 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
; C8 _' ^9 K) N2 V- ~$ G Q0 s如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。4 J9 O5 A* D; t" t" T F- Z" c
, Z. U% T, R: y) p5 }9 ?
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, |7 i1 R" `0 k7 c* Y& E& a- w0 I7 c! P6 C- l( z: e
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 p) a7 v1 [2 _- c" ?' f! P
/ r y4 R$ h% EIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself8 c, ~3 [) b h3 y
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 H: e; q( `, |! I
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
& ~: Y. P8 C* Sis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: M. \ j' X3 U0 {, Nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
# q2 P T* H7 O; e- w. A) upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% E9 W, q' h/ S
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% y; A: @: O; p4 L' z* Twhich they blatantly failed to do./ f+ T, h- `, j) S
+ z+ y" }; Z3 D8 P
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
- H7 ~3 S6 w& y& tOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
{- h% T7 d3 T2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “# {- C. Q- _! ~# |
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& ^2 d; ^! m# \, [' D8 Mpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, B( |2 f$ ^$ L) bimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the5 C. Q! B. e1 y, ?
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 h! Q' y7 M' V6 R
be treated as 7 s.+ M' O. ~/ h( _* f
4 v+ d8 |+ d& K7 s/ t4 ~# ~Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 C6 \0 o% } |+ } V$ k
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, F6 ^, m* T& X/ }impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# p y0 J. i; Z: W* `
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 X- |& s0 ~3 ], O
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16. q: k n+ Z# B$ Z/ ?7 w/ C8 j
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& d. N3 w& V1 g5 \- V* }% D
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and0 o3 {; Y* i& D0 j' y# i
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
; i! v8 f/ `! }1 q% y4 z: Abased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ }; Z7 n, w6 b0 m$ R3 P& C
. h! L8 @' j0 P0 g. w
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
' f4 Z# a b Q) C/ lexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 H% _& ?" M8 h
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so4 o+ ]7 I4 h" e+ F- X" D* J% o7 V
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later6 I- d% n; N& Q7 T5 R; M9 D
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 v, v6 R/ J9 X( w& X8 Vbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 O, v; z0 h6 _0 o
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
* ~5 M9 ^5 _% c/ dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. k) ]" O$ e7 O& O
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 H# X: h( |" l7 z; p
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ I4 q6 x! r( ]: xstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds, e/ m3 U1 C% x% g+ G
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
) Q7 S c$ @! q1 g& {# H ]faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting( o1 a, j6 C! I( A
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
( P2 ^$ P( p! X+ w5 dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
0 p4 h# Z% i7 J7 z4 S0 ?7 e7 C
+ W+ I' b0 n& {. P- `2 \Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
2 F& k/ d- M$ Bfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ k; M; x( D) K5 w+ ^$ ~% R. x
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* O) A- w; F6 |# I; B6 }$ u
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns$ K+ B- `1 [9 ~ y: s: e
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
" A* r3 H' _& }+ l1 d4 r( i! NLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
9 V# s' ?0 E+ b+ @, C$ W# [, m( y$ W }of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it8 v+ T8 [0 Y( d+ z0 @" Y6 y- m
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in! p: n! V6 |0 I* r+ U. r, L& Z2 E& B' |
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, H2 L& k! {0 j& Yworks.
4 n$ P/ u2 [9 O8 ]$ {, [ A( E' Y& t# m0 {8 Q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and& O+ T, b( J- z4 v6 o! x1 I& O! }. G9 N
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: j2 O# F+ m/ o" h' Y, @: ~kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 H6 O; \ S/ v$ B! w' }
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific. q/ p" M8 P$ e/ l( \ l
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) ]' t) I) A, V' k n, E2 [& zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 f* A, v5 B, [/ Y* {cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to5 v- C% h6 j: r6 K. m
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
; W3 ?0 J P+ s' rto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& S$ Y; N V' N6 N7 ]7 X5 g
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 h/ s% m2 N7 Z( h$ b3 P
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ M, B3 A+ P5 R, b u f, Z* nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
( s/ X5 n# i: l6 dadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
- n/ P: M) P& [4 Wpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ j5 o' f( n. [) f: F% ~use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation4 ]- m3 v+ s9 h: \: x, g* f
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are8 j9 x4 Z6 b+ x# _% r
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ ~. `! ^+ @. v! s6 k0 N. D" jbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a0 d3 A( i& o7 z* c, M5 Q6 n! ^4 v
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
$ P7 _2 t1 _: w- G& a$ L* Whas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a; g/ c, a8 E: P/ T9 q; H: i$ s0 a# h
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
6 i* U7 }3 A/ s) {other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
9 t/ S) O/ P; H( I, z, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! I; n: {8 S; X; E1 D& N
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
, ] [) t/ a4 x1 @athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
1 Q" o0 e' l+ h; A8 [2 g3 R# xchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
" g! b3 M3 C/ i. r/ [Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& g8 [: `: q2 ^: C ]agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# J2 g# m3 O% ^/ T6 I7 n+ \
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.. p6 z# K. F9 [# R
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?0 @/ {$ J$ O% K( L7 r9 L9 ^
+ B9 N" R) m) lSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 ?5 Y$ B; v0 x1 Dcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 d+ C) I: b$ e8 p' @6 g. @/ @
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ p: O/ u9 R8 \Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
7 p: r: Y( i+ X6 ~1 S/ y% HOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ P4 v4 W% a9 ?5 k6 x+ Edoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 J! D( G' c; ^/ v. Egames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope( H' n& k. W/ @: Z. l
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: ?! T7 ?2 e' H5 A, u0 p; w
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this* G U5 x! R/ J: |6 L+ {/ M
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.: w; d9 r! b3 i o. ]# K8 H
, ]6 p% ~3 m- x, F: @3 W% D! s# d# lOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
7 N/ n7 _, l e! y g$ yintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
/ ^2 d9 u! D$ \4 osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a1 |+ x1 x" R6 y8 u# g
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; h6 E0 b" ?9 _6 c/ b9 J) ]4 zall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your7 Y8 k, d/ p5 N/ ^* a
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- [ \4 W( Z6 k; t' }: [. w# s
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( j% O/ g3 _$ `+ G7 g# D u oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal" I& k4 N+ R" P& w H5 p% p6 m
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& l* a, l. H$ J% f
reporting should be done. |
|