 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
, w1 f/ h* @0 `' J. q, J如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ x( E l: U9 t8 V% j5 w7 p# h" N) Z1 F6 k {! X% K6 a# s& p
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
+ C$ R+ q% W* m7 O
6 W6 _; d* k8 ?6 H1 A; ZFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
7 f; S, e, r5 u! |7 B
: m) u X& m! _It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself( {5 G' C$ K+ P3 T+ \
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 s! k/ ?* H: S* M
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
1 `- l+ D6 ~" X; O3 yis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the7 R" L x% l1 ?7 \8 j9 u8 L4 H
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
% M8 W# a% @; \9 c% A7 k. R) Opopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. R ^. V. p8 K! z5 u* D
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
: U$ w8 F- E8 r; z5 \: gwhich they blatantly failed to do.0 V' `8 ~; _& J
: r7 U, M; u9 W/ |6 D4 D- mFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her# c1 Q* T6 C$ `
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" P) i2 C3 C; N! v- \( m, J; T, e; f
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ c g' g' _( p( m. q7 Nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ O1 M' |! v( u0 w
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 M. g* p5 [, S1 T/ b. R: e4 `
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the$ g6 W. D3 z' w2 H: [2 ?$ l5 o- m; g
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% G3 O9 _2 J& a2 M! Q2 Bbe treated as 7 s.
- y4 U7 ^# W0 b# |$ U" l: J2 Z& i
2 u. ?2 H) r* z9 tSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
) a0 R7 `8 J" x# G. g0 ?" n6 ] cstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
9 e" r* P4 u. @( d4 c3 cimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- a8 p. U- q/ {2 {8 z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400& L6 @* P5 L7 r7 {$ y) S9 r
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
; K, F* e7 t* @$ p0 TFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ V3 G) v% e5 ]! h' ?$ j. Z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and: Z7 K O( P1 \+ c
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”4 W7 G( f, B) ^' J) H4 E: R* B- m% M* x k
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- ]) ?7 i6 ?' Z4 I' D7 h
, H) f" ?7 v A. rThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook$ F9 R. ]" C* o" @
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 g. d. k% Z3 o+ l7 \/ {" G+ \3 O! I
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 I" K7 S" t E! f) S+ Khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
% v" X3 {7 D X& f. @1 z C% U6 kevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* r+ k* [7 [ K/ j
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# l, O- e/ P* o: |& OFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 e" j( O4 k) m' S" b4 S2 [7 n. C3 vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ S3 p0 ^8 Y7 K1 C$ F9 U' _, {
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
h# Q$ U3 s6 K* A) U, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; z/ O a% b0 ~' c& Bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds3 r I; \8 ]: y6 O, a) b U7 @9 \
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam/ G6 ~- D' {. s5 x ?8 k1 R2 n+ f) p
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 o9 g) h5 j2 x; _" m7 A1 Yaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ [ y. q$ U- N/ A/ E- |0 pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# u, Y: U/ E; o4 h
2 ?) l/ |% n$ [
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; M9 T$ _) b! i P. H( J) Kfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; {& f A* A% y' ~) d
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s( B+ ^3 \% k9 j7 J; ~$ S3 k6 S: _9 Q! P
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- N L7 m* k& t bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% U1 C5 H7 |8 e, l/ rLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 T+ w' h4 y! [) @' @ _ f
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' D) p) F7 f7 h% R+ L
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ m& l9 u5 z. Q4 `( d* u
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
$ B. R; B" a$ S. ?works.
9 P- R! y5 G0 W2 u5 D4 @3 J7 L/ ^4 n3 P+ F' F
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! T m9 k3 J% f+ Vimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
& k5 F' f8 F P1 l- Q0 xkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 m* ^' M) d5 @. J9 ~
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) b3 m z! C4 ?1 m7 p9 w" [$ s# w3 J* `: Zpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
& {; a0 @, j9 f0 D0 G8 Q0 Rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 I! y6 j" @ G0 T2 {: `% P% J I3 {
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ y, u$ N' w7 H# W
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
9 W$ v0 k7 y- I- o3 w o1 ~1 nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample1 D$ e; _8 n& y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 G8 b% V0 c9 }' }( |5 Z. ?" M5 v3 H
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he9 C$ K/ w! C1 I$ D
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
7 M( z* h6 `) L! p$ R* c5 W, q8 A2 Xadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 Z# T+ G( |3 K) `( }% w
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
' s! d1 [1 x9 s- F/ Euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( P# J8 N( U# K. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: A6 ?7 o- n' p: v2 U( y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! z7 {" l/ j z' e& sbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ \) r X( o% A Z/ _0 ?hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% U) R. m- h6 V0 K! n- V5 F4 U
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 Z E3 [+ e1 L. a8 x
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:( x0 e/ S+ u9 |) e+ N
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. ^: G" M; ^6 ]% C
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
% b* W% ]: K: {: Rprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
\6 T; L |/ |athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight* b" i$ y3 \ Q4 v, r, g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" b! ], A2 I& \/ V
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping* \$ A. ], D8 {- q+ p" t& D: g
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* j3 _8 v, K3 X! O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.) a! K/ L) F+ ~
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?4 F+ _; W: q% T- t8 r8 I1 M' d0 A# c
: P6 @6 D: b- c* S- Y) }
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
, R8 T0 C' Y6 x2 z1 ]competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
6 b) O+ Y% W/ v5 W ~. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 {6 V& J6 g+ ]3 v: l4 TOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London/ y' Z0 H" Q. r' z' `% {8 h1 }
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 L3 O7 B8 s: q3 @" Adoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic0 v6 F2 I& T1 \
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
- K' z& D4 M* ~: ]: `/ B% f2 khave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a9 D ^; [- W. }7 K4 p7 \
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 M2 k9 `- k) y. Xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
) O7 \/ C! ^/ W
. U' _5 ^. @1 ]3 K" _2 `Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 b t1 E( [# V& S! e0 |. ^* M6 o) T
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) k: S1 R. _% h' p* U" o0 ssuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
% J, R3 A1 S# t y5 L4 Csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; {- M) U8 \! H+ Tall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your2 Q0 C4 ?% ~ @" }* S
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," S2 z) y& t$ D+ T) q
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( v, \$ M5 }/ K( \& a U2 z& zargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. m4 n0 f6 L3 }. G9 r
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or- U7 b- ^4 ~( O0 b$ U+ p
reporting should be done. |
|