 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; u. f/ K7 L8 I/ n& A如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* {- D1 h0 U' Z' P
8 H- ]5 p5 |2 r5 e0 E6 e5 \8 _4 u$ {http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html2 g. [. N) {" D. ]7 A0 t
. A" S# ]3 X' o. ]9 R! mFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! t2 y% m: ^) C& c
) c* H& u7 M1 w9 H
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself8 l) T% v+ ? D$ C8 |& X" B2 g4 t$ j) z
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
6 G8 }% s, V* i' g( k$ ~ Dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" m' U( m' |1 x0 i { M J4 Lis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 P5 v6 T) [2 W+ Dscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
) C) E2 {8 L- K0 opopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 W, N: U" I& W$ b% q: W+ ]5 Wshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 I# k4 [$ i5 |# a; j
which they blatantly failed to do.5 s( z+ b) D1 u+ ?1 h
+ k# i, B% |9 ~4 V4 C
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her( O b$ C2 Z6 R l
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
" E. A8 m; k9 h% s% {2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 D. `! p- G9 u6 S7 Uanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% i* L& W" R) `8 B/ {personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ D. {6 Z1 Q( L6 q2 }* kimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the5 N j% b" s7 L `* i$ G
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 _* v0 j/ r2 S+ S( f/ p% m
be treated as 7 s.! a3 u$ q8 {1 C8 q3 g
: t/ f X: w v6 Z4 dSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
8 y2 S* X! h: r' i0 E" v) L* A f3 {6 vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 U) b5 {9 q6 E+ i: [: _% Rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.3 n* B- f" ]1 R7 F* \! _+ C/ Z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4004 L& Y$ H: i1 r$ q+ Y1 Q( X: w6 l
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 n: u P4 L. }" [4 \3 @. g( J9 S+ _
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an$ `+ e! u# z' k, u$ Z. v# R1 k
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and* }8 _; J" G$ u. C# W* E
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
! e" H$ r9 p4 K7 g2 zbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, X2 H6 w( j: c/ {% p! V" |: H: Y& w: C
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
' _' U0 ` y9 Qexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
# s# Q6 _2 b: ]" Wthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so. ~1 P) x9 t; ]# J
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% A. g# F' M i( H" I) D" c; e
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s! W! A$ |9 ]$ U
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 p* }% k* T8 w/ UFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
# @; l" W2 N( dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( H/ N, `& t2 L; J- ^" o. Rhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
+ v# {8 d' a6 o4 M, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this$ S# r% c; \) t* H
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 `' O! n: i8 ~( d) _. {; H
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
C; P! \+ M( c/ ]" C/ O9 Cfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 ?# c( D' ^" K3 t. p! }! q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
6 B3 {# C5 _0 Z* t! V/ Z+ zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.& _" }9 L( v6 Z$ O& [7 A4 Z
0 Q6 C; F& \8 p7 V* Q& pFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ ~/ o, X8 [# ^# ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% H; c K1 i8 A9 R3 b( C
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 S( b2 ^/ d1 t3 ~ e& b6 r
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 K0 q+ z( w$ _* T! B6 t
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 C! ?% w# \( y6 Q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind h; p( X; ?" d
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it( ]; h% V/ Z @$ b! b( i
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- `; l' g9 r4 S0 u4 T9 D' N
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science/ M8 B; M) d" W! o; B" G) Q
works.
$ f& X8 X# e* {6 T; e# a+ f& p6 ~, [& b/ b; e# q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
$ y5 f, c" Y8 g# h- pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this6 a, W# P9 R' L, Q
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that" y0 }) N# B- {( d
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ o, L% A) S# E5 \+ B4 U2 h
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 ]. p6 e, G4 O& B* P+ Sreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) j4 Q6 H6 J' q# ~3 ycannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 B. Y {) k8 f6 n; |demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 a- q- }. j4 j* g' P
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* Y) |5 y5 z( ^5 c& U
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 {( S4 k2 Y, W8 J, R j) a' f3 Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 A; T# K* {" r3 p3 [wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
# A' u! T" O: |0 N% nadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& ]0 [3 h& \3 S# k! ~past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not8 z2 ?% D; ~+ ]
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
3 H, K" s) e& R3 |, I t" u. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. V+ S; P9 p# f6 d7 C7 [ Y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may; b7 y O. v6 d& S- ~' L3 ]& s
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
- \; b7 _8 {, C1 u8 q" ~hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye/ k) p3 g+ r! B$ I c- _- w. ?
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a, ?$ P, |* U3 ]1 M+ ]/ A7 O
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:/ W; `# C! {! ^+ E' U
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- E" g7 m1 x/ M/ r, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is c7 I7 N Y5 `) W( H
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ J/ R# f, H" J3 ]athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; ]1 E5 l/ v* W4 h* O; p
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) r; e6 T% M' A0 pLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping: x, q1 t" i' c3 p
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for, R! ~7 f/ m: E9 c. _) W
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
9 t8 ]2 s* _9 y4 P( N+ \* O5 `9 LInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?% V2 [# F1 G6 x2 V& A) Z
c4 b* q) C/ S4 ^( g1 b, m6 c
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' J( y5 H6 T6 |8 T3 J9 d' @
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
* E: _# I$ |- _8 {, A. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
% P" C) v, ^, b* J& |) gOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& ]4 {; n8 d+ H# S$ O0 r+ F+ @1 @Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
j+ L% i; A o' b# `doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
$ z6 B, H! _+ r( Q3 S1 k/ w; k# e+ Ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
1 n7 ~" K+ [2 Y) v5 c# ^have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. Y9 K3 c' ~1 l- V! p3 u: x6 _( X- aplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this. H* A. I( ?8 A1 j3 ~3 @
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye. ?& |0 p* f/ @3 `8 r
: L! C1 w2 K& q+ ?' u' q: x
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
4 ^1 @' x( v6 ~* B# I& `intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ y1 S5 F% g( J) w9 h( [
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
% l0 x4 z: H+ \$ Vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' b0 F4 Y4 b3 _% N" hall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
; p5 n/ }% i4 V$ o9 H% m/ f5 I5 pinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,' m0 r. k- Q1 q( A& t6 Q2 e
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your! k' O1 ^- m! O3 Z0 C( c
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal% s5 _/ j2 d' l9 ^& A
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' D( p& k, c- G0 [- Sreporting should be done. |
|