 o( y4 P
which they blatantly failed to do.
" G2 k. |2 @, B5 \
5 L5 M9 [, m9 D" k$ ` EFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 z- n, h1 i- `, E# f8 X0 \
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 ]: w- r) ]" ?2 V
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “: N" f7 _) u# ]3 J
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
! A7 p& i4 {7 n4 z3 V1 Ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( g7 C+ |; Z* j P+ N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the$ u w. Y0 g* @
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ x6 n7 z" L/ f8 g- _; b" R5 y. vbe treated as 7 s.
2 W5 q/ j3 j$ B4 a( B5 E) z2 M* y+ y$ u+ o$ A1 Q6 U, @( F+ V
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
7 M. D4 e( `5 o Gstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem8 y4 v0 f7 Q8 q: f# O6 b5 `; f
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.: R2 O z5 B) C5 ~$ J n! z1 Z" N& O
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
3 U+ _ E, a' F( ^9 d-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 e3 l- v( h: o7 Y$ A2 t
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( S" q& S6 ?+ u. Z9 _- _
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
# A; V, ]9 `+ H8 W5 A' upersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
. e+ G6 l) f( V; k7 W2 k/ Cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 Y9 G5 s o# O
5 ^- T# q; M) UThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ W$ B% M* X3 ]) r
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in# {$ b, F( C. b# n4 F
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
/ F! i+ W0 ~5 }* l8 u* xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later5 z: ]8 \ t" q5 X1 \
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s, n1 s8 t' f. x4 E6 V# b
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World6 s5 Z7 j2 b. e8 I$ z' O5 K
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- L- l, o3 D* j* ^: H+ q1 d' g
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ D H/ J6 h# `4 K W* J
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle% R8 P7 n8 E# s/ p1 z4 E/ j
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this" |0 E% G( z% @0 J$ v
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 r# d6 |1 O8 T, |) U8 f: X
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam+ H9 s. ^2 E5 H. D! n
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ A9 J( z: u, k+ I) c
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
5 U% F( L: d) ?7 k+ L4 j& b% S& Wimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
- y' \" q0 J% f3 B% }/ G- S- _1 D: s/ |$ n) ?/ N: ~; L2 L% v/ i) W
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, K* E j: H; m+ P4 f
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 p9 u& o# Y, T0 Ls) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. }4 W) Z5 p) a/ v9 }1 X3 k3 P/ F
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ u+ @. X, Y# o' D+ ]$ i# cout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& ]8 w4 E" @6 wLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 e# h: Y% D; ~. S6 ~
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
. o5 g5 c. M" Wlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ f7 O% t% r2 [! @
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science3 E1 j5 d5 K( b8 F& J4 z
works.
) T+ B. e2 y* I/ o* s4 A) r# c
. Y+ E* S+ @# T9 @) UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
7 X, ?. G F2 D9 x' t1 h/ Yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
, I: L; K: I* Hkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that% F5 W2 [3 _2 l1 d
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ s% k3 \. G! L* rpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, K! M3 B& z% f- M9 J& T8 rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, k& K/ F+ Z# k6 y9 t
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to. U" C3 t& G: F" k* u
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works0 E5 J. e& k, C3 P5 A3 v
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
J5 d- V" X9 i% @. His found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# Q1 U( | E1 y- ]' Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he- O( B* n7 U% V. C' D
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) p; p; ~' ~, y1 e* `2 x" H
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
! F$ S- G. q! P. g+ S0 L" cpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 I! M' U1 I% P7 {& G% ]+ m8 k5 I# t
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation) {3 t7 S; w* `: s/ i% G
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
* \4 t! `2 H3 {" K; ]) K; Fdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may# q: p" j0 s; f8 t+ d8 j3 _; d! Q
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; i" J# s1 k# L
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
* Q- E: e" k3 X& S( e8 `/ Uhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a( S- k% A" T0 ~; r4 t; z# N) f/ y/ W
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
. I# n7 O4 K1 s. I5 g, r6 M6 yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
8 S: q8 {- P& @- ^- A# N, W# i8 V, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 ?& K" Z1 |- U. i1 Q, c, s: oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
" V3 V# ]" R7 Q; C3 s0 {( z9 Lathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( `/ Y. \ y) ?/ @* N
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ O& U; R. S0 H# r; mLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping" i) w8 d7 w7 o3 B# t
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ g* @5 {6 A% s: U' J. s/ R
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
1 i$ e# X7 Z% |, R9 YInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" W( }8 Z/ @/ z
\- u% S3 E! W& [+ x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ T) s2 w5 e5 @$ V4 N* G
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! x% c! C/ u B4 f. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for6 s" y/ ]& Z( l: S
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London1 t H5 c1 H) a4 x) E' Y
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ s; ^1 v9 s( _
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
8 W9 p' N6 ?# y) j9 _. mgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope) m; O- x9 }% I& }9 [
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) L; b+ h) H( a2 ^: F9 L
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 u; Q. r4 P- z% c9 c Jpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 J- F- x8 J9 \# K! S
! d, H3 R/ z7 _- S' I7 TOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ h! r0 h, U! x$ D3 i" _0 r5 Kintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ E( h ?3 @8 o1 B+ t2 r0 m! ^- q% o2 p
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a% r9 _" S5 s K- m1 v# P G
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
8 H2 i4 M+ E. y9 p+ oall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 l+ W6 \3 Y; ^ Y2 a5 D
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 g. R5 {6 G' G6 G
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 Q3 q, S2 ]' w8 s
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
8 d4 {" w4 H! Q* W5 N. P1 ]- ]such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 q& H, E/ o$ T4 V7 s- Y# e% {6 a4 ~
reporting should be done. |
|