 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
) b, S+ D) u9 u( m* D7 k0 [如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 E7 u4 e' O* E" X+ |: p) @
! h% b5 ?: i& X" O% @. r
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 F3 ]) C6 G% B+ ~' @$ }
+ d4 ?" ~" ~* i6 ]# wFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' C% h/ z; G1 i. h: J3 C6 p5 S8 Z! }: R% G# i
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself6 F+ n; w* ?: G( a
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
* H' |5 Z) V, A% \2 Wmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( k) J4 y9 x0 L9 p4 h) ois not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 U4 _" ]6 { B( V' A2 Jscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general9 @- ?1 S6 w! D, T
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
# U2 j' M; _% H' S9 mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
m& n1 j0 k r# ~ T/ R! Zwhich they blatantly failed to do.
% ]+ L" [3 A8 Z% T( y$ F) X
" a1 J; x5 K4 W5 D3 p4 JFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her1 I6 }! ~8 z6 J7 H
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 d4 ~5 i) ]2 P% ?5 L, K2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “- D/ J( d8 O. l0 K: G1 G4 Y! d5 @; s
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
* g s2 i* k1 E, @ l9 qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
B; s% b- z6 I# [% U6 ^4 Yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the" A6 p4 @2 J+ t6 S7 C- h
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
( ]. R, v7 X0 \$ k% Y8 Zbe treated as 7 s.
7 ?1 w: `1 D. {8 \ a0 Q3 H8 G0 m1 P, q/ N- Z
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
6 u6 e1 A- X; estill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: _8 e8 B4 \3 V; limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
# l0 K- p ~1 t _& ]& o2 h6 R& VAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400. O! m- m1 e, W9 q o: ?2 G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( N2 P4 h* I2 Q) KFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 C v; z! d9 Y" v8 Z: j4 ~+ T
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and4 }/ U. x% U% c- f O( ^
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”4 N1 b$ @9 z9 ]) r: E7 Y' E" B2 m
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ [7 W; B" ?$ s
7 i' d/ X( Z0 _" @3 dThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook \" m% h5 _. ?9 r& [1 b. s
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! I3 \5 D# ]6 v9 K
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so* k2 K7 l8 Y( h+ X& \! l- m
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later* Z) W- Y" P7 Y4 l1 b9 G
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s: W, L. d" Y9 F- T) |: T/ Y! |1 ^
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World; g) K( b) E% P2 u
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& X O; ~$ p0 H" X4 P7 n q
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. Q* Z# y k9 Qhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 S$ w& g: I( u3 ], in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
( w/ d: r, w# P% Ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
# [- X% L( L" T5 n; {/ S. J/ gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
& ?4 e4 v& z- [' D8 ^faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ i4 T3 J, W. z0 c7 waside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that: ~% H2 P$ i1 S0 a, t
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 M9 v1 q1 p% j, h7 E) c
3 w, _! E% O3 b$ j
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ C3 }+ k; m) @8 w7 g
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ \" M' a. u6 R* |. b7 Ss) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
8 q! T3 l6 ~( e9 G* o7 t/ \), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns3 ~1 u4 D% Y- o3 P+ a# {4 {& S
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' ?7 F6 N, r0 p1 `# FLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
/ ]; S8 O/ h3 i" H& ^ I( Z g! b: iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it8 u; u% L: J$ y" w- o- t+ i
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in5 _; ]3 S- Q* Z+ J( h. |
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science- g6 J- ~ }+ C) m/ b6 D/ C
works.
2 l8 K( `$ A' N! c- c& f7 s7 u
5 p( D7 i9 t' w4 W8 h2 @+ E" O' wFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
" O9 g1 S) m4 V, v d- ?implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this6 c% i" @3 c1 ]
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 Y$ r' K7 e/ d6 f1 s% K1 s
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific, `8 f$ t r( \. M+ M, B
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 c$ B, n$ G0 @6 ?$ G+ Rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% b8 A/ U+ B$ A2 h# F* h
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% R1 ?* d6 y3 Udemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 J+ C# |. b; R8 Q& Z& {+ ]. kto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
v8 \9 c' w9 m q/ his found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is7 |2 _$ [& f( M! y3 I
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' Y9 [$ W( u3 n F, Lwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
7 D, }$ E V% Ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 H7 m: S, ]3 F2 x3 D
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not' j2 t8 N' v. n9 d7 z
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
# U7 C8 H! v9 p# f# h9 s7 F" V. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, L; c& B; g" [doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may, k9 V3 Z+ j5 l1 ?) F2 J" g0 d# x
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a0 v a9 m& g5 g
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 @* c. U5 y8 M" R) R
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. M% ^6 R, s* w# |! J* r! q3 Q( F& }drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:5 w' g, k; A/ ^" ]. T" K
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect% N5 [, L# B7 Y' u; T
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 o& b( v' [, k0 s5 H1 B: oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% J" |1 F, @1 u! t& D# }9 P/ Tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( C6 E7 E$ ^" `" ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# N9 D' }2 ]% i# z! s+ q% ^Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
* h* ^6 I) X3 r8 Sagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
4 e: a+ |8 e H" {; b! n" R6 ?eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.. W R, |+ n1 R( F% X8 n' w+ w
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
& M* q3 e- T1 E" D. [" o+ T
& B. L# N# L2 {8 T* R Q: k4 _Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-2 U8 ^+ o" T7 E
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention" E4 e- Q: t6 |# N- Q
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 r* U# n$ @( O( C
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London. ^1 U1 J+ R; ^. _8 E4 M, p) C' ]
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for* Z' T7 S; ~% L7 }% f4 X
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, D9 v) j" B8 }/ a9 Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope9 n' Z9 W, |$ U- b4 |; R
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, r) x$ F( G. gplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
5 J* c1 M7 m, }# v8 J2 jpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
+ F5 m" `2 a0 B2 o: J# o$ z
4 t6 v+ F5 R6 W0 g, ?0 L+ [Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
) f2 k# a% z5 C$ b/ e3 {8 }intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: u( J1 m7 s! _' L" @' X
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a' g6 E/ q& U* f* t
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
& w' x) r- Q. z/ X5 |all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. O% z! P# z8 O
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
! K; y. S4 R1 m5 `4 a0 Nexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
# i9 j, O3 K' ?4 r _argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 m- u l! a# i3 ^4 R8 }& n
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
: r: G `; |7 Q3 A2 Z+ a" _5 \reporting should be done. |
|