 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: u0 g( F, k9 T4 w/ S
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# C4 h3 ?1 ?1 \' {7 v
8 i, h, W1 ]; H r" t! B- E' [http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html ~. @1 T$ L. s/ L& U
8 [6 }" C+ d, e. Y( g3 hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ n) g2 I: W! K7 f# B; U
( E& D' L8 N- S a
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, ?7 ~, g0 Q& t! H, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science- O9 g3 [* U5 V0 U P
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, z. ~6 G4 G5 Y. d5 lis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
8 N+ j l5 f6 s* {scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" C- o0 h. x! [0 U jpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; d2 Y R' M# I
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
D+ @' w1 u6 k R$ c" Cwhich they blatantly failed to do.1 p% D# I1 ]5 ~) L% i, _7 D! o, R
9 c3 J; m8 S4 e
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
+ d. @& ^( X3 u1 ZOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in8 u% ^. R' m. [. j2 f
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 l, R) t5 g9 ^: p8 w
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous0 M- g4 \" c& r! S( o+ X6 R, ?
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an2 }2 b+ z3 K" m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ _6 v. \) r; H8 V9 P' ~$ o7 Rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* m( p" y" d Obe treated as 7 s.4 y+ `& Q: K. T% P' C6 F5 h; s9 Z
$ @( `4 c/ ?% y) j Q4 g
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
* f; X1 q6 B# d# c" D6 wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ t' U+ E0 W7 d+ s- M8 Q; K
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ ^8 i2 w) e9 ?8 \8 i; V2 S: oAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! `. A' c! p. n5 e G: x" `# A
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
p4 F+ L# t6 s& |; z9 }For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
- Z6 O3 s. f9 t4 }0 I) `elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and: P* r3 Y( K z( z( w# S7 H7 ]
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”9 M& w: P+ ]4 }; ]0 w+ G1 G4 H( x( [
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
0 I' r! P9 ]$ {
! I* M1 C0 I: j+ Q& C$ {, Z8 GThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ m! `) G) |0 C( b9 _
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* }7 w" O( [$ j. D) [the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
( B R% r( D5 ?9 Qhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
* [. T0 |& l; P" Nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ |: l. x/ Y$ G' J/ ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
: V& m/ I9 Z# E3 l0 y8 l* g' Q4 iFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another; r# j5 i j# G) w* M
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( h3 Q/ X/ {) C3 nhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
7 G- X+ t7 k; P6 w. K7 K, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ z& O4 P( _! {1 p9 `" x
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& c! ^& f2 M1 S( @
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( I5 U+ ^& S) \3 [
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; }+ t2 t" s. \- Qaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; [5 n1 L. }9 N+ r! d0 W; d* D4 Iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* O3 z J" o7 {. w
E- |/ ?8 _, s1 a( f% ^4 KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
& Q/ N8 k0 C0 P( q$ Tfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93: P/ l% j& k* t4 E
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
3 {6 l6 d( Q$ t6 J), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns0 L* m& t9 o. T" T5 b
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
/ J: e) u$ J$ _$ ^! V zLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
) S5 ]# `* ?! ]9 T" _* xof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
- N5 f A$ D. J7 Q- A8 a* z4 Ological that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
8 n6 W, w) P8 x+ [: O# Z/ M0 q zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
9 \% G$ J6 H& k; l. |works.# Q. Z9 d) G5 R7 i7 R: O3 N
* S, A6 p G2 h' R, {: d6 s
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- U* J! G9 b; x t5 A: P8 ]+ R
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 F6 o. Q& {3 ^) u; Jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 ?; c1 X: |* ^- L9 D* [, j
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific( c* @1 }: B ?
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 C6 S. Y5 ^5 ~8 T1 x
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
7 V6 q0 I5 ]% Q, w( l9 ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% o" V9 i3 e: _* rdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% ]2 h* X; c4 _
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& y# z- c& e4 _' ~
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ R, n) V9 y5 S# T. H" y7 d
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 V. y+ m6 A5 @: c: M$ Rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 Y1 z* s& M3 s: ]+ ]
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 _" L$ M; ~' k% }7 B& N! D; ?. w3 p
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
3 `3 |0 p/ l7 r. ]+ \* Nuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation- A( V, m3 R! L
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
5 L) {( R1 X* B6 n; Adoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 u6 x0 ], i; ~: L- `8 Z& R) pbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
8 w5 w, g5 b ?. A) ~+ D5 Bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
- r4 n: D2 L6 _. fhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a7 W6 |. v& }) V$ k& @& z' x; w" N
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& q' D1 U3 Q' ~+ }other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 a) x8 X% U! P: i1 a" _, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is0 h: f3 o& Q5 c
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an5 d! X& W5 w5 ?# c/ s! v+ ?4 C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: w$ W6 R, P, U$ X
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ o. i) e* T1 Y$ R# {8 S4 qLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 H+ u- {% v0 p* v; S" c
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* |8 _$ K( }8 X" n M
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) [% K5 h( f7 }: PInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 i6 E5 l. H: K! ~9 {8 s; R
; b6 j( I; k; x! {! b" G7 [4 OSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 I( a6 t2 A, v( g* |. ~9 t9 hcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention: W; l6 d9 W3 L) S
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 o! e! K* ^; M0 A5 w9 rOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London6 @/ a l( i# B
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
: B* N, \6 x3 b/ Sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic1 B9 A* R5 t* E
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
3 ]2 Q, F0 `: {. u# P. vhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
5 J7 n# O! D0 x9 b2 `: }* Z- R- q6 ], Fplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
1 x. x% E- V" G0 [4 G% u2 epossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
( o9 A3 U2 ]+ o( h5 r `, _3 k+ b
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 m' F. A; ^! h2 B0 Rintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too# F; T* e! Q; O) j- R+ Q
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a% Z F, _* S5 ~
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' v6 ~6 X; \$ x) K) w8 m( X
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 |: A: R7 C% t. \+ y. O
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- q: N- q1 u7 p. e7 J$ }2 M# j
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 |% R, w" M/ x @* q+ ~
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 N5 S) U5 @( G6 k: R$ ]
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ E2 y: C' _' i. _5 ]
reporting should be done. |
|