 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
$ T. ?0 g% `0 Q+ V$ k( R如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 K2 _( m3 ^4 t% t V. c9 w/ `! f3 D7 E! e* G
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
+ O- c3 B& P9 ^/ A t6 \( o9 r; ^- r4 F7 N4 a- l; Y( T
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. L* R7 C6 R1 @ T
% \$ e% v) Z# P/ C
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" K- U; d& z/ P# r: M
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. O9 Y+ D8 p' R# Zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
6 K$ b9 a4 X o! c# ris not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
! }: X2 Z0 z, N9 {" e4 Z" b% Vscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" `" |0 t$ e& q: j7 u4 Apopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( `6 b3 v% Q, ]( R) N% tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! C f8 L/ Q* I! R! f
which they blatantly failed to do.
/ N, t5 d5 A9 \& Y, w, k% r! x5 _' W
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 \+ ? i. ^$ X0 p; g
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in- P% C: z7 D5 g& B7 \7 s0 C( s) }
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ _: o: r3 n3 D! h
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous* \* h- H/ a: X& ]
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an9 s& e1 m1 W& c/ H( N' D
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the9 Z T. j, j+ ?& d9 u, ]2 n
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
( Q5 J) Q6 T) w/ P* P8 dbe treated as 7 s.
% s7 f0 V1 [+ Y1 k$ X; [2 i' r& L
8 L. H$ _! t d; u7 OSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is* K6 `. O* y* b1 o% a) D2 w6 U
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 |+ A. T. X: g9 W2 k; X0 b
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ U8 z% P( y% B5 y# P- H! Y HAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# _, H' w" G( o" u
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.9 u/ a5 o- D# O0 e/ ?
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 n3 [1 e4 Z! ~% c: b
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and7 }. m, S# @* G: _2 F0 z, V8 v
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 N6 m u5 R( P3 G) X; [5 }5 a
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# X, a8 D" Y5 \* L0 C
! ?# S9 N6 c+ ~6 s) ]/ l! t/ l7 R
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' V/ r$ N2 E+ ^1 V" k
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
' j" w6 V5 @% e4 s' Q1 v( Qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
: [ y; n1 u% D& Z+ R/ W5 She chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ ?/ S" A/ j% M* \
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s# |- ^" d0 B2 x% d' v# D
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# u& Z7 \0 N z2 I3 U! NFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another; t8 M3 Y( C# S5 `; F- p9 Z" j
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
$ n F% L' D( j4 ]. ]- ~hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
! ^3 H) D# b$ \ f, v5 f, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this' J T2 B! P" G
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. m& ~) x9 T. p5 J: `
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- c6 o4 V. x/ Efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ _+ l( @8 L1 K# h( l' maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that& X/ f8 x& O+ @" C2 a
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
. |' Y0 d8 \+ p/ G4 o# W8 @, }
8 S$ j/ L: I* |( k0 F2 S yFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 N$ a Q L! _" ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ J9 L6 c1 t- _" g: E* {s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 L+ r: \, X& h1 r1 ^
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
4 z$ E r" A* b9 t& ~1 Y4 {out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," ^6 O9 e6 j9 ^4 y& {/ ~
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ F3 G* {2 R: D5 Q' l4 m9 p
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it: }' l2 \' x: Q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 f5 W. F. O! y# T/ e4 D! uevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, T" m6 b. X: w2 mworks.: e6 M" x: j1 ~! O1 O- f
* s% K V& Y8 o SFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
, q- d# A5 W! u* P/ J: j" Wimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 @1 \5 n/ t# V# |0 a( @' M9 g
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
! N n: G: B- r" \" u; M @standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific' K& N; O4 X- v5 F% \1 E; t
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and! _. p5 P3 E6 _* U# G6 g# M$ F
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ }: @+ k; K, U, V- V/ mcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
6 ]2 q3 ^0 z* y: e3 j8 edemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 U" n, \7 \# J) d# O
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( r5 P9 m5 ?) \: A/ Q; s
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
5 Q% \+ C: l5 t6 kcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he# T/ H5 l* L. x
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: d' s I0 G) {+ k9 ^+ C/ S& g+ y. b
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the! e$ w5 p- ]: C( P+ x$ u: N
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not3 G5 P c; ~2 c, s8 F. `
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
5 R3 U' @- ~2 k/ Z) ]$ @. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
8 A" b% f" |# Adoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) F* K9 q: o+ G/ V6 S4 _be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a9 r( e7 h% ?2 ?0 Q' U# h) B
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 v2 V5 r+ c4 K/ X8 \has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- w( f" n, m/ @* ?
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:9 Y& M9 {5 b! o/ O* [
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect Z& t+ m3 Z9 I8 l. n. Z6 B3 t
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. q* [. ~" R; L" s4 Z7 G" Aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; G* T9 N3 n2 E# @
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. f4 ^& Q% R$ v0 z K7 D* J
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
4 U5 `7 n( W7 y1 u* s* \; ILet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
6 l6 O9 r2 x/ o* P7 \2 {+ _agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
2 r5 d) ~% z/ K: ]( Seight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
1 Y4 c3 m) R. B/ R4 L7 EInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) E" Z o# o: ~: d5 p- W$ c+ Z: R$ W2 r! Q1 W+ B
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-2 P( ~, U9 u+ I" Y z' K
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention% M$ ^# E* a% v
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" u' p1 B* s' q' COlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 A' g& b$ p; X# B& ?3 HOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" A5 ? {8 Y0 [& n% y/ p' Y+ ldoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: _, j: n6 Q: h O b
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
/ X+ |0 o6 h2 |$ Whave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
A5 T- B; ?9 Z; E2 {% y5 ]/ gplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 e: X1 n4 {2 o* A+ D1 f% V) L0 q- Upossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! x+ W8 d2 m1 k/ X, R$ g2 b2 x& y6 F( \3 }. O" S9 ? }
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' ]( ^# L2 r8 R8 o8 ~intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ A5 m/ O: M' `) n
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! K) ~1 R0 [8 ~; }5 d3 F% e2 v. h& Lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
L' C5 }/ e' @5 yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- @# E9 q/ t% B) M! b
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
) Y4 [, b. N3 \& iexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
7 z/ ?1 n' D' A8 ^6 cargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 k/ H: u& m2 K9 ^( v6 [
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or+ @" I+ e. v# T3 Q
reporting should be done. |
|