 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
2 |- E/ w" C1 ~, Y( N% n- n" m如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
( U5 G) M6 B- m* ?% Q" R3 Z
6 o' o& P8 g$ } t/ n# phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
& o& B4 | o n' O: m7 {5 C9 @, F8 | ]
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania1 v8 \) Q1 m9 |5 }2 ?: ^1 r
! b: l3 w" O! E( LIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) H. M! M* h7 ?3 ~4 g! b/ l9 v0 o, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science' s1 I& s0 H- w2 t4 R2 Z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
/ l% x8 x$ x1 g. ?is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; @6 b: s$ S B/ H& l0 jscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
) J) k- G) i M& R! B( U& ?populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 @7 N; q) H/ Bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,9 B4 z8 f( ?5 {2 @
which they blatantly failed to do.
: v* n: y4 V7 H0 C1 q2 d* k% S& _+ q
5 ~- K9 i1 m1 u# d3 r8 t( l: Y& jFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her: z! F5 w3 p- E) f0 _& y6 @; d+ o
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# `7 W0 v) \% |( D8 h5 T9 i2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) E9 q3 F% W, e+ J- X% u
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
6 P9 V# H- a [8 _personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: a. Q7 g# g) K1 G' p4 z* cimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ Q- J) |- ^/ z
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to" e. Y8 `. ~* F" L7 U
be treated as 7 s.; v e9 J* m. e0 Y. b) e4 Z! L
7 Y# o* O* Q8 xSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is% Z+ Q; M& Z) m, e+ S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ V# r4 ?% y5 `* U
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." M/ C+ O2 O% @8 p" j* C/ R
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
6 Z4 [3 D, a* ~1 G. ?-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 `7 w; U L C3 t7 {* J
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an8 t- J+ X6 Z, y+ P6 m6 x
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
. c* g5 e7 ^/ Y9 [' p& Hpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) G3 {6 G1 g: ~* ~8 b U
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 P& T% v' d2 \1 j; t$ I8 |, u
; H, z$ q( ^+ h( |$ r; c2 W1 o! lThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook, m' d S1 S+ a! U% p
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& e( K& H- y% k3 Y/ ]; P
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& [" Z8 @. N, p hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
/ N" E7 o9 P) Q4 D5 Q+ Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s; D$ B) k" l; {2 `; C1 d v9 C
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* P0 W2 p) [* X/ e- B& pFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. q0 B+ Q6 a" J# {7 p% Q- y7 atopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
3 g% c) ~, d5 X/ [4 `. S) ? C" zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ d) F* m% |* _2 N$ V% P
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. v7 ^3 O- Q9 `
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds- W5 ` v9 c1 H: C
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 J/ a& K" B8 V+ b; U0 y8 Yfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
R2 [) A9 j2 Y. z: o* r7 t7 }aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
! D% d3 i8 d" Q" [% j: @: L6 r- N2 oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; S/ F/ m- V: h! L+ b/ H# A" k
$ ^% c8 O6 q! _! N4 G1 r( X$ ]Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# R$ Y: {2 a9 }- D3 m0 efour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
. ?% z( o; A/ |4 N4 V' y! ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s; A h [- s: z8 {$ b
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- Q* z8 d, j+ p& Q) Iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! M$ X- q& _* \; `/ e1 C- A( W0 a
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 q3 l. Y' Y3 D. yof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* o) {! g1 F: f1 s" z% ]. q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in( L. h1 M+ h8 I$ v& Z
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! x l L6 Q, F! I# H) O0 v
works.+ t, _* w& q# G6 T( y3 y- l
, N$ r) z" I2 o" u3 M
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
" w+ _0 I0 }+ t0 F; Iimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 j8 Z7 \5 W4 W/ Q3 c" `kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
8 v0 q/ Z& H* Z8 j5 e9 l: v# Wstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific _1 H1 _: o. v1 a$ o j; G
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, O4 }% q: E; h# Y% [" W6 D8 @4 Qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% M4 D2 Q8 n0 Y4 v$ r% C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to( C G. t" z: ~( ^# h" Y. |
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
% l: G) z6 u) y# m$ b! Lto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: D& P. A* m: z9 E7 s2 p7 g
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, {& V8 Q% A& L0 e% I( F6 u4 l/ Vcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& _& w( L4 O- C' @
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
3 F+ B, M+ S5 K" cadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 | N. o" `- t, [
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- U5 n- S6 _/ d3 O9 o* ]; O/ W0 d" L# f% Juse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
5 f! U! s$ |- p4 l3 ?7 N. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, @8 T' B- F: T. cdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may. i8 @4 R0 N/ J
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) P( Z* n- W0 v
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% P- O% W9 q0 f2 b5 q- w. [5 }+ v
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 ?# J) W' Y0 D1 F7 G- O( o
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:5 R2 O; R' U- X" E% z. P; [9 d$ Y9 c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
: K8 x! @7 U6 H% L( i, o, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
F' C% V6 W, Q+ H: oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
9 W( u& J% T* e! s$ v! [6 c$ [: Yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: `+ h# Z$ S ?. \
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) G1 T9 l9 o- \3 B$ VLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping' \3 B0 D; L% C; v( d
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; K8 E9 O7 U3 Q7 s" yeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 A* `1 w% Q! p9 |$ ]' p8 G
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. E' l* n/ t' c4 _6 n4 O" N5 H5 \" J4 i' z+ M
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
0 ]" v& M' @7 @* t8 }3 ?competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 X. T1 \( C- V. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
# B# Z" G' ?) M. N$ u: |& ROlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
5 z4 e7 q3 ?& a: Q+ w; J2 s9 U7 iOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; k! z6 b3 Q- ~3 Q8 z
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 ^/ o+ C" D! }$ M0 k2 U, L
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
0 [% L) \$ ^% L3 Ghave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
2 W) W$ N5 |- b" nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this7 v% k# k' H2 x- {
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 [5 l9 M3 N. U. e) ^: M! g3 M: h% V* K/ v6 g/ U
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (" y1 H% C3 \; n
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too1 q) u. N/ c, m8 r
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ H; c) d' W2 ]
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide: b' Q+ d. d' J9 R4 B0 C' z. p
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
L# t! I2 A- w" w% p- }interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
' S1 g) x% M1 L/ [explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
3 V* S- Q4 v$ h0 V5 c0 J, bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
) C+ n1 O7 E! T; Jsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 W; ~3 d. R8 I% R7 E' ^% preporting should be done. |
|