 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
& b9 Q& l2 q S' K9 l3 B" t, I* [如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# [7 n) A; x3 ^. M3 q- q
# [' D( L# d: q9 V: O" P
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- w' Y k2 E( o' Y! J' `
) b( `9 y, L& w' {1 \, C/ |FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
; V8 B4 R+ ]) G! T) W& Q9 z1 e/ t" c& o' O7 s8 a
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
a3 I5 A' N% B9 z! K$ c$ z# {, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
! U8 L) R/ J. s' B/ ^) Q( k$ @: u3 nmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this3 L% m! `% f; U7 A1 G. d b7 M
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: O4 y+ j# v) x L% H8 s# A3 I) _ p
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( K) H, z; O* _( {
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 g* r% E9 _* j- d
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,4 a& r1 ?; S# H& |- M
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ A4 Y1 S( O4 m; c7 \! l8 A( P: H0 D- v5 ^2 f4 C
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
P! }6 J% @5 Z: ~# x( d: r! k0 D- ?Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ t7 n. z5 ]9 G5 _
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
2 ^# w6 _0 u" } a6 _# H0 I; manomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 o' [% N8 k9 K9 E. v+ x: Dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; ~& `4 C' Y) h/ [1 |
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
/ `& o7 N0 c+ K: g8 }# rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' Q: V: e* { k- g5 K U
be treated as 7 s.6 ~3 K/ I$ g$ ~! Z# K. P' T8 F
6 N' k g; H$ x, u" r2 |+ Y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is. A6 H T/ L; M
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem) a% Z" o2 C+ ~- H9 S
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 x- v& V1 T# Z+ L# @* `An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
9 M& s; Y' J/ E-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) k" O" V# L+ f) U5 u8 \For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
* O5 ~+ P% ]* `! Kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and0 ?% }5 G1 |- V& I! _
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# X K% q2 ~! v# H. @based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
. k( |- Z; Y: o2 F3 U" R- T, n9 L, @: k: J" |9 p+ B; p
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
0 l O* v* G/ x& p6 Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
- |6 Y8 t) O) o N& H" n# Rthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
$ Z4 a* g, ?; y& E @5 }9 Phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later! J! O# t5 H# `1 Z
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
2 V4 A7 u* L9 @2 g4 Jbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 ~6 W' k/ A+ q0 `; `6 _; z4 @0 xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ P- a, r0 C- v8 @0 X8 d$ P
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other* V7 m' Q- _" t
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
5 d6 e K& Z+ e. M1 W4 C V, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% l0 g0 c( A& ]& ?) t% Bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) E$ K' \4 T+ I5 J* Ifaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% Q# i1 S% r: W4 U+ a8 {; f
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 J$ v. z7 y/ X4 t5 `' e- I6 K; ]% z
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
8 [; l. G7 u! r8 F' ?implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 n1 `" R/ f N; a5 i% {+ v! ^" Y( Z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 X% r4 }, p6 `5 `* @, ^- D
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
. T7 x* Y6 X. A2 ys) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
+ t$ _8 L; |* n+ D! ?! K7 s), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
( a1 _" h2 i3 I# j; cout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) y/ W' R/ k/ T' a1 L/ ^, T* ]$ WLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
$ \( U% p3 ?4 h" E7 z8 c7 |of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) F/ ?1 w1 A( F2 q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in7 h: y- w. |6 f, k% e; a
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science' Z j- m7 A7 r
works.) ?+ P) Y8 H( F- R( N8 s% E8 `
( {; h4 c0 x% M3 c5 W- ]. n
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 t6 N( E. N* h
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
3 Q& j+ ^, k$ S& H! y7 kkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 @9 _3 B" f- e6 H* H
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: \9 Q4 C/ h4 \: ?4 F
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and4 w/ G! v8 ?/ o. h
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
7 ^3 |! G# V) T' m) x9 ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to: b0 X& d- h' W- Q) t* A0 F
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' [. }' c' I! H w0 S' b
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
) N" p3 M) m+ E( e- iis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ G8 G* a0 s* N+ K$ o$ W/ Hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' U# y* o3 \* f1 C+ @1 awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) G$ ~5 T& s% B7 v# I5 l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* w, Z4 T [1 m, q( \+ Q# r6 i; {4 Zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. r3 N6 `2 T: O+ V: o8 F3 {use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation8 Q. P# J8 S% ]) m: H& a2 B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 q5 k: L( h5 b" i1 y) M- g Cdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- [, |: S% w: _* \/ V
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a d0 G$ M, e) K2 l- Y1 N4 S
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye; v: k2 }* j$ H4 p" n$ k- |
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" ]% K! P8 G1 ~
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:9 s. b' d; U* _# o3 w/ p" u
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
, Q: H; r9 w; g& D, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 ]5 J$ i- o& i7 u/ ^
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
! u. w8 Y* S( N3 l B* iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: {7 s; W; C. Z; m: G0 V+ w
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
9 t) c C# J/ U" ^& LLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 @8 M8 o1 v5 _7 I4 }
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for% n) L+ g8 n" L
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., b* V: d& h2 U1 d1 g( |
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. s& Z) M N( ^3 B+ W+ {$ X0 P1 v
3 q2 {5 g) x) ?1 o/ {/ {% U! uSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-( p; E" e/ y1 C' z0 e7 n, L: \6 b3 f
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
$ k; T! r! _4 B" K. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
' k2 G$ ~4 b' f7 M* {3 zOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' W( ?$ P! h! g0 Y: t4 |' l
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ V3 h3 N: N" n2 n- S( L
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, K4 n* ]1 @0 i3 \) A) |# j( agames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope' K4 g: t( @2 D) F' q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
F' ~: p' J3 i& U2 vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this6 M' P8 }1 O/ _2 W% k/ G5 b) K5 W
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 i4 C; O2 A( I3 {) _! h& ^- ^+ u( k/ _, k- A% T1 M
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
[$ U+ p; Q$ J7 ~% K* r- o! p3 l. aintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
( h& X! S! G9 P/ o9 I- k+ t4 csuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' k( `, F3 ~: N9 _8 S) E3 {: m8 Gsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 W: C% V7 W4 \. K" H5 `all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
4 o0 g D* M! i& D6 {interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% P2 T8 m' ~. S& m, C
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your3 {$ z: X1 X) @8 P; l: Q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal: u0 k! r U/ R
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ N( l, {, K) i; F, ^2 {. rreporting should be done. |
|