 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 T+ b9 G* e1 w" U: z" h- V0 e+ {
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
! x/ R$ i* \2 A0 p+ I I: t: U, Y1 @
$ T! U O, t& M z) D6 B Bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 V1 ?3 ^" ]& ~7 D2 Y+ p* g, E
- m$ e9 s0 Y* |: o0 i" { `FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
) E8 ~( T% _ ^$ q+ o
9 n6 @; J! m7 b {0 {3 pIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself/ n3 E% K# s( `& X1 b k
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
/ O6 s, Z" K. I# f$ q5 tmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: J$ L( ^8 Z, l4 w j
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the" Q: }' Y( D) a, J8 p/ H
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
) ]8 w. ^4 u$ [/ N3 \& S7 Wpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors: }( B: E+ Y, p) Z
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
' z q. i; D# r4 y# R4 Kwhich they blatantly failed to do.+ {$ t( q1 C; C, B. B
, s c c! t9 e/ c7 Y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
* e$ g( `# h2 d% a0 D @, eOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- P9 K0 M" G. l$ G, d& T2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ W" u/ m" ~# t: D+ ?anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 R# n$ P6 }3 Q8 gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 [# R# L# a) I( Y1 } N# @+ D
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; t3 @: w; i1 qdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
, m+ L5 D3 I1 c. S# xbe treated as 7 s.
5 Z1 {5 o8 Y: [1 g' w& S
, i" W7 O# i) v H, zSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is+ X& W: {$ G0 e F
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem; d) b5 |* |# B1 p o
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 g% ^: v# h6 n4 yAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 n1 P+ ?( d; X; F& Z. w+ V-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& I! i9 ~. T; x, zFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
0 x1 F" x8 d; d) O" P" eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and1 J7 U/ z1 N. e( @3 P6 P: H$ Q
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
+ l2 @3 b9 l5 P, tbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- |7 _; \2 O9 B M
; O9 o2 B$ n% J. Y K( aThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook6 v, r5 M2 i$ K
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
1 {5 D; W. R5 s: D4 b! ]& Tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so* c/ b# R) l' N) B7 L) z
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( V8 {5 d' O. A! N
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
* ]" Z/ `- d. ~9 I. Z7 Jbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
7 _2 C p# L l4 u9 ^9 s! t1 xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
9 F1 B, O R; i, Y' \' |topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
5 I8 ]! b C" O/ s' dhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle" O3 v1 a3 c/ \# O0 p3 j) o
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 R a+ Q: _* v! M( c
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
- L+ q2 `) T; u6 @5 R( N: {faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 e1 Q1 e. O9 K- M: @& l6 f' Q( Jfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting% r, L) G5 f/ {# q$ t9 c! D
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
( s' N& k3 w: N+ B' B: }6 Aimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.4 {/ s8 N2 c1 c& y0 b
7 _, u) i. B. `3 K N/ D+ n
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are7 }; N! m) U7 r
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 q2 Z* n I6 o& A5 _( w' ~s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
6 J" D: N$ q# o* {9 _& V), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns D( t! @# Q2 S1 ?
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
, R i7 o) i4 DLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 Q$ R# ` _) |& k
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 F1 i9 ~8 d2 S' \- L) f
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
, q& {0 b' O4 B3 d3 p" L% w% ^every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ @# L! j7 M* l& tworks.' o7 ?) |- S* w& O3 ]
1 T9 z- I0 Q$ J6 ^3 k4 G E; }, r- G) {
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; b6 r5 t& f- K% `( r& Wimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this( l5 r8 R7 n; } r
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 v+ X# h# D: N0 A* xstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific' A$ P( ^ p' x0 L2 g
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* ]' F7 H& S; c. T
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. ?0 h2 s" m6 X7 U
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& V6 d5 I* S, w: i4 {& ^+ y' Gdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works& p% Y" l' {3 H* c" a$ w+ p3 U
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 T( l5 g5 l& m7 ~& Ois found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, y9 ^) \; R* e: ?" I
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 i7 K0 ~% J) G
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly! Y9 |$ @6 h. c# u9 U5 b, c- r3 T
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 ?7 s& p8 i- X$ H4 }
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 S1 s, a2 S0 Kuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: T2 q, q9 h F
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 C, H$ i, K( Qdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! V2 W8 S3 J3 n8 }" A, V7 lbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a, Y3 {' x; P9 W' O" \9 j! a
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
/ x. p% G7 d. J4 c' S/ ]" C! k/ O5 Hhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a; l: x# Q e9 R. |4 _
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
) i% ]! M0 N0 K3 R1 `8 g* kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect7 l. m. i: K4 A/ u6 f
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
- y# V% [' p; cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an* c" }# D1 f8 A& o9 b0 w, y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight' ~8 k. ]% `- s
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?' u1 i0 b5 ], w
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping4 q8 n2 z6 U7 a" Z, T$ {7 G
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 `) y; U% f& w# ]) ?' o2 P
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.9 l2 x Y; e7 }/ z6 J) ^3 Q9 Y
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
' H" p$ z* E' s/ ?* c5 U' K, R
" N! y' i0 V0 l7 USixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 u& x5 y+ C7 G+ i% A& m4 T1 N* Hcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention8 T! I4 J( o3 R- @
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for6 f! y v7 U2 K
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
4 {$ _6 C" u7 E6 t7 ] V+ |. ?Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 k/ u; f" ~2 u. Q) \- x3 Ldoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
$ u) _% O- i) y9 vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
7 t3 s1 R" f( s ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, m6 ?( L8 o" r7 [( Nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
& T4 `7 d+ m$ R( L7 v5 M/ }possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" D7 x: u! `- |7 ^$ C5 R+ n* A0 _ ~% L
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- n/ N) Z( F3 B6 s/ w( E1 h
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. g3 e. D, R* C, Q) u1 lsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! Y* I9 `& g8 p) Asuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# a/ b7 O2 ]6 e" N3 o/ P" a' I u
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your/ d0 u1 Q, W, B) K$ K0 D5 A& U
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 b" Q7 X8 _/ b0 Q7 S" ]explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( J) j- B. U5 m3 v6 @argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
7 A# T2 C' E: X7 Usuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or2 C/ v# P0 s& \: ]( k
reporting should be done. |
|