 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
, S" m6 x, e4 N3 Q5 q5 z如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
7 s7 h6 @; @1 C: `/ G4 Y$ D; P& I3 V' s/ n/ B( l
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, [# `! s; M" Z, y! |9 c
: I8 N) L: e6 CFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania3 D p: ^; D! r5 I2 D
: ~7 j2 a X5 N. F
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself, t `& ]8 ]0 C/ L
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
" b6 y5 |7 s! U8 \$ vmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
5 ^$ K7 E* X( F! Nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
[3 s1 A) ^5 q& _$ b' {+ b) y; `" A) Uscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 J% q# P; {, q* n& B, X! ipopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors0 ? [ P" h) k" N$ M. G" r; A7 `
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
( w: U3 l" I) N$ Uwhich they blatantly failed to do.
; \: L& n i( v8 v5 e% i' y& k5 a, M. M! Y# X8 W( K+ C$ V9 Z
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her+ W2 ~& \9 J3 [2 G' ]' b
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' |+ u& k3 ]# C
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( c+ f5 g* u, @4 I+ q! k Panomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% A0 d1 p( S4 O7 L# spersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 R w! O: ]6 t, x0 F1 L
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% s% u! Z9 q% [
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to! ~' H$ Y, ~7 a! p3 o4 w
be treated as 7 s.
% k9 E+ i% q$ K( O3 c C5 S. y& A# m( g* b; N2 J8 l' t! z
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; ^9 T7 W9 X0 H) ?& \- {
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& _% T, q( Z3 [* J5 Q( U2 D/ dimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ _, { ^0 i% g4 s6 ]' p# v
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4003 b8 S9 h8 P5 U8 X3 n
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 `4 V4 ~( A* D- t3 z: K n' y
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an- V8 V$ V6 C4 z" K/ ]" m" h, N6 f
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; H0 d" k. U% y! H8 ], Q, {8 X" R
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! u# O: r: @" v1 Y
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ Z3 }0 [2 n! X2 B# \4 V# E# j3 W6 Z5 M1 ~ P/ i
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
6 d6 g! V, E& B2 `& A, o7 r2 gexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ Y, B- c9 n* Q$ b5 J0 ^the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so/ D; X$ W- Z$ X0 O* D
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later6 k: B, b# X& u$ h9 F' P* N. Z$ ?8 ^
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
/ I8 P. Y' d* b: v" E: X9 Zbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
, d& m9 \3 }* T ?! N4 fFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another) M2 S, N" Z- u! ?
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 b: E( Z* u) Z0 j7 s1 g- G8 A) g! Hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' J# k6 L/ _ T1 h
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- D4 {# s- h% C, estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
$ X- s/ H% t2 `faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. x. H% ]( l& d% r* ?0 V" Yfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% k2 l7 J' @0 Y" j# aaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
/ `' l. P3 a) k J7 e" k8 oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
r( E; }& k! x1 W+ C" B$ r# N
5 L P; D5 C" hFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 G7 V+ V, t) z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 ]3 z; g" c9 Z8 e" P
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
1 b+ Y4 @+ L9 X. z! l/ [), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. z: c+ ~- r; P: u. |( d2 C- O* Dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,2 ?) R' G- A0 I4 m
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: L& m9 R0 @' A2 I' z3 \, K
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ O- g% {3 o+ k$ j5 @9 Xlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 Y9 |' ^7 Q: d. ~2 c" [7 revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
0 z w+ ~: F$ w" Kworks.- ~/ v9 B8 z, ^' c' H
7 U$ \0 F2 C( o; uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 C4 v7 ?- S! ]! ^! ~implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ O, U; ?9 u2 w5 M% g& f3 K
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 ~7 T6 H O* U- O) W
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific6 u' n5 ~. H: ]2 A4 F
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ L2 M; b3 y4 I3 r/ q$ r* ^: areviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One+ [6 G3 s/ u% C: M! |7 @
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
$ J, d: y0 H& b; t# X4 Ndemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works* ^: e ?5 ]4 B1 r }5 T7 I
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
* {8 m( o" f8 @1 pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
1 s4 M7 o' j) X6 H/ Lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he B+ L; B4 P6 @& |
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 Y: Q: c/ d: P. _, W* N
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ W* o3 e/ f- |0 Jpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not Z+ e, M/ g K: I& I' U( ?4 H
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 [% e( ^: M# p6 _/ j" w
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: ?) @. C/ B8 `/ \! r+ \5 [
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
' S ]" D e$ }, L# U! }be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 n! l: U1 q3 h6 Ahearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
1 }( \% g" {1 y/ Jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a( r0 Y& E* D7 [ T$ s
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ G5 \* M: p' J& ^, `) ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 H& D) O5 W0 e# u3 H0 \
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is- g: P, K8 s2 N& N4 A
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 K) c& F/ T! m( Z6 f0 Hathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
' E1 b9 B: c; h. V( m. Uchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 ~" Q. m, x; w) y
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 A& }* W2 x4 Vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. N2 g3 s0 ~ ^+ k( g, _3 D4 R$ O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
d& l5 t9 i$ y) E( y5 T/ G" ?Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
1 P+ Y3 k( A) x2 @9 q
1 A" n! z+ L0 Z$ Q% I$ Y9 gSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-, E3 P: L+ [1 B1 u u- d
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
7 u; y; S5 g% i. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( N& a9 C* O; T- Z9 s* [: K. [) o
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
( o3 C0 p4 ~9 K! k* J+ XOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for" y' Z# z, P1 z4 R, F$ M% Y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 q8 b [+ }5 M pgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
3 `% G# G8 e) n5 x5 J3 _ s9 }have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
7 k5 V' ]' d2 X+ @: nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 ]; ^ X H/ Q. C5 B- Hpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., ^; p( @4 b+ R" s2 v# t/ R
0 V$ Z+ N; E4 ^7 E
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (" e/ h+ j* ^/ R6 T& @4 A; o
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
: j; U" |: c( w7 R* b' dsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" w R. J5 n8 u9 I1 ]/ dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 H5 {/ e% N% H4 J. ~2 T. Q+ v- nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( m3 Z% u- F" _( S: `7 \( i7 Vinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
$ ^1 Q6 d4 h# Aexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your b; B. i+ @9 q. }
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
: @: r, ~! g1 X5 \! r% @$ |* c' _7 r3 D0 Dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' F3 B1 B7 C) h; ~$ P6 X
reporting should be done. |
|