 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) ]9 g' p4 J. D/ d5 f& p2 s$ F2 O/ W9 y
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* w, M& D- w( U9 U
9 E" J# \+ s3 Nhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
- k2 e' [$ Z; {7 g
* U* x$ o* D" Z3 V0 e% NFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania' C4 i) Y" n% m* k! @
+ a; r8 w0 j! R& Z* }. u
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
P* k6 b7 k& W. d$ |$ C, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 ?! _' S7 g8 a8 `( N
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
' W3 Y, |1 `9 S5 K1 r2 K0 Mis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" C) e% v# s! f6 D% x8 f0 h, Fscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: t/ w; v' Q0 M+ M: @; Epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 b; U' y3 Y5 b1 [
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ b7 x4 t+ y- `which they blatantly failed to do.( |( \3 O) _! R0 [) [8 L
# k, F# K; {/ U9 F* D QFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 ^0 L) F' Z) K9 M
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
: o: |- F. L5 s9 {; [2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
! t' Z8 V; j2 A% n3 o7 Hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ u! a/ X( m1 D; A4 T; i! I
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an- j$ Y9 D1 @/ E% E1 \ S8 R% k
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the8 E0 Z! V- h, y) o
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to& [# @- ~4 b& y' c6 \
be treated as 7 s.
K+ f" Z8 A& t* J$ @" G1 ?0 Z: J8 S( n% D
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is5 a! Z% z/ R* M4 v) |+ g
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem5 b3 k) J& C) f9 i% P, M! A1 M9 R, _
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
% v$ W4 M) ~6 m5 C y2 R7 KAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
" ~3 M) p: G; d. x-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% t2 ], G1 Z- C. }" s2 Y
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" A; d0 C/ y( j$ f' R
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 ~- y: ` \8 o" Y0 ]persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! @8 {8 s2 m2 ]. g3 `2 p/ z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! {" ]9 }. C3 e/ Z/ p0 g
0 V5 H* W! e, T5 C+ {
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ _2 h# j2 F0 o8 T$ L9 V9 kexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in. n7 Q3 ~4 l. f
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
0 t( b: ~$ Q) r: d. y% qhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later& G9 |3 C' w7 Z, U
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# I+ U" n! N/ s7 X1 Hbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World7 o" p# h% D0 I% |* ?: R) ]1 ^
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
/ K( Q+ s5 ]8 t \; c$ Gtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other) Q0 V$ \0 d/ y
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* I; C) s4 w$ y$ f$ n6 P! V6 a2 Z, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 x( j' V0 J6 o" n6 qstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
- D& M6 v; c8 K7 efaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 e6 S H' j. \7 ]2 C+ H" O2 w
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting% k. r1 j! b$ F1 u" l( f
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
! Z7 s2 a5 D4 D" ximplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.$ j4 t+ M7 P; Y% L; T# U
' o0 E; j7 o( E% _; i( m
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
% i" Q W. M2 Y) d4 H1 Ffour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
& ^% F( ?8 D& J! s3 |2 X% ms) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s8 K# [0 N0 b9 K- }) T
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns) u8 K' `8 }' g+ E ^' b3 l
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
/ ^9 y- ^7 \; A' b+ ]5 VLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
6 g5 D4 N& J; n1 i% c3 Oof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 x) a" C: a. _7 }4 ^+ E5 U: ulogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* G! z7 |/ t, `+ C& m6 P, Vevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* U! c* j+ q2 a& wworks. T8 Q- _: a7 o. i2 r. g
! r! I8 R/ n# T0 hFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 S) ?0 B8 l; i& e
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
8 E8 m& \) z8 D# R: r% Ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; s6 R9 [) f$ v H: T; Z
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific# z' d6 x' t/ s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and0 m6 t6 G5 d; t
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 K l6 g4 T: J1 e6 }cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! J8 V1 n6 d3 a7 E; s
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 D" y+ }' g% q6 w5 r9 O& a# n
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample/ F: `0 E9 _, s4 v( N
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# h% l9 g( L/ V; j3 d
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
i+ F9 M& _+ x4 V. j6 `wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly% b# t$ @9 V- _" ?4 e. [
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- }* h1 J9 h) L. }& C; o
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
_# |6 d9 r3 K' l: v) Huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* S8 [5 u! Q% W4 x9 _: d
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- ]. y' j7 `& k6 l w7 z' D
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may9 S+ ?' Y1 P" m' P/ t v, y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- H8 _, _ D9 P8 R6 j- j$ M
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye2 E- o! P: ]* ?% b8 e7 P& O
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a( ~ @6 F3 {& K2 U8 S
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* m$ c) Z9 v* B3 }' F+ [2 O
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 q: Z! W2 K* Y7 U' K, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 j! {3 B. C2 `. `# gprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an( [' s; g- D- D. x" P$ R. Q
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
: s; x* y' n" m, W5 [: V; k( Gchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? g( t3 |7 C ~6 ~
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
j) M9 C. g O* w% d* Iagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
" a8 \% g" m' E/ _eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% d, y0 z+ l }3 w) I# j% E( h
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% Y" c7 S# d- b w' I7 K: o7 b: A2 z2 V! T5 F
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
( r0 X( u P+ I4 S6 M( N! bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention& ]; V& j9 M9 ^8 G) M
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) M: n# I# t+ }( z! DOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: b1 t6 N$ o$ A+ I( f: Q7 v uOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
! O# ]# \+ H* k5 J+ Sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% g$ Y' d1 m9 Q5 A1 y, d' hgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
$ |9 c* ~& i' R( k! d0 ?$ Zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a5 b. O {. Z5 e' A9 ?
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 |7 ]" |9 C @# A; s9 N1 ]possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
% a, d8 B: b A4 \" O! M1 K" O/ W8 U
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
4 f- y! U+ V9 M2 V% u( _intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: p) ~1 \. }4 F% T7 a2 E6 y+ h$ @
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& s! d6 P/ v; n2 [suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide; ^7 N: P7 B3 ?3 p+ |. I4 N
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
9 G0 n# q/ H; \ d" X! Uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- L) q2 ^, S# V% n% `5 ?
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
: S) ~% W7 \) E$ c( qargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( D& f1 x; \* A4 G+ L
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
5 H3 r& u( J. F7 b" Ureporting should be done. |
|