 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% |+ w9 d/ U+ I' T
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
, U& R d8 N5 V
! I7 o; w* O, G+ v \& ^3 W1 K' H6 jhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html$ H; T' }: E8 J7 ]' w* ~5 {/ r
1 ?$ j) n- J c+ z
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania# t/ v3 G5 k! R( _5 j" x
9 ?9 v) L' C2 y& M1 SIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" D. E3 Z+ ^1 \4 w+ D$ {: S5 H# b, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science- |' N/ R- m4 i' T2 Z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
0 b4 B) u9 V! t/ W+ lis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
. ?1 K+ b4 g$ d- L5 Lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 C; z3 B0 H( e2 R# b
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
. J0 u) I% E9 Ishould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
3 `/ i0 R* @6 _' @# owhich they blatantly failed to do.
2 r+ t4 `: O$ G" q
# b% o; H% a9 E, k' ?5 t1 G" RFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, w$ s3 X3 W9 U8 Y& I, J9 W6 lOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
3 Y! [( ?# b- x, N! H" N& Q9 {2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ m+ i5 W( i& P% f" s$ B0 e
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
2 D4 H; r6 a3 J! V# m& upersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! F5 f; h- H2 g5 g2 iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' e# W& l/ ?1 `" C, o2 x
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
[) ^ a" f+ ^) P6 J hbe treated as 7 s.
! H( D& a! Y y' m8 B8 v' y k v( i1 p4 ^
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- X9 k! A V2 \+ @2 x* z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 F+ G4 y! l8 e3 L1 ~) L/ qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.2 I3 S4 B% J8 X8 a2 `8 }- ^
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
4 i3 p5 Y( q5 K) e+ Q3 o-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
$ ^; [( ^! v! ?For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an- g* ^4 \8 Q4 C5 a# q+ O
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
/ P1 p% I2 k! e5 k# A, K2 B. H" P# ypersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”, I3 u1 X) R2 R/ Y
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! S+ c( m E6 B& z5 J' l$ e
* E# s4 `" `8 t) R. g9 A. r$ ]Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# b$ F; v+ `2 \ pexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
@9 p) u$ v$ s8 p hthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so* e3 M1 u1 N: u5 \! I/ S* Z, W
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later6 l5 u. A2 h$ O% ]2 a, [2 g
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
7 R/ n) k" V1 Y, O# x( F% p; U: Tbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# R q4 q7 S3 q4 @Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% B8 Z) I0 ]( x
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other* I. k. L# Y8 t: V6 P& |
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) f4 q2 ]6 @% U: E8 r a
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this: l2 k$ y" u6 t' M- k1 t& J
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ i- b( T' m# [& l+ z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* O1 d( h$ P; s/ \3 ]/ vfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
! B# g0 V/ m1 c# L$ f: @4 G0 naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
1 P! U. [2 t" V: Y- Mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on., R3 b: d( K7 i+ @
! j- B8 L% s: h; `1 H7 o) \
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
, {* k) C+ U1 Mfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 Q+ ]: Z1 ?+ t3 d0 v& q' g$ B2 O: vs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ e% N% S# N" c0 L3 a8 V
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
' Z9 ?* R& ?7 z( w3 Q2 nout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 [7 T8 \1 N2 c( rLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; t; B' G% t# w1 ?1 C+ Z& Z+ uof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! V" e9 {1 W/ W1 @
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# |% S% d( `9 f8 Ievery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
/ I. e, f0 O v! ]1 }0 ~/ a; oworks./ o5 I6 d) g, C0 [2 H I$ A
. [. D4 w/ @6 q& I0 YFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 z2 I+ `1 |1 r1 Y4 f& rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! K7 c) r4 ^+ ]" i
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 [7 L8 Z4 h A2 f
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 I, _3 {1 u$ j y) Kpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ E6 j( k8 o" c: n. Y
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- @3 o" G: G9 i% A6 z# @( ~0 J: k
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& C% {6 R, \3 ~( E2 _& W8 ddemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 p, |# S B' p
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample% f* t" N, n. D. w+ W5 Y, S. A1 [
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
7 n, H! r# C- _crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& ~3 [6 S0 `: N, k+ _
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 g h% J5 C& r: b
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 |# z& h0 _) r% |5 t$ z9 H! u: [
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not& b! q+ K+ z6 T! o# x
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
4 b) |, D" d; N8 n4 E3 [. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, h: `, b# @( w6 Y! A! s5 e0 d8 pdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) l" l* I' i& s- s
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a' ? I) r) A$ x; M, i4 s9 f0 [& h
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ i& {& H8 }- u1 L
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a; [* T0 n/ Y# l# H& q$ `; s
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" @/ P9 s' m6 ?" t9 o0 xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect5 F# _* {9 Y8 [1 O" T6 [8 A
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is' `/ Q0 y4 c* ]7 U; z8 x4 C* g
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an, }* R, f5 n0 ?6 t" O
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight* _; G( |( }/ W/ k1 _' e) `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 H. @5 u+ R8 V: n: m" y
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping' g h! h& S1 i6 G8 \- P
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; n! y4 R+ u( f0 @) Oeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.8 ]0 }% n) Y, u, b$ g! b$ v5 C$ y
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 v4 q# q# V/ l
+ v) q" L) d, u6 c: dSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# S4 M5 n+ U _competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention- ^5 z `7 @1 S) y/ A: H( Y; u
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 Y7 S* a1 ?; \& P v! F- A6 \
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London" H3 b3 W7 _2 b" x# x: F5 G: u/ m
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
7 Q, J. D4 a8 z+ e: ?. O! ], @doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
. v8 j, l7 Y) c2 G o8 h! r7 X9 d, zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
0 U1 [5 i+ [0 h K" nhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
7 ~. ~) F% P, U6 x2 Gplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
5 D; U& B/ q' \possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ V* d7 O, H7 d/ e8 `
) }/ _. w% h& u
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (2 m" [4 ~% K7 Q. R" R+ d, X
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ X. B r3 e9 n' g
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 U0 u% @9 ^+ w. e9 {
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
8 B. I l$ o. z2 call the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* |" l4 P; l8 S- g4 Y
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 y$ i+ B: Z: R* ~; P
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 g$ w3 q/ _7 o3 N. Uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal/ [! i4 h8 K+ G" Y# p
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; V$ h: F) ?8 n5 ~3 @' h) L4 greporting should be done. |
|