 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
/ Q! r% q: T1 c2 |* C2 v1 m7 y如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。; J( I4 U( X* q5 X: t% b% n' P
, w! x* M8 y1 w5 Chttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' k1 j# \6 p8 J" ]2 [) j& R. b/ }5 v
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. x8 y: k; o. a: X+ Q- F
: M! y, J9 x! c" X& F* Y
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself0 y% _) \: A5 q' x+ l5 z
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science% a- Z" z' w% j$ [' s
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# l* g( c5 x6 u, T Eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the# W/ ^% m# d0 o5 B( Q9 b! D
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general- {) Z; M+ `/ W8 p- m
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 f! p. s# s- C& V
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," M m9 @/ b: v. d( a2 f/ x
which they blatantly failed to do., i9 {9 a2 e+ J0 H
* g, J+ |% ]1 j( GFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
1 a2 ? y y7 Z7 U; ROlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ N# S; H5 o4 g/ h
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “, F4 N; E: G9 l. D
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 [* N; c" E( h x) Y; ypersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 h/ a( S7 l' W9 p" fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
2 j- `' p) ^5 l1 B, O4 [( L! [difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
' U! d1 P' _- F) n1 w4 O+ S3 J9 Ybe treated as 7 s.
2 r* z# R' E3 d) ~9 i9 Y4 r- S( V+ ?
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is3 y- G; ~+ z" m2 R5 l8 o @/ N
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
( R- I0 N0 q; x2 y* z& aimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.5 j0 B; \$ Y. n4 u1 s) G0 J' Y( K
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! c$ A' z0 I* {
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# |. _: [3 P- VFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 s7 W1 d/ E* s* i: Y* j' c# felite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and: r( ~2 x6 w7 j3 s) }% P9 Y$ u
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”8 q C0 e3 |$ J" u
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: s9 s! ]( S5 e; x7 L
' @) [$ z/ M/ fThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 k& O% b; r! O; rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
) v ~' l- T' B5 p- T! s, W5 Sthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 E! D2 c+ `$ s9 |! L, D2 phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
* B% m3 ?' n: A' X) p9 y+ h) D0 yevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s8 f% m9 B' l- B! j4 S
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
" v$ t) U( w* l: ]! L" Y( [2 kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
8 `; v) q- ?4 Utopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other, s2 L7 I U. f; _
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 a# R. F( ] p, w) d' l& V# w- v m
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
`: `9 D# t8 R1 nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
+ m8 \' A& }: {; {9 u. ~6 b% D; [$ zfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam1 E2 T" y; ]0 _+ k# ` m2 r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ Q4 ` l( h; ~$ Z3 C; qaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 p/ Y5 Y7 W# \8 R% ~5 |' q) o4 l1 Mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on., y9 D- T. v, E w
0 X, @. b S( n! I( ^% v/ l4 @
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; X. Z9 _. L0 O" V
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! L- D/ s) K2 b
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: p2 |2 A. P& z4 j, ?! M+ E
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. m4 J' z8 ?: X; u4 Bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 f n3 G" e8 N
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
- p7 Z; ?3 s. q' j3 ^- _9 }; @of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
2 _) I! i( @5 V& M( {logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, t6 E7 ?5 P7 H9 K2 E* {
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" H- N! J9 I) {! } b4 T
works.) X3 W6 s7 s% X0 c% L' d2 H, u
9 N( B- @! P; Y3 l* y; j5 X9 n1 P VFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and. k! W* N/ u: ]+ N j0 j
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 l# g# g% v6 d; D, M' qkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 |. V3 d M1 ^8 d& ^2 Z
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific9 O* s# ^9 _* i/ k* a1 q# J& f4 q
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
( {+ y3 I- q$ G2 w1 J, freviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
* V- R) [# |6 i1 ]cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
7 D0 q( H5 y o1 ^* X% |$ Z8 Idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" t5 x& b% @7 Y v" {) l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' B) Q1 J% H) O2 |) R& D$ k' Pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
* {% e. X& n6 o+ k* y& Gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 o7 G6 ?+ o0 l0 D) `6 G' E
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) \, c$ K$ ^* D% d) b1 w6 i( G
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
7 ?6 Z" H4 _6 g3 E$ gpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not; R: S3 V+ n% I" [1 c
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, B) z( \$ X" j. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; R8 H; P+ j1 q& i4 x
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may4 F5 ~9 C, A$ y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 A) i4 N$ z/ u5 m3 Y1 ^% a+ [- \
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) R: `, p6 J2 ihas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- X& E$ g8 ?6 g/ P4 [
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- G3 H5 d2 O$ t
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 {8 K; B- B. W$ Z, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is% Y7 m9 A, d/ a- M- ~, i, `$ ~0 g7 e
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
" t4 ?7 o2 G8 Z0 g3 Kathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 \- A& J5 V9 _" T
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 a6 {6 q( c2 r: M/ x: ?
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! E1 ?7 v! ]) u
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for E* _2 f1 b: o" [5 r$ i2 B
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.) K) Q1 f0 j8 t9 A: v
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?' ~, U8 G: W/ N: {$ X
" L+ O7 ~' V8 _9 _( ~) |
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-6 v. e4 d& P% t% ?8 i% u
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
/ O- ~: ]" @- `6 [( T. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) w( S' `6 _8 u' _& I7 }# @: HOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& O0 S3 e; q+ B; q" H! lOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for8 D! ?# C, ~$ K* ?- O) U' I) s/ O
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
i8 x7 [! [. o" N) |0 n' ~games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
1 B% P$ S: u# ~3 H6 vhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
% H! ?( v9 V5 } M6 Uplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# I% L8 \6 E( Q* B0 N7 |
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ w; g$ s9 o+ \$ N
- u4 W6 a8 L8 T$ g! C- s$ f& ?Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
* ~( s% }) g% w4 _9 E% Y- p+ b8 qintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
/ V, e) E/ u* p* p8 Usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 |6 I I/ \& k
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
5 S9 [; S" h3 n2 sall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your$ ~ `- H$ D4 Q8 @- ]$ d! j
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# c: V; `6 e- {. V$ l" {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your: g1 d$ g6 y0 E$ S6 p
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal6 Z& l! T6 b# c4 ]9 @
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. S3 W& ~# T1 _7 |- ?1 U
reporting should be done. |
|