 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
! N; R' \2 w) ?2 k( d3 s3 _/ Q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。0 i% O5 c/ v: B1 k( c
+ y# _! c5 u0 U) whttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html6 k; T4 m" F' T: u: [' R ^
! B: [/ [9 ?: ~7 `6 pFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania- y: E0 y6 H: U1 _
$ S0 n; }# F& l. H. p
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself* d4 g" w2 |/ ^$ s/ k( W
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
" d" X7 N+ B! n; r1 u% lmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ C, y- ~! f# \+ {
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 y' ~ I/ m; |& J- d- m
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general! e R% I; _( J/ }6 Q
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" `7 G# u$ P a- q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# U2 _+ N4 D4 ?% e+ t4 r( _% s
which they blatantly failed to do.& x# O+ U3 m4 a1 ? H& i- r
$ e% A L9 {; H d% TFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
0 @: d( K/ b$ lOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
' J2 c# N2 W/ V( f1 n2 {8 d2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
; _# s6 W5 L: s. h! C7 i1 }$ eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! ]; E- M5 t4 y) _
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; N7 s) p+ E% i5 x5 G
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the1 H& R+ F% |& [( z' b+ _' }: V
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
, l$ I1 g. i' A; z) y8 Z1 ?) {be treated as 7 s.0 j+ c5 L- q1 t1 ~
0 L5 N6 l) }# y8 x# A
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
1 p, y( P% G: A$ o# a5 A) q& C2 u- Hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem0 B9 Z/ f7 _4 {. g& {1 q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
. I Y7 s5 [) y. N" q' mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
}) U2 R6 O# I& j. i-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.# Z+ l0 |9 m% u' N+ ~5 H" L4 [
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an8 z( s2 v+ X8 V4 _
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 m5 O( m0 M: a6 D% D! M
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”3 N! \& w! ^+ V. Y2 W6 ?
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
7 _+ E. p, D: T# g( A' g
0 \( J' k) e* s) l. WThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook" }4 _) }: N/ i, \+ H) S! V& L9 t
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
, b- c) z* l, a/ U& wthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so- D2 R6 @2 J* Q! m/ }
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ }; H4 g* c+ y4 _" P% B0 ^* v
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
/ q& S" Q% s# G- ~) G nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
J' [3 {' Y1 {2 v& dFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( M/ j9 t1 W. S" c% Xtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 k1 C/ D3 n: z) c2 u& }2 P$ yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, F! z( l& }: v$ F; o% b
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this0 S ^2 X/ n2 D9 A# K- e: ?9 B
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
4 P1 Z. ], M9 @& q4 k6 afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
2 B; ?1 z# D+ I' U% E6 i, `% xfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting" C8 d# w& ~( P* `
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. o3 l8 U" c" Oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.: i# E8 O5 z0 K# i- n) Q! T7 Y
4 N0 F# Q/ [% l$ vFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" _$ E' N( ?' e; g" y: M3 r$ ^* M
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 V* k% |, c7 j8 }2 N2 C4 Ss) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 Z/ e1 L& S* c0 p2 ^5 c% `1 t
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
; u, D7 b* h: o1 yout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
1 l4 I2 @: a" Y9 Q+ ULochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* R( C0 Y2 C& v7 eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
; P2 [5 Y. s3 A0 wlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; }- _5 d# ]1 ?every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 j! n M2 z0 M% _, Q
works.
: ^. P/ z+ T: T( }
0 P! @ T, E- m" o: HFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and& n+ k: @* k0 ~: R; W
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this- n8 h* D* z* z6 j
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that% x+ _8 k* @9 h) A$ {- o8 l
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
; e3 y. L2 |: o. u4 u9 s" g. @. [papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
" i* `% K% w$ h! ^3 Y# H _1 x1 qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
. n7 k( k# x9 S+ ~cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; j; m3 J, t; X; r9 Y5 F" K' sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works5 N2 i+ J8 r- h0 A& N
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
; S# F u0 a( e9 a( Uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is$ P9 w7 l/ j& M+ v2 A
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& K) v- X% L5 d4 K+ w2 P
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) p+ X3 T1 j" T+ \* Z/ Cadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* z4 z% j3 T6 N% C5 `2 A, Zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 P0 j- B1 y) A& Tuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& K3 ^( F: w8 `, h& T5 J" M9 |. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 H+ D, i+ M& _. k
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) i8 _1 x0 j( s+ q9 jbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) N3 {- @3 m" ^
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye' e8 y. B/ `! k) p
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. I. s( S. Z* U* hdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
9 g& N* j/ h# }1 ~ j0 o1 d; `other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect- U0 r1 C4 _; t8 ^
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, F4 g- F( b* X0 q8 ?" p' t- R
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- f2 E+ A% u1 L6 {& cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight* X, j9 [$ O3 Z( S9 M- I
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: |8 d. H" x$ e! M. K/ lLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
% N' d- h( O M ]" Z$ dagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
9 _/ J' g& q) y! @: l' ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% {+ _% i: q' C2 q* X& R' I' R* x
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?1 H; c Y: {' L8 }- [/ `
8 o& L. L" U+ u! v1 ?" L& qSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-) b9 Z# ] O6 s$ i6 a
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
3 {- z7 m$ p9 ]# z$ k. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
7 K% \, e4 [; R& U. c; dOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 e# l! v. X# d% y- P, Y5 P- x7 cOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. U" x! {( R# G6 U4 f
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 {9 M5 ~0 m! @1 \4 c% _
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope T+ j+ j, H; m% Z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 B6 n* t/ H5 [7 Y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this! U* E# L4 p# Z- ^8 M. B
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 u5 O$ ], k3 [" i/ `6 D& M( |( G, g I# _
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 _5 Q+ q5 W& c4 X9 K) t6 O4 j# dintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
/ o$ F5 l( T0 ]9 f! @8 `- ^ tsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
9 }2 u6 y- l, C" @suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" R3 p! v" p- j* l9 T, w. X, ^# k4 W% Rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
2 v9 f$ [$ A5 m* i2 n7 xinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 h* l" ^& L& l5 }' d
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your' Z! ^& r. i" w- r1 @ p
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal) @6 O7 J0 ?) W/ L5 r
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
) w) Y- f7 z6 E& N. `& w- Xreporting should be done. |
|