 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$ }; \1 q7 Y, D- d$ T1 i如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。" s9 k) I. \# u q
! R' A, N3 E! |0 v# q" D2 E
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! k. m% \7 n- a W8 j) D( o% y) O( d
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania4 X* N- X, |3 L, s8 t' Y
. V! x$ v) k; l* a6 |' |4 pIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself/ l \1 u$ R4 ]% a( Y8 ^
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science0 P- D' c( ^- E" E+ r
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& v# V. L8 k$ ]" J9 m& b
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the) f b% d0 w& v
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ K" H5 \! O$ Q& \populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 A8 M/ ~7 K2 w1 j
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
) [/ d0 h; t; v' K$ x+ |: g: Bwhich they blatantly failed to do.2 _# G) ~6 y! `3 `# @
& C. v8 H! ^3 n9 S4 t! M, cFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
( ~. e" Y; |, vOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in- f4 a( U% r N% c# G
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' `5 k5 ^3 c. g D: N* g% c$ [( h; X
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
J/ P. l5 q* ^% |- \* o7 }personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
4 E. L$ _* R' W6 Y `9 x4 bimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 X7 G& e5 Q2 g* pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to& C; q3 m2 X" E/ \7 x$ S& ]
be treated as 7 s.
( T& Y r# _9 B' `( V2 ^
% [; f$ D" c2 m! a. [2 JSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! D9 V W6 M N, c1 rstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 ]& J1 F' r) Z# G+ S4 ]" a5 X
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
O) p0 r+ y6 m3 N& H TAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400( `& x' i# @" `3 J
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
; o, i2 g0 m$ j+ Y' XFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( _* o9 x* N3 j9 w% l7 o* b \elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; k+ R* P# v& ^8 M7 j8 B9 V" a
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 k4 u( r1 q. C: g
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.' k6 }: N( {: e, B. N0 P) I" q/ o. q2 Z
+ k1 }' P' o. g5 L5 DThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook# K$ C* S+ M3 l7 y3 P# M
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 l6 b6 L- P1 E# t. a# E
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
: ^3 [: D& r. }+ h* Hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
q, c2 O; @ m! n+ ?" c: d2 hevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s q8 V# d+ {/ O2 \: R
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
( u7 d6 N5 l T! d* MFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' u! A% S T5 {& `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
& W( a' n5 C3 E3 x' ?hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle+ A' x$ K' @% X5 L2 c/ }0 D3 B
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 v- Z9 C: H2 T; @, Y3 ?! c+ S, Qstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) n8 G1 t4 k. P. Yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
2 p$ n+ {9 R" j% Mfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. d# G! x$ L1 R2 Raside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that3 E7 E* V4 m! R T5 i9 @) {. s
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.4 A( C- F% O" f3 |0 T
5 {, ^ L6 D# y, }
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
! S/ I$ s( d# _four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) F0 {0 H* b! g( U
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s5 @2 V. e2 u9 N( N0 R
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 w; v- G# K( A8 H# t eout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,8 C- D2 c5 z$ {( A8 r# h: p" Z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 s; c; _8 v/ O, G3 d% Rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
4 D! ?+ W3 A' ]: u. U- Jlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, t- a# |% h3 D7 P; L6 [ ]
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* l( a" b2 L% t4 U: S! T. C5 F: E+ xworks.
0 ]# z6 d: g4 D/ X6 i) k% B/ k% @! }0 g# w+ `
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and4 L( M# D3 u* E. V9 b
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
* d) H. p) f0 W9 u2 {. Ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
: Z& s; P y5 Y7 a' G7 u+ Nstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- t8 \+ f5 o9 l, l0 opapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ C3 D% ~& A6 W8 a- F: d/ l3 _5 [2 Zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. K1 w$ E* W% {/ ]2 T7 _* g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! X3 p! E% q+ Y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 O. N% `! t) X" x' i4 R% b
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* y: l% d9 B/ O% d
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 n5 E8 X$ r2 K5 n l, e; z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
W6 n) y: C1 j. `. U D* swrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly. W: H% b2 R# r; y# \' b0 y W
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 B8 w2 J+ b/ R1 `+ h5 v) |past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not+ o# s3 J0 y3 G' U, K, M. ^6 E( M
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation2 G! o$ A P5 ?5 h
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* \7 \. Q! u- `% T9 r
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' m; F* P- G9 S6 |
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a$ W$ _5 g0 d) b4 G/ ]
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
T6 v. }. L4 Y" R9 P: u) Q; ihas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a( m3 {; V$ E! u
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
9 Y- [/ o. f, A7 z5 B5 P1 C: Xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
2 N6 \8 M, x7 k* R' R, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, P3 G) G9 U, _1 |) h% ~probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& E9 d$ Y9 Y4 W$ c) Z1 cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight, |/ S; \7 q6 S9 C7 ^7 Q
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?4 G! D. c+ J; D2 f6 Z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
[0 N8 a) I/ M' x2 Q* `agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
5 u L; |4 I+ V s: |( feight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
. m. D% I6 P5 B, pInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ c8 L" D" }% m7 }/ i
+ [3 G- |$ t p6 t! G c$ Y' v! L- @* U
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
0 t- e8 k: z; C* Ccompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention8 ?1 q* Z' N: ]5 v1 P8 K% G0 @
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 y0 Q- u; M. i0 S" } e7 Q& w+ d
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 P; D b5 z7 U0 OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 P: E0 e' a6 c% bdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic8 k6 d' u( ~! z' |- i
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
6 b0 k4 w7 D4 _' t5 M5 f8 lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ f* z% F; O2 ]
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% O& y1 r/ d( g+ O" a* V- Upossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
- F" H" e0 L2 Q1 b6 B+ l& K6 ?- {+ [
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 u! C1 `- S5 a4 _* S# `7 L: Iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. g$ M2 z, L$ P4 osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a/ n+ g$ E X% U4 h
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide$ S+ F, e; L) o& U8 M- U% e
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
$ H' S* u- A) S, Jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,( E' S8 Q$ v" V' N: j( O) I
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
+ z3 @2 j0 j: l" \, S% _9 G' ]argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ T% W2 u. @3 D* X; ^8 U s nsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( H7 @, L& V8 O- D/ h ~6 Z
reporting should be done. |
|