 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
( e( n0 J4 N) ~$ h$ Z' _* U. j$ \如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。/ F; }1 I# g( x0 _1 O! p* S9 H
9 [5 {4 o( q- Z, t+ thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 N d1 D; H. \* F/ s3 V' E/ _$ X; i/ F, |. ]4 ], o5 c+ G
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" T" E$ v2 R7 e: u
8 w6 n3 \' A! L- E: T7 Q
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, A' y5 z8 p( u: t( H( L, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 w: u% }9 _- m; Umagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ I7 r1 t. I: B: {7 _# _7 S
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( l; Z) t5 a" s0 }( a0 Y9 Oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( L' o* W- j5 y! m# R4 S- R: ~
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 a ?9 k$ E! I+ r, _2 B, V$ [should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,5 d( t, Z1 }8 I, A6 N5 }
which they blatantly failed to do.3 N3 f# M; ~! E! a
; d6 k) Z, A2 L( n
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) m) t9 f) S, r: y* C9 H$ T
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in/ X, k. |% W V# D0 W
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “, G5 G# h3 Q+ }) H
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
3 `0 E# S4 i% r. i/ W5 zpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an: g( J7 Q& O2 N: f, x4 ~+ B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& z+ W- K6 z. S' T0 b
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to e% U1 j: Z) h2 }1 N4 ^3 s
be treated as 7 s.9 P7 x4 v5 n$ s5 W1 F) \8 F" H, Y$ G! L
0 x% S* P7 X! [1 ^: z2 Y" V/ zSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ Q' D8 I; o2 E1 g, ?+ k9 c0 s: f! @still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ x- }( `; ~/ F/ D; ~1 N
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& B5 S. d# ]: vAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* v1 z9 Q% |- f7 X% n" w( Y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 o! W% @1 m% T( ^4 X7 W% Z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an, A: M# u$ ~1 Z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 o+ ^# N/ O! A( U$ U. apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
- h( R4 B8 J! ?2 u* ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
8 K' Z) L6 ~: h1 ^
6 I( G" N& r z* BThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook8 p/ N4 s" P, U$ \) I- V
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 s% C1 i1 X9 q$ L' n
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
: T2 E h) w5 T1 t( fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
& I. N7 a: E4 o- }5 m& ~; A8 eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& M. Y7 ~6 Q# Z- ]% e, I- q( x
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
% i4 n) i, L9 J+ {& W) xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another" \8 I% R6 E1 x9 T8 h7 S* s& x
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 {- @. x t) d* x' ~- h
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
) @% |& u4 I1 N) l g, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this0 ^6 W5 ]4 z! y' n) ^6 n
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds: z# y/ r4 D% ^; w2 _
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam8 \' D c& A$ D5 ?7 m
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
7 o; r" P9 |; ]% G9 Kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that( x" l. t. l4 [/ W4 g
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& r$ }5 Q2 |. Q4 K& f! [+ e3 d) r8 M, |; ^' Z! Q
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ s% u1 n% s3 R# z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ s) X; L& c4 U! f2 a& w2 p) A. \
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 C+ A% V0 g! m" _" m6 K. D
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
& P( P3 z1 E! P5 G4 R# B, u& }out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
! X% k& X* `( I( h* K- E! CLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 c+ _6 a2 n: N1 v7 x7 f. u
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
5 l" l* O9 a# b; s. Ological that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# I3 N( e+ U! hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science2 K. c$ f. [# U/ {
works.
8 p x. B4 H' R$ |3 z. v; U8 I3 N+ ?" B
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and" q4 |" w1 a+ {4 I }- V# }, s: k
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this; q W, \7 L) x. a+ f+ D
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% k4 b; J7 D2 A5 X7 j; Lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
K% _& Z# _7 B7 \6 S" Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% Y" U9 k* W }) k* k! y
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) T+ a# k" c" o6 qcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* ~, l6 p" Y$ r1 m: v) ^5 kdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
% R% U$ Z0 W/ O6 bto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" s( p8 T5 U2 d
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
5 z/ |6 v1 _; ]0 p0 e4 P, Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he* E9 F8 a q0 p3 h" d& `' R, X$ Y& w
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly9 X9 g* h+ y* E# x# V+ _
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
3 Z' \) O/ F7 y! K* u+ W5 Zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not i9 S' Z% z/ m0 B& g8 L, e
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; g8 @# q# g' `8 ^
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 s, s- [$ S* [: |7 Q3 X( M% }doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
3 a3 r" o/ G5 w) T) {2 ?be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ ]* n) w- B( g0 shearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 ]8 r7 g& y, x! z: _
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
1 S! C: s; `' Q2 \2 u2 N5 Rdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:$ \. f% c' `$ v8 A6 E5 u. {+ Z4 L
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect7 ~9 R7 E9 f1 O- T
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is1 [3 _* g7 ^/ h( L4 ~
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an) z8 v- `. t/ @& h |# ?
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
: Y5 o0 L# l: n( v0 Q) ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# P: n4 I2 l& e* W% e q: l$ \; sLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! P# M7 z j C. c& q, ?* o/ Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
v+ V- c' @& {4 O! j$ H; Feight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
# V9 `7 B' E# g0 x5 O2 Y. z9 vInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
$ W; H6 C8 E1 S4 R2 `
, U9 R8 `: e8 Q& l2 s9 z0 @Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of- D/ G" I' U& g5 B& `
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
) a. \0 f# Z) l. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
: e/ M7 Y s/ F( U5 oOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; A5 Y( \+ W- |, S6 N u
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ j Y1 n% H2 [& z6 Q2 J$ C
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: q2 Y/ J% m# V o# u% i% n4 Q: q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
1 I7 e% B) p# _8 V, R' ehave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- }# ]# |4 {% r% r& V
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this/ V4 y2 P) J1 E4 O
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.# i: C4 d' |0 }3 E
6 r# M7 H8 b" {. _# k! A
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
1 J7 L: Q, F' s0 l' V% l3 Y- ]intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
; b/ D& d3 R" c/ b& ]1 G" Z3 Wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 X5 F h* j6 n% O, \0 }1 ^
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; J" s9 C. U6 C8 H4 v2 ` u7 {all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
" i6 @, b/ E5 {0 G% [* [) [# einterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,6 `- N/ y" l0 r5 U7 l2 v
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, F8 _* \# o' C( c1 r
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal6 m# r& [ l, @& ` F/ T: ]
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
5 U/ l1 g/ v. T S) [! ^" w, N$ Treporting should be done. |
|