 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: v; A6 N# S" g, v, r
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. |3 ~) D0 h. v: _$ F
h# h" Q5 b5 F1 s
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html% l, a5 k, t4 E$ m! z% |" F
7 @& N' P2 B) @ PFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
: Y- T: A9 A) t7 c& c& t
5 [1 D* ]& A# f: s7 t# O5 Z1 ZIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
: Z, F% ?2 h$ y1 ?; G2 X, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ n% N% z$ k2 x$ M4 R
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this2 R. F5 \2 `* O. }# a( k7 r% [
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
2 d8 V! n& m) a3 e+ `8 m; n. Vscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
( |0 h- c2 s4 Y! k. N' ^5 bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
/ ?' T) `& O6 ?8 V8 A, A, o+ mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. X4 f: Q3 w1 z
which they blatantly failed to do.7 `0 ?& I# U$ X- ?( v
6 |2 D. U% ?+ G3 G
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her- p1 G5 s. ]+ G. n' S% N
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
/ I. P: e8 O$ _2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
) a. k4 s7 X. r9 J9 k3 eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous6 F1 W, T* m* u
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an# {/ o9 D v i# C3 x" Y! s
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 {5 U8 w3 U" r0 m: h/ R: h2 w- B7 l
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to* X& _ B1 k/ g& V& l+ H
be treated as 7 s.
* Y7 y) u3 S8 A. |# \4 ?, C& @% p5 r" n
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
5 O6 b5 h, a& Astill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
. J! q' y b; D1 ]) }impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." E! t8 [$ I" `
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 B0 E( }! ~6 A# C( P-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
9 e b( K8 e# _# HFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
6 C [* s+ Z" \/ U4 x1 Ielite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and# Y' A9 ?* l9 ]2 \* o
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
+ V3 \& Q, f! F# z, Kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
" V g* \ ]" h+ q; U0 q6 b- R0 ]* X* q0 ?( l/ j% c2 V2 D
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
) x8 c+ n, {* Q& m" [, I7 U( Vexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in' _; }2 ^+ y( s7 ~. `% b
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so+ O. D1 T7 R' C% L; e. x) w
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
8 `1 a4 p9 q6 n: V( yevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ g+ I* p+ A$ v+ l) R, Qbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# l+ @; Q N% `2 m% UFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
h/ D3 }+ a6 @3 a" D4 {! V( p7 Ztopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
7 P1 Q1 Y) V& F9 Khand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* c! E9 |! R3 _( d- S$ N, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this0 a4 C; e- D& D- l0 E
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ A ?9 m, ^' v
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% E2 X6 s( ]6 z$ V! Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# h, r- [3 a6 q2 w9 ]1 Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. G B' X% A T; E1 Pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.& ]$ l3 P% e U
3 A: |0 |2 G/ Z; }1 p2 U) H
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ S- {4 W8 ]" f$ G: y* }
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 S) n9 n3 R' x1 [* V4 o6 Z, s
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s8 E7 L" y& S* w5 p7 v _
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. |# e; R; A: Yout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& u9 S. | s0 [& A. b) GLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 k3 ^) S' j* j& _of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) r' s: ^8 c( p' H: a
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in W) o0 S8 O2 W0 p6 ~. ^; T
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: {8 N+ w/ y p) a q, D- Uworks.
; `, v* l4 y: ?8 r8 y& B; d# q% u
& }! H+ u/ f, x2 r: TFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and* ~8 h' r2 r; W) Y+ g
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this f1 v5 Z2 e2 {. X8 ]- c- U
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
9 R, `9 x% B: D2 Pstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) P2 L9 `+ t0 V2 ^# ypapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* K3 j3 Q% f/ p) F: k: _; b* b! e8 S% ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 e6 f1 C: ^" kcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ l& |5 j) Q2 A& W$ k9 c: a! u
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works! H. ]# \" s/ J% w; C
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 c) J7 ?8 N U
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; y, }: d" l( B' w
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
" t1 d* q1 V, w! \% `9 r' Swrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
5 Z( p$ [/ X# kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& X. ] c: H, x$ a
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 S8 P8 [+ d, Y3 vuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. a7 y6 \/ j* v- y) k8 Q- f* x" Z& i
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are% v% _& X/ i9 H6 |; c9 q1 Y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- @; P4 m6 n- v4 B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 C: g; d. A. Q' Mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
& Q2 ^/ U8 H" T: y. u9 i+ X) Lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a0 C+ g) D+ f% N" j6 `: _4 p& v3 v: O# v
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:& \6 b: h N- l
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect4 u Q- v: t, v4 c* B
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ T1 w! m( ?0 A7 [/ U8 t* `probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. m, v( j [0 A8 s2 r% b1 ^; m M
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 M/ t- N1 T1 M4 e
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 E. F7 W# P) n6 p! Q2 A2 r
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( x6 o5 t* W& |0 C: Q" jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. k# U: Y, w' O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
6 ], W! Q4 C$ j+ XInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
* T( \1 t" M% x( I$ U$ Q4 ~3 x/ x/ {' i( n: n2 B
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' V. }3 d5 m6 R% U' b
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
1 m4 ?$ W% ^- ^& }* e6 ]3 w, l. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for* F9 ]! S+ i1 D, z p& d
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, o5 h N$ ~9 ?5 }5 LOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for/ @' F2 a C9 j5 K9 ]8 D
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 i3 l" V0 M& X2 n* `" Z
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope( z$ P) {+ l) K2 _5 d
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
% s; t$ ^. ?! z/ M* g1 f7 O- [! }player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
$ r! q2 e! h! Vpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.' ]" L) l0 {- r+ y0 X
9 J3 W* I4 a6 w2 L& vOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
2 l9 R5 T/ \" K) [intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ z3 {6 b( b% f1 P: w8 {& k5 Rsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 n$ {5 t! _( y1 Bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide0 M9 M0 P! a# C* h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your: m) q6 t: _/ ]0 C/ Q4 p2 O
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,6 `# m/ f: N# X% g- r \! E9 _
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your4 e. a @1 j2 B# \# f
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal! Q' }4 v9 j$ s
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ p2 y* D# t7 [8 H8 }# r
reporting should be done. |
|