 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 JIANG2 ?0 d0 Z6 @) ?3 Y( E$ q7 A
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. ], q, `2 \" X# G
8 ~8 w, `) f b I, Y5 Ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html. M5 A* X4 K2 @5 e0 Z
' p+ f7 w+ ]. z( q* O
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 O/ H# j7 @3 Z3 v; }. e% O, F4 _' `. S$ N
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
* Q5 i1 P' W0 s5 v$ `, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# ]- ^) z! t- Z) M$ Gmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" l3 v$ e X" w2 p) Q
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 C+ R# V$ h. Q9 ^/ {# _. Vscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 [! S/ t/ [- j4 s. y, T# e' ~6 h( }& lpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- j5 ?" y7 o0 D O( ~should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 u0 D) O$ z/ l) cwhich they blatantly failed to do.3 W" u# b' X3 h" x& e; Q( a
. ]/ k! o4 z, [# I& @" D' y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her# a6 H; Q' V% ^0 ?: P" o4 S
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
$ F$ q) F" C4 C E2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- R; {! L9 Y7 c9 F+ ?& Wanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 e, n/ b ], R6 |2 C+ i; L( b
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
. s2 h) E& n8 c! Z' w# Simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the9 r, g7 D( l/ t1 S; t
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
d. \, A4 a I& W$ R7 U8 @8 Qbe treated as 7 s.
! h" T, ]" I( S6 p: b
2 q3 P2 u" U" T. O% r6 t1 `2 ^Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 `; W& r* p6 E
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: }7 H& Q! z. J& m5 pimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.* W: |; i8 f* |: U; e4 j
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# |% T% b8 ^' {3 G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16., I' [* i ~8 W2 A: y/ J+ X! M
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; @ k6 b! u& H) A" x! X- R
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and. l/ N' U5 h6 i$ Z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”* ?# |% s$ s1 E* ~4 j0 r
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
1 X1 g! u4 b/ @6 Q/ b
: ?7 j8 i+ j& H1 F! ?" N- pThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# N& ]; O% C) ~* kexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
m; ^! U& K+ ?% P8 j8 C" t+ hthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ J. s7 x8 e+ |. O, U, @
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
/ U) i4 X: Z5 p- Yevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
7 y4 ~+ y( _. p/ Z6 Y1 R1 Ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 v3 D! S# M! f6 h% h2 R' x0 u% y
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ p3 R0 `5 G7 Y- s6 stopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other2 p: F/ ]# U6 b: _* G% E1 X
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 l, r4 d! C# W0 e1 D( m4 Z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
4 h7 l! ]& i7 X' v3 G& i( [9 a% zstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ B3 S/ F. p. x! C& ]* W# E
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" G* e& V+ v. A+ e* i6 P1 t4 Cfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 y. P. @; w" b0 @0 }% q/ f. waside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that6 \# N4 {% h' p: T/ v! O; c: \2 S+ q
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 m* w1 M+ O. W
5 N7 o5 R, q, G5 S/ d1 d) A7 j3 E% XFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ X$ e, g4 ?3 M, |5 B" ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 e6 G7 s7 j. }3 o; B1 r' d6 cs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" I6 {1 M1 L5 L( [9 i$ y! ]), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
) j' b7 u" ` s f' Uout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% a3 }- u5 ^$ i0 f' ~Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind& o1 w# i) J! h/ i% p/ z
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 n. s) D+ q, v4 flogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) o+ F) q; x& h8 q% r
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% W- R6 [7 Q1 e1 H/ Qworks.
6 Q) ~$ L1 c3 V2 H0 F
3 y; C2 o0 h) C7 N; C+ a3 c4 hFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 {3 ^( ?8 q' U7 }. S0 f0 h) Y1 ?
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 N" Q8 E* L5 g& V7 ]) V! j7 Zkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. n7 x& e- R, T3 S1 C2 bstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
& c6 T# f8 _% _5 ]) ~7 |9 Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 y; ~- ]$ ?5 R: [9 l; r. E
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" Q) t3 h" D' j2 ~( c7 ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 H+ q$ ?, `* ]8 A; ^- m
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works* |6 {7 Z' t. W+ L2 p8 v
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample ?5 \2 T, Q9 i! M* L
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 Z9 Y" r. j+ g' _) M' ]6 {% ]
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( w! S( b( k# t4 B2 \4 Qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: E1 k8 R- T2 w' A4 e) T) F- N3 J
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
; e5 l: d! n) @) spast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( @/ P0 f) |9 A- u+ n! B% @+ y( u1 n5 ^use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. T. w! ~. h( V* z! Q! ?
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
w* {4 ^; x. E& m1 X5 Hdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# s* z5 L( \# c' N& Dbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
' z0 g6 \0 _1 o+ }: |hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 e! U& @5 r/ u; ?0 J4 k
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
\3 C$ D m& p9 s' x9 }4 B6 ^drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
6 o. l) V; P* ?" {( f- o6 Q6 ?: kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 K h; u! M. F: ]4 d/ V
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
- ?# e1 p( o, `0 r8 Vprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% M3 f# R, n4 I* S5 M5 S
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight% e4 C% U% s& Q N/ A! \* H$ b
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
8 t) I8 W; L! A: c# ]Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 E, ^& z3 H: L8 e# T% _
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! }8 r& t$ d3 g# m4 Ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.' e# A: l* f# \" ^4 K5 U0 _
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 \: H( T3 F9 ~7 ], I- d1 J% Q- t& e! K/ d" u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* a) L( k! y0 C" p/ d8 O; l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; u, ` w) v6 R2 |; O5 F$ S1 k
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) c5 M% s0 E7 Q: `& P$ c, pOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London- u+ U1 W. ~( w. O. ?2 D8 `
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 v/ d8 r8 P4 D. ] N! Qdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic& @2 p/ c- W% _# ]4 a- E! \
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope- n% S& Z- c' W7 g6 R
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& G: Q, X4 G) @6 Z
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this3 j# h& c! F' `% F# w8 ^
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye./ k, V+ r7 _6 W' N2 j! K' |
4 Y$ P% y; x4 Z5 v
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 S) c. }# n; O0 i y. z6 K/ Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too; i. U+ s0 c0 f' Z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 X+ o. I$ {& y: d# |) N+ osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide- b; i4 h( G7 h( ?5 |6 v4 k
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& z' k* u0 k2 E) jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
& \% K' e5 @) m+ @7 o& U* L X# P8 dexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
1 {2 u* ~6 R( kargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. {, e; X6 u: y$ i
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
2 u/ O) Y2 d! W3 ?7 Ureporting should be done. |
|