 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$ Q6 y1 n5 {0 C9 Y+ j如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。+ K1 ]/ V0 u7 `' f
; |+ Q9 e* d/ L& w2 f, t4 ]
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 e, n6 j. c9 v8 f. d0 n( n
% q7 F& H1 a, N% D, w
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 ^7 g+ l- B1 X; \! T% _& Q2 a r5 }; _# w$ y
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 T0 Q g0 R) W# o2 ~3 d7 B) j, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 p4 x: z6 G+ z5 S5 [
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
4 P [" f( }' @; T. Kis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 K* i) R( s# `6 O7 Q* mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general S" Y! E( t' j* ?. R) C
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
; h' o7 L- V% C0 l0 b6 jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,9 L# R! i% b' P- g2 U1 y$ S. {; {$ b
which they blatantly failed to do.
0 u2 \; r2 N- p9 g
) @- C* h/ P1 YFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
( x* N1 M& C6 F2 I; e8 d( u5 d, bOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* u4 R _) f6 E2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 y/ j# E$ t4 w- \6 w1 M" xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
6 B! l& r2 E Vpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( z. h! R. S9 K: D. e" U
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
* U2 @, q4 a- \" F0 pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to" `5 ~ K. l( k" l! n. Z6 [
be treated as 7 s.
* D: t2 \6 p3 U( E- ^. R: `0 P8 ~2 H$ ~. A& }( Y% N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
* T( A2 M9 A4 q( N2 Lstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
\- y1 k7 t% L3 O' h& Dimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
6 r4 I- N$ a9 ~0 E5 L/ g9 D7 _) O fAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4004 _& w/ p' p6 X8 i1 }, l
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.0 X& ?3 _' z, X# b: G- d5 M6 K' n; r. r
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" p! i( i, s6 A+ p$ m' ~/ V6 ]
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
0 U4 Z$ a1 t8 @) k7 g8 npersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& {2 \7 q; Q% x" s! i" M( C
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
! d% f1 h; f- s2 P* c; Y( m# J
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
0 ~2 D* E) L! f3 vexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in# r3 M! ^5 Z# I" R( ~) j
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so; W: M) P, ~' g: p) m
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later5 x3 r1 O1 \( _8 u4 I) _
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s G. h' V0 v3 Q' V" d
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 I# p. C4 V3 W9 o3 ]Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 q2 {+ j, h/ R
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
, `6 O$ V# D- E( Dhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle U4 s; c: w* I* K
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
2 \9 z' x" `2 j5 t! [9 ?strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% k8 k- P8 a0 Y' x, F6 o. [faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- |; U) D6 l/ |5 }! W6 X" H8 {2 [
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, S2 N* N- p/ \3 m/ Q7 w" c; S2 `# Saside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
- U' q1 u6 `% Q' V- j2 g; l5 dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 X: l Z% m3 F# Y' D) s3 b6 J
0 G3 X3 [& U; D, C4 [1 t, q0 [+ w/ ?Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are* ?! [2 m; ^, C: ~9 c
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ y0 c6 |* q% |2 i. f Y1 W! c5 G5 O; Y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s) h: g5 k: @: ?; o9 V
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
9 U; s" v/ A+ b8 P7 s0 N3 I* k% ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,' G% O, m P! h% y. r# e
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 e! H6 ^, M# [& {5 c' q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
: D2 U; i9 X' ]+ H% Elogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in. W' K# h9 `1 q* i# M& P- I9 m
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* ]. n2 N: H! a7 Z2 i5 ^works.2 G, S$ r0 c1 E" C
* l( [* N& u% b) F; DFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: Y, i4 `! [& ^5 C9 Y4 z( Q1 Dimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 @7 l G+ L7 K
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 q9 G) z$ Z0 g. D* ]5 b" ystandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ }5 C" K. b" m) N& T/ t: wpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! P, A, K# ]7 R% n$ @$ [5 r) `reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% g, l8 {' a3 ] f! K
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to5 ]4 P( K; b/ s9 r1 c
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 W0 n! {8 I. c" ?# }
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
! c% [ h4 v$ v- G/ Lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
. D" a2 s& z9 U6 R1 ~crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
6 T3 F5 \ N) zwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
3 P! w0 c. }! |# ?" z2 l: t Eadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 Q4 N& ?; M4 A" B6 A+ B
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 e; s+ ^. X6 M) Uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
; D* @4 x5 i ~8 r) t. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
; P5 N9 v J% ]' H' |doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' P# s" b$ x9 g" q% P0 e
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
) u2 U& y5 h8 a2 ~. Q% shearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye- t" \6 G# S# |
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& t8 D: P F% Y4 u3 gdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 E3 M$ U* V; `% ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
( O) w; ?# l9 e) |* k' O6 t6 }, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 v$ h, O' {) u) r* e% zprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ l8 Y( W R" a1 F1 F' h) F/ y2 } J
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 v7 Z3 w# |/ |& x
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?* E: _& {5 {+ r" z K w1 I
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& T) v2 Y2 H8 v# p' ~$ Z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
. ^1 H0 {2 V4 H3 v0 reight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
! A9 `! L& g+ w V4 SInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. q3 O# V3 `; {# ?
5 a; L7 y% `- M9 E O5 Q
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
' @9 b. a' R, S: t2 l& Jcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention5 q4 j0 N; j% A# e) e9 j! S6 h4 @. N
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
+ b# ~! u; A$ L1 X s5 VOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
Y. c. `/ Y) A$ e1 f. aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for" p1 J7 S6 e! l: _0 w
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic9 r7 c- @. z: ]3 S9 G: y& [ B
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
4 f$ ~8 } Z+ k2 Chave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
2 t, J! p h3 {# i4 zplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this W! R, p2 Z9 f' ?' H; ~( X
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
( t, z5 ?, Y3 U* W2 @: x" h( f# d% s4 \
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (+ e" M% {$ @% [3 Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too, i& [4 s+ W7 t. ]2 \5 X
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" x$ [$ _' Y& D9 H9 I$ u' J2 {suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
% ?. p7 [: @8 r) d$ _all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& i0 o* D5 @' L3 D6 o+ U. G$ Cinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,! w7 C9 |) e1 N; [" b7 w0 J5 S
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your" ~& p. f9 w9 D
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal6 |* k9 t$ u" M0 n1 g
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or8 s7 I' y) _/ V3 N# p
reporting should be done. |
|