 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 U5 E6 i# x: ^/ B
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 F, O" e& o: Z: J$ }% i6 m( ^! b
/ S5 t: G' i! j; _http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- `$ `1 E/ {" _, f1 X0 A6 W
F* W& u/ K* [1 g8 t
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: |' U) s& D8 ^) p; f6 m
; s9 ~: q* @4 p- p) XIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 d. c6 Z5 R3 i6 o( y, G8 R; I
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
: s) k! T: x a- Mmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( K- G* I. ]& s, W* L. g7 Lis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the6 d6 K" s4 X" ~; x( N; b
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: G) h$ f. r/ p% X9 R
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors/ c4 D4 y2 Z" z4 M" k9 g# G. E
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,$ j' a6 I0 |7 b" ^* i0 K
which they blatantly failed to do.
g z% e$ r, I1 ?" o2 E- N+ ?* L+ P
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her$ M& s% ]. R6 a) I. t) J. G0 m1 @
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ I6 l. a, k/ t$ t2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “5 g- G: P% W0 a! n0 a5 C
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous- x1 P: c% G# F y
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an% w1 ~% Q$ c. }' l
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the4 G9 F. l% T2 v) W7 {
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ J9 x+ a: W4 E& L7 Nbe treated as 7 s.
1 R# P. u/ m& |/ M: E9 z) \0 I h8 z- v' L* d, z
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; m; F( t. c: p/ d
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem" t6 d; @2 V# t; \- w: u& M
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& N1 B# A9 A) A: \0 M4 A$ J/ dAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4008 I1 S/ h+ M* N- ^+ e
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
M; ~8 q) W; U% {6 J+ tFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an$ R3 p; c$ E ?
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 L, Q$ @! k; U6 M, [
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 p/ ^3 m0 x/ W3 z% D& r3 Fbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ }# l6 a7 q6 o' y+ Y6 o' |
- F" k6 _9 h4 n6 A8 ~Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
4 y5 w5 r0 j0 k( u; Gexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! @! w# h' T0 r$ o
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) D! A- a- x( K' p$ J) yhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
* W; q t9 z y/ } E: _events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 i7 L3 `) A; v8 m! D6 X$ H7 Jbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World7 }& \& z9 {' {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
, K4 \, d8 r& B J+ A5 l+ u. q t0 btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other- x! }9 L7 y q2 V$ p' Y$ W
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 E; S3 a& @. N |
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
9 I. |4 p! u. f6 mstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds- }2 }1 n: |9 D: f% k
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 G% t; q( D; }8 zfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ ~' ?2 u: k/ ` s( G
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that1 T R3 U) W8 \( P8 f5 P
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, }% M/ B% ?5 p2 h+ e
: ?; M+ g" U$ h' FFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
& r% y7 Z" O& s* r9 v3 Xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.930 e4 D+ [6 Z7 M0 l t k5 r
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s, t H( F" s) `( q( t' s9 Z( X1 ^3 q
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 i) M* ?7 R. V+ s9 [3 k, yout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,- F' {0 a9 {- \6 m% }
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: Q0 x4 U1 _3 f* @* L$ Lof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it$ ~7 i( b9 _6 W! a3 [& A
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
1 X, S- s4 T! H2 n' ^every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science+ ?, g# Q, J- o- n2 ^ K
works.; ]2 l5 h, z9 r R4 [! b
/ M D* E$ L- t$ z' I' i. ^: K
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and* @9 x r1 Q& M2 s8 u
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this @$ S2 o) t: c* d& S
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
+ c6 Y* i) \8 t7 M- R& Ystandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific+ Q) B' L' z9 h# Y2 e
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ f$ i! J n) L9 [reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
4 x( M: O1 d" n- }& [- q/ pcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
" P! `0 l: C, e$ I% S# O( _2 t3 t9 Ademonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 u4 y$ G) |, { ?+ K6 T: f$ u
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" D! O5 e! o: s6 @# Pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 K [. O& `8 hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he: r# P, W0 m8 y( j3 B3 m6 [
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
* `8 O, b/ @: `( b7 U& fadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
5 K: y8 o0 z- z. N5 z2 v4 s9 A6 ppast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
8 B) y6 h1 i" g! D0 w3 k. Juse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
7 p' r9 P/ d4 [6 z/ u' t. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are# O: w" w/ p9 J {5 q/ r* L
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may( `# R* r! ]" s
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; b* f f! m- \# S
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye" K5 H$ j. L9 w" U4 t2 ~
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" [; w2 k/ l# W3 ^( Xdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ h; w9 a9 A9 ~" G; t+ _, g
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' u+ i7 n) S3 h
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
: I3 Y# f0 \9 ?( @9 K7 b9 G' Pprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
; I0 @0 ?, j/ C% O6 nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight% k8 U1 i% h& e/ ~$ C; I# E: H
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- [8 C; V0 x$ W- Z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! F+ U5 W: \6 F8 N! y& Z9 @agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for/ O9 J0 {2 @+ H/ ?
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 [+ g" q, B7 o+ Z* |/ r/ S) Y
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& T+ @7 a: N/ L* y
1 B" \$ L: y* o5 k* }$ _Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-0 r6 M6 ~/ p9 \- D8 w
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
* |+ e. {( L$ w8 E/ ?9 {. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( D& W' l6 Y$ E* D5 ^
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 l. c" P5 K4 v! @5 p+ U" A
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
, ^0 v5 L- h" g5 Rdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: S( T& y3 F* y7 p" o
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
0 C% C: U% }* Ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ |8 c) s6 W5 k$ Y" l. a6 `7 e' R2 B) rplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: p1 G& M0 Q3 b4 N- M2 Ypossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
* u5 P/ p5 @6 D6 \$ G3 t5 r8 W# C6 F/ t5 Z( ^) i; |& J) ?8 m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# A" P( ?4 D, T1 k. Aintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too5 J5 z j# l( Y+ @" p: Z: t5 F& y& k
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 J6 O+ _! a( _ e; {
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide6 U- U6 S5 f9 O& k& O6 A+ W
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your; r, G& e0 @* x L, s3 O7 w* I
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 [8 q& b0 I% F
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
' Z8 s0 {/ S9 a' m. Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' V, m7 Y1 W; O0 h' T- }" f; ^
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 \$ M0 z* s& ?3 r
reporting should be done. |
|