 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
* O* r# Y4 m4 t% j2 E如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
2 ~4 x7 E5 ]/ z9 C1 E
1 `! U2 c* R: `; p; w# v khttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
( Z3 v( T4 F! e; n& N
( T+ w) l9 [# D* v2 ?8 E9 bFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ `. L5 F/ Q. ?$ D4 S
: p K9 L: S$ ^3 _
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself/ U7 W6 A% o# o9 C8 \( B# h
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
b | I9 y0 \ D% U5 mmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
6 u. y0 u. r: x- ]is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 j7 e" d0 p x+ d( r: e# h1 U/ Sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" e) t4 Q; l9 B' epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 \" O- b* _& c9 A
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
( U; {2 `- y* q4 C, q& `which they blatantly failed to do.
, J9 ^9 ?! N6 i# {# {9 B$ ]9 x' V, s
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) X" V% | T% V/ y5 j' K
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in- K q! j6 C+ N. F) V( _- ^
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 X. g6 Z) D6 d( j% b/ }# ^9 Uanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
2 G+ B/ g4 _& h$ J+ Spersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an- T8 Z- ?! S0 N8 G" d- F
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ X4 I$ v. b* T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 C7 y% n. F1 [be treated as 7 s./ G3 R$ r3 o, x
; \- _# K- |4 ^! _; O* O7 M
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
* l6 R' j% Y: M" Nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem. Q5 h- B; F( a( Z. ~* k% X
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
2 L/ P) q0 m$ ]7 DAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 U+ U3 [+ J4 V% T7 r-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( @2 r, f4 A: y3 u/ [For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
1 f( _: o, P& [# velite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 f- X4 k+ O3 e8 r% ?persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
4 |- r. |1 Z" w/ H& tbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ ~& O$ u8 g1 x$ b; L5 V0 x2 \8 c$ Y" V, W+ C3 J& X
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
5 `( q$ J: a' y. A! K aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in$ [* Y# p- J& x
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ T0 }2 R. ~: V1 h- m8 \6 y
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later5 W/ W/ }7 K. c( n3 F" N" R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
$ c4 D( M/ A Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) v/ X+ C- q5 X5 @) e* zFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another. p# O* S& l) N) Q* j
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other+ E) Q) M, W0 n5 ^, w
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle2 q+ j* i5 |3 r3 j* w
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this+ z( g7 T* ^: G( n; i b S
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds+ q# f, [: l0 S( ~8 Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ ^' y( P- E, M7 h6 n/ i( ]
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting! O/ x; S6 Q$ {! B* b
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
- t+ V g& V6 w8 m* R$ Dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 ]8 e* Q) F. O2 G. ~. F: j
2 U% b% o$ f3 N' [- m: dFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. i+ n' ~, S8 n4 A! Tfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.936 w) e9 p% ]. G# h+ F
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s4 C- |& b+ o* v# w3 r1 I& p! O) H
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ p0 j( C0 Y; ?out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,3 }* F- r4 D) r, l6 r' O, z- e& F
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
" t9 ~! ^8 s- m W# L: f& Zof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 `* A- }3 }) @& g* R7 O; Plogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 e& R! _7 P: b( i d) G# I. J: b
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: F- |: L) G% \; b ~1 N/ yworks.% {& G" U' h; g. H
5 a' N* ?& q2 K! Z. v1 Z+ b5 C) U, Y
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and' k5 U) I+ d" \, I, v
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 c2 g9 J- ?3 ?$ i% B. y# N! ^kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ C; T* b( a9 y7 U+ y: D0 s" i# ], lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific9 u6 V6 h) U+ p5 [, L( Z; O
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and2 c1 j: t O' R1 p O. \9 F& f
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- b [3 Y& |7 O: Y
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
- |+ [4 t6 l; A6 j3 `9 kdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ Y# u( Z9 m: K8 m
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample9 u3 J3 J9 Y3 T5 I7 c# n1 a% @
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( M: M5 `7 P) W( C2 g) ^crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 I3 R8 d; ?9 i1 }
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 v0 |# _# x( J
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
9 _% f, f, \% {, O$ r+ ?+ q9 tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
t2 b8 [3 _- t2 O) L& V; e/ Ruse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
4 V' R; r6 U B% B. d. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 S$ W4 D+ _9 C4 @doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ d8 `- O7 ?: L1 F6 y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a O9 A8 ?) E' g9 e) t/ {# }# a
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) \( l% h O$ r* s2 g" t5 I6 r; fhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
q4 }6 b& F# R* y. j. O, O3 ^+ l5 Pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: e* {& ], I+ |* P! } s& {
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect+ A/ a b7 I: h) K" \0 U+ s
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
8 S! a2 O( Y3 `- D) Lprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an" C9 I! O$ m. |7 _2 | `7 m: \
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight0 X( u, i+ l' U& `; b
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
% u8 ]0 H7 \6 N" a0 H- SLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! c9 i/ \( u$ f" _( i( K( L3 h4 \
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
* k0 p1 t) D4 C+ F3 l. {eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances. q! r( O0 U8 O7 b2 {- ~
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 L2 u8 \# ?1 w$ I! O, {$ B N
' L) ~/ E2 T9 q7 i) {" ^Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
5 b6 T6 W! K3 Y3 Bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
7 S$ ^; i# V" a5 p( [0 Q/ W1 c. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) C7 a) w; U0 H# K$ cOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London* h( Y# L4 W. F6 f; {2 c
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; ?! E0 b+ ]( O! j. ^1 {0 adoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
$ }$ Z" l7 ~! c1 [+ C% D' \games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope8 W2 H- O* S$ B
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) A2 S2 ]8 Q( |" g6 E9 |4 B# F
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
I* P4 D2 _- _6 R: `possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 b7 o4 s% w% u' v% p& f
, Z' \- h5 H4 e G% K. b
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" b; ]; G6 R3 Aintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
& ]9 ^. q4 K0 N* k4 D- B: m0 x; w) Hsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a) j3 Z: v, `* j8 \
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide4 O9 ^1 h5 }7 ~# z
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* J2 b3 R) R) A8 U" s
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,, S3 a6 G' T! W# j- k/ ^3 l/ b( E
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
! ]# g% I: e6 l2 t% D" N! R7 }argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* m2 [$ `! k7 B. Z# F' @4 f1 I
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ S# B3 F0 |: B: @reporting should be done. |
|