 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 JIANG9 z' \" L+ P/ w; B
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. R+ Q* k+ ^) r; B* p
3 r1 S# Y# G/ c* j$ Y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
. X+ @2 Q% R( @+ M! W# ^ y
1 H6 M0 U! m2 T- q5 T. l# U+ l; A( iFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania8 S' b$ s5 _. H
4 C! W, b5 ~" S2 D# R7 {' g9 VIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
/ n1 L2 ]7 o$ X5 x" B, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ c3 R1 G; y x9 [& E, f7 P' z6 ?" e
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
1 P/ R. R& r( [# ^is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 `( Z: M: K3 w- t/ G5 r) a# Lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general5 b' }4 _" p0 W1 i$ {2 p* c H
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
0 ~# E: f6 u) ^; p* L4 i! n3 F% {should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' p* X. n/ l# m& ?: O' n
which they blatantly failed to do.
3 t6 L q$ P7 G& x w0 w1 ?1 Y4 q- h* l" v9 [# ^
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
# ^0 J( V7 ?0 `; H! r) o" R" b+ A+ EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in* @8 [1 l. r4 o! p4 H/ F) ?
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
' L, w- s8 }! n$ g: l; X; fanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous" K$ l" C0 d3 r2 `, ? M0 x' p
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 C2 v6 H9 ^" C3 t6 C2 dimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ I3 L) z( v: t9 {* Z; h# F9 jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to8 _% m1 U0 \' d; }
be treated as 7 s.7 }% h- \( U1 _: J! C
) P+ c7 F3 u& L! W$ nSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is F6 }) ]3 Q2 \" G
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& n& l% {' Q! Q5 l6 Zimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.3 r2 ^( Y7 K. R4 M
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
3 s; {3 b9 ]3 e6 g- ]+ m-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
4 x: Z0 N7 X, z3 ^+ G ?5 WFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
; _1 }" L9 r) K/ Aelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& L3 E( @4 c4 D/ p# V7 a0 C/ a
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”- p3 y- i+ s0 z3 o: s9 Z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: Y" q! D9 }) V" r) j6 p
+ ?' `9 O! p& Y: ?( J% Y2 O& KThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! } n' l$ O' y; S8 w9 d4 P
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in' d6 S- `5 f* u3 T+ T- f& u
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so& r9 m) G( S5 f+ a' D ^
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
1 h6 Y. h- f! gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* |2 x7 o* ~/ b1 I- Y* ^* N, O
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* D. v/ }; K0 j& u
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( f, |6 K, X9 g, w: m/ D4 Ytopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; O$ o+ g: G7 H$ v3 n* g0 r* ]& m
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
% I& ^5 c6 }$ K) K* x' b% v/ N, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# \& j% R' d$ p) H4 nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. ?$ r) }# |/ c) }) x8 [
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
@6 k$ H0 @! U% Q% nfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting3 _- n; s( w4 }3 V
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 D( J3 p, d& i8 Q) L; i1 @implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
0 N% ?- O+ N ^* @8 u
; k2 a: {2 _" c9 t2 m. W* G* GFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( @- r+ Z, x% Vfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
; y- w, ?4 n3 m9 m" ^* vs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' z. o$ G1 o, ^; H
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 j. C, ?% d) ~6 q* z. Sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
+ b$ W' z% T) y& W7 {+ ALochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 u. h, m9 i- l/ K) [
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
; b% B# A2 w- {3 \* u( |logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 w% ~+ }9 g4 P
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science. @0 _" M$ J8 S, l0 f9 k. Z
works.
Z+ P5 t- j* b! C- z' ]. W( s' M, T" M# V) d8 t
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and8 W! O. e& r! o$ i/ b
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
" X8 f0 J- C' \ Q7 Mkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 z% Z7 O% p* c# ?, n* {standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific& X! ~" p9 X( k- m
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 R. n v$ k+ O$ Z# Lreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; Q4 O d5 t+ X J4 U, Icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
8 E4 X, v4 `( h# u8 D; @1 ydemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works! s8 {. C$ V7 t' H3 H- U
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
, X( }8 ]8 w3 i5 A" h$ P) Vis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
2 U; X" f% \6 Q. o% fcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he1 b2 p& W; k9 @ Q. u; g2 f
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 N ?9 }# K$ y% _* ~" y
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 {& F h6 u# B7 {3 rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 x( C) h) Z6 s' P$ x4 i+ ~: V) nuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation5 Z9 u* c; B, e, L$ {# K. w
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are8 a/ z( k2 M- h" l9 ?. D
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
' k- ]& V2 ?& K" p4 B7 s* abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 H L, V# M! h$ J7 w. d) qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
5 x$ i. t! W8 k/ I! jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a2 F+ R2 M- d1 ^0 ?/ Y! ` |& s N2 M" E
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
# h0 }1 z8 @3 {. i9 N: A; zother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 G! I8 ?) u# M' T+ e6 o/ t
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
0 g' A3 o4 A% }1 u0 E$ Qprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 I6 k/ y1 O% n/ Gathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 S- ~* J1 l/ p& Achance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, Z G% A0 m' A
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! [: R# F' t$ R+ a6 \2 k
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for$ r7 K0 T2 C7 _3 v, o, p
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
# I, p, U7 b: RInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
; b F+ l1 z' ~+ ?, O+ W2 I; I. n& E
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ |+ D5 K5 g' z
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
8 P( S$ h* _1 U4 p( O4 s3 S% l; B1 E. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, g- b7 h5 h2 J# O5 O N. r: EOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London% j0 |& R3 S, H
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
. t+ x* _5 L3 e0 e' f2 H5 S4 ddoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: A+ {/ Z! D4 p! _* x
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
& N0 \$ V3 S! g( ?- fhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. m" e* ?' O+ C9 S7 mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& | N6 J" V2 f1 ~* X( w9 l
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 Y* l3 w5 } `* l* ^# D% w6 G
: U' j& |! b' y1 X& IOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did ($ }* q- N9 @2 X# i: y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
5 S2 {/ z5 H1 y- @! B7 u- E- @suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" U6 L5 [9 _# z4 D! p5 gsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide+ _0 b6 ?2 I! N* F! t# U0 S
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% a2 v" A6 x: e O' Q8 |interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," |* E6 }, s2 `+ }" f9 }' R, t5 _$ ^
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 a0 ~8 Q1 v% B" t& h5 k/ Y( gargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
3 `& x2 j" u+ P3 g: U8 i) G1 W& Msuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or- a6 O+ w7 F( ]
reporting should be done. |
|