 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
; J0 L' f) R4 W! ~: ?9 |如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 {' R, L$ h" z& l) B4 j
4 F3 \7 S7 T" ]- E( h
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html7 T: ?3 I q# J% {1 j& Q
5 W# g) U Y& O! e
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ x W+ P' Z3 ~- v8 `/ t# y% I
1 ]1 _. f( ~0 K K8 EIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
7 ~$ n. f7 G$ t/ b, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
8 K `, ?' y3 e |magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this9 q1 w* `! m& E' [+ W" v( l% j
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the6 o8 v4 y+ U9 Y4 ^7 {( S) X
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 Q2 M( K, X5 W7 B8 J1 o
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
$ L2 H" J" l6 M: h; r/ f$ P2 tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
! V( j6 \0 K; ?* Dwhich they blatantly failed to do.
' C5 W. g* ]( s/ t3 {) }. m2 h0 [, w
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; B) w7 |8 E( D. V6 X9 Y |+ h8 {Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 q0 \( `7 d! {7 \2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
) X j V% Q7 Panomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
' m' \) `2 e& P4 T3 W3 j1 S- }& Opersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 w% z. T( j- x U* @
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ d1 f$ a7 }' c3 I" v# m
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
1 a# ~5 D9 t; ]. R0 f! v* X+ qbe treated as 7 s.$ q9 Z9 p/ O9 M8 v1 _
1 [; W: F- ~/ k. ~- ^8 w
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" {* d% Z: s, T3 F; p
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* z- ~2 b: ^* J$ E: \impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.3 `/ `" h. k- b5 s( v z5 B
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400' d; S% w3 y% Y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 }4 i% ~+ L1 a' |+ XFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ C, \' I$ Z- K/ `1 @, l9 t% b
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ N' k. r- ~& @! s
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”5 Z0 u8 e5 x% s
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
9 b2 f* g2 G. X0 N+ P/ \
$ l8 s% x9 f. m5 T. ~ W1 g1 Q9 e/ @Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
- y- [! U- [" eexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- ~- j4 e& p1 \) k6 `
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
, j" p4 J4 V3 S( she chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
- L _/ p! Q" t' }+ G3 vevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# _6 J+ b/ e) s1 V9 N& A) P* zbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ O- l% S+ O9 ~! n5 f0 j! a
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. E! ?# d8 x4 gtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. L. @4 u* K5 D/ a* }hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
( h8 h6 M7 {( F8 S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this8 H" U$ |: _& U
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds) a5 I0 t! t1 ^+ R4 z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam' }$ l! p% s! z6 G
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
' l* f: ?2 e$ \% a" M. X' Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% B4 U2 d2 C" U7 w( o* M# d
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on. Z, b7 T, h4 R( i4 U
! v8 l# h- X7 P3 y% f$ EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; F0 r, a; d6 C( q Q3 cfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ D# N4 a9 a O% l, S9 n8 |: N) k. T: Xs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 s# g: L$ e4 Q
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns9 X+ Z2 l0 ]; }& \$ q" C
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; y- O% o( s- O' v) q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* Z2 d0 K$ C5 [9 T- N# bof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it2 t& s9 E, V( K# S* W0 k4 h' y }' t
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
3 D: b3 {" o. f% yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
- A0 Q; d! }+ m, u- uworks.1 L+ N9 ^' A! g
+ V2 a( c& n. F, n l6 D
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and" F& Y; c' ]9 y2 V
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this0 |) C/ }& s; W' Q* f+ N- Y! a
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that% b% i1 j: s& V. k% ]
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific. M( k% @+ _3 O' M: h a
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ a4 F6 m! ~% v) M; \
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 D) u) K" E# V
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. r8 \$ c ` J3 sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. w% c0 R* Y1 {2 A6 V# \" [
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ F( n& }0 A- @( _is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% I/ l/ Y+ S* U s: `# E# ucrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& ]+ J8 q, a# N. I0 ~) awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% _7 g( I7 h5 ?# A9 H$ ]advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) L% [. t! h: r( ^/ vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 G( u4 s1 ?. V+ @* _2 x! cuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 U8 F0 y& H! C& K8 O
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# v4 ^7 U0 J' C9 Cdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" \( S; x4 H6 @2 q& }. v# ]
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, K$ L- R \5 Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 m" L9 j8 ^5 U& q1 R2 w
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a g* _$ \- z6 i: A
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
8 I9 Z+ ]: K: h) i: xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, _+ V( r( P7 ?: A
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; Z2 H. M$ N# m Y" v+ V* F3 r2 B
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 F: P# Q. N) @. V4 Y7 f j' D
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
5 ]+ o6 I4 P" x% [# kchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
$ H, } M. t4 k; y& R6 K3 sLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping4 |. S" T, f9 @/ A
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
' u, H# t' e2 ^* ~; |! ?, Eeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
" ?% ]5 P P1 FInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% U# R5 K8 T. ~3 \- ]1 i1 Z7 p) L2 b" o7 n; [2 c
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-, X- M& |% z Q. U( x& F! e# l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
" k# ]7 ?4 ? J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# i6 z4 ~( c1 K1 n" k" N* g
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London T# E8 O: u1 D t6 B; Y7 R
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for! ~" F* f8 ?8 |) Z! ~% R# Z
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic9 N, X0 B" A* Z! b: W" r
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope6 p, k3 m' g- J: w* R( f
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a* X. y& g# T4 ?% Y# j: V* h
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this2 j& w0 M. `+ p# k$ Z k/ m
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 ~, o+ m- T5 t4 n+ r5 [# h# @. I2 K$ ^2 r7 R9 t
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 X$ _# o0 o" c3 k) T) o) t& }$ H+ A
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 M, A3 p. m7 }- qsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
; Q' F) e! M4 H: q) J" U* Hsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide% P* t3 {3 W* n
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
. [/ v5 g) ?* Zinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 T& x) f7 E& C3 t
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
2 S$ d% K" _3 l+ J7 Iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
p( q/ t5 q! }# I: xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or" |/ N: ?5 o; V" B" i4 N
reporting should be done. |
|