 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
! H3 A5 i+ h5 J9 @- g7 h7 V, G如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 {/ [/ h% n8 r5 }7 ~
* R2 A* ]" o1 }2 h2 mhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 a8 s9 Y' f" {# r4 t2 r j8 j8 `" G" m
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& g3 ]2 u3 o; y' i8 ]0 v
$ W8 h/ s+ [8 A& W; F" \5 {4 YIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ \/ z4 U V0 e* W& ?7 \' Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 F/ p5 ~% E }5 i
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) ]- Y5 }9 A/ n
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 E# X3 B. ~, G
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general% V' s7 R6 y! g$ l- O% P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ V3 N2 p. j! b$ @
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
}9 S, [9 E) iwhich they blatantly failed to do./ M2 A4 y8 C+ j7 [! Y& e
+ p% g! c/ m; `9 U0 V/ C8 i1 _- J
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; A- S2 V1 j8 q0 ?* t [& E' R/ O- {Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2 {; _2 ~' `4 d+ o4 m a4 g2 R% T- d2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" a h- R* {6 B' u3 f' K4 o
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
- i) y' ]1 y6 X5 ?; Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an0 H5 D1 H7 X8 J) c; O, e5 s) P5 o
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) N$ r1 V- t2 _, Ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 h9 F3 ~) q! e3 k& V' Dbe treated as 7 s.
# X% \4 Q! x* \$ N/ Z$ j2 v% I$ G! i9 l% r8 o a8 E7 X
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
" m& V9 {) ^$ c, ystill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
; ~8 ]$ ]+ z- V6 G" K! s G( yimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
' h- D4 L7 e0 R% ?# U9 K& J0 xAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
% y& J$ x* C/ \" Q-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.0 X, L8 ^- m& g' g* q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
. T7 p+ j+ A( @' Gelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and5 C1 q4 o; t2 N/ p
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% n+ G/ s+ d; A9 ?based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! l( W# h( k) z
- r! k( `9 i6 J$ S* Y7 B
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 p/ G4 C& s% C. [! U; F3 Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ E( |7 B. ^3 t6 i/ hthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so( |6 }# O! N" A! J/ e
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
7 J" i7 P) q1 [, z' k4 zevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
2 T2 {- ^6 [1 ]' }best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
, j5 t- I# p! T% A3 R: oFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another Q0 p) F) d% f: s1 ?! O, D! f
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
6 I' {6 D* U! j5 E9 ^1 p$ {hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle1 i9 i0 |- o2 B' E
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ G( m- }1 g# j U. Tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% V# _1 L% y$ O0 l7 F' S. `, o' ~0 Sfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam N. K1 C+ N; O6 y5 j9 n4 q1 o
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, n$ C# w" w# g3 d# }( L% d4 I/ M4 paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
( ^" ?/ Q7 f% d, Iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on. n% {. `9 p1 V$ F
" p, ]: E1 W, i. a. j7 L
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are1 }( l% u T2 Z7 E( R4 Q2 z1 ~! X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.934 n$ h2 d. L8 b# P& Y8 Q3 U
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 v$ B6 t- r; C), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 e% [' Z3 V8 X* L( i. kout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 a( E' A$ Q9 [
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
1 X! N# v# S4 ]( R1 T# tof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* P+ u- y* b* q& Elogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 q+ ?2 N* F1 h3 _every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science$ {- e9 g# G* n$ d
works.
( c% K# b$ N( t7 W" S; I: e2 s, l4 G7 Z9 _- O% `4 p5 Z
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 P6 j( z; l% o) G- b zimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this% e7 I) U k5 u& v
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that4 l, D+ K! J. v, `" Y0 o$ l! C; H
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 q$ ?( {, p& V- _papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and- B" k# ]1 }, h0 W
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
$ Z+ k; x+ d2 h% k: T/ T9 {# z2 N# Fcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to' ~* y8 {% _3 ~! b: t( F
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
; Y u3 T) D/ F6 W" J8 b. z0 f" hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
& k& u* s* t* S# a" f3 L' k' t4 dis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
' E- ]5 a: ?. @1 {" x7 lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he7 _$ S+ S9 y1 G/ o3 g6 @. F8 v
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
, A! s# a4 }. G0 \& a% y; eadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
( X+ H5 C7 v( T+ O% epast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
/ A4 ^; t6 ]2 C' p( Vuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
$ j2 Q' B, y( I* j p- b. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are8 S; |% @9 ?: q: s" |* a
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
" H8 t) x9 o$ b& ~ y- k# tbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a$ ?3 Y/ `4 h6 `( C" y& B- {$ X
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% c( Q- h3 b8 f( |0 S
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& b# C' t8 U: o' j5 c
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- \" ^9 C T( T' W- z* P8 c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect% M0 r- P) q& {. |7 n; _; o1 j
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& \: \0 c9 o! P$ t( D% N# ~. p# \
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
" u. n) C* P+ m! F2 n" sathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight1 ?$ B% m% s$ H2 K) u
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: J5 A# o4 o+ F9 ^* P
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping/ Q& i: s- d* M! C
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for) j" E$ ~1 e4 S3 Q/ j9 e( J
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 \4 r$ L. J l. M9 \% C) G
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 o1 x1 l% L1 |8 Q: `8 `
$ ?6 W+ I" @* N$ j( t& k6 D/ g/ qSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* v: J* j+ v" d, G- y/ F, wcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention9 N- k! \: |5 x8 |* i! r y3 o
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 b9 j+ P+ i. e( v7 eOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 n: K% Q X; r. rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
( O% j* R. D& T2 C, U7 ?4 Wdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* b( M/ {" V$ _& l$ c$ C9 Kgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope: L% J' F- [8 e$ `% h! w
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) S" ]7 B; k& Z% F
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this- o$ ]* y5 @3 Q
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" W) A" o' j# ]1 l& e
1 \0 G6 u3 {9 G$ M- F; S" KOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ @! i. k/ }. z8 [/ Nintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too. c7 M. S+ L7 W4 n2 r
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 q7 ~$ j3 {, y& vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide: F# a0 y" k0 Y7 [) i
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your; g4 C( W" r1 P( ]& m3 U
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ g, P x7 f) |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
, B5 i0 _! I" j# }( Targument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
) O- v) J. P' I+ ^' Qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or4 D% n% R3 _8 l. B# n9 B* g
reporting should be done. |
|