 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, ~/ G% j$ h' j9 Q
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! o. K! d7 G) e% M! L
% p+ x8 _$ \% p5 E/ S7 R p( x( z; phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 M! d1 s. P: k& i% {6 e' Z7 I7 U9 y4 a' e( S- K! q3 M2 u
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ x+ v7 f5 a* O5 d* t2 b( H
) ~/ }( M" K6 yIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
7 R5 U ~) D3 J" L, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. o. r6 O2 u9 Rmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, _3 o6 ]5 Z, U, D) w9 Zis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# R u7 _, w- @7 o1 Lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 f6 H. R7 u/ S7 p" c& T( n, _4 N
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors/ Z7 ?- R' p. n7 Q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,* T+ H4 h5 F6 U/ X$ a/ g
which they blatantly failed to do.4 E" P4 f' w! g
6 {* Y4 i' R: ^6 gFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
0 h1 T8 n( i+ d, N( \Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# n) ?! r7 p/ l' @6 t) ?# D# S2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “ u# J- K1 U4 Z0 M: ~: D: i
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 n# J5 ], E4 `! Gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
% v7 D* U( u) Mimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
& A6 `; I+ ?4 y, R& M% ` Gdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
" d4 p2 H; r! H1 N! U; vbe treated as 7 s.& |2 J% W) \1 P3 A3 N3 Y: Q [2 W
& u6 J" ^4 Q" S( h! M: _Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
; z6 @$ {4 U6 m2 o8 `. T$ istill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, Q8 U! I! Q- ?* p7 k
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! y7 m# l( _: qAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 ^# |/ L1 X8 |3 H* O-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
. J/ R- Q2 D, U. vFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( p/ y, Q( ~2 Z1 ?
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
T4 r; p' A5 B/ i) D+ Hpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”9 I+ i, q# W; a6 }
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
) y5 u% e6 U W# e7 V9 E- n! a. H. C: w1 x M0 a- {8 v
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ }! t! @8 B3 }4 h4 o' g
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
& ?/ `0 Q4 ]- h8 f3 Ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
# Q9 i; ]) ^6 {! d' N. z/ v. zhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later9 m/ w# {& j* B( E" e" A; g
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s$ x6 |* M1 _) r) V; G" I# R
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
7 N; V* P# U: g! a, }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 ]: @: M, n0 ^0 [+ D8 p ~topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. ^' L. F/ ]6 l
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle! j5 [$ d$ M: ~/ P
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this' R2 {: ]" T0 O6 S& c. m
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds# {, l5 D8 c/ K! n- f
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- o( W. h8 N# t4 i! N+ G% n; L; K# Vfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 x- G/ `' }) L3 Q0 Y* t. Z0 daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. T7 u# ]0 H7 o7 uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, p x" A, ?& f9 ]+ X& s7 k; J. \9 l( {/ A4 }+ m5 [$ b( l# D
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are. C7 o( L2 {4 u m! [0 Z& v
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.932 m/ a! f+ `3 p0 M( E
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s \+ L( b. D ]
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
9 {( H, W* ?5 s( m, {: L3 ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,3 T& S' X' v% U7 i: g- n L6 T
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 C" u6 S# z% F( W0 dof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* B* o' T5 ?& b+ G
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 a4 P9 o0 y/ Uevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, L, x: S9 n, C
works.
2 f* H' }. n6 R% k3 N: M$ M; G3 E1 q- }$ [2 T- [
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
. R7 o7 R* B, E# j! nimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this, _0 s& y# R' k4 V
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 C! V# s0 d' E0 a; C( @7 E! M
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
* b) H2 ]2 G% U' ]- Ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and7 s- E, I4 q/ u6 z( o f7 _' A
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- k/ S6 @( j. }4 Hcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
8 R) q. y7 l) G1 O" ]. ^! f! Cdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
* e/ a( _" s/ F! b* Xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample# e/ ^: e( E. J# m! U/ H* @% o
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, K: L& u6 }( J' acrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& Q% ]0 @- P5 J% f/ y4 i" m' |
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ G1 q, Q& M" Badvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; o; y! x* _" \: f! p! C/ _! b
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
& J! b+ W, P( w/ `use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: T' w) Z! X6 D, L' A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
+ C- N0 h1 Q* D8 `$ P c+ ?, y6 Qdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may: U' m! @! M1 ~" J. {$ k
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a+ i8 \4 P* B4 L! _9 ~! F; }; Q2 y
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& h/ Y( I4 Z8 @+ e! V* `6 C8 E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& t0 [$ J8 W8 ]! Y+ h# |+ [drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ k5 N, R* d% S, |, n1 |
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect6 Q2 Q; A" _% _9 K/ |0 K" o# ^
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. c1 e( ~" S, `6 H* tprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 J/ b& z! f* B! s# Y1 B5 A; e1 @: d
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
2 s, ]! t/ V/ K/ c! R' tchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( k- B& r* n: r) }9 T5 H. tLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
- b: |& @6 Q( Aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
o4 z" Y* y1 h8 B' V3 B" jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.( H& D ?/ h5 a. H" H
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?1 H/ Q+ f* r) t5 M# |
, ?- Q/ e* ^# O4 V, H# w, M
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
8 Q# J& |) J: jcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
6 C b0 h7 a! n: g. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. G/ J$ j" N& a/ ~+ x& eOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London" n) a6 e) g& z4 x! J# z7 f
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
2 u& ?8 C- ?/ P% N" @doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
; u/ E9 f/ R3 Q7 f# i1 Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope# \9 z+ q5 w5 F: u$ k
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
4 n$ D. d4 B$ N7 ^) z+ ~player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 f9 m: n6 G' n* v1 zpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.1 k9 x9 B5 }$ ^9 N5 \/ j! S
4 r2 S7 W, b- ]1 n# K- b, W, POver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (' U/ T$ Q' R3 K
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too# t) n& i" s/ T0 d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a& H9 G. T+ R* @' W8 C
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 a. W4 t2 p9 I' K' E t& e: X* n
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your: O# o" k7 d$ Y" R/ v' H% F) E4 ]
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" y8 ~1 F. x, P* _/ \; {7 L/ Kexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% S) N' m y# B8 ]; fargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, T+ t) k" O' X( M2 Y& W! R) d0 F1 ssuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or# f F4 Q4 b9 B- T* I/ n% w, M+ s
reporting should be done. |
|