 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) w8 ?4 Q6 X6 w6 _) ~+ t
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。0 {1 ]: T- _* H, d1 d& r2 }' ^, r
4 u6 j, t) B6 rhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, n% J0 {8 c3 p0 G' K) d' |9 y8 l/ ?" U# `
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! f& _; l7 K8 P# s- w( X
) i- n8 |: f) D x$ `2 ZIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself3 Z% o: q8 W4 Z5 @' m2 v
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- k! N/ r8 D) O' N6 a+ Kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" S; F$ |7 l9 M
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' [" j0 q* e2 \9 o0 T, {
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
, q' D# r4 T) |/ Bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 R6 m% n4 M& ~! ]7 M! f8 ?should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% g) {5 I A) H1 Z+ G! Y6 x$ Fwhich they blatantly failed to do.% Z A; l1 Y( ]2 [
# l' L) X$ j q0 e1 }
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) a% s3 q* {0 C5 ]5 C' pOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
" s( L K9 |: B ^' p2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* A! |# E3 ^1 \1 o, k/ \* y% F
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
' A! ^8 A$ |; h3 a$ b5 h2 O9 q5 O* Apersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an) ~8 _& ^$ u" b4 L& v5 k& I
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the# J) j" G2 [4 l! A: j+ y$ j
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to; j2 h- l. T! z
be treated as 7 s.1 S& L" E% i2 Q+ ~0 G
7 L6 p& g1 L3 [% v( G$ V
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 Z( o1 C( x( u, T8 Jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: G) \* g3 t" s* G! Limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) k9 r; L& v) [' T+ JAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 H# C+ K( O. A/ _+ N-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
Y ?# `# q1 y$ l+ pFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( g) z! x; b8 _1 J3 Relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 H! J# c6 Z' \' G& z" Zpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 D3 H# B6 B1 ~/ e" `8 |" l3 s3 \( s* T
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
( n& U/ R# Q* m) w9 u2 X6 o5 a' l! _! C! {
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 O; T" H, N- K) d' f: L" P2 p
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in; Q% R* z3 ?+ b) C" t
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so. m# x4 Q* t' F; w# G, \
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later# s; G; A }* y- F
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% d$ `' t9 k. G1 abest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 B# t. v) o4 d( n" RFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
B' G; k7 _3 N# o4 N w1 ?5 ?topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 u! w, u4 [. fhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. ]( @+ s) C& ]8 C
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
5 Q e$ n7 }) b$ v' ?strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& ~7 u1 B: x6 t0 \6 D9 ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam! E% o4 F. u9 Y+ P) _# F
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 q3 w, }4 s* e- L7 D
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that" A; H. {# y7 L% Z g
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 I3 E' O8 B, G ?/ T" g; B" @; V6 X
. m9 Y# T4 Z% q
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- H) O3 f9 q1 t, Q9 q- afour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 ~- b I) Q$ ]$ \+ ]* K/ v8 S6 is) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
4 E$ g$ C" j( E4 q" U# x ~: p), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns! L# U) ?5 m5 t q: u
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ d5 W; A: T* c: Z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
/ ~9 j: [+ s- ~" M" F* Oof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 E1 [- t% R0 C
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 \2 |. f- f; w7 Yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science7 C9 x6 m. u. x+ j
works.* j" v5 k) `. p( q
& k0 H5 {" u# S; zFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and' Q1 |3 ?; M2 g/ |
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this+ H9 p6 Q7 y, K8 s" `
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
3 U5 ^9 e1 W9 x8 \. w0 estandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
/ C: o- t* q! U$ V% n$ ?+ `papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
# s# o- m2 C4 R/ j* `reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
% ^; g& C; B0 Fcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to5 O! {/ I* L" b. d. v
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" M7 Y- I, |& D" l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) s! Z9 _! { e
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; Y9 ?4 M9 h9 I) zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ {% l! W8 s8 s1 [8 @' Y( S
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
x- `1 F2 D/ P: N% ~advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 ]% {+ g' V& P
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not: m- A0 Z8 h6 U% G! d t
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( O a& u/ N0 n- n8 D7 j+ D
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
0 T4 O6 ^- I8 zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may. c/ U' a5 O. A" l ^
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
2 U2 W& d f7 I& Ihearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 s6 s0 F1 i' N
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
1 j) `9 p: @2 ?: z0 jdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
7 P1 j% V, l0 d3 Iother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
* |8 F. l/ d o% e: R# d7 h, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
( o/ ], \ j# o9 W6 cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 g! K( @) M1 z% a& w# uathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
' T3 B8 C" O) r9 H+ Q+ e: o2 ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
2 a' f! t9 e0 \! { jLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) z; p& [: m5 Y* ]. L3 aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& n- B( M/ [- c Veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- H4 N$ ?9 W0 F6 u5 V/ a6 l f" `4 O' d
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: i( |( R$ e0 ~. c; S5 \* I
/ C/ n) M+ a' k& R' ?8 }Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-$ _4 J3 v& V, u$ k6 o& ?
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention8 a0 X! Y( u! `) P
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" H1 Q& E$ _; N8 l: COlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London( U7 F( S4 w& A: e% A
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 d0 s q4 |- F; Z3 s; l
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic* `. g e/ Y, ~& `* k9 u! |1 |
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope h# u4 q D% c, ~
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) \0 |7 X, \6 B6 K( w( M# x. V; rplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
" Y( A2 R; @% w# i( m2 u, ]possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye. c8 F" `* G/ \$ Z
/ b% y% C* B& \: i
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
8 N6 X, t) }+ R1 Rintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
+ z" W3 C# B" b3 m( e3 fsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a' G/ S3 Q T1 W" A1 K8 T; o
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# [9 ~3 R' e1 i" P; ^5 y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, _; M0 W: Q0 d' s( M6 t1 _interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 Y/ @" X" O1 q; ~3 {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
# ?) j! v! W. J, Cargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal6 ]! u* D5 G5 y" U
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
, Q) A- J. x9 H0 D) z1 B8 K* Oreporting should be done. |
|