 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" I% j# M. ]7 n( s! l" P+ u如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 G3 }+ w0 A x( F _ L: X: i* O5 H6 a5 ?5 P1 v8 U4 Q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html* o; X2 e' k" X* i. H( B" p" g+ [; I2 W
2 Z+ Y. F7 Y. K* F2 e
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
. C: d9 x/ C5 D; ? K. E3 Z2 R
' Y# o( |! {# C9 P! u$ QIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% F$ ~! A, ~$ A; c# x* O, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. j0 m0 V) W( @& Pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
4 ^' e! C) ?- \2 m" s: j$ P) Uis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ Y% W- U' x+ Y) Y
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 P. N0 q) J4 q1 F# Bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors8 d# }4 G. z2 e: Y$ f( V/ ^! c
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,; B4 g* m) n7 T' `
which they blatantly failed to do.
m4 w5 W* F/ Z/ m, j
. ?/ D! f( |- UFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
! b1 ^- y+ l' ?Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
8 h6 z- |, O* B( `. E2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
1 }5 q# t1 \/ d1 n. D! Xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous2 h+ ] `7 b0 S- U1 t
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
2 i! s3 y' F% l9 ]+ [* u! dimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) U1 |1 K; o+ r, {. b
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 q7 ]5 O P, B% c5 W- {be treated as 7 s., O B% J2 p, m/ R
/ i! g- C. B: U, G. d" nSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; @- a7 H* ~1 a7 D
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem6 w* M! {" }9 h% A& t: c, K2 i
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, g2 p& ]/ M3 o/ n, l: {An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 d! e" L- l( x1 c: y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; N2 y7 t' P9 m% z7 t
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" K; `$ S; s! x# K4 P0 [4 h7 [, I
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
1 J( T* F4 Q# [% K: ^persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ B! M& ]( g/ f' B* K- Z4 _# X, }based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; U4 s! ^9 [4 K3 v# h3 w r. U5 i) u* ^5 f3 d; ^0 C& C V3 u4 F3 D
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# ]8 m* d( ? h5 f0 d# f* r8 Zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in* d0 b T( p! I4 g; Y1 x
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so# q0 W( b. A' i$ k2 ^3 E% o
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 ^3 {% ?& t- W
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s- f4 z6 p }1 @4 F9 w
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. h. V0 B* E+ c: ^
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another, W: y( R' t" t$ V, l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
6 P# P0 B! ^- I1 _2 O6 zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
! e2 e6 z' E$ P! M" C' I, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
" W9 }; ?) j" s( K9 ^strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 s% r/ u# V4 ], K1 z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( A+ ?8 a+ Y& G t f
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
' {: Y& N( j! Paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ z" [5 V/ R- _8 [8 x) Iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
% X# ~! Z, X$ _( b7 m0 B# F* x# D/ q3 K. I; W. a
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
8 I! V$ s; o/ Z/ l0 Wfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 t! g+ K( B7 O* f. F
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
5 D# J ^9 }. x, `0 L# K- x), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
7 ]! v% K4 u0 _3 G! [9 A9 x! D3 dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
4 m+ q/ k" h& [/ YLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: j, B& A7 k: r/ c gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it- ]- P& S z- M1 u$ P! K8 x
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) V# K1 P* n) \% R! n! ] C
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science$ T9 Z+ J/ w1 t! f" ~
works.
* F# P2 H6 c9 F" D' D [5 p: f8 k4 `% z) o0 D
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
, u! W/ }3 K& ~implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" k& e6 z, E) k
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that |+ `* G& e* m& D3 K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 u S1 f% X7 J& t0 H+ upapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
" W7 A+ O% t3 }! g% b( Mreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
. L. n- w7 `- j) _0 C: e' qcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* D% k h5 {2 r0 _6 }demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
5 P6 b& A: F, T6 M' }to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 c7 a4 j- y% W4 _% a7 v+ ~/ N$ ?* ?is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 Q" }- R7 c. G+ g R* j$ O% `( V
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) H5 e4 o7 R. b
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly! `' P8 B/ ?* l7 P) m* u
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* x7 @& M' ^& |* g3 D3 h5 k8 ypast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not( D: P6 p6 a) V0 c
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ s o0 E5 v4 m: @* S- L; X0 B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 T1 z2 V4 i- `4 b% H& ]" C; [* rdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ }0 V0 C$ U4 o, r& F
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a% b! h& E8 }0 V5 S
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# b' D( Q9 z& P+ R6 _: v" P$ `! @has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a @! P# w( F; J ]
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
% \& \+ |* n: n6 i2 v$ [other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* [0 B6 {0 d8 K$ Z
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 Z! A( t: ^, {9 l8 L2 O" U
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. R @1 l8 o- T! E4 [) i& o& S
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
0 y {/ f2 Q# K$ G! Wchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
0 j6 ]5 R3 ^" O4 d0 l0 [Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 t- M `7 s$ k' J+ x/ C
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. p3 x3 G I# u% q# ?
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- E z# u8 e+ {% |5 ^1 Z% T
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 |2 I' s1 f0 V& u- {7 o0 G! X# j
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* f$ {7 P9 p7 m0 hcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention) }% b N' ^+ K
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ r- X: c3 z# Z9 s( bOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* m, S1 N1 o, B+ o9 [Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- _ T3 u) @7 J. t
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
+ R- z- t& }$ g4 E, X' q9 }games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope4 g& v9 \9 V, `5 f3 o/ l( `8 A, b
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
2 w& ~% y; C% v, hplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
) T0 a* Q- b' \8 Wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ U' q. n) c7 ?7 n/ m6 @& N9 Z) D. Z- m8 o6 K# }/ h) F/ H
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
* q+ `+ X9 E% t# f3 xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) H* T& u T' N7 msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
) M4 n* {: g0 V+ f" V1 |suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
: F' z# N5 M3 b; P u# v4 gall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
2 `2 L3 P2 B Q# ninterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,& U- o6 L; U* M7 g9 e( I Q
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
0 D. m/ S! _) \argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
: ^* C, Y; V( E7 |3 t( Fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. n$ K3 K! n4 e& e/ j( n2 k
reporting should be done. |
|