 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, q. w& D# f' Y7 a
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。) ?$ @$ c0 ]; w
; d5 J7 R+ {4 d9 f* U
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, {8 D1 m- `( F7 d# [& V) v$ X% K# {( A+ h: L7 G6 r$ |7 N- f! c& N w b
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
$ Z Y. j7 m- G/ V) h
H/ `# B# Y( G7 c2 s2 }It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 \0 m( R _5 m1 l, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
! ^% d, j7 _; e7 |9 hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ ^5 K8 {' u) ] Z- x3 [
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the& V0 |: P: L" _: f
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general" c2 x* X1 k7 x3 J; |
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" m8 ~7 D `: D( D/ A
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ L# \* _% [. V L: n
which they blatantly failed to do.
0 i: O7 b3 J. E9 ?! i4 u I, i, o- H' W0 P: ~& [9 m7 a: \
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, W* N* ^2 r5 P5 n' |+ _2 ~; ROlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 w5 \( P! U$ I2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
# u' e+ |. Q: U3 Manomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ Q P, K3 [; L$ D) n. a6 Z. u7 A* Y
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
) W9 w% G& h8 Q4 y: u9 B5 yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& Q9 h5 g( L/ X. Z* q+ X: P
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
( _3 K: c2 a1 G) M6 k7 T2 Abe treated as 7 s.
O, a: a( f1 \# Q; R4 Q0 D& J l Y4 W$ f* W5 D
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' E2 l/ f* h4 Y5 F( t6 ?. ~still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem8 {: X, j5 y0 m( G4 F
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.: p2 Y* _+ U# x6 Y8 x
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400: e- H4 m3 h5 M5 j
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; |4 Z; {3 M5 u# B d5 l0 u% I
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' @0 p. d' `" M, D n
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
0 C/ P" j, @" f" `7 kpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”, N) Y& c3 V# V' J0 `
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- P) a' q/ Y/ q I; r, {
1 x; S8 p5 ~9 y8 c: N) N
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
0 F: ^1 L0 i2 J% I( o3 x7 `! k# xexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 b- k! P+ Z+ n/ H* t, M
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
; _; x* W6 s2 R& n1 ?" b# phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later' H- n/ ]9 t6 x# `6 V7 p
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s/ I2 C* r6 l% d
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World& G$ t- J" r- {4 y* K7 a
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
; B- G y" x% m0 t9 a/ q0 u. atopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; d$ k6 G* g' y" K, V+ F4 Q" m
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle" n) C. @/ T6 Q( A+ j8 }0 M
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& l6 X" W o8 |5 \9 T$ Estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds) L9 a5 |4 D3 q/ I
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam) Z3 ?2 n' u4 \! ^, a
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
& @ G: x1 R9 n5 h ~6 P7 H$ paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
4 Y* C2 a8 d( s1 mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 [' n+ s& E I0 W3 A. }' c6 O0 b, G
& z% I/ D; l0 c, W! u0 IFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' I4 g4 n0 h; ?! m
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
% t7 z; y' {. c. W7 v5 i$ zs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: z3 a: B! ~1 s0 e( J), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
/ B9 G/ P$ H/ \out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,1 g' ]( X) k" i% w( K# V j
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: I3 e0 Q M1 _" h6 O; q5 ^7 {4 Rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
& R2 X$ p, B$ b; k5 x5 nlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, r! C* m' z- l
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( G" L Q/ G; [) E" c+ Yworks.
* z" R* l7 u! }9 L; w/ S( L8 b) Z- H1 V4 i$ A! Y5 r
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 \% N3 g4 y1 z3 D* x
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: o! l$ E& l, G7 d2 b& m) x' Gkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 h" U; \, R4 A: i% G0 v' |5 Z+ dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific& K s8 i, t6 T
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 }2 Z9 r- }2 G- Y2 yreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One6 Y2 n2 ^! T! F5 n' [4 d
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 o0 |( ^$ I* ldemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works4 u' T% d* j" j2 J! n# c8 p) r. D
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& ^ d: e+ E: ]* U' f* Q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is- U ?/ c, s# \0 P$ A+ i
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( a2 U6 |$ W: |7 gwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly& |! R: N, g3 V# I& H4 f
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: @5 |# `- {) d( b0 _* n! r) B, I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ I# T0 A/ ^, m" q7 H
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, N9 [% ?' j, r7 g
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, g4 ]- Z- g2 E. ~
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# |# Y7 W7 p& b7 c0 h+ jbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- A2 E" w3 |% j5 L
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) ^8 g) s$ W% e, r* Uhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) u; i* D. M, z5 q A% _% U+ p
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
) x: X( _7 Q+ x. m8 ]! E" ~6 r$ Oother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 ], A! }! |: F! F( `0 V, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is. y5 A: V/ r* S/ i, ~
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
5 Z, w X \8 D% \! Sathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
0 V+ @! W! G4 A0 y5 M ~chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? f* t. r0 K( q( ]1 b0 [4 `
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) b- U1 }3 m' Y; f: q" F: |. ^agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! h8 y$ M0 I# f) R; ~eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' T& s) V5 S, C; K( O$ YInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! B+ \5 Z. k6 U. n) b
9 T- ?4 H+ e9 R" K/ kSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-6 @9 l) t5 t# G, o1 n% O4 _; J
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
( p+ {0 l3 c" H+ J/ ^. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
! f1 g3 ^8 [8 t _, e/ b* pOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ ^% k3 @. K' E! t) y( YOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
' `8 P9 k8 k* e) B! _0 hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 z$ g* X7 @5 C/ B$ I& T1 \games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
/ b5 c! u6 u: b H6 W/ h# shave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) {, X+ ^% K2 R5 F6 m. F
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
* s+ Q6 d& D6 u spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.! P. N2 T# q% i; R1 J4 f _$ H9 g U
7 T0 m9 d# v% Q3 x! |7 b* x* F' \
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ |0 j% u& `) C4 v- O. o" d0 Aintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 o' u; L& i3 t5 Q7 ^
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: C, `+ x! E4 r8 ^
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
4 z$ B* X# U- ?& O2 Sall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
. p, J. D5 ?" ^9 z4 K ]interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
' G; r8 m- i! X- s" C5 D& K" p. |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. R6 \, f' m- x) u7 l/ f% v
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
9 p9 ^: q1 ]6 B2 u+ Qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or3 Z4 _/ L3 {0 A: M. p6 d+ {
reporting should be done. |
|