 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 JIANG6 B' R" c5 @/ O- x4 U
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。% k- ?) x' ]$ d" s1 w6 c
! w$ Y* ]: {+ c, g
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html) ]/ U& y% P; s; l
9 s5 ]2 \( T/ JFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
3 G9 \* W$ g3 O, L
! B/ K* d7 E# I( w! d! g0 JIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& H/ c# t7 C7 ~, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# F) ?6 |4 h# [ q* y f, Q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" P5 {) V( q1 U) [& Q3 p3 Qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 O) U7 l9 G* H+ Lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ u8 c3 S7 |0 A* V
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors6 k4 \5 B# W/ c4 k
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
{8 ^! [/ `* }* ]# [1 Gwhich they blatantly failed to do.5 q( ?% W0 I9 B- ` [: z
, F4 b8 m7 Y: K( b; u
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% x4 b+ e0 l' ?$ HOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
! \# x. X8 o" r P& K$ r' z$ `0 M2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) d) B, L4 g6 p7 t
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 u6 b, Y1 e$ X5 N7 {personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an4 }+ z2 l8 n- z- J, M, m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ l n; y7 j4 Idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 g2 Q! g8 {( U! E3 ~8 Y) G
be treated as 7 s.1 m6 R8 r% G% @% p! o" L# C
1 C+ b- @% W4 A& r* ]. y; i' e
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
d, K* h( b n# Estill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem9 w0 b$ ^" ]! e7 ~5 r- e
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. ^3 S& a% ^- k! |1 ?3 ~
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; Y- X# c1 k% |' ?$ K; u-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
9 Q& P& D! g+ j9 M: xFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 R$ b" ~, e% \8 P& C- o
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ |" _/ @2 X2 s) s5 a$ r
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”( f7 {" H# Z9 n+ A4 a& e, @
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
c; E* ? g5 }0 A* j U# D; [0 X$ W; ~: l0 }. i
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 ~. ?" m6 x+ ^+ c1 e Aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
$ O; z8 q4 I% Ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
" p* u6 T/ g' n8 _he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: z1 X5 Z- L! N9 k
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& J; s7 c# y1 o5 V$ pbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World# f" [" m7 E) G( r" L5 w
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ b: V% d( Z$ o% b0 R t" N/ C- e: Ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# V: ]: y0 v; h3 ]7 e: h$ `, `7 \hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) ~( K6 f" W& k0 }/ t+ ]
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this) o, {. Z# l( X C
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) M- K- F6 ]9 E* q3 _faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
/ h, D2 b: N8 H0 f! |faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
- A) g" m" z7 ?aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 M2 E+ U+ z3 k: d6 n3 P/ Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
' E2 c/ }% I1 b J( Z4 z
8 {( n8 U- h5 l% B$ u9 I+ YFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ ~# c7 q2 M+ u, ]. `4 }6 Z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
* p; ]9 \* S$ r Y2 I" {7 {6 T3 ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 p# V' Y( r3 X' h2 t2 Q7 g# c), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" I( K4 ]! h2 m$ |3 v4 Sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 G) d$ \+ m6 Y z; r5 c- o. v
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind, z5 @, C( _/ @; E* W
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it4 ?0 D- F# G4 ]$ v5 W. j
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
1 S4 X+ Z: N& F7 h! u z @ K* Bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
1 R/ D" s/ v4 `) o6 fworks.
% j; C1 {3 {! S) u6 P, h& \" o
/ {% H V, g$ {& c* X! KFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and& Y0 |$ | W1 }4 i- [ a4 e0 y
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this) Q7 H/ @% ?. F; ?% i
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that% Z; Z- h A' n: m. Q' o& K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ l ^7 z2 ?' ~3 ~- h; wpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% g( x! N3 V& X: V
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 y5 V [5 T# Y0 c
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ A( P! j& B v4 y1 V
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
, K" O+ |( B2 V7 s! K9 Rto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
( ]# T& W) H/ `. t1 |is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; D+ S* L; l' |0 N
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( P9 R4 i( G9 S* s r) iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ ~% \* w, C8 v1 N- Padvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 q! d' z6 ?) k* E" l) E
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not& E7 C2 ]8 J3 o7 V4 f0 J* P/ n# s
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation& n8 G9 @' d9 l- G
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 `! x( s5 {. K8 mdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 _! o. N4 j+ @5 J V8 x: B# qbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! d* H7 D1 F6 {" G5 Y. s {
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% g' E9 J0 [7 Q4 t* I5 j
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 Z! W' {4 a- p
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
1 [6 ~8 S8 _! v7 X; \other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect& }4 y8 y+ l2 T
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is) N9 A7 `# ?( }5 u4 N k
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an' h6 R' F R% P/ Y; Z1 |( j$ n& q# }& |
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight7 S6 E; P! m" X) P1 S' G; j! K9 t
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. k& ~( H9 d! z* z: bLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 Q7 ]$ @8 W. D1 p _$ [8 xagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
2 S( r# P* y4 j2 P+ H/ O* zeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 [+ Y" A* c5 d. dInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
& g; Q' D+ g; ]5 n: E# C1 n& y. A! M! _/ R
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
8 _4 B4 a0 s+ D8 x# m5 lcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ G. d5 ~; i+ Q5 Q8 @0 h
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, O0 j" ~! j5 q) g# i& }( vOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
/ S7 a8 T- B% {- Z wOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for+ o( Y4 c' J4 s9 p. O v( X
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ U) }4 S0 [, x! t! A ]+ Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
" G; `& T7 ?( j! C* Z5 ^/ i0 Khave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- c0 s! n& _6 X* e. Q- |3 I6 z# E
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
8 |7 g$ E& n$ n! q0 X& p. Lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
- q* `- F1 o- U7 S) \9 D8 l7 V# N- e: a2 d/ O x
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" E1 ~% W. E" D6 F/ ]intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( j! _8 e, a5 A
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 C1 P. e$ X+ n, v/ C% |
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide; z* ~& ~! e3 W- J2 r8 ^, p% b/ F
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
8 j" z9 K/ @% b; Y0 {interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
6 m; T" l9 l' \, Bexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your* G! k3 x& ]# Z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. o# f/ X! Y3 d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
( c- o# }' W$ G. v1 s4 Breporting should be done. |
|