 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 H# Z( p! `, E如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。4 z6 C8 @" k2 g" Q3 g; e j
) h* [ f4 {. D& N$ Rhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 I0 K& k" }( Y# i; A7 d7 h5 b2 |* K2 Y0 g
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ Q) v4 l! p1 |" Z& q! R: q' _* p7 \ r3 X; e5 E; z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself! w! S3 w$ B& f9 t8 {, q
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science' p# \! x# m6 k
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& o' x+ v) J( Z+ d
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the1 b& J: t: w" W$ o# r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) ?: b8 W4 z5 }0 m, y. V3 \
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" w% G7 E' _8 K4 A: |! `/ s1 ]
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 ~3 {: e+ D, Z( w! v5 s7 gwhich they blatantly failed to do.1 Q' X( P9 C: b% ^* W1 n* |
8 f p0 Y4 a2 X8 s) C
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
" V' D G" S1 R- nOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in/ p/ q2 B# O, a7 V6 r% Z5 O3 e8 n
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ n# b7 e" p# K9 O9 C# e7 `anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous7 z. N" E5 l( f! a. H" k
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an- G) T1 V" T1 o/ o
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# U% u' k0 {/ R+ ?difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# }$ K$ B& T3 o
be treated as 7 s.
) U" l5 f' n* b2 h- {
, `; }" r+ g2 |& TSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" v8 H* u4 J1 G u7 i) V
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
( x9 V& D. c& E1 J$ k6 M _0 a# Limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ L) r5 R( z ], S
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- t- Q) ?% z1 [$ M$ j, e$ ]-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.7 Z( | s% R& _* m
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
9 ` T+ I4 S( ~: m+ {% L6 qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( R- e" z9 c& `6 M% t3 Npersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% c. W, F! K# f7 h2 a% Jbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
' {5 _% ~ o6 g1 q2 p- Z' V
, M0 q# E& U3 bThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook: V, F6 q# K; w8 f6 d
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& y. r8 B2 e$ a, e
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
7 z' x5 v" ^, b' B9 the chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- j3 n& Z8 T6 W' U
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s3 [" k4 u+ Q2 k \, Y
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
5 N& k' H% j# Z* ]% Y4 [# rFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
: D3 a4 S! a! Q$ M: B6 f$ ^topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( x! q* f) V6 h9 chand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* \, Z8 z4 \6 f- }2 a) ], {% t, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this ^; c1 R6 b+ f7 ^
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds5 \7 q4 Y$ p8 g
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 J- N! k3 @. `! r$ m( {5 R: {
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
2 N: E m4 T5 p' C( }$ T! ?aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that* r5 x2 ?9 ^0 b0 A9 A1 {6 }
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# Q$ ]) [. @6 {4 R' H
) y! k4 _% M. z& W6 j5 d" HFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ {0 |1 E3 g! J1 A8 h
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
; s) x' ?5 E- a- }6 ?, \( ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s+ ^" E' |( i5 }) U! W) B4 R
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ }) x- d! K2 t2 Dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 [1 v2 }3 g3 A$ V- i
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 P$ X' k; U# l0 d; O
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! W) {9 }2 ~! X( R( }& W
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in7 }" p* H) J& H
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
2 ?! }8 n+ @ m9 V( Oworks.& Z; t% _. k1 ?- R
: l5 V$ J/ |7 O0 z3 J+ V/ v8 J7 b: H
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: _9 k4 y. W0 V" A- H7 ?/ bimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: Q2 [! ~3 p- `5 _; E+ o8 bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
/ F3 [( M, x6 g1 ?standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific. o( S9 Y; S ~: E; u# ^6 l. D" ~( |
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
\% v: f; P M6 B4 g, f& w- Qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. }* b/ p% w. M7 D' B# {
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
/ J" H' V& i) s( D: Y4 y/ ~* Wdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- o$ `0 T/ F/ o) ?
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample1 u' m3 ?% d; g4 ~) D0 S, t
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
: p5 E: P) h8 V1 Pcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; ?8 j! d8 D" n' P: K' S0 `0 s4 r
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 h, n+ }- c8 P4 k
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ ~% H- t; }" W* c! k2 g
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
7 K7 g; u/ R8 ^. ouse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
/ B- Q$ e* ^( g0 a; Z. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: k. j1 y3 U; `$ F# ]
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 w7 ?2 n! E# w* R+ y0 i8 Mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
) j3 C' @8 C/ f2 {1 Jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# r* o1 r% C1 Y- S) l' r _. h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 |1 M4 L S7 [5 ^0 I/ ?" I- _drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:( _$ c6 j* a$ ~1 F" p& p8 H% E( w
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 ^2 p7 r2 M3 I5 n! P- z0 m( C
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
& c2 x+ m+ [5 K! ?) }probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: i7 Y; v1 `4 o
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight# J/ V& A; R( C" p, q9 y
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, K" I9 ]' H5 }( i3 z: o
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& S* g1 o- ] r# w
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! p& D6 p+ I8 A: S% c& jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ }; v0 }1 T7 W9 E" B; C- P! H) U) Q1 @
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
; i8 E' {4 A4 ~& t) m
8 S4 z0 Z& I. {! T+ U* JSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-7 M% a# g" w# _' k: A7 F9 o. b
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
1 b9 h9 G; A. S5 q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for! c. `0 X- w* M
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
X% p" S R% S N; HOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for% E; v3 L+ m- ]) `
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* q' d/ U' x( ~8 Jgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope9 ^+ W9 a' j) Q- C& a& I1 I
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a8 N5 |: A. G+ i/ X) S# ~
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this5 k% C, N% d, \7 U a
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 P+ I, G! D) ?' o8 P* T
; ], x1 _2 t# G3 Q" ]5 ?; N
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
. U" O, L$ ^: G( X% N8 U6 Hintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
' z8 _0 S& s1 W" xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 U& J: K. _, }) l+ D7 u
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
# ] }7 ~& p ^2 L& ~, oall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
1 l3 X0 w% M; T) O3 O+ B Q6 O" hinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 }7 A# x) {( x8 N6 f ~& gexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& @7 N; f7 H( t4 B- L$ A
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal& b {, o, Z. Q; V5 i" c2 c
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ G/ {; y y. u/ M& [' oreporting should be done. |
|