 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
- i! y+ u7 s* c如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
. p. E9 m, p- |- P* o7 C; o5 n
9 h! a2 b l* Q7 @http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 _ D: y9 b _( U0 T7 \- ]; Y4 M8 a4 H
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 j" e! }, v9 X3 w' l
/ U% W. C1 W$ `5 N" A
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
3 B# A* j1 B$ K8 C7 g, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science% C- M/ @+ k. S. ^4 C
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this2 n" u$ ]2 N- {) p3 d' P2 Q
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the6 Q7 } P$ }( k* t$ E) p! w2 b# w
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general7 z e* w7 e$ Z0 ]9 M: |) P4 E3 ~9 C
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 b7 ^, g5 _4 K+ y! G; J& bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ H4 u5 X+ ^8 j5 F6 e' S: ], C/ J- z
which they blatantly failed to do.7 }& P: Z; Y6 i2 I; ?
1 x- E6 `8 K: D% J. k, T0 O( g0 dFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) P) i3 {! X7 G: h* M$ ]Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; e- R) n3 G4 u% ?. j2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* {: b: B( Z, j! R. A e! d9 o
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous; }9 z" F4 d+ H
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
( _: x4 e( h s* G8 U( iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the! w" u; Q# O2 W0 K: Y) x
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# z6 ~. i+ y4 T/ w
be treated as 7 s.
/ ^+ `, O8 ]0 }8 [! U6 K/ ^
6 q' y0 G3 E1 O6 ~/ G8 L( iSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is% @; x4 D8 U- c, q* ]7 g
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 ]/ u I1 w/ V" Z( N
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 s' h8 z+ ?/ @$ r9 {+ n
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! ?3 Z$ u4 S8 z$ s: J4 V
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.+ K7 Z3 c t7 Q- ~/ ^( o% v. ?) G& q: K L
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an3 G1 F6 M h0 x/ V
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and. \2 H# w N- y8 z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”: T& G6 Y+ k$ U$ u- Q/ {7 ]- E" B
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.( T6 A, B, v1 v5 k, i
8 P; f9 m1 H Z5 d) {2 \# B+ v6 i
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook+ v) W& }# q) V4 c) e7 \( H
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 I4 ?% f; y3 J& y2 q) _2 H
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so( d2 k) F/ G* ~% d0 B: m$ [3 }
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
3 [3 M3 p$ M6 q3 ]: a+ ]# l# [, mevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 L" `' r4 W: S( v
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 r- w3 w& Z- [4 h7 YFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another# S3 R+ d& h) j Y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
, z3 W+ {) j0 D" ]1 }4 ^( Ehand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, v8 N* Q+ {7 ?! W$ s8 J, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this9 f5 N/ W+ z0 W+ H. e, z
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 A/ O& _" Z/ K* h- n0 v
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" G5 w6 `$ Z. T+ Rfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
1 O. \; F# I; ^2 p( H8 {6 r4 saside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* D6 {! N, U' \# m/ Qimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on. g/ {0 ^2 l- Q1 U( r# w
7 S8 o+ K, @7 a3 E% N
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
% y9 s* D C' ^3 R3 M! Z# q6 Mfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 ?( I. Q2 C* F1 K' |5 c/ j* V. ws) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
+ I) z0 q$ r. x" ~5 a5 Y), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. W3 d4 V, Q$ A% ?7 U3 Wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
. Z$ l' s/ l# f+ v% oLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; _6 A) _1 r' x5 H. wof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
' O, f* X: f. _& ]. alogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
3 G3 ?; I M5 zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science6 n5 b% K) ~9 Q0 K8 u. U M
works.( y* y0 }6 s& X3 U5 h
9 v- O& X& u) m% E3 WFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' Z7 _, x6 V1 X/ dimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
- u7 | {3 s0 K4 Y% jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; o. Q& D0 s* R7 C
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
( V) a9 T! s2 q- fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and& U4 D. L0 g; a
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& x2 d- `: t( t* w- [$ u
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 T, Q* K' a; f0 n# Vdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- v, @% ]' \: M1 U( h3 \% ]( S% {
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample3 D( b. l2 s4 G7 j* _# r' a" L5 y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, \$ q( x* ?% Q2 S xcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he# x+ C! { a' Y+ F. s' ~2 a
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* m* u; f$ a7 y% _
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 Z# G0 o: S2 S. @. x4 a' G
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
/ m( f+ U7 e& y0 e6 iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation0 e& p( q9 ?" G% @
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" l3 A( F* s$ o0 K' @9 ?doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 B( w% Z# R8 h- j) Z5 R( |be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% i& d, q. C% C$ I/ Jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& [" m5 n" K9 F. n6 c
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' U! h k `, _% {6 Z( Ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: V. J C; h. n* _4 z
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect; S4 N8 U4 s$ Q2 C: H) c, d
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ j# x# `/ Y/ L! p2 B: ^probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an7 j8 [2 J- R* u. q
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ Y4 X' C$ b& u2 s1 L1 t# N
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 X& b& s! g" ^& J
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping: i; g6 U% }" B5 }! a, d1 e, G( w
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
6 |- `5 M9 v+ Geight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
1 g5 s( Q, o/ `! LInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
* E% L4 N6 H, b9 [9 B1 e/ ^
1 m$ w# C4 c" |: \! a/ S& P/ HSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! [0 k6 P$ W9 ?: Y9 s5 n
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
/ Z Q7 O& t& ?, w9 U. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 M# E5 l8 e( h0 Z l# b
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London% C' V' B7 m$ E& |1 \8 m
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- n8 V! A0 y# Q3 a
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic U8 h/ v/ N2 W3 s+ Y; T8 O: C
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope$ v" S& L W* N9 ~5 D
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
; S. @; L& O0 n# y( T9 n5 mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 x8 A% ]: e! z% h$ ~) O. W, c) w Opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' h/ H3 _! `; _+ N- S" ]% n2 P; A- f4 D9 q
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" y' X2 A. H' @4 f. u" x* U; Gintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too; ~9 H. L ~/ ]% M' y
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a- Q( U$ ]4 m2 D' V3 A! \
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide3 Z4 g, O4 K8 c' K6 a8 P1 j4 L: S
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( c9 f# g/ j! f9 Ginterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- B+ l7 s" l6 `
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your' T! k) \& s+ b$ a
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ j v. D, Y& \, z3 y+ n% y
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
/ ^8 u S9 D( n1 D: b' rreporting should be done. |
|