 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 JIANG5 O, C5 i, W" q7 \& L
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* ~9 L4 C q5 G* u$ J
. J _4 I% i+ @" |! b3 y% f- ehttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
; P; u8 U' |* O# Y6 n8 R+ ^
W3 B1 A8 w, ?1 r- Z! T' Z) y/ H5 {FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
6 m* j5 A- K- h/ W4 {: U5 w0 F% p' T7 @! t/ i. f
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
9 z( U8 M2 U4 h4 C& n* L! f" Q, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 K5 W3 ]0 n0 ^: a9 D
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
! I, R8 T7 {- L4 n cis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
9 Q1 t; i1 l+ D: T" W' k; `9 p5 X/ ^9 E+ b$ rscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
& Q7 K: w; B8 j" J v3 W, Z0 x5 \" Apopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 Z9 v5 C) S2 S3 W7 s. L* mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,3 }9 ]( ]. d, S: d
which they blatantly failed to do.4 u" G% K3 |1 K
: k% u# O( {, w' K L/ W
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her4 n4 p, P; A2 x, g1 O
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# ^# G! a- Z. y" T1 C2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “5 w2 n! i, Y6 }/ I
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
5 u6 M8 u: Y/ z2 Y' H' c# A5 y( Rpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! D, Y( o. v5 h; l; b' e1 I- Jimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
* L( M3 V2 ]# ]+ a% C. Zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 e# W' a& q7 c Y
be treated as 7 s.# H |# t8 t- F/ @. K
1 s' u$ [* F( u1 S: j% {0 V6 Z4 Z6 A
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is, m3 O, f/ R2 l
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) i1 _7 V% A9 S7 A3 _( Himpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, ~* f, ?3 |0 \- f; ?An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
$ c. U9 ~* O; `-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
6 u5 j8 \2 f: G, h# ?( AFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ j& s' Z$ ?3 o* ]# Y% o' x
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& d/ R4 Y) {8 i& W) J# P& |: x0 f
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
* i8 |, n$ a0 z0 J. C: |based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.' m# _6 Q1 t0 e2 ]: W: Z9 W2 E; o
' [5 p k% h8 `. y, i3 n
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook3 s1 i0 w5 F( M( S( t, @
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in" @# @- N( K( y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& l5 z+ s! q1 E0 W0 B/ ?" o8 n; H1 }" ahe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) D9 S! P: A' ]: h8 r; R6 \0 O* `
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( A- @# ~2 ]$ u( }* \+ M. Wbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 o" z' k, ?- i0 N l6 M) lFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another' Q) f: H; ~3 | ^6 g. u
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. P. [" ~, T- f+ @6 n
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) H: a( V; z; z( f) z, ?0 Q9 O
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! z2 K# \6 k: B' mstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 _# A4 x$ `2 ufaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- R# a: t5 e, T2 T# t( G: B3 y+ r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ E& e* z# }& W ]aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
! ?9 y. H& A( g/ Rimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
i. C7 P% U9 u6 D6 }/ {* T
$ ^8 ~: Y% r. u. f {9 \! FFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- E+ d8 s2 @" j" M5 O1 ~& yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 Y! J& q; Z- {" E
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" K6 J6 m2 t* P5 W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ a9 w; Q, b8 b3 |) }: s
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
. V- B6 ^, B. p- YLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ y d* ]8 ]7 k5 _1 @% _
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
i( S- [6 ^4 p" m/ g9 ^logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 `) l* O" v5 g$ R% E: f3 t
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science8 P* M! B2 v8 Y8 L
works.: |" ]' f* \: M1 k7 L
/ v6 E4 Q& x8 e* M5 I8 V5 TFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 ~5 j& S4 j, r; J" d
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
( M3 r* E9 h+ X& {' ~kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that' w% m/ P- E& S& [5 I7 r1 s
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: q2 m' L. D% ?( J% `/ d! D
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, @+ Y0 o! ]; Q5 G. y; zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% w G2 W0 @ \
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* z- R1 y) W; k; |3 R9 }! \
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" ^# d8 U+ q; m! d3 E* q1 e
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& p( x# u) F# K+ v- p
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is0 g5 y1 ~% T+ D" `/ L0 M) O
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 Z4 ~& x! Z( t. _1 Nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% m/ {+ z1 A$ K ], o4 [& n( dadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) R# P& r( c* ~) L1 k' l% npast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not5 c( P7 z+ l9 \% [2 |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 U* t4 v. a" x. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* n% m$ z) C! ^. x2 a
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! Z/ l% J3 ]" i1 B1 dbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a0 e$ q4 j8 n' ]3 r5 Q
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& b3 B$ o: M3 P$ S% F+ ?, d/ S1 c7 ?
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
# [- h |9 r; ydrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
/ w8 B7 @8 _3 p4 Xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
8 P+ n& {6 @! q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is( d7 `5 \' v% i1 q# k2 o1 \/ D5 N
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
i: V- ~6 B/ O4 i$ p7 D& f. Dathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
! X) k. u) d! ~5 ` {) G$ L# jchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* U: F- g c- }: {Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 h( o' v, T. R: m
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 M9 W/ k, j: I/ e O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
8 W1 U- }5 P: B7 t# gInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* e' @6 s9 ~5 _- H- ^
; N* x. \+ L# T6 B
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
: r$ W2 I" B; n: |* S% Hcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention0 V4 F. _9 I: @* ~+ ?3 A" s9 `, G
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
: I3 ?3 f# ]- } E+ n3 O# ?" ZOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 B$ N- [5 |. p5 V! J
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 c \( S; \7 y( pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 Y( M5 B7 S- E% a4 L5 l
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
& E. Q s2 d) |9 x. @, Chave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
# A5 R e) e+ l, _2 }# V4 ?player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: G6 j/ \8 [0 g T. ^* Ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
7 E0 m! B5 A! ^. D, w2 ?7 `# _8 J9 d( M% K% B2 V0 e; ?: r+ h
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, K- Y/ C! U% x; B5 zintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 ^3 L( r4 `( osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 R5 w6 z" X& m8 ?- e* U
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide: x" r! a* |1 X5 [
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
! z. A5 e! \: ^% b+ H9 d& Dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: v0 ~% j& ^3 @4 t5 ~
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( e) |+ I7 I2 t9 Y( t9 {* J% hargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
. A+ E+ W0 Q+ o" d( J% B* _such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or4 Y0 j R* `. S7 s$ b, t
reporting should be done. |
|