 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
7 ?; C! @& v8 J如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 B( ~- d6 t6 a5 d! d, S8 S
. y' D5 t0 w; v" }' N" i0 e' C+ F- {
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
+ N. g9 K1 R% T; ]* b& Y/ @" l1 f) n* [% r7 s
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 U2 Z6 [8 y5 w7 C/ w0 z9 h0 I. |
3 T( @( H/ r3 l7 F, [1 Y* ZIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ r$ t1 X1 X- [* j; d" k1 r, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
' W3 m& x" m& F% Y3 y2 [magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this9 N* D% s) x$ J6 L
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 D, ]; j# x8 |6 ~- i* oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 F; F" X, W( D K8 [8 W/ a3 M {
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors! t" O9 m9 s9 F0 R; K: g5 ~
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
0 {8 ?" K5 L/ C+ e j3 E- L% Qwhich they blatantly failed to do. X' [# A Z9 P2 n$ c
& f/ J7 C! T* {: \1 p9 r
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
2 L f2 x. ?$ t* SOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
: I7 ?/ U( i) V; c2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ M+ ^9 H- ~$ ^- m$ b: ^7 J9 fanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% p# M3 Z- G+ _2 M$ l
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, K8 }! V6 L: s4 simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
- I4 p$ b! D6 ^& B: j2 y! N) Rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to3 U" w9 \9 n' D* d# P$ }6 \
be treated as 7 s.! r4 k' T7 _8 ?' R: P0 u2 O
8 g1 P( j6 j: n' y+ }- jSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 L9 K) Y0 `6 u, O6 U) y3 D8 K- mstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem( @$ E# H5 o6 G( |) f5 D' ~6 S+ Y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
# G0 n) D: k* L7 [; Q" O7 r0 v, IAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 F% R8 D/ O7 o5 h: x* ^1 x- N-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
0 o2 H) q' e7 q7 k4 iFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: ^. y( R: |& I: G! J& Z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) h3 T3 c T7 q" H, q% G5 Y @
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
' z# q% y- s4 S( Cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound. k# t( S+ C% X
0 U4 D3 D& d# S8 M$ U+ @, aThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
9 V& [8 z9 G v0 E3 s! C: u" Uexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 T; F* C4 W1 ~ {
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so4 M/ c2 M9 ?1 M0 s0 p: L
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: }3 ~; Q( F6 {: p5 s9 ]- }4 |
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
5 ^& }, d0 M; [& W, _! `% pbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 H* E; L5 Z+ P& Y7 g3 H. V" ZFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( T# A O5 k* g8 v2 N& mtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
/ `0 |: F+ M- Ehand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 n! }- R9 R: A P @* a: {
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this* V. v- o7 n( f7 H" _ g
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
6 i9 p( O; Z0 d6 {# S, G+ O: a! } _faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
6 T" p3 c5 ]5 f; Gfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ X2 G, {" ^: i2 o
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) W5 _4 t! j) Z2 x9 bimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 ] ^& s: w7 B% H' z' a
! S' F: V- e m+ ~
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
' ] ^. L2 C2 ] Ffour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
" Q' c. ^8 L- w3 k. Cs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" X9 J6 ~$ a- ?; F5 l2 o# m+ ~) Q6 T: n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns( V' B6 l8 }7 z" C: E9 g" T
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM, @$ V/ \$ H' `9 W% o* `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. c* ]9 o( f. O2 H* ]9 Z. rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it( N$ y5 y, F4 l8 M" W7 Z; E6 ^; T
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
. M- G* u F; w, Z" Severy split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 u* h: J e; f7 hworks.
4 W) @3 f/ z$ o6 b! m+ `
/ A7 `7 h$ Q8 u5 Q/ `& a7 I) [Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: r( {0 G7 p' o! simplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' W9 K, T% x& ^+ }" C
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
3 S6 u7 M9 _! c& Ystandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific5 v1 Y5 d# {% `6 \$ i
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and g2 w. U1 \- C
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
' [, G$ x; Q0 Acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% Q8 M4 \ J$ }3 z* W+ I+ hdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
+ p: Q# C* u& s( X" n6 w* N) bto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample6 N& q; v/ f' \. V3 K+ n1 `; K
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; p1 w' d7 {& o7 h
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& m; j H1 b" w5 n; q) n
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
! L) d% v) B1 n$ g c! Z; jadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
7 a! R! G% S; i- D9 {# x$ dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
* Y& w* P" h9 F/ N* e6 x0 Huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; }; {5 S9 @9 @4 R
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are M3 \- [6 ^" j0 d5 l0 z$ W" y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may1 l. J+ A& y! ]+ E- L" B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
0 M h! c5 q; Z9 B n) P6 d5 vhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 [3 U, |. V! Y' s" d! m4 Z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
+ W& U( \4 k7 J2 z9 G" gdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
; Y. E9 M$ l( ]7 Uother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect1 ?; u ~- Q) ~( U4 o1 i
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
8 {) m5 [; ~1 k- k" c% q( Eprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an) R3 M/ f- w/ m
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 X7 I8 Z) W& T8 K. Pchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ E, C3 T3 i. b- Z5 U1 d: W2 d
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& x4 f" ]0 Z& s& B- q
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for A$ O7 y4 b: G9 D7 x4 E
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 _ t, C. z4 o7 g
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
5 \" J! Y9 s2 \& O" u" q7 a- H8 i+ d/ d$ n
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 u f7 u# n# h/ _; kcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
# G! w' ~$ P: w* [* H9 B( D. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for) Y% C+ S+ p9 x0 ]! g; z+ Y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 `# a2 h6 U0 [- p: e/ jOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
6 j9 d/ n$ p* d1 idoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
- J" l; x- s3 g6 V1 y1 p) Vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
3 \1 h+ v0 t3 M* [ y Phave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 f( i* ]+ N) Z! H; Q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
4 h, c+ ~9 \# _4 q, g+ Cpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 v! E0 m! A* w0 h8 v. q8 E' M$ G, R) ? l, |( o4 S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ q c& B5 E/ Z- L+ _
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too- t1 s' L. J- r6 `+ @
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a Z9 p. N& a0 V1 m7 U7 B
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 t% P Z5 w7 ]) G8 @- e7 r/ a8 C
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) l( Q- }" A8 I1 S1 a4 s `
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
2 V0 j" _4 X8 L& _) X* sexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
3 }, M# z3 e- g9 M. a4 O# Fargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( A0 v P; B9 ]. e* E7 U
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or: m2 j; i& [3 S4 A4 s
reporting should be done. |
|