 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 JIANG8 l0 q! P! `3 I4 b& T3 F
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# e K ] g. I/ G8 g
, q) ~) C8 v1 t& ehttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html5 c7 g8 {# J L
9 |; ?6 b; p' x) c( UFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 x# j: ~) `, ~
$ M& R2 ]: N5 y& l5 q. hIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. X3 l# B7 {2 [ ]
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ l8 b! {% s" ?% @* n: M
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: D, o) g- o& {* m* I1 u
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 ?, l# k' K0 l2 z8 }
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: a# ?5 N* Y I, a8 }# [
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 _3 g+ X% h5 x8 N+ W' c, tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 Q: u7 x" f; K2 |5 qwhich they blatantly failed to do.
: u8 T, |0 O& E3 Z# [; Z1 z8 ~- B( h$ y! S4 B
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her3 q) Y7 O8 d4 _2 G# T7 ]
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; @' x# M% J3 ]. `- h5 W6 V2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ w8 b; g2 n2 b- B- ^$ b
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
! C' w7 f c+ m9 z9 b, s/ z qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
6 D% A y5 W! k: D4 B( Oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 a6 X6 V7 U( x: p6 [/ Bdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 X% N. _4 }3 [+ ~& p7 i
be treated as 7 s.
) ~, h$ |. Q& n# e" e. o. \" ^% n! x4 P( W
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is/ [) R, z) |8 a
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& y& k* j8 O- p' ?impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ c. n1 f, a' q- p3 }2 F' q* H' x+ `An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 M. Q' M( y9 l
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
6 ^) r* [! @8 z3 f; U. i0 aFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an0 h" v5 M: s4 R6 e1 ~7 Y; e7 f
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 f8 ], {9 u: w) D. A
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”, k2 o7 E2 Z2 S& u6 _
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! ` M& z; J' u6 D4 r, R
. s) z; k! s* N' g1 @1 T
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook% k6 d8 |# A: k7 }5 _
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
( v5 E4 H4 Y! r, g; }the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
; s0 b# p% n- X1 M2 p5 mhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- ~: i" @* \% ]/ W: A
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 g. c% X, }' ^best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
2 M" A7 R* y [9 S9 EFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
& e- f$ p# O r- Dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 i9 n8 v0 z% b0 t+ hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle- K, \% H+ H/ A8 ]1 l7 @
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% _3 t' Y( |( Wstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. O1 x. E. d6 q& z& Z" c2 N
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. I* i# u. I! M9 i; |0 o: ^
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting5 T* f% h9 C7 v/ \' f
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that" ?1 M |* ]* F2 Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ \7 o h" ^$ h: V6 S
) e' {3 n( x9 h; u6 G0 t* ]7 jFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
7 @+ U3 w' ~0 t) Lfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
& X* t3 V; Z. y: h+ Bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' s$ y! Q5 R0 U/ O9 `), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns2 z# _# h9 a' k: K( T7 c6 ?
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 j) L: i; v: g
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind& ~% D1 B+ i7 E$ N( H9 F6 W. q# e
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it Y9 k4 n2 y6 ^% e! q( U: ~
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in5 a$ Q; o! G! e) Z6 `8 B. U* A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science. P2 C# G! K4 n- l* u( a ~$ o: E
works.
' }, t* p6 b; ^/ b6 b4 |5 O9 l
5 Q* n% [8 ~! h/ RFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
9 d$ U4 B$ e5 R, c2 z8 n5 z) Cimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this8 ^ ?2 j- _5 [( o9 o
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
5 p# p4 u. k$ c- x7 K8 C* nstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific( f$ p$ p- X4 F( N- N7 z& C
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and/ @' N3 }9 o* a' A. b" n1 z
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. V) L" _( K9 w( E1 R
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to k1 @ z% U9 }- W& C" O
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works, Z; o7 }% @9 K( ]( E1 }$ m8 _
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* H# u u/ u) k; i' |
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is! K& X2 X' d0 U ] z9 B
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he+ S1 r# i7 o! }* ?' L5 @
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 @- g: @7 P2 Madvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the, \/ `4 F- ^0 l) M
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not3 ^2 G; }) ^/ N! p- G5 `; V) }* J7 ? |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: p3 l8 s+ Z) l* Q3 P) N' s
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ n" H) j; ~+ A5 v" D6 H f. [! Z/ _doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- h: Z& k0 ?% }1 J7 m9 s$ l
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. j* y9 O) W& A" ^
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* o( n: r! J* H; O8 M/ y6 p& T4 A
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a3 P, O2 O+ ?4 p; K0 l4 d
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
) g% W5 B& i+ G/ Zother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect" [1 V( v; A+ h2 g+ O
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; ~( J# j- W6 v' _
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% H3 f7 H( n; i- W7 H1 z& e/ a2 nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 I7 j$ c; s8 U Tchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- E. X4 S1 \8 j. p# D: b
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
' g8 n d1 Q9 j) ~$ Eagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
# G& P+ @$ [5 height years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
. G, Z. r8 ^, C6 I, C! V3 n+ d$ b! XInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. o- @7 a) C9 Z0 D" D; _+ d: v9 t' p, x. ~! b0 K* X$ k4 Z
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-: d: a/ g) O, R5 [, C3 V
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention5 L3 W" L" g- B; `3 y. S
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for9 `) C3 C# p G/ Q, ^. Z
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
# w9 w: d2 t. K6 V$ DOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for+ ~3 J+ S' l* Y- S; R) h* I
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) `9 [3 r9 {# ^games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope( L6 R. p% a# s1 L- l L
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' U/ D$ q h3 ~9 N8 {/ s& dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
' v9 n8 E) u6 ^ }0 u7 {7 Rpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
% ?! }$ P& A( T# r; Q; C; P$ g$ n! R" x; P& p
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
6 |, c! O! E! x7 A! r2 pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too' C0 r) d( y4 o
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: M* d% q$ {8 Vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ I: N# k( x" e; D+ o Nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: ]& p6 {+ I* }0 ~7 ^' Pinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# h$ T2 g; |5 h
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( P9 N9 N9 C; i8 y: J4 |argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
7 S3 I' o# s- _. Z$ r3 bsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or! T& s: V/ R* L4 h! ~/ M5 L
reporting should be done. |
|