 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
9 E% P; n6 x |' `如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
y, L( h- R8 d( ?9 N+ W5 u% W! }* r9 j, r8 z2 b H; E- k
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: ?; t( I% Y5 ^2 ^$ W* p3 O
1 h) U9 l) j2 c( v# H' |: GFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: P- |! x0 _' r+ x6 |) W
# z8 v5 V; ?) F, zIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself% K& _& T9 I/ W; P; s
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. w3 i1 L4 C/ Q4 _9 T$ Y8 ?, j
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) `: r4 r2 @$ ?0 z
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the/ f4 K0 Q! v' T- Z" r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
- |8 P6 G" h* F7 fpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
6 N# t; d, c/ h% xshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,1 W8 G- K' q# z' P! }9 R( S8 g$ T
which they blatantly failed to do.
( a, n3 E0 |! |7 }0 p/ o8 g v5 M+ B: ]. A
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 ?8 E4 V# Q' x( hOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 H; S" _! Y2 j2 \4 {9 E" h) e2 k
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “- N& S, a9 H- C/ U4 o
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% P7 W. L+ a2 U, Z% a% q) ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
6 H* [$ h! Q# i2 F4 `* ~improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the" A" |2 `2 ^) n% X
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to/ O: q$ I) J- E: x# {) m4 [
be treated as 7 s.8 `* ?; h; G0 {7 i4 T+ l9 E# P0 v
; V8 S( }+ g" l2 V1 RSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 i, ~6 S% _3 {; R# q, a
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 i4 e5 N( ^, e+ H6 y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ I# \" P7 h, I* MAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400. ]6 E4 ]8 B' _
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 K: A" t' V( v
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
/ M# `4 Q. R7 b% n, T6 r% s+ }/ ^elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) y5 Z- F8 W6 i: a
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
8 J6 c# D; ?$ f& ]# ^% E9 j: qbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* |/ c/ c V- F3 |
5 u5 O& f0 Z9 p: {4 mThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook6 Z; R. y( a: r. k% k0 N/ t
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 `) A6 u: h- V( | a' @the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* e+ ^, a$ U+ |' i( C3 mhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: }1 r* b) E) U' N Xevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" R* p( _7 { F) |* T7 Ubest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- `& \8 V3 m2 h4 @3 ]6 r6 I+ RFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* Z% W8 N% m* e
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
2 F$ k/ s3 ]: i M# V0 E5 N( ^hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 g4 ]; E" P7 f r8 U7 d U, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% t7 ~/ {/ F/ b$ }$ @, q6 pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
5 X4 ?2 R; V8 M8 N! Q# Efaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam# V6 t6 A# m) O/ ?
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 u& u& s$ J6 ^8 ~: B' Taside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that5 J+ [8 ~: v% n1 b, b6 c' r
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 l- y! z% A! m# h7 Q" Z
8 R7 o4 W s0 B$ y9 W
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are- i: v( \4 c# D' z0 S
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.936 ]7 n5 A( k( A/ R7 D- Q
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
}* z2 Y( w K$ O; p# i4 M), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns a& x2 B9 z- _' Q" P: g
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,$ A3 D6 A9 V; C9 E
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
2 l3 y( q0 Q7 _ {5 hof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
. B& \+ [6 c) F: ?3 `) Flogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in# t" Q _. w4 D$ z# y4 p
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science& v* {: c1 @- p, c. {1 [
works.
, M) O) r8 U' ~4 i& B6 X* c9 }
; @5 q+ O7 Y8 \+ r( M$ ]Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
- l" l4 ?8 x% R8 L! Rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
3 Y0 n; ?( z+ u8 b" H9 U* o+ v! {# Wkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 @& p2 ?1 `" Z! K/ U
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 `7 s- J4 L, @' L* _7 Tpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
: ^7 U A6 i6 w6 j9 N$ Freviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
$ H8 N% L- x- ^! b. Rcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 n3 E F4 G# H% M5 u+ Hdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 M. h% }. ~# q. ?! A/ F
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: c1 ]' \$ R/ x( o K+ b1 x
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
# K: f9 V5 }5 b+ ?: w% ]' y6 vcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 R/ r+ J% Q, q ?; |wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 k- i S. X$ ^& }# C& n5 C; t2 Z0 ^
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
+ f* q8 i2 @: W8 J" O5 ~1 Z- _+ Ppast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not8 b4 _( o Y& U+ [6 ~0 B+ ^+ g
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation& g/ H S6 d2 M* l7 s, D
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are9 e6 `; U, U$ K9 ]5 g. q* Y0 \
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may, s# v' I0 k' Z( {
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( C6 e& n3 j, o k9 h
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye2 r; m5 q: @8 C3 N) K: W' O
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 }9 G- G" K4 v" h: ~5 b
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:8 s. b' X2 \" [; E1 I
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% S5 ^* ?1 u& ?6 B, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. Z6 h9 p9 G9 `- {6 R5 Jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an* g1 D* m8 Y1 Z) S
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: C2 i1 s- d+ ~5 `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) ^" x4 k4 B+ V& e7 ?+ \1 fLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping8 w8 F, L8 U Q8 g1 L2 ^9 F
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
7 b+ }' ^- I6 L0 G. G1 d# yeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
! G; o" y4 Z8 }6 U P; x+ S3 h# MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?9 V8 b- U) Z" Q' g
+ n6 D- v% G# n
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 l( u3 O, z. S( `/ ^5 lcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
( J% c# z4 o- o. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for0 S- {7 J0 {* d; T
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* {+ j9 V w& }* OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
/ W0 q) q# }9 F$ Pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
e: C! a8 E9 S8 B$ k$ Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
5 {0 v! N" |' M2 _have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a, F. b6 b, P: |; o+ A1 A
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this8 N& I1 K& }8 M s9 _. l" s2 X
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
3 @7 R8 `$ x# d+ T( O4 T% D: I% `' e/ f. o/ Q7 {
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ k* s6 u% s: }' Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too* ]. s, j5 ~" M6 b; _7 b
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a, E; M: `( `5 L: B) U2 H
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide6 {; i' r, B! p* n: \
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- x8 g1 v! v2 `; G/ }interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ h1 h1 g! X0 \; T! f
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your! K/ ?0 o7 v# J" o& t
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal& i" H0 E7 f Q6 F T' O$ n7 m: G
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
) e) Y+ ]5 Y1 F. ]# b2 H, ]9 K- ^reporting should be done. |
|