 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
! n$ s8 R, u! P* k如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
) r7 ~0 f: O# U- A9 y8 E( |
# Y& e2 {# g% Q3 W7 s2 P r& Qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html% z; D( L) j/ d, p/ e# P/ Y/ D
! f% b1 w: x$ y3 _& a3 SFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
* E0 } q+ h4 i. W/ i- `' j8 {$ h( d9 ~; @
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself9 t% j7 i- ~' O( D+ v! u
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 x9 N1 O0 R' v' V
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this# s' z$ q4 ~% \8 W: Z. {6 u
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the" l/ Q) O3 \+ w c) K! N
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
3 C: z/ L) @% @ R& _populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" \1 {2 [& c' }: w7 v/ |should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 K7 r0 G. Q* G U dwhich they blatantly failed to do.
9 Q* d( d/ h$ `. C4 \, V8 R+ |2 D4 I k) o/ ?# R7 ?+ Q$ F3 b
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her% M* j& ~( T5 g' l# P: j
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
5 H0 y ?7 P- A) a2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “; ], D# e8 i* ?1 C0 s
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ f/ K1 }; k" ~$ N3 B- o
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, ^6 j6 h8 Z) E0 i& ~
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
5 u5 R( J7 s& g r$ Mdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 r P; K' l$ E8 W. F
be treated as 7 s.
1 e( b4 L+ K6 P1 |% t: u: e
! M* v) G9 N$ X3 aSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
( Q1 P' y; S6 p" i; k% S% x/ Q5 Ostill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 f! B5 p: A$ s+ i5 ]( x# d
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
1 c7 F% {; z) v; a1 d+ f: hAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% h1 v# O; H% z* e/ o, q. H3 G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 r$ f, x9 ~2 {
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: _8 u0 S7 C! w0 x Z; o
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
b( p3 _) d$ \persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous” y* E3 m" Q$ i: n4 |. K+ n' l, h
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, w" b- {6 ~, \, _ K8 ^5 }" m& Q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
4 }, e' `* V1 Sexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
T: y7 \% |/ P0 B1 D2 Q3 zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 X* L6 }: V0 p7 V8 |
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
1 l; a9 I) M2 W2 I: n, s5 Wevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# K3 R0 C% p( I) {( S3 P6 q; u ubest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World" f a& y: O6 `, a0 I" t0 {' W+ n
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
/ T; a( H3 [2 w4 x+ Ktopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
3 Z9 q% k! [. hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
% _7 h, D" Y) f/ Y4 |; V, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
: P- ^- e7 ?/ Y$ @2 Bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
! S8 R( i E/ \2 K) M' nfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam: ~# W3 q, @1 i8 [. P. V
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ q Y0 M6 V1 l& Q4 x4 caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 ~( k, n5 \: e5 D; B
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.' L; G: y: ^3 D7 T( t. z
r+ v+ b" q- J) EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are1 w1 G) W: v, V3 W6 y& w: W: p+ x
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
# F. s6 G' a) z+ u# f2 |s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s, Q0 t8 W0 {) \
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* ^' k5 l- U' X. e
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," E6 I- q. O! I) y- L( v! ~. m
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind( n6 v {# p5 g5 h
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it4 Y$ w9 U2 q( h+ o
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in4 Q0 F5 d0 z- r6 b
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" g o9 Q* X7 j1 m: t+ W# r
works.
% p* e- C; B0 ~3 D" s# i: l- Y% n6 @) q6 r1 N% O2 e3 W3 u+ y9 P
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
- x* I6 |" o5 T. u1 yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ W+ l+ J) M* D, n6 h" z# ^ n1 ukind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
: |9 X% h/ A1 s; {4 Z7 o3 j% N& Ostandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific5 `. Y' f8 c* ?. _6 m' p
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and9 U. @ _& g$ c, y+ ]- F& p
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One$ b3 E: G7 r, F7 y3 {7 M1 F4 O9 p' s
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ t# F# n0 z# `; Q2 Z a' t
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' Z% X$ N1 G- o6 C, m
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 I7 M3 q) I1 J$ |5 uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
: S7 B C: i6 Z3 Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, s1 b `9 k# Wwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 q/ k; |1 H3 b
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: H W" N; s( q& G9 Ypast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 s( G0 z/ e2 n+ Q5 Y; B! d9 I
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 [3 A: f) u$ i Z7 N( @" J" x. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
0 T& M3 N5 k" k* S, _doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 j2 P+ X! b' \# a5 u) n; }: P3 S0 nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
~$ S3 N6 V7 ]' J3 g) qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& q2 y+ b1 |' T) f; X) _) e
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a x, t+ M/ b0 L, W
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 c6 O8 U2 {! a% J3 Yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 k1 G' h( c( f; m* h& n, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
- J, s5 h" b( l! W: D$ s& Z$ iprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 b3 O7 L; O' t/ z. `- Wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight, t- k* ]# d4 D
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 p; x9 a! k! q3 q( _
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 z, ]% N, w& q+ I b% s; @
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
$ h* G- N4 m7 u9 r, j3 height years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
0 N5 c0 j3 v+ S* u! y6 H2 LInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
3 h6 F3 K) o7 t2 K8 [% L4 g# q0 h+ u" I) s
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
% |) `9 ]: u6 v$ d" ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 c" ]% I5 Q6 H/ M
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 A1 c% g+ [, d; o% k, ]' p
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 I; F, L, k0 q$ k3 }+ m7 ZOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
N4 X0 K! g- A# c, y) Z& t/ edoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 {7 R; y- ?1 [& b, v- ^( C+ g
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope0 J+ v4 ~8 g/ s+ y9 u
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' Q+ K+ s+ _' n- Z
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
9 T0 j6 B1 y# p. s( opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. v2 W0 ^: e7 E- G' l: h, \" P! h5 P
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: `9 N. [4 ^& [, D- Z- Q
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. D- m B! ?3 ~, ]( a; l7 Psuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a3 B( N+ j( {( v" z* e
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 X% N* n9 W7 }0 a
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 b3 H0 v) o- \1 g) q {% D
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,4 T5 M( d& q. B4 W5 Z
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 g# {) k( w8 @/ P( m! a/ [, P
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal) p$ Q* u/ r; Z6 j7 u) ~
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or4 j: Y& @* l9 q4 e: O
reporting should be done. |
|