 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
" B8 q1 j8 u4 B8 I- Q+ Z如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 m* \9 K' k- I, z9 O) a9 i4 @* I- w' b4 ? R
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 Y* k# r7 A |1 z( Y! o; D
2 [# M- `! t1 ~1 B8 ?& O
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ q( g7 l- E- v6 B- f( U% T- y8 Z& i1 S" `2 r
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself! W, h" |1 k. J% L7 Q6 v2 N& `
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
* k3 N' N) k# J7 l6 D+ h6 P* Omagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) P+ S- d4 S& |' D+ t
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the7 X7 ?/ s0 N7 V x9 l% |
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
' W# o6 d' g I7 c5 Y2 o% Ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
% R" C' V, }* k) [5 v! tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
6 [$ C) @% a# h% J. h& qwhich they blatantly failed to do.
, f' a# {. E) ^3 x# [5 L5 s) A3 N$ Y# A, w0 s* R9 Z
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, Y X. b/ f$ y( h* y# J+ zOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in* N0 \3 w- k6 s) p1 P% N$ j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “; r& t! n' ^: e9 z2 F$ |1 X
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% c4 S% p" ^0 r* j3 _' }; e& Kpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
# S/ M3 c# X n. b& j! W/ mimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 t# u+ J; {$ U
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
6 b7 w' C) J7 G1 kbe treated as 7 s.6 I6 Q& C; B6 O. \ c& L) I
9 e" N4 S8 E' X
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& x$ L- c# f+ S! h( @& Y& t: Sstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 I* L% W) z& X9 O' x& fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
G5 y9 w( u1 P) o3 J$ ?- M+ AAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, J* r) G" O3 Q; z. v
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! ]$ J2 V/ M3 h( k) A
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an1 R. z8 _4 O, I% P7 `, D1 Z2 A
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% |" Z1 b) z) h/ L
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 k, Q/ W" M3 r( c
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
0 a! R2 s/ U: N" h$ [1 Y% @6 a( g# U) G" z# ]- f9 S U
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook: U; i& K! \7 K# }1 }$ G
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 k0 p' q/ ~" Q5 i
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
j: @) g& e' y0 D( {; yhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: k9 o: u( ~% K' m6 Kevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" H# A$ E; n$ D- O
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World# u+ L! F7 ]: w p. j3 d' t9 Q
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another) q C$ W& q7 s
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
- z h* B' }2 B5 z. n* N# Yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle& ]! [3 I2 t3 C' c# r
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- D' v7 _7 g2 f( G
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 Q7 w) \7 @8 T1 V+ N" Y
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( q# k- q: y- J( M+ H2 ?
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ m0 t3 e7 |" z4 B U( C. R8 U, Maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
0 h! Z9 n- Q/ _1 |* `% X5 c; Fimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
- |) ~6 P, a! ~- Z* Q( r2 ?
: E. Y, y& h* c; U# q5 }% I' QFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
) T; H, _5 E" q8 T7 d' I% x4 Tfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.932 T0 p6 Y" J, x3 K4 W; @, C
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s; I! A5 L- k- ^* R! o
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns4 u2 Z/ {* G5 d' l& q1 ?
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ \4 |! {3 X6 |7 f# o0 p/ D2 H, Z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 D$ M: Q( e3 r, ?; O
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it2 P7 U; M2 u5 l( Z" ^* o: t8 }
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in+ m6 e, Z1 J! y- _" y
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! t3 T% Z; B2 z# }# P9 r6 r4 F/ {
works.
2 M1 U; N% I+ x& `7 @" r0 {# Q: w- g2 z! e& s N
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and; i: S$ M/ {/ ]: |- O* N, H
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% Z5 M. G# ^8 C3 ] S: \. r- mkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
# j/ |! ^& x( bstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- M: a' w+ W: s2 J3 [8 hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ q/ m$ p4 A( a- d* E% ~ ]
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One5 s. o# k" t+ a- p; t
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 _8 h8 |' r* Z- t( c
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works I0 C8 ?- r5 x
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample6 u8 V" c; B! x0 @
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 K6 K5 O2 F, O0 t; Mcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he% K2 A* x& I# S- H5 _0 H' k x) a3 K2 G
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 P. L2 v1 T$ J. q' v) V, @% _/ A6 \
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
2 f' a( g+ F$ }* x. A" k6 hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
& ~6 [9 Z5 E4 Buse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 l( ?8 ~2 d: R' T+ p/ C. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. j6 u/ Y6 g! M
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may1 w' `# O8 c9 d6 w+ F3 a5 f7 Z# a
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a9 ]0 n+ M) {! `/ E
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# u3 }9 E9 c% L. p- F% P$ shas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' `" N6 c0 g7 R, odrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:4 ?+ p7 v" w" m
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect% s E3 p; H) H3 y% l4 t
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is+ C1 U# Y& l/ i9 @, ?) H; s8 b
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 z2 Q `) L, D& Y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight& O' s1 B- Y0 {- |. |* u ]( {
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" q# w+ E4 }0 R9 }% `6 G' g
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping9 D5 B6 \" `; q$ l: n$ d
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
4 y7 \9 x! t s4 U7 x5 leight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
4 j3 L0 u1 W0 F/ BInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, W! _) I+ q) b/ M) j @7 g7 [+ ~$ E+ N* E
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
) J6 a2 J+ P' q. `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
: r6 O" f0 V/ ?7 g" e4 F. h. ]7 L. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) H9 A$ c# {* YOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London, g( p( b) t9 |3 L- h" u
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for" L+ q/ ^8 U* A4 W% [3 V# d
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic/ n, Q9 v9 ] W! U) N
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
u3 _. L: D8 l, O* r9 a) ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
# M' f. t' M# A. V2 n0 t2 splayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this% o8 r1 b) \. Y5 N
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. x9 v7 O2 W% Q- ~0 O9 L, T3 P- D; {6 V9 r+ W
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' e4 r* G1 A2 w; V% c: Gintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
5 B) v+ A) T3 B0 gsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 ^% b) s; P& z0 j- @: F
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide% I' |7 d: J9 v! t- X# Y* E
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
7 T/ U ?% b- d: @interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 {& s# s5 s( Y8 g {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your% Z5 u/ `5 b; s! u( A
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 P( m: V7 x7 S2 Y: f0 o! Q6 K* Xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 S: w4 `! A2 X1 wreporting should be done. |
|