 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
* O7 `( [; X9 m8 W如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。8 }1 |, E6 ~" x$ \
3 D8 `/ _) @) U Fhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html7 t% Z$ @. T" w: G7 Q
0 r/ s! H9 _% t& Z/ Y6 O
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania; l |8 D n1 h8 f- m7 V
9 ^" L/ E; }6 D/ g- j. e7 _+ i% AIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself! n# M8 c( T) b3 X+ r) a' s1 _3 ^( E; S; x g
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 ~4 G. X1 K1 R8 N9 H0 I
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ c8 T; f( s- S" i" \1 B/ I
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( L5 \ h# p8 Z! s1 ~scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. w; `# S5 u( L. u# h6 F, i
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" ^& W7 a$ ^9 I" k1 ` t! yshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 z d2 H4 A. p+ L0 bwhich they blatantly failed to do.
6 G& X \" F2 [; J! C/ [) U! i# t# U
7 B0 K! `! P8 K& H- bFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her; @8 c0 O! L. L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# J6 ?/ k; M( V* @7 ^: \* I2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% \2 H' u- V- i
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous$ r1 T$ f3 d( k3 J3 N* R. Q# o$ E
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
; G( {- t" k9 g, Q8 X* M9 _5 W1 Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! H. e1 g1 i7 z$ N9 t* jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' h7 {7 a1 u- E' O# g
be treated as 7 s.8 M% D* I0 `5 I' j3 t3 j% q, }
( q3 L' c1 J6 ~% k; k# a
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; ]7 }( {9 h) \- g0 n+ K
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
1 ?4 @9 T/ L3 Iimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- ` {2 |7 m( v3 Q3 {9 l$ k+ f( T
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400" z. D* A7 g, P v: C
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
% C2 o. Y1 Y7 X. m- dFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
3 [ I( N( t: ]0 t: i2 F" Aelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% W5 O8 m5 [5 T r; d6 T/ F
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 s& R+ _2 ~3 T" j9 M6 X
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.9 t, _ O) b# h4 {, u& L6 C
% H: z8 @% ~" c2 zThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook& D% c z$ \ s1 Q
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
x3 l8 G$ B/ t$ zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so: ^ R7 u1 W4 L: r! c
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
& d! q, ~! c1 N, G* ?. X# h! [events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ F9 e5 z9 a, [ d" C
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
6 v5 \7 _8 A8 n+ kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
3 }( V0 h+ V4 x2 ]( y0 g, btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
4 l* S7 a2 G$ Shand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
) z7 ?9 o2 S6 ?3 r, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this+ ^3 p0 O$ q+ k" l! T6 U6 x& d+ J+ f
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
' H! }9 X& O: O5 p5 b5 ~2 T# Nfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
i! q$ c' E" H$ }faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ \! f9 \4 P& t( } \- Z$ Kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% W# V! N$ a1 B* W/ E
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.3 G: ~6 N' U, [: v! ~$ D
9 }4 Q p. Y! G1 KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 d8 ]! ^% N4 E Y' [. V
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.936 }; b3 A/ V& B- ?0 x q: Y& g
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s! M# o5 _1 M) T
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ {8 x5 p" H, X; q: p0 i
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) M+ w# X8 g" t# ?( F
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ V8 e$ R b. z; r9 X& @5 M
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it" u" s/ Z' c* p( N1 P2 R7 c
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! r/ o: z" P% Fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, V5 v6 F% k% Y, Y& e" ?
works.: T( P0 M- X4 D0 i: ]9 O/ ]
2 L2 W; o% {2 Q- `2 e) {4 q8 hFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
9 X' i& V- S, X% jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this( P. E. @" E% n
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; z7 X4 S9 a) c. x+ R4 I
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific! L5 Q& @& b" L# r
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ S# K5 A, [$ R. X
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& h, g9 h; w- \4 F$ B
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to- i* ~# Y5 b7 C8 C( @
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 d$ m! F6 S/ F0 y3 U" m/ Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( i/ H5 P- n0 l; f& m
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is7 I& r; [& |! `, M5 N' Z8 t
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
a* {1 J0 t, `" D2 j' [wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
. K- p- r0 p$ u: d9 v" r" iadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the6 `8 c! t2 H0 N; `: W0 o
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
9 \8 [, p4 \* I" l8 P; L$ [use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
$ g# a' K% q% b. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are$ q! ^4 m0 V# e! b( \! Y8 U
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' w/ W$ K! P9 U+ N/ F) y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
1 d- E$ e% F* }4 K! ahearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. F: F" H8 O0 P/ n, Ehas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
| u) w. v* q5 t* F, v' Z# hdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" |( @, ~4 m! r7 W1 J" Hother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 Z. L. R* B& P, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& n6 W3 O9 m; K+ e' S2 M1 F
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; {$ M3 F; l( G( J
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 @7 a9 w2 E; s$ s( z8 w, Q7 x
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?9 @) ^5 F9 b2 e* d. R% g+ j8 Z7 f. H
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
7 ~ h7 x- N% J8 |) U8 G% [/ Q* magency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 c$ p6 l* \4 ^! v
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
& b" V! N5 V+ ]8 A: T# D |3 lInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* ~) P. ~8 v$ H; g7 L
% i% |+ U1 b: x. Y/ v, gSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. U% z. ]$ y; g O6 a Q
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention5 S- G9 g/ Y, G. d
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 q" _0 {% o* G4 ?
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: _/ G7 P# k6 s) l
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 @3 ^7 k( s5 }' l
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic+ F: D% \ e) t5 _ b/ X6 J- ^2 t
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope' ~4 ]8 G: |1 b d' j5 B
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) y4 L( e7 c: q, S
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. Q% r% f4 y6 |* Upossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
2 w" f2 ~+ O3 p. u3 J) L! ]
5 D( J( h0 Y+ |Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (& w6 q' W* W3 d2 B1 x+ V# h
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 s2 Q5 ?1 Z# R/ Z% F9 s& p, s$ K
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a3 f0 U+ Y$ s$ Z) M
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 S' C% U e4 a9 t5 H+ I8 Xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
# S5 E/ k8 Z6 G& h+ F) K2 sinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 X" H8 ^$ I# v; k' L! e3 Sexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
, y; A/ G( f- Z0 B/ P: pargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
' T5 d6 v) O, Qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' Z# z$ _7 e+ \reporting should be done. |
|