 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
- C' X' W3 P! L0 x! k/ f6 _如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。8 R4 c+ }' F4 m! @" B1 _; V0 \4 a
2 \, n- {! o7 S. mhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html; b/ T8 z1 K; r$ G
- _; C$ w( o$ g: b# `3 ^FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania* ?0 k& {/ g0 D
7 U7 v, A- X# VIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
5 k0 c; n; |, [3 r! R9 ^1 N% s, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 C0 h# k# D0 r
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# ~2 ?: H) d* b7 Kis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
8 D; M) B' A0 i( R8 _) w# cscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
5 o# E5 x9 \ Ipopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors5 J w, R$ Y9 `# K" |' I
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 f$ p: @; N" T5 @- Q2 `
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ ]) ?0 F1 A# M* _! ]
, W3 J, g a6 ^3 CFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her' \0 Q* B3 u# n( N! g, j, X; A" `$ t
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in( d1 i) n) T5 s
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
& ~/ ?& n6 Q- T0 y$ X& S: M) g! D& Hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
. e) d6 a4 A' H. ]+ S. ~8 B/ Bpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 K7 J( T0 `0 u( I J; `
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ V$ M; d' p I2 T" ]difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
& n. Y4 c0 F. y3 [be treated as 7 s.
4 L/ i* L: p' u
' k2 L! M( z; a }5 kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is. F4 F; \0 V- E8 a+ j
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
" p8 s( @% n9 M }, }" x/ f- I9 q, Himpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
" m( E7 L: K2 k' q$ ~( h) j- {4 qAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& D% {3 m. J8 R) t' {-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* r( D( r% a1 G. N& d: P! C$ l9 l( q8 rFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an E! J0 ?7 @" W+ k$ t" j" D7 f
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
" K" G: }! A6 f5 ~/ Rpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”3 A# k6 r/ D) }# E/ J
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.* ~. K o% z7 Z4 u( i/ D* D* _
. W2 f* p6 Z/ }; ~
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' e# Q9 U( D( v1 u- J5 t8 `+ B0 Y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
$ g, C+ V* _0 M8 Z( X, ]$ {% n$ hthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so' W ], O5 }+ {( y6 W1 u$ B
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ Y" z: C7 O+ V5 ^5 p3 m- ]
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
! w. d) [8 N+ b2 M, }( n: rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ ]- b" R6 t0 [! ~Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% K# c- `4 @4 K' x/ g( e6 T
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other, X5 n0 a5 H$ A0 ]4 n+ |8 S3 ^
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle5 |! b0 H( p! V9 c
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this9 v$ u0 l+ B [, z; L: ~' T$ P
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
K5 |% v5 t, P; D& l6 Sfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- u6 I x o" N7 j" Vfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting, O/ T! t) @) F
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that& p% Q9 D9 P; r6 q) x
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
) j/ j1 Y, p9 ?8 G6 U- m; y
! R, j5 i" _- l U. mFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are( D1 ^$ O' p X4 X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 c4 d b+ l( ?) L7 a Q3 d' Ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 D$ i6 P8 h; u# L0 p), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns# o1 H6 C2 |6 p3 N# M) ^
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) w8 l, D5 I6 _4 q# o$ I- g( Y8 I. VLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
# t: B0 J4 ?/ _of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 B) ^% i8 b$ c9 R3 I
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in2 t7 C. F% P0 a$ n
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
- _ Z7 K9 H( I8 Rworks.4 F9 l' c$ _. K- D) o* ]0 L
* J8 j4 g8 A& `# U* D9 K J
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and$ R! m3 O) M/ D
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 s9 c3 R W2 D5 {( `4 @: j- E3 d5 Ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. G) t. Q! v2 ^3 W- k _# l: Q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific J, @5 W% b u: O' M
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* @) k8 }1 ] J2 n7 _ X* ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 r# l' h+ M* x" c4 A
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to9 y1 |8 l3 k: l3 N
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: X- w" Q3 x5 h1 B( F, C$ V' h
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 O W, f+ L5 w! H* C8 X9 Yis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% V8 _3 @+ _8 w7 R. k1 Gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) c4 \+ Z- K4 Y" z- k- M" F5 f
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ L% W) A, I- [advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
3 A" L5 F' [6 k5 Upast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ I; ~% ~3 P8 T
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' f$ v1 e5 a- M' L) E
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 w4 R6 Z" Q4 f
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may! x- l1 w, X* y4 t
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) \* V5 W: ]) b5 f. o! ?
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye8 a8 V+ L* c' X! d) C
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# O n! D ^" Y+ d7 k
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
5 K8 L" i. |7 N: V2 `other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect& j+ @, M6 T) e4 p& N/ f
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
' ?" ]1 D, \6 ?, ?probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; y# Q6 [. G o. g
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
+ r6 w0 @1 J. H& J: Hchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? z+ S' M* A& o; h4 \. \) l
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& W4 r0 \; Z8 Z8 a1 {2 ]agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for' {9 V, j5 M* x( X# g* I
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
& f) }7 q/ N' k7 x" bInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?; C' A/ C& E! U7 q; E; z6 k
7 y3 r1 \0 P3 rSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# f3 Z) K7 C) `, @competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
" {3 w1 }# R* K+ K. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" j8 e4 V1 q8 d+ ]Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
' f) ~* k7 }# G8 G3 [" d, FOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for4 k( ]8 H. R' f( T3 N& D/ O1 @
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. s9 N8 T9 P3 _" j% Y S
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
8 k3 @! P+ M# V! ]! Lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% X2 ]1 l& B6 Y& n/ f6 s* C
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this8 A( g- H" \# K1 s$ v. E+ i) s
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye." O* V( `- d& v( Q) d4 l+ _
& O0 J; F) |! Z8 s
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (( _( s$ Y% D& G
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( F" B0 Y9 E3 ]* G0 A
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 Z% J1 c( w$ E: T. \suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 _: U$ N# G1 e/ y/ _1 j7 J+ Xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
! D+ t; t: p6 b1 z4 b1 E2 \interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. M/ G; O0 b6 y# }* {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
: T0 {" _0 l* Kargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# V+ w# d# U' B( y" J! G3 t3 W& Usuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 F; O% y: ]* ~reporting should be done. |
|