 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
( @3 G& V! c+ w ^: j/ p: ]; q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
2 Y* U- f; `2 L0 E o
8 l3 h F; P, Z1 k. O Hhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# ^5 ^: X" h6 @3 K7 \) p, ?8 M7 \/ z
. W) \) a7 }( hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- c' S1 j( w" N% j4 ^9 f& D+ A V2 |( z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself2 P6 x6 j. x& I5 w$ @
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 I$ ]9 F- k" I G' y6 ~! g
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" W% D. ~$ E% S! h# f( Eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
- d/ P+ F n8 |, V1 z3 Lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general% b" L" a4 O4 q6 U! `& O
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
* S+ C/ \* o; M$ @should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: ~, X" ~1 D# U
which they blatantly failed to do.
. N% R+ j" j2 N6 c7 }: @- }
- R* E; p9 ]: c, C/ T KFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her$ }$ E `# q' [4 x1 O4 w
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 e! [9 g9 r- k+ P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 w/ J, D, D: [5 U4 s9 C
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
" B: i8 K1 z* b' N0 F! epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an" Z! R5 T' k0 g o
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the* u3 y6 S! E+ m0 M+ T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 | b$ J! H+ y' X/ W2 obe treated as 7 s.: i. u [: D- W, s0 n
/ i* |3 A8 g2 F8 t( X
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 g" Y7 r2 n9 U: Y& W
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
' p1 V) n! }' ?, Nimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., H' k/ b. z9 z6 ?
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
4 l$ O: w& g( c& o4 ^/ F) d) z1 \-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( ^" m. e% Q( v& c! ~For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* u& D1 k* H% [# B3 M
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
7 Y* h ~9 ?) s) ?/ G7 b7 C" q" J, apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
/ ~# ?: q! s; s) M( L4 x' xbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ f, W* S6 n4 `6 @
8 o2 }% w% K# d, fThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook+ B( T: E8 a5 e# o. M5 E
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 c$ l# P9 L# T( I# T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ ?5 Y7 O" J. n! o' \he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later r" R8 I/ q2 @
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& D1 f4 c5 C* E. {& I- B# v `/ L) z% l
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 f- m) j @( J2 d3 U" J& W$ v
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another9 ^' L% T, } S. g- F
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
& C% ^- _# E6 d0 X+ K- Ohand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle; \4 @# u9 p( q7 A) s* J4 `" p
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this7 x; n6 H5 z# j
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
4 \/ T5 c) P9 i- J! T8 gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" v1 ~* r: d9 Q: w$ R* Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# ]) c/ T. z# o: n/ X6 iaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
, ]6 e2 k$ d% vimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 h0 K3 ^: \) X$ e; a
% n% W2 x; D9 K8 y
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are* K/ S( ~. f1 Y7 T# C+ N$ U
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 n7 [- a/ _: B& \, W3 T/ [4 B2 ~s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s; }: _9 V, s( W$ X+ |- f
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
1 M. e" _% a% {3 ~- u0 Xout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," o( _$ K8 O' G; d& A- O; |
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind1 }1 M( @, p! b' g/ X( C, _+ t
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 ~+ K9 X5 {" V$ z0 \( T m2 Y
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in. [) V- r% E7 K$ b( E: z4 D
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
- n& R2 S- r, y/ }# O# @works.4 u2 w" w$ z3 J. z& E" I
- |/ b* W: L+ R* ]1 RFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, v8 Z7 M) N, [( T" q# M
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
; z1 P' C" c. i* M+ v! g" R8 Zkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that1 ~, L0 o8 B( Z% L& j& K+ v
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 p- z# @* E/ K0 v7 U
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
; O9 Q' Z; W/ X. s9 Z$ c: F5 m% }reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; z" x/ I' X& o, ]$ Q( Q& k% Acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
, [9 F9 Q* d* l) V5 H' M& Pdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' a8 I4 ~6 U0 D; j! @* u% U
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
* ^. N1 E1 }- U9 ?/ F- T vis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 L* o( H% j" j) [* u
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% L3 S0 R/ R% r9 g8 cwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( i9 F5 P; v2 V1 K2 Z5 v
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& y9 e- Y/ ]4 J7 I/ Ppast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
, z" T" Y/ B0 Juse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( U9 d( D9 }, |
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are2 X6 `( P4 y- g8 m* x
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
* Z+ m/ A& b' t1 p/ sbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
( _0 `" F! W$ F/ Bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& \# w8 M4 F1 S" `6 u. {% B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a: M- r# Y% \+ y$ p) u
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:! l7 f/ L* }$ e
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 j3 Z7 d0 G1 Q4 ~& d" {2 ]
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is4 R! P9 }5 U6 M3 A2 @; }
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( v# R& k2 W' V3 Gathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
; `) H! M' n4 J, [: I, w" P" ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
9 J* y. M N. d4 B2 }Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping, c% P# S) W% ?
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 y0 k0 l) Z1 C8 ]
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., D, |0 M# o% g& o
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ D+ ]& J2 o& h; ]
& K9 V3 _7 G% ~$ G0 I! Y1 o0 j
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; g8 J6 ^( W4 j, }, Mcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention: t8 L& m) V2 P; j
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ s+ l; C/ b6 {! AOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
2 ^6 e6 d2 Y$ |, T! x! g V4 hOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; w- M! B; ^( e7 O }) Fdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 v0 h! i7 x, ^games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope) `; p: E6 T- s' O7 B
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
0 K4 I8 Y) O, n: w @3 Tplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) d7 u0 u. A3 \# r4 m7 ?
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
% S _4 |4 [ X/ ^2 f+ J7 e8 G8 J! ?" v
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (2 `) D7 S, e4 N8 _) i+ V) {
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too- V0 n8 d/ N' ~8 C7 R; _7 S0 ~
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 {7 K% P$ g- x5 I
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide3 `. T8 }; h" V* g/ E' ^
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
" l0 `1 E" n6 ]" w" J( |interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% S4 u- r) o) d' s. \
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 N+ b# S! L& g; G. f
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' b7 r8 |" W1 B1 @9 d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or# {( |2 k6 F9 J5 N1 R/ C2 C8 t
reporting should be done. |
|