 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
( \# K. j2 m i9 I如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。: M/ {4 m p$ Y% R% `+ S3 s
" m) b5 ?% u N, @6 `4 M8 y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html* {% O+ }: X, L. q& I& C- M& s" t
! u f' m2 {- c% W8 X
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania }6 u" S% ~. H, {9 a, D: w
& A/ ^+ Q/ U4 }: jIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself2 R) a% H& u' Z/ B, R
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 ?9 b$ W" z) y
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ [0 A- ]& M- Qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 W- v5 M6 W. ]/ c
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general, E. T! r8 A9 A+ p3 G+ M
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 c! E9 r& Q* K) n
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
4 K7 N# R" o- T+ @% g2 b! k! {which they blatantly failed to do.$ p. K$ @- X, U- B
# B6 X2 h. o; P" ^0 {: ~
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
0 _% L7 m0 V; i5 g8 ^Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
, \3 t& @( }' n2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “9 ^4 s: f% @, ?5 \ E" z
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 a) b+ Y! ^: X% V+ Ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 D/ j( @- H T" f! J$ K
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: r* m8 K2 h' `8 K. O" h/ h. I
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 C+ U* Y5 _7 c! z E9 h1 `
be treated as 7 s.
+ w k) @ ?7 \! A) S, K1 Z6 t7 X2 O4 s! ?( d
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
9 K/ J V+ L$ @/ F) x( d, ^9 Bstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
" t- r% m) k) {: dimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
% n; B# |8 ?9 O) e+ i1 EAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 E1 y0 {8 n1 P( V2 x* V$ c-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 ~, h0 i7 q# ]7 g, K& t1 d1 KFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: m& T! W( A8 c- p5 x7 G6 H0 e
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
L* @7 `8 Q; y% a8 ^+ _% c0 Bpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous” z( F; h( r; I: y$ ~
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
0 f' c2 _& L8 `& e5 a1 y
, T! [# a9 k8 fThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
8 |- Z+ e( S+ K* e2 j7 texample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in J) Q% r+ F6 m! l7 T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
# P% ^ M, B: T d& mhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later6 R7 M0 l1 g9 ~7 X" O
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% _" s4 S# k6 G. w- }
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World' T+ e1 G4 ]9 \! D1 ?9 I
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
$ f1 B9 t; f* ?topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
' T0 G& F7 g& t3 N& ^) Phand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. x* p+ f7 }! D) F
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. r, r# g+ P2 ?8 ^$ i: _+ @1 rstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& @9 B9 i, e$ T
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam, E j) u' X; U C
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting8 e, e+ n3 D& E/ h0 q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ _: N& M- k9 S) C
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
f0 ` X) H! u! c# y9 O: \% b3 z# o
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
! Q$ D& ~. G; V* i# U' C3 Jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.935 h" g0 t1 U5 L, O I
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
% _0 L- S- h2 T), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: t* e! n& w1 \. Pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
`9 k* e3 e R; K1 a" }Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 e x% L( M7 y9 z F( Z
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 ~9 d4 N3 q- }0 O6 C5 H/ ^
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: |: `# U$ B1 m$ q6 D# Q" M+ z
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science# A: E3 I- A* y* {# x# E: V
works.- V; t! f; G# K6 H
4 b! k8 B9 o$ v* Z$ F
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
4 t3 t+ Y5 Q! c6 i7 R) V8 Gimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! z( z" [/ l6 q
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 Y( {8 r, n0 m2 K& i
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific F0 R* b3 s w C+ R& I
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and1 i. j* C2 J, Y
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) t0 ] ^4 S w: r, U9 bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 r& O4 \+ C! }& Z. x
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. p. b4 A/ x) }to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 t, v. z* i% k* S: e- o$ e. v$ Wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is- R" `$ Z8 e0 P r: x+ w X
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he( q$ w7 E i5 k0 _ `2 K
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 E2 g9 |+ b7 E# ^2 U+ G8 ]advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ l# |% U+ H" c. B1 B/ x: Dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ U$ p/ {( ^/ kuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 x8 @+ l( S/ I
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- `, ?- c8 `$ I- w1 y9 e
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ h7 _% g1 [7 v/ S/ Y9 d1 Pbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 n6 E) p% t# D6 _$ h* rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, ?9 y- l) L: r! C ^
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 S k. N! I5 P$ |+ a, Z5 H" qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:( G' i6 k# E* v7 J9 T% J
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
0 v9 Z2 u8 G& u7 O3 Y, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
- _9 C7 c+ H" p) V6 @$ v Y7 bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an7 M2 ^% R/ w2 K. q, s' G/ |
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
7 s# y" Z8 b5 }# R. _chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 |$ q$ s: e; i( g7 T( d1 z' F
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# x# U9 h) f; o' b p8 C& Kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
: Z0 j& _+ s9 b" b; b( o$ T1 Q2 leight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.# k: p- Y2 s! m/ I" L( G2 U0 o
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
$ I# S4 a" _ s2 `5 b8 L+ ~) P+ i# Z7 {
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
% U$ `. Z5 z( \1 H- b3 rcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
" V( X* S8 L; ^$ B3 y% L' s o. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
* W9 L" B. F, w. N1 o9 c* COlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
" n S/ U0 V, p+ S: EOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
4 W# i W1 t l" N6 cdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
2 k. j& J. N# b7 f$ Cgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
% s7 M0 L6 T1 Q( N4 b, v3 ^have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a# k: W$ d: `6 f/ `2 }- o
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" B6 B. a0 {# @ i" W
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' k: s7 U6 f* V k" y8 g
; B' t, ~0 T" [; l8 m/ Y( ^Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- [/ M6 Y5 X& U0 u, n) g* eintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
' J+ W) D3 \; |5 \1 g# K! wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 H# c" m- p: C0 E
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 _) I6 @; I" v* M6 jall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
/ x3 x% N( o1 Vinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 e3 R2 I0 J! z8 I; s3 N, s
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
& A6 c2 G3 O6 ?$ |3 c' t" o3 F2 uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* `: _+ x4 U3 z2 W' a/ c/ {
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ t' h% ^- @9 |) M( Sreporting should be done. |
|