 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
* Y) @- f! v2 s如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。+ W# }5 |9 e% z& Z. t( m
# z" E& m" T: C! `
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 h, D; ?2 c4 `' Y7 X4 `7 P3 A; E8 ^( o8 r, ]
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
3 Q5 _$ H3 Z# n+ E Y2 z( h& ~9 f" Z9 O U
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself7 D# R P$ F. B$ ~
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science" l8 w( e1 r8 |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this X- j6 @* q6 Z; ~8 c0 d
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; z0 i- T, D+ L" r+ H" Ascrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
9 |' f' j/ _3 A+ d1 V1 apopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors9 }# e# m% @+ A* Q I: u
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context, j( d& W; c2 f' f$ _
which they blatantly failed to do.+ }3 Y, p, b9 ]! O
& u$ d$ m( i3 G3 w6 ]+ x8 n% y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. P% }0 w0 m: ^+ p% O* Z8 \5 O
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 ~4 o0 d% u P7 Q* Q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 G' } V2 o/ W/ |. v
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous8 `* x o1 U! z. l8 |" o
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, X/ B( j8 O5 B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) M' ]/ p1 l2 R. {( kdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to8 m0 O' I2 a& r! r% o/ M& F
be treated as 7 s." b" _0 k& T+ `4 u
7 g; J% n" f/ J& t2 rSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is6 w/ S0 z5 ^) E/ e: m3 Y6 S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 I" V: x5 A: s% a) F
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- w. D6 w' b2 m% l0 j& U Z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400: g+ L; Z0 ]9 A' e
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 u8 Z3 h; [" j4 r( @For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; P; H0 O/ q: K
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( W+ d' T: v' y" F9 z" g$ }persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) R$ J) v; R1 y/ N- T1 K M% l1 B
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- u6 I8 I! J, B% N- f
" p1 s/ o. n" Q9 E( ^6 a
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 [* Q9 n0 N2 X+ _
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in' h3 _* v, K2 ?& y. K
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so4 c1 t' M7 f& n; @4 A1 {" l
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) ]; c4 i1 Q6 J: E r- |& R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* H0 |. n4 a8 Z2 ?
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# ~9 w5 e+ B1 B3 [) O" s2 ?' wFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( e1 O$ v8 m7 u" s5 ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 I2 D" j8 o' o
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
- j+ e/ I* p+ O6 R0 A7 d, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ r# |% C$ v y8 t
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ r+ s8 E+ |& I/ e- S6 y
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( a+ n) S4 `3 R6 M& Z
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 p: J5 s2 T2 q8 e D" N" M
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that1 J6 [) V* s. D
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 q, ? c8 U2 e' `3 _+ o L5 v7 @
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; n( L I1 \0 d) u" t) E
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 B5 ^: i) k5 S1 w( y5 hs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: ~9 u* y8 _! v" d0 L4 c), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ J! p# k9 ~. v! x( j) ?: Y
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 G! x/ w% O2 bLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ O: H% z6 b# Y
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 m" g6 H [0 e. M% A( f5 _logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 {/ \* n) z, {
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science9 t- a6 Y$ q$ x2 b
works.
2 ^" A7 V6 ?) J" X( N4 J+ L
5 z& o+ m* W% }Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
, c F) e+ m& n( w2 jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! b7 j; x. R1 k: D+ M2 G [
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, t/ Z- u X& `4 M0 G* H
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
5 `. C5 e3 D- _- q: ]9 N0 x. [ r3 ~papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and. L* N( u0 } d7 K' j
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- g) P: {% a a; ]7 B$ Z. ]cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 E% ?. O; z! E. Z% }, [demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works8 g4 O7 n" M' V* ^$ P
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" d3 ]3 g3 w) G! Jis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ M8 R6 o6 A* b* ucrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 b4 @: y+ u1 t. Bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly4 x% g0 u. c) o
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the7 g( o5 j+ V9 C9 x6 D
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not) M# D& A0 O1 p& Z. Q
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
/ o" L8 W1 @( V m# P& L* X. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are" L/ G9 \- |0 t, R, v+ b6 [
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may% l1 o) R! \. Q% n3 `4 C; I4 {
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, M4 N5 B& I8 o* \hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye3 X9 w+ U" g+ e- x- [( h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' s0 _2 t/ y% f" Y, n6 Odrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: l3 {& S3 b. O7 r f3 R. _: Mother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect9 Y8 F; }) G% e: X* u, p
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is. o. Z8 P" u5 @' ?2 y
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an/ L. t* V/ _+ Q% e4 z: @2 k# f8 c
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; q. d' c8 H3 \8 ^- Z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: I/ x2 i9 P l3 m. ^
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
- N5 H- P3 @8 v! g r, w+ Pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for' E& q- L( t; R6 F6 h9 I, x
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.6 N/ k" |+ T% `0 E" ? |0 x* ]! [ A
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) I- X, U8 J; b: N) }8 B- W# k8 e# X- |3 l# J
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! G5 ?3 I6 |1 a& L
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& T4 E0 E9 l) m. R: Y5 |. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, r* |0 Q0 o( L* \) EOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* h u( a! A! `) Q1 u) QOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for3 K: [) j- m4 q4 L& K3 Z* d
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
1 L& d* Z' W/ @2 i( x0 Agames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
7 O7 o+ G" B+ m3 w: m ? x- Jhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) m+ F4 h; s: R7 a' ^- B6 P
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this+ q* y! ^) v! W, C& @5 C
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye." `$ g1 B3 b9 \0 a0 t/ ]
) d! C, u C! C; T/ e3 cOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (. V; ? V: J/ [( v1 l& ]( y8 J
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ z+ P' P: Z9 G2 |4 S9 K& ~& d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a' z6 q0 [3 }5 A2 V% \: \4 y
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' m* `- k1 V! w! F* d
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* X8 T9 {- J, O+ r) x
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- P6 X: W4 R. B& ]4 Q! v3 [
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your" U5 ]( X9 a& A: i: k" u& u
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 B" F9 L( g8 Gsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or% I% z, |0 z" k+ X
reporting should be done. |
|