 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 JIANG6 A# d5 m; ?3 D$ B2 b* Y
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 Q2 l! O9 ?/ p$ P: I3 s2 [. l8 H; R- P; ~
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' P# X \& E2 u' }! x) ^4 @6 C* j9 @: _- D S
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& Q) r# Q3 j5 \
7 O5 ~/ k0 e5 }0 ? S3 GIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 G6 i) }! O6 M( n5 b0 b3 k, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science( c! X+ h8 y; J
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this* \9 T% o# p0 E c9 n9 o# z
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 g9 H) T6 C6 j" r, ~4 A' E3 w2 _scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
- ?/ ?8 F( ]% dpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
* N# Q$ o! {9 tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! l# [% B) j0 u: b" H
which they blatantly failed to do.
; a+ `% a8 f+ s+ V& B2 M% y3 O4 Q3 Q4 A& |' U
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her( Y2 l; E* G; Q a
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in, T( B A; V( R, I, ?. T+ m* L
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% H# b% n2 {4 V7 U: \ q$ l
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: |" B8 i" Y4 F# \personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: T" y1 ]" v( L: a7 zimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
( n6 R0 q. e ?4 E' k6 l4 `# z* Ddifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to) o" d( [2 g$ D4 K3 k3 `& u
be treated as 7 s.* ^, a1 B5 A. _" P9 B4 a0 O
4 K. I4 ^8 b, J' D4 l% ^
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! B- k. z$ y: Vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem4 M/ Q" n4 Y. r( ?
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) x% _+ O3 U7 r4 |+ u
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
' s& U. B, T; ], k. [+ I' I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
2 n J/ [& x( N7 N4 ?For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: L* j, Q1 s! Q- d
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
3 j, @" g4 u+ {( Apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: E5 a" i2 i9 Ubased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# I K: ]7 Q! o0 [
/ i) V! Z. Q! W2 U k
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* a6 L4 X/ Q3 C$ zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in6 y) `1 P0 X- T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
0 U4 M+ i4 r( L+ Che chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later2 Y- ^9 c6 ]* M' M+ {$ A
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s B3 E, M9 c/ ?& K
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World" M% I' Q G: I G' t2 L: U0 |# e# q
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* T2 V) v7 t3 w) i' L0 l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
) T! ]& M2 o# \! c ?hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
. J- E! c0 b: Z( v8 j+ b& e1 D, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this$ t9 A2 x6 z" X# J5 _* K& H) c8 z: b
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% u. k+ O$ F8 E# Q Xfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam o: W$ B2 H. _5 _& Q
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting8 n9 X" ~2 \1 k O# Z
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% y5 o3 C9 x- ~# C# t6 pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 D% W* @0 v; i: W/ r8 b- a, A* K! Y7 |: n) v
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
, V8 W! q7 v; z3 }; O. ]; ~four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.938 E/ C9 U7 t* I% \6 y* o
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. |- K) W( x! e' I* T/ x; M/ ~
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ f: I7 G1 N1 z$ S8 t; r) p8 E( ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,2 J* L4 e& L; i9 n7 l; l5 {
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
, [& Q# F5 V5 }8 E5 D" @* |: I1 w mof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' q& d8 d, r: x/ E" H
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 @) Q( ]* t5 U
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science- f" O5 Q2 @. M5 j; N
works.% H; @4 V' ^3 {( w
$ k0 p6 B5 ?: D6 JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
$ s) X- w: g+ ^3 c3 N# b& B2 P1 bimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this# z5 ^& f9 n! Q# X I# r- O J
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 q# o" k# I' K+ p$ `8 m8 Y+ [; S
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% A; Y3 s# y! x, Q% ?. P1 p
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 `6 o5 F$ j+ t1 B5 M
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* d) Y! y4 H; k: I( M7 Z
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; u7 S }- N1 bdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works7 f# I& }, ?: z3 n" c
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
# {& t6 R8 q5 L' A2 Y9 [is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is2 ^) _- g( s5 x
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
" ?( z$ R6 R* @6 nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
p( s, s) q1 L: K9 uadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 Y0 P8 Y+ E/ E. S
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( F6 q' \ I7 H$ iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 V) n: [5 w) s; {
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are5 D: P/ b2 C7 J, [! p5 X
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( Z$ I( U! g2 k6 ]5 A1 l) \9 {be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 s* p+ l) ~1 t z5 D) Rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
$ N9 E# k) M' I/ M, ^has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 [" X6 v$ J2 l) Ydrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
/ D3 P+ Y( s0 ?# Y8 pother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 D! i, h0 K4 Y0 X+ N. H/ C, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, d; k! \ D/ C
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 L+ N# T. T1 E* Fathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ R+ f- A M) p6 u
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
7 q% s# Z( l L6 kLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& X6 q. A' |: b, s" S, g
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
7 o7 G! a9 `; H5 ]3 @- Feight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.9 { c9 U3 y1 D' I9 O
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. ?+ j( N) f% [. T I+ Y4 `7 Q1 b$ z' z' a
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
+ @2 `& @9 ~6 T9 Wcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 m: @2 a6 Z9 c0 }
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 e- O- Y$ B O+ o- A% c3 q, N
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
$ b9 T) ]. M6 D& VOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ g. v8 Q1 g+ q$ P f4 [
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
1 n5 n+ Q f; k) K' fgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope; e: e; }0 X1 P7 O" U8 d Z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) q4 D+ J2 m: V5 p! P) E! W- }player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
4 _8 N/ B; J9 D5 s9 {& R( ^% ~possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 R. B: `9 q) M- k" l
~/ l' D2 a: A O) n# @" gOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (2 W: p0 g8 q4 m
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 |5 G$ Q0 v- Y6 M& o8 Csuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
% D8 e/ D: i R5 v8 C- gsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
$ L& P- x/ w5 t! kall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 `+ ?4 u4 j1 a; E# _interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
, ]7 E1 W2 v) f+ mexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
6 J1 Z* S n, W4 K h+ i; Wargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
9 E: L' ]' Y ~" h# osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 V0 p; L( W1 Q3 b1 creporting should be done. |
|