 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 N) B1 y$ p" C3 W
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
- B* _3 D- d1 C$ N
; ~' F1 y8 R5 s+ t$ w+ Chttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html$ T) x# c5 ^4 k
% S, e9 R( ^0 z' w" s4 t: pFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" e& n+ O; b* L
: q- W& N! A7 L/ [4 C4 q7 k- l
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself- G. T" x u3 V. J1 K' Q- P* w3 O
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
& P$ [7 ]1 Y! pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this0 ]% F4 x. m1 E
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the `$ f1 i5 a- h6 }* P* @0 E& L6 J
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 y0 x: X! p, {/ spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors) f0 U" I2 u( i: E" ]% b5 }
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ E! v2 J' C$ c2 [, o
which they blatantly failed to do.
# A- h/ R( @; y W2 q# i( A0 X7 t _
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
9 B0 t5 Q1 z+ C: YOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in5 e# e8 h0 |, Y/ N( l( |" y
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
k; _, N8 K& a4 u. O$ H; Q" G. Nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& Z' l$ U7 N2 Q/ G: l8 v* @
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an G0 m5 `/ @: E) V1 [/ o. ^6 K
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. z/ v; U$ M! P$ S, Qdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 F$ B& w+ {+ i" L2 z$ @( ^2 y% \
be treated as 7 s.
, e% {: ~0 h8 i; h- l. k$ ]
: c) h; k+ d% Z. @Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is& ?" y% j0 A$ H; I+ m, _% h
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem4 G. O" _, R3 U5 g
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' I4 ]3 Y* Z$ ?, ?
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, r' w$ O3 O/ L0 y3 K; e
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.. _8 A4 P% u; e( P6 x
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an3 I% ?) k2 x8 Z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& G. t2 T/ ~ N6 T1 Bpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”$ I2 Y9 l+ y$ y% G) t
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 |- _8 S% A; _4 u( e. A6 A9 M m
6 {" u9 s( Q6 k$ F# I
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 v; i( X1 x2 Q! s! y {example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* A. J! p3 Z2 ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! h# n" J( S9 T+ V* ?/ w: _/ k- g
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later" H8 u( b* W* c; q2 g2 F& Z
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& `+ h4 z, _. O6 J, a8 ?best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) C) w# ^; b. AFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 q8 A: }4 A% S, Y% Z0 U6 q# Stopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 s" m/ @# V& }7 F2 ~
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 E: [, t9 \7 Y) b/ W0 {; y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; b" E$ D) u+ t! X% N) t" U
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds5 }. u) T! Z' ?* `- R3 i! n
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam' ]' ?1 d( d3 w3 {# G1 p4 r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
- N R, x3 ?( n* ~6 Z6 maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
' r0 e# ^- K4 ?% O W1 s% cimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on. f* Z+ E0 x* w) v/ ?+ ~% x
5 C2 M8 w0 v% N) G1 T: U: n
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are R0 q# _& n N% V& L4 S3 e
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
# Q; _" [+ j" X9 b( X& Gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
6 _+ p5 Y4 A7 k1 }# r5 j), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns C, ?) ?" \+ A" p9 v3 x
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' {* ?/ x \7 J" P) s. T: T/ f8 w, SLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 s' Z/ x) f* m, x1 y. o- n+ Bof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
# p8 K/ z9 [) X4 wlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in4 ]' B: ^. c" P5 a& {
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
6 D \5 a& t+ ?) `2 ]( b% H& d, S pworks.4 ~" W0 |! }# C& P3 }) B- @/ w
5 q H; `/ p. K% r/ n% I1 f, FFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 X. T4 ^* F4 [4 {7 p9 k
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 g* L: a7 k+ V" _9 M) x7 l1 t
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
+ q* A; q$ `- o F. jstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ J9 I) `; i+ R! J! m6 |
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and! }+ C4 B$ _8 m% C: t" ]
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
3 n" q. ~% h9 Z( u, \cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' ]3 M6 R1 u5 C, l5 {7 [3 } x. \demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works; H/ a4 [4 K% m
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
* M& `$ o. C. F7 M: q- J. a: B3 Qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" R0 G5 }7 D- T. V8 M7 h! Ucrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ b8 x. I4 A8 Q J
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; R- I- e5 S1 g+ s2 W' T! h3 ~
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the m/ F2 s" J5 i9 D
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
9 _" t0 o& O, I& guse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. m I2 N+ G% |
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 }3 e% S2 Z3 m+ t4 E. P! Ndoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" Z: Y2 Y2 k" C# I% d' ~
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
; [5 g1 e1 y( D6 k; N) x" Ghearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( ` d/ A: ]& ahas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a9 _# I9 G3 ?# L' d' i# r
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:, I5 o8 p9 v# @5 k3 t) \
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect# j; p, U! Y3 J ?" f0 G" m0 `
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. l" A7 i" t5 @% x9 Gprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an5 F4 ^8 S$ O, f/ T6 W0 ]! r
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
7 s. }0 f0 E$ L) K# nchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: K: k' k; F- [3 Q# H0 x
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
1 [6 l% I% n1 G7 s' B3 \- bagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 w" F7 E5 n5 _* V6 i0 |/ ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- k5 y4 {1 o0 R; ` S0 L% l' c/ b; G1 jInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?$ z8 }1 _! G! I8 ~- |
1 P. G# N1 q5 Y5 x: S& @: N# }
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-( n( Z" n% z. U. c0 j0 ?2 |) i
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! \" _; P/ k+ Y) `" c
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, {* \0 _- e1 t
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London, ?) }0 d+ z- Y3 m* j4 e: C3 r4 \) y
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for9 `8 \: o: P) x5 _' j
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic4 w% a6 o: {8 K7 h/ ^
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
) h$ D2 z3 p9 R$ S+ F) _" Yhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. k: O0 r. Z: N: b. ]9 Pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% N$ L5 u4 o2 ~possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.- B% _. E( ?& K b- y* U+ y V
2 c! K! i1 B3 K: K6 j: xOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
% {9 o8 B( F @; Eintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 ]% m9 v2 G( L+ d6 {' \suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a7 B* k5 X; I8 k
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide+ X3 Q& |0 x8 i
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your# q9 l X6 G) c
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,9 `# n, m+ W: A6 z- E
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- |2 C2 S) [% u% i- w' E2 a0 E
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal7 p& J8 R1 F' X/ W4 l' v. q- B
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or: y* B7 N, l' t. o; G* t& ^' ^
reporting should be done. |
|