 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
# n5 v: S0 s, t- [/ B如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。% V+ P) }- K/ v9 a3 y6 R/ K
# I$ `: Y0 ?8 M- G- ]http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
. U% F+ k: P/ l; I+ N1 @: {, x% R& V. X4 W8 |% h g. a v
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania# L& g+ B5 d+ m: x2 T4 _* ~- Z
, o6 U2 o; `( G1 O; e+ uIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself3 t# R& x/ h' ?3 Z
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ }; W+ y% ~. g6 F( r$ d" r
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- Z4 R7 [ q- `9 A, b; S: G" I$ Zis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the }5 N) L$ `! w3 @
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general% R1 J. V; f6 S
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 G; U" ]6 m5 U6 C3 x$ M ]5 H: r, bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' j! i& p5 a- R. _5 Z
which they blatantly failed to do.
3 _! X8 e: ~7 o# `' a3 D6 v& u6 o/ N7 H" B
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
: C7 U. U" }7 g) LOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in, H2 l- L X. \" M
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
n& k2 g0 b+ z u9 r- x( Qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
4 t0 y# ^* A gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
4 C7 C& s" n K! v, ?' ~" t5 ?3 Zimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; ?. P1 `4 |2 ?: Cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
: `9 [ U7 s% j, q2 Tbe treated as 7 s.- l; [) @8 r+ W# ~, A1 `
# }8 s0 U' g& F4 i; lSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
* K" {9 p- H6 V; I7 G( A9 ~4 _still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) A7 s+ `) @+ O- \# e& ]5 \( |2 O" Yimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.0 l0 R1 W( b; g8 z& p2 D
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
, Q5 d- T1 G& P' Z: h-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% Y% D/ K) {6 H! ], f
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an4 S8 w5 H/ q6 d, h" \, G
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
] w' E- k! \/ @1 `% ?persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”$ Z5 |0 q! V$ r1 K# n) x" G
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
! X. _- Q' Y- T% r
2 P0 B" z5 Q1 lThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook+ ]1 I* l1 j# I8 `& m6 @" R: d5 g
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ `0 s H) b" y9 q* w
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ F: K+ i& S- L1 i4 M! _- Y6 c' The chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 }) ?0 z' Z* a* ?0 o i' t' B
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ V; a6 J5 U; A/ P5 a/ s! D5 ]
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ U& e; {1 H- DFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
3 o$ a5 w2 t8 \( Y2 m0 Wtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other U7 y2 F) R M( T* T
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
+ Y7 E- @7 H; `, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
, Z- l! K% L; [* i; P" Gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds# N9 w$ R# W" X1 Q
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
5 ?% P1 R4 \/ E0 L6 A- kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ T7 ]0 {' ^ C @# Oaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ A$ B5 F7 _4 v9 E( Y. b
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 f; z& G. i* D' B# j4 o6 B
0 Y q8 `: z! b+ SFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' \/ P7 q) {/ N& U
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* O4 V! f* g: [; }
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
7 C/ y7 V/ T) ~" G4 i: q# Z1 P), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ W7 J# d4 h: A4 o) P f8 n1 d$ `out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 d7 f; p/ d* V& p- v6 V( }% ^
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind5 o+ R1 m; P) A7 n y( l" {
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it8 q6 _( h& ?/ t
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 B) i3 u/ \8 J" _% S0 ~) O" q+ tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science7 W* {3 i3 @! t7 k0 R- t$ q
works.4 q9 _4 E9 E5 Q7 Y7 H4 D3 M
. P8 _6 Q. [9 N; @
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' P0 R1 p: Y) l1 @+ T2 A. rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ @- O& x/ A7 r4 _' Dkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ t: S$ G$ h# y* b7 I5 f H+ ?0 `standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ o8 N. e* W5 y8 q( U
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* |6 G$ P1 G/ f3 g, ]' r) n' b+ jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 R$ W& [% h. f% @+ [" s2 R
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; h: Q. ^! A x; K Qdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# z! T( e9 Y* c' g" Ito a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample+ T+ ]. A, y; P+ b
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
. _4 Z o' U, y3 F, u" Rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' W1 P f8 x1 Y' wwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* J. t/ ~0 m+ E
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
6 x" ~& K; N- I6 b' w& [past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
8 N* _: h0 `3 E3 }use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, E# e( c" g2 t2 L" Z T9 Y
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
/ r3 }* C# R F9 Odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may3 N" L0 w; r3 U$ Q; c: n- A
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# T) [8 Q8 S7 q( W% ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. W ^0 j! ?# X, }7 Ahas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a3 j# X5 n3 S/ z' z( I$ O2 S9 P8 h
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: y$ ^+ `* D% t4 z$ [
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect- E! v" [8 g1 ^. s. a
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is0 v& u6 {0 N5 h5 J& F6 ^, q
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an6 A" S5 F4 N6 |7 r% h( `
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( Q5 R$ n, g0 I% g ]& l2 ]chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) y' ~+ D) d% dLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
: O: s% o- ^7 E# [4 H. e( Jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 x4 d7 K; Z, R2 ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- O4 w" ]6 _& t" z% n8 ~
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
; i6 R1 R; w) I2 {# A. r/ T+ _; h. F9 c! ?4 e
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 F. T+ R8 l' F8 t
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& r! U: E/ d1 }! m* {# `. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# w2 S) o( A5 F$ V
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' b" g3 _4 Q* w3 Q2 K8 Y
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- F2 Y' L; C# X9 x' H
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 v6 G& u' I8 p$ L9 l. o
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
6 g* x% X0 `) B# r9 q! `have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a8 W# _: d1 _0 Y8 n- P* ~* u# H- I
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 E' E. \& b5 r0 l9 wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. O2 G5 Z& G( C# j6 m% j
3 E4 t {2 f/ Y9 `$ g7 r0 W0 aOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
& w# U9 f7 R' k( M& wintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
# R" R; S! k% v n* J& Esuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a* r8 e6 N! H4 |* b |
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 B/ z- j% w$ |, f* J! Jall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your9 d% h' h* U% B. P
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
7 E% k% L$ ^( V5 Uexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your4 h! X) _& ~1 O2 c" r1 Q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
) x$ P( y$ Z6 W& t& tsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. i, @: n l& B( b1 R/ V
reporting should be done. |
|