 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
) ~* _4 m' ]: P" P如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。+ V' t6 m8 m; B
# D' f' c- {# s: i) e4 R
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html! X9 [( i- R# x, j- s: P5 I
2 |7 t- B p$ ]6 B4 I0 c! M d& rFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
+ t% b$ x% i! d2 \) S' b5 J0 M2 x3 A, P1 {$ F
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself) [4 K6 ]6 j9 U8 p1 l: c; o% ~
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# J' z. i! [8 ^$ \3 Cmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" [! @; n2 u' T
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
8 U# @; a9 Y. T& H$ F# Tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
J9 Y+ e9 a* M* X9 D- u3 jpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
) O8 m& M5 R/ Ushould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,5 O3 }( {( E/ C% ^6 y8 \
which they blatantly failed to do.$ f; |+ }5 u* ?- [( X- X3 w2 W
5 O. R3 i1 E# C' f% EFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ r, `6 M j; _ Y. k2 [Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
0 o3 r3 K- C6 i% G8 ?3 }: e" ~& z# V2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ p, J+ ?* t8 ^- ?6 Z" P5 eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) O3 v5 P5 h6 Y+ Q7 D& Dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
; T/ p7 x) |# ~1 dimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
6 P, Z4 u" S8 @# N: A# pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ |# F2 A! K: d* H/ W l+ S
be treated as 7 s.
! x$ c1 [! t) ?5 h. o& \0 _: x/ }# @! o% a) ~3 ?/ l
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- w6 Z. F) I) w- wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, T; O% z& S" {5 A6 m* ?
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, R* v/ i! _9 c1 FAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
' N7 l+ Z6 m) I8 n ?- I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.& p/ {8 m( J" `- S( g1 L
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 [4 m+ K% i7 O5 t4 _' h
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
% _! g& W* Y. Wpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 ]9 E1 x7 t$ a F
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 D( v" C. O3 @( v0 l& I# \9 a$ B/ Y6 {* w+ q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& V0 A! W j- | ]- W$ Zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ T+ Z/ D- @* T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
/ M! U! Z n& }: ~he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) @. t6 a! f1 @! nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s7 w- y0 K$ N+ Z3 e7 ]
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ ?* o- ?* u X& }1 j0 R- J+ M/ jFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
a6 F3 W. M1 g# w; H0 dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other) |, x5 {3 q! J
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ S$ V" s1 i W! a5 ^
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this3 a# P/ q" y8 d* w+ u
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds; z$ C Y' y; f8 O) q# T
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam e! v1 G! g$ a0 t/ v8 f! P
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# E7 w( D" M; B& o ]( b0 xaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that: w1 i5 d3 w2 Q8 Y ]# _ c
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# a$ q" J0 P% w- `9 Y
; t* [/ \7 G! c
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are& I/ m7 M6 ~. F* ~: t- N! w( d
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! v% V- s' N$ i4 f7 Y. m. D) Fs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
8 k3 q2 k' x) q8 Z), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& @5 K1 Y9 C: w9 @3 C, L
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,$ w( M; L3 f$ K3 p2 A
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
1 g2 a+ H$ a7 E# }# fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it4 o- }: u8 M% ^5 C
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) q* }: c- t& C: h4 {, J0 w& kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! p h: ?2 C3 Q( M% s, ~
works.2 ~" L' v% ]" H7 T: B
& V. j& `6 P% Y4 p2 ]Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 k% c2 T( Z3 s9 I2 y* l4 q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this: g' @: V$ G! I; m4 T' c
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
' C, Y9 r: P3 T: istandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ F0 S7 C2 c5 Ppapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* a1 R8 X1 o; \" Y$ A9 V
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
0 k, R* `5 N: d. R" H# b2 I6 @2 K7 J. Dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to( t. Y7 p, N3 x
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: U' M' b) X! K
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample2 q1 a# y; R8 Q+ C$ }1 ^2 a
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is8 J* |: `% Q( T& v
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' b: t3 j2 [% A! A0 D5 Xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly" H6 q3 ?# \, A- }5 U* r }8 p
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the3 u7 O5 U& ?6 n/ |
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
& I7 Q9 U! {6 @, j' l9 i. R, {use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# f$ u: q. q6 U! ^ v) d
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are8 L1 _" ~( M* s4 T' b
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may9 R) R, ]) i$ q# h
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
: I3 ?% k/ f' ^2 e/ Jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
1 r8 F9 W2 b) G- q# U, C/ [# A7 c: ohas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a! B# G. o- B* s& v
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- b- r! e, r1 m5 N5 w% Q6 w: I4 Fother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
: o' |1 B) q/ c, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is1 q5 [: c$ S3 H: j# J( P- G
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
4 r8 }$ D& [7 K3 O0 Cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight" e9 \. M. p, k2 B* m; d7 {1 p" I
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
" N. Q3 h; p+ t5 C: O* MLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
1 M; }$ R" a/ n' }, p& A; Lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 `4 x( W6 e# H/ C( E8 R9 ^" jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.' Z' E$ |) H: S( Z! }% U# k
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% T1 z" M/ N3 G# Z; _
8 U$ Q$ j+ c3 {7 d' nSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-" f1 S! c9 Y# s- c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
" x: n8 i+ A3 p/ u. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 ~5 Z7 G- q x8 ]8 v- N* _# uOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: \% X) a i+ n( Z/ e! J+ {1 E, D+ ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for( v# I3 E/ h7 V/ Y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 ]3 k$ a# `: ^games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope1 Z* U: S# A# k
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
; F: ^3 W( s! y" a$ b0 K8 cplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, q$ ^: I9 b }5 @possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ V* F/ U, { i" ~+ |5 t
4 {5 K7 W, i( t1 G3 ^6 E+ \* D6 D$ _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (' V* L' Y' P0 V W8 O4 a
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 n8 P" U; M! f2 x9 z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 N% |# T( v5 |; `) z. u3 G
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide% K2 g& D& J" C ^: n
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
* g0 d0 I# e1 N4 U7 ~interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# S9 [ ]( e" E5 ^ w
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
: ~/ b6 j! r: X0 [2 J! g/ oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal6 @0 a+ ]5 m- E4 A" M, ?
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
3 o" k9 Y- E( c( b9 l- _reporting should be done. |
|