 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
2 {- Y, ~; S0 s6 ]4 W如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' } j: J. C6 e3 ~5 r6 M$ W
/ [4 s3 }" K5 M. _http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html* a- z L$ _$ \3 Z2 n
: L5 Q( `5 \% C. z
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ h$ S6 F# Y. r6 n, H8 G
! U, |0 s1 k; X5 d" C, W* }
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself: Y2 l2 t1 f+ D- s0 B+ q1 S
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science- _8 y+ P G {) M' @6 N
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this( O3 t1 M+ O3 q" j2 e/ {1 l7 p
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: B* h* k, \/ c3 X, Mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ }4 s6 Z' s+ c! T+ O8 y ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors2 ~/ l' H9 B8 t' w
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ O; _2 x. F6 v7 {/ c; K: ?which they blatantly failed to do.0 F* A% u! J) I% X3 ]5 S9 V; d& D6 @9 Z
6 O1 l0 a2 c# d' R
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 M, Z$ H5 z( D" L7 A+ J( @$ B5 L5 k
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in% D+ d! P' l q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
7 k( h, Q/ h5 P1 y4 s! xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 y( g6 h0 q, v i. bpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an. h4 r% r& {. k
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 b% E8 r& A; }7 }8 F6 V' S: f! Jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to! }8 H* Y! e8 g7 h
be treated as 7 s.
% W( S' V# C5 w4 k6 S1 f* Q# s) t; f/ p( x* g7 {" P/ l
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is( C* k5 o& g% E, c
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
2 ^# Y' G% S; t% p5 w |1 D$ }* Oimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
# J0 n) `7 H9 H' ?9 ]. ZAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 K/ @; D4 ?4 C( _-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) u' b9 ~4 T4 A, wFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
& e% }5 h7 r6 E- k+ O0 Welite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and6 D( Z( V+ C8 c; _$ K f: D
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 u v& E% u/ ~: Bbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.8 d* r3 j& O9 X& r3 [
3 _2 O" m) a) r5 uThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. D! K9 W. B& D, x$ U: M
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in: v2 N& U1 |* v6 d1 ^# m8 u
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
: w5 U) K5 T3 @/ q4 Mhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later1 A1 B6 b! _3 \! d; U
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
' _2 C" ?/ l3 B0 xbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 f+ E. D2 L6 p( T1 f+ U! TFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another3 v' b: Z7 b) B; y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 ~( [( T; ]) \1 j0 b
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 n0 F z; M2 \, ]
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 r3 s; c4 G5 R* \: Estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 J/ t& y3 ]( h: G: ifaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% Y+ I% q1 G5 p# A8 I+ V Mfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ [, `* n) U6 Q% A+ W
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; Y. ]+ J5 A2 @! b: i3 ^8 G3 Nimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% ^! [6 y2 n) m: [! R3 i
6 m8 @+ f; O: ~4 `" ^3 L2 n( O: `
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ U$ K3 u9 o4 v4 y: Xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93( c6 V% |5 m, U# |. |1 r
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' t. N: r0 m. q1 F
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
' B9 |9 j; {8 V+ E1 \out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 ]3 ]; Z$ x( [3 ~* m. N
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& S9 \5 G0 z# I0 \' Iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
/ D6 l* q U; X4 r% T( rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# z9 N" X: L1 F% J9 C3 ?# g# Qevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( V3 C* X% I# A& [5 B jworks.& K: o5 f# \+ k+ y1 v
7 \7 ~) y& R yFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and: H; a' E8 B0 V+ E1 @% n( B& r
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
. @7 {) y& l9 T- l# J$ ukind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that- a$ _( ]8 O/ Z. m; R8 K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; _ [7 I/ e' R6 G/ I8 R
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; W$ h: z9 C: M1 v* T% O" ]
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, [' G# Z4 K7 ]) J# f+ U( A. zcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 O' H0 d8 J1 E; l+ Ydemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' d, p6 n$ I4 K% c% G
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, N M% v! B+ Q- q( R6 }3 W
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# Y, }2 `) J8 j: S( y5 x% g
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% g. w6 K% R. @$ p7 iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 o0 B; Z* r! S1 \: A- [$ M
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
I; f5 \0 V5 Y# \8 e' a7 e" `past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 a8 e" \; g. a2 r" i$ Wuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 n% a1 k0 `/ a+ x. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
' u8 K9 }2 n: i' Odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
3 B! w/ t6 v9 G! @% J! [1 q( ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
$ O# T4 m4 g% L& W! Rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% U( B7 \6 Z- H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a/ u4 p; V+ v* W" ^5 m
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
/ e: f) d5 t, @; S+ kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 R0 \& @' L( Y2 D' w, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
* o/ Y8 h) u) @ h, z3 Jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* Y9 F$ G: O$ ?4 E( C, yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
2 s( k+ _4 ~4 R* w; w: {+ uchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 T, e+ X( C0 g5 {9 J
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 H- {9 |: r9 O. Q9 C$ pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 q% B! o2 b1 e( v# G8 z A, s2 aeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 _" t5 a" [) t7 {7 x% x& J |2 z9 C
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
9 q4 o# t# i3 V0 m& K4 \9 P1 s7 c
2 @5 I. W0 g2 d9 ~# S" ISixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-8 u8 ?5 [ I7 H# Q, U- k5 l) O
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
* \! }8 x! @# ]& ?& l. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
n' {) L: {3 e( D! `# e2 fOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London+ e% l9 r0 P0 j3 Z9 o; x
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
7 B, H" c2 E% [9 ?doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, y( k/ W- `+ }: R& H1 d2 Xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope. L( S- S$ Q6 P1 m% [
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a }! [3 L( P1 {
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# S( n$ a8 S* a E5 Y+ B5 E( |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.( E+ M1 z0 C+ l1 `1 {( l- U, s
7 J. g0 n s$ b- t8 m. fOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" m$ Z* ~. z3 h. Q/ C" h9 ?0 jintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, J& ~7 ?' t( Y. a C @7 x7 o, [suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a/ g6 B% k8 K/ l, } H% n, k
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
: z" @& x4 U+ `5 Ball the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- f7 q: |/ R2 Q" n- N. ]interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
& r- A9 p( W5 p. b; T9 \9 texplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
- M- P8 s1 F0 z7 Y7 d8 `+ bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal X: W" k9 m- X% d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( `, e/ ]+ M: v1 |, f8 {! m0 K
reporting should be done. |
|