 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$ [" d* Z! z- @, H$ `3 h
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。: O$ f0 l! D8 ^2 V0 o7 W F
0 |) r/ I1 b4 fhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 I* H* b) N6 X4 T. g
3 [* |$ x, P- rFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% z( ?+ ^0 p& X$ \
! s$ I) U- ?3 f; y; DIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) z; ?# {; T; r0 x, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 _8 C- w5 {8 f# X! k9 r( W( ]magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, M% D: c/ `0 k: q7 f' O! x
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" u; \5 x: C# Wscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
& p, \0 g+ E3 I$ R2 m! t& W/ }populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
+ ]# P b9 `# W/ B0 e @( t& t0 dshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% S9 R# E8 v' Jwhich they blatantly failed to do.( E, k" c! o0 b, e5 o' s6 t2 p
/ K& E' \' B. }% S7 EFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her1 x0 L) }, L, U+ r5 {8 T4 \0 f
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
' s: E! g A" ^( p* D; y" i2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) i# T' w7 U0 N- o7 t+ e6 H" r1 O
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
# ^; u' \3 t$ |personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* {0 u. H z+ e2 g; \. f- Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ u/ O+ f. H# l' f8 u. @% ~difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
5 |! ~+ F( S+ c2 I% q6 Z" Qbe treated as 7 s.
( G$ m" m, ^$ y# }! Y P3 Q3 M; E% B* {+ j$ y. u
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! E5 Y: I3 E+ ?2 b6 H; j/ vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 S: ?; v, A8 [ p: _: K! J
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.+ `( o, V. X7 D2 L. _0 E
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
0 [% y9 ], v2 W6 o/ W% d-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
, \2 I \ |/ m, Z. EFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: A+ [" Q* H' m
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" p7 K' B% `% M; P0 i
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
; ~; \% _( e, {) L1 z. o( N8 I! s% ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound., g( `( k7 g: G: n) T- U3 z
1 o) g: b4 H- F1 B" wThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 d- P1 o/ V8 C1 e& d e) \4 {1 ~
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- ^' U0 | l8 S" L+ s
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so% d0 R5 N1 ]7 ]. H+ V/ M
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 T( s/ [7 T4 W+ {9 r( w" u) ?- j
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" X/ ? n/ O3 a5 }
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
2 {& X1 E4 K& a mFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another T( X6 n- S/ z# U Q& e: H
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
- d! O9 k* h7 Mhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle5 x, s+ y- L- j; C! u: f
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
3 l2 N' [. w( H1 Mstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
! n, B! {, }* ~7 Kfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
; ?+ R$ R+ M1 h4 X4 Y! Mfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
/ C9 e& J. x9 paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that) h' {& ~5 g0 E8 J* q- V
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.2 _7 S& t/ ?( Y
. j C2 g/ p4 n+ o( Q T/ o* n6 mFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, l. q) d' _0 @
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
" x m/ h1 Z' O3 s7 m) ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s$ W" {; |6 P; q0 y% t
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns! C$ \& U9 t9 T6 |
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 z3 ^& U3 p5 u) B! uLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind$ x5 j! d# @9 [. I1 F5 t- d
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 s4 _5 s5 h) o% o7 w0 ^1 ]8 ilogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
j3 v4 I: \! P; c9 M* T% pevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
3 m* f: ?( Y( l1 Uworks.
. H2 c% a% d4 i2 r& {0 h% K4 z1 f+ ?4 Q" g3 D/ |; |4 g
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, Z1 {( X6 R8 |
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
8 u( H& t/ d8 m& Z& l I- _kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 |9 V9 a, E, U5 hstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
4 i0 H9 Z) r0 r; r, R* Hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and2 L. k, B/ H3 E3 f$ [" H
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& s8 o4 k' Q% S& v
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to- `. R3 U& C+ r' y+ O2 f) W# [
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works O* g; z) a( P. K8 o0 {$ l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample4 M: x' w; o, H( K2 F; F
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is1 ^; y% I2 Q% `: ^9 I
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; n1 a. `+ r M; A1 k
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% n# x, J+ E. \3 H* \: y' H yadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 }" S; x5 H {
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not; _* N- }2 s# b# i) m
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 {& Z! e5 _! y% O. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, ^* x+ C3 B* Q
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may7 s3 d/ k( [% Y7 f
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: F. u4 p4 j7 }& E. P
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
' d; h- h d" v+ Vhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
# h2 o% C$ L B/ d1 {/ L' g6 c4 @5 u1 fdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
! _" _6 R8 }! @# ~% c: m( I: a5 Pother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 `6 N8 P# y0 _" o9 I _( d, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
3 U+ q: t7 O. U: l0 F0 G! pprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
5 F' M6 U! l9 T3 g7 g9 oathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- E k* c; g m" q
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ b8 P0 H+ ?! s' j; \3 i7 Q9 nLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
, J) x4 {% ~- m; j* z2 t8 B6 Sagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
1 [' \ s2 z0 A2 F) [1 ?9 geight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 r& Z8 S4 B( T* I1 Q4 Q* \
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
+ |$ K8 Z& ^9 }1 @" ?9 b3 H. x- U" K2 F7 h# E, r
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-( m k6 E y! H
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; E8 k# N5 a% E$ j( @# o. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( {) W5 ` `' ^3 DOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London* [( N# U, ]8 M' }) [, _. h
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 \! S; K+ U6 V0 e) f! J7 z. h
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% n8 s; K" }+ ^6 Rgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
7 [& O' T7 I6 n9 o9 [have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
: ]' N6 Y U C$ {+ u6 U' \player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this$ ~4 m% H, S( a/ \+ w5 e0 k
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
7 s1 V# R N( K& P4 q& B7 s" B& C& l' Y3 r2 K$ K4 Q/ E
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
; p+ }& J l+ \ xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too7 h9 H. W5 c. ]7 t: I6 k6 Z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a( a9 f5 A( U! y& v/ ]
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 D2 a; _% a+ F) G0 h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) Y8 @! H6 D; o1 X
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
* D0 D0 f5 z7 u* K5 Iexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& s1 U- D1 p$ G8 U5 h/ K, T, D
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
0 O2 [, x3 R, ~such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or; a$ [/ [8 p9 u# R: J; C" O$ z Y
reporting should be done. |
|