 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
% f7 ^, i9 W C; K, f6 e( H如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。& Q, u8 X* v; U7 X% n; m5 C
# f* Q! _, J0 g$ l# i
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html7 ?8 F8 n, x( N0 {
+ J$ W" d9 i- o- q/ b
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania/ v0 S( `) F N/ {# V5 T
! ~7 T7 [9 ?! K; O) ^) s, ?It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
+ @. T- j! ^, E1 {& H$ q, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science) P3 P! Y9 Z) D, P, c5 {
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ ]2 o- e/ [+ ]5 _5 O
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
8 S* h2 x, Y% Oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general# Z& |; f7 B1 j; P# o) ]4 e: l+ y
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 Z. b o8 c/ ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ h3 X4 v+ i. J
which they blatantly failed to do.
) Z# i2 v" F. T2 | J: `: L! }4 A( G/ ~( o. f- f* j
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her/ v6 R7 H1 u% z
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
3 c8 x3 T+ X$ e5 V2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 z6 H0 w; k! Y3 Q8 q9 \
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 O2 n; ~. ~0 R' `1 I, T3 q
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; i9 N+ D/ w- Z3 N y
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; G2 z0 m) _) E) l6 l' cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to8 h: l2 O t& t3 ^8 j& p9 f
be treated as 7 s.
+ g! c; i3 d( `/ v$ P
: [8 s9 r& s6 N" }( k Y* jSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is+ Z3 ~% B, p0 S/ E
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
. \% X) g# ? c. B& Aimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) H: J9 o* }4 z4 x2 {An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; @0 O* D% Q) q0 Y+ a( D Y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
1 b# d! X- Z g$ P1 bFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
- N* d0 N( ?# I" S( p; eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
- M& M/ O9 o# P* t9 {3 s+ ]persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”* K/ p" N& x: i9 h
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: f% m# n. Z0 W
5 c. n2 I( M8 \( ^" M& }Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' h8 M% W0 Y; K0 N8 ]& R
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
" [5 q7 F, [6 e2 W/ C5 t; t# gthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ ^$ h. M5 x m0 D$ @' Bhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later2 C y, P/ X% h- z% U6 n
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
. c2 Q3 V" f2 lbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# y2 M! v e* y! ]% C0 B2 `) X/ [1 uFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' f" X# B1 G' n( D! l0 Jtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other- P( \% K: y, k( f5 r) f+ l! }
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
. `0 r8 a8 \) J, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
5 p9 ?# U. r( d' @1 l, dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds a( O# p2 i& M# y" i4 h' d" h
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
: C8 {3 B# e' x4 P; {0 l Lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
7 h; s, [* {, n- Q' \aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' x/ u+ L) F# ~9 ]- q$ R5 m3 g+ y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! M' B$ E3 D* T9 W( a0 f
9 u2 d& w# g, N& Y$ L- n, bFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
9 Z7 G; D, U: K2 t% m% L% x2 V; G. Yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
: S8 O+ p' D& b" K6 }! N2 r8 Is) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
& X6 r% p, S' s" m& W: _1 L1 V1 D), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 o" U# \1 X. g8 F. y9 lout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
; a' ?* p6 G6 {Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
0 @8 [7 f, W$ o3 x; T6 o% @of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) [. }4 v8 q* L2 ~) P1 D) s7 m
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# ~3 g/ P _& j5 Z4 c% r9 Devery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' x- ]1 W2 T, D& E* ?: v' N/ R& ?works.& t1 ?& R' X/ S* v* `! x: [
/ t: q; T h+ G
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
+ i) @2 L# i! r p1 J# o6 Zimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ B: k* a @7 O( a
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ P5 h9 J: a5 H2 j* Gstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" i. z8 @6 L/ C8 O, `9 Y
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 Q) y' `2 u1 w
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 J6 b" ~7 `( p& n
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% {: F# R5 z8 R' qdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
$ s. J( ]' i0 a7 tto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* j& e: L" p/ Y: n
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
2 r" `, x b* ccrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he: O9 L& A0 r8 t' f, c" l0 _
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ w6 v( b1 T! W6 hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the3 Q! |7 }' T* q
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. o- M4 a6 P7 d1 L+ euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
5 P# x: Y7 i j5 B4 H# ]. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are( Z" u! f1 I# m) Z
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
1 t7 O v* D% fbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
( j( C* V _) A+ k( L* U: V5 `hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( ^3 F, {( h6 t5 ohas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a5 M1 f) X2 N' @4 \( s. _2 ?
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ ^& K7 G) Q' l( _" Bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 e _5 d# ?% \6 M$ q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
& c# x* L5 b( z/ y* Aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an4 `) p+ \' {9 w. Y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- K; u m2 H4 M) Y' Y8 X0 Zchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ x/ j: R: c0 k; [3 J+ w% h8 PLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ W1 h! m2 t! h+ O% q3 T
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& R7 b: \+ u- q) t' r- |" s: r% ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
6 r r7 I6 b- Z# S1 H& B/ OInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, D) r) @5 F& z$ M) J# Z7 _
! j4 z* O% t, t) { L' VSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-$ q6 u9 }/ `6 v1 l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention9 f4 |9 `) m2 Z
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for' ]3 @/ q& D$ S/ U/ D5 O
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% L5 u" o1 `( E6 X$ F) zOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for8 y4 V5 l& i F& Q! x8 W
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 G, u% W$ `1 B2 y/ S! ^games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope2 J$ O+ r* Y7 R
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. @* c. |) Z% {# A8 |player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& w7 C% n, u( C) c5 I; |
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.& v3 m! V6 |" A; {
$ i F& p/ b4 T* F6 o# cOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (' G0 b" ^. ^/ w
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ _/ I" h) }8 o x4 m
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
% t/ z/ F) I1 n* F2 [1 f" ususpected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 J+ c' u5 M e+ `2 rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
/ H# D( N- p7 Y9 i/ r pinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,, K7 k3 X) T" @6 D2 j+ z u
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; c; P7 b* g+ O; K0 l$ vargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ T7 E# X [2 ^$ n2 x; Fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& Q2 \9 k7 N8 ] L# Preporting should be done. |
|