 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
. \) K. G3 m6 P% F& \7 t如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。2 r4 H1 k# \) i' y3 }( S
f8 o' W9 I- p6 P! x/ p; r: _: M. ]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html1 p& Z* G( K8 B2 t7 v
( p9 E$ n1 H: u6 n- s6 ]+ VFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- D9 D% q; w4 ?6 f6 L" Q* g* s: h
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself0 w$ @' m% @/ z4 M1 _% R4 [
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ i g$ d; ^+ O; Q8 b
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
* p+ ]/ A8 T6 s) wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the% a6 [. v/ V! S) n( `' O# b# H, ?
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
6 c, R( e0 K$ G3 Opopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 C. @, V- ~, m+ ]: `
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ L6 n2 s1 }( S- L( I% O( d
which they blatantly failed to do.
8 ^. W0 ^0 Q3 r; C
6 [1 j3 e( X# M+ A( m, a9 GFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her/ `! {( i1 S$ [6 N$ V2 d
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 h9 l- z5 b% y8 [; {" T1 X2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 [9 P" v- Y1 J1 R$ ]) J$ nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 |/ }8 i; H- Q: g0 N- e' Tpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! E$ g) G' A! `% Fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the0 N" @& J$ `5 r7 R
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ p K% g7 d2 [) @/ A
be treated as 7 s.
' t1 A2 { f9 n4 Q% Y; |# j, c1 M a4 v5 L( R, _4 F
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
5 e$ s. I8 R& \% m" S* hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) O. T$ T8 k# q9 Q. j" V0 K, G) D" Vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.: U6 H7 L/ V' o
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400: d& m) E- _/ I% T6 d& U3 P
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
9 D' z/ e5 O( p# h! {2 ~For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
: o+ T# o( `; Gelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 K+ t) k, H5 K+ y: [
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 G+ z) d* \7 P" O3 E4 M4 Zbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ ^( ?7 | [' O1 ?8 P' g
0 ?) Z6 n* m3 b8 P J
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; q) [# g4 Z3 M2 ~& x# X5 p
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in m- s% _4 \! L6 G
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
: K. e4 n+ P0 H( B b4 m0 k4 ihe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later1 H% E# {3 M, R1 f+ l
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s6 ]9 I9 ?8 R+ i+ }
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World7 l. e' G5 F& S7 N+ q/ [+ o! s4 T
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( s7 R0 ?: _8 A! R m2 ]2 Z2 Xtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other) S4 G1 a @5 z O' I% A" G
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle1 V- \$ i2 M8 n5 p
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
/ s, v8 G5 G" Zstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% a6 B5 R; z V9 Jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- r2 B9 y: D3 f
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
2 c% p/ {7 g" [6 n* Caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
f& J# M5 _) ^ Bimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; X: t5 j5 G7 k$ t2 I% V; g
( c! Y' ^8 P4 r( w, k4 }- V
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 }( O* I# w! K: O6 H3 U6 u
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 W/ a6 e5 B Y7 R- A7 @s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
- z5 K7 D/ Z0 ?* A8 I W1 {- `6 ?7 A2 V- i), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* x8 U+ f1 h+ [/ B3 |
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; Q8 d; ?( h- Y+ [' C* Z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 J9 h0 y0 {, B+ p( F" Yof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
& z% E- H2 N% M2 ^2 s M$ `4 Llogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
% p% I4 `4 |( i; [% Kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science5 r! \& u( _' R; e
works.4 [- t3 {. d/ }
6 \1 l4 s; w$ S( q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
+ a; v" z3 c* |# Vimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! Q: ?) f3 M: S, n; M6 Xkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, H4 \# A0 }( W1 w q# B, n; lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific$ v7 r2 [8 y! K/ p6 b% w
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
1 ~- I+ p5 \. e& G! w+ Z; ?0 Nreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
* h. Q0 q2 I2 Lcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ U- K q4 u+ t' j6 t, ~8 \
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 p4 T; R1 G0 ]3 C6 X7 F) y
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ E6 t/ |, t# ^& k! Q6 A% S; `is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, k5 ]/ J9 D8 u5 ]! t; ^; |! N! |1 qcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) j h- ]/ B2 W; {2 ?- f* N
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
k4 X( k- m/ q# i) _, iadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the+ ?" X. M& ]: z: m
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 u3 u# H$ X! `6 H! T$ |- [use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 f8 h& j; W. Q7 n+ ~0 e- W
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are6 {& K/ Z6 {& X) P
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- h: L$ }6 t; L) s5 \# \, S
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a9 [8 K* m( T5 O+ ]' K4 n
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 w K0 I6 J% }; F: `, O5 b* A0 O
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a6 @- K, T) n2 l ~4 H
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
6 L+ k, u3 i4 \7 i' _other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 M9 C2 Z# h- ^% v9 m4 {, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
1 Y6 B6 k ?1 i% c# L% n* _6 zprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: u3 S z! Z; f. F
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; [' d* c8 J7 n: V
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?4 w+ D! F# J8 [, w; V( i2 z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 `; g- I: A" r/ Aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 n# T$ r0 @, Ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.1 L2 c! b$ o2 W1 k& @& O
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
1 e3 S$ }+ @0 d' n/ `( f/ V9 t, k# k. P
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-2 s* u# W& o t+ @5 r. m
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
: H8 y0 f/ I d+ L$ d. H; }. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
' V% `" n4 [1 \8 `2 {" sOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 N6 i; j3 N x+ [+ O) p2 u' DOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. X8 b; V3 M8 {. s
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic) Y! ]( R- Y# ?- R
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope& f& D/ g! c0 s
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a X0 h4 S- i" Y" q/ V6 q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# z( c0 C6 l& L( T, n, a! Q
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ B: M" }. q# b* J
' Y' W/ {1 M2 Z8 x6 E) @Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
+ ? ^7 D* E1 hintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
% s5 d) O7 T3 F% ?& Y- xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
) i/ c7 x$ u7 Z! Msuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 S" o/ o0 H3 m
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
2 R' h; d7 c# `$ ]! \ _interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,) f& L" P6 x1 z8 V
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
+ j5 M) j, M1 l! g& iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
2 k& A) R4 \. u" s/ \such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or6 p: @ m3 a; |$ A) j
reporting should be done. |
|