 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
( s3 c4 l. L9 H" M' @5 A! I如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
8 M# Z' R2 X+ _& _: C; B, T& Z" S( I1 H3 `8 x5 r0 h/ E
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
$ ^4 ]1 ~9 n" ?' E) J. z" T4 l4 h% z) y, C
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania- J2 D3 Q, U# _: l, @
! Z$ Q( b8 E% d$ e k* x$ ]3 AIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself _+ Y9 a; Q! ~/ M. D- ]6 T
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science* R# N& z3 {; b7 ]0 G# n6 J/ q Y% p. _
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this# y& u$ q# `& P. f1 @. t
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the- w3 [: Y+ ~: q) T) @' A Q) _
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general; K& k# O' A3 |" M7 w( V
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
# W7 g" {/ u; q8 ~/ t2 `should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 l( i6 Q1 K- k# y5 U" ~1 H `
which they blatantly failed to do.
2 V, q8 P7 v q- F
: r3 r" M* n: A8 P+ y, q# [First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her2 b; i8 V6 [8 g- @9 C0 q8 M9 U/ V T
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 ~) o1 t4 F I' {2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: g, S5 m! T1 \( k( t5 O B. Canomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! V2 T2 M# h3 n* |7 B7 `6 k
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
& r8 I+ c& S7 P9 Q5 [" s8 R9 @improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; L# L; v6 V2 e4 g5 R6 [, _3 k |difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to: Z& n9 W- q7 {' E3 x* o0 C1 n
be treated as 7 s.
* w8 D& }6 q( \( X2 |! U5 X2 z7 Q+ D3 w3 K/ R, d5 ~
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is _8 O* T9 ~* j9 u
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* F3 k+ ~) \+ f2 h! a4 G3 X4 G! yimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.0 [: G& J8 s8 O9 i& ?
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 J% ^8 I4 C5 ?9 ]" G-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.# A5 l% c5 ~+ `. `' d, ?
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# ]" t3 M- I$ belite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; _2 x7 x1 s5 W- U
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 L$ G3 ?, B0 a9 H+ p% k# q, z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.4 a/ A! A6 v& C$ Q
5 @ q& ~" c' d- K: u, y0 p' Y6 Y
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook# @9 S& r0 G4 b& y- o- D
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
5 h* y8 p# a' H/ qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 Z v7 k8 w p: H
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later' `# b2 c+ s+ R2 z' q. u
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 F2 e) p% p4 @( E. ]/ G% ]best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ E( v- g0 ^* ~1 a" h# {" E+ b7 FFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! g. u3 ?) W/ q2 _4 utopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
* ]/ y, N: v3 ?' ]5 i- z& x {hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& m8 q5 F1 O# n% ^; p6 s, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- n/ s1 g4 ?. p n! s5 ^8 Bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 L' n5 N' \. Y4 sfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. `5 _, |, M5 K, h9 B5 V7 u4 v6 e# h% Kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ O! w$ r4 r$ maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' P& ~" }2 x' `
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on. H8 ]% z# k& L2 J) s
3 L. V5 Z9 _8 v
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, S0 t$ B) [: u0 I" o4 ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
' S+ a. [* q I+ w0 ?s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
% J s: d+ J$ d$ u: F), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
8 k6 n9 ?$ Y& O- q& Aout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," C( Y7 h/ l# K& s6 p+ C8 {0 @! [$ c
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 y1 e( z3 s' z# [+ J0 _( pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 C3 x: ]+ F Q& I. a0 L! r3 F
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in+ I: }& P, C( o! b7 l! x; l0 U
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' q j( s) E+ b, y h6 xworks.. u) \: C7 Q0 Q# n N; n& T
# O6 L6 x8 E6 h3 ^) L4 Q @. N: yFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
b6 S8 y$ Q& c0 w$ o4 l! C& g' iimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! _, K3 T% d9 H |kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 L- L! p- N" i2 W) Lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! V% K# E, G N; |3 E+ L) f- }papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 O' ^) z5 O ~- P" jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! O. [0 w" P% ?cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 k9 D$ x p# @% }
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' Q4 u! B$ } G6 g
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
- U+ {' ]3 X/ \+ J0 h- X' |& Xis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
0 e# ^" l) ]) Scrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ p; M- Y" A3 M9 K
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
6 r+ X- \7 s# f2 Kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 D. ?! u4 ?; c& Fpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not( F3 D: X) v/ n( j' |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation" a( {+ ^6 ~2 K; ? ] _
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; Z- j! `( K# H4 {! W, ^' k8 L4 N/ u" H
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& [5 h; A' k" l
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a7 a% [2 Z9 G2 s! |6 y- k% H2 |
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# l' A5 s- e( M. F* z, }: Ghas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ e4 w, ?7 T! _. J2 l; @) r0 U, m
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:9 A5 B2 A- }* s3 v1 c1 H& K* w
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect4 f: [- ], W' d1 w+ l
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
U9 B3 m. G& l# _; ?+ jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
5 H5 U! @ W. a+ K' ~7 ^( Tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
7 C' {9 v- ~9 ]- T, p7 G( R" J2 Echance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?( L" g# E4 s+ c) z9 o3 U1 M
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
n. x. T* a! `agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
1 z U) C* [ L$ O5 weight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
$ T0 w+ O# _5 L$ K6 z1 U. oInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, x) g W, | |% K! s3 i
: d4 w6 O( H, w7 y D5 lSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 c4 O7 T: k6 t l0 h- ~9 V
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention- k: l# y/ b0 q# c
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 R3 S/ ]4 `1 \0 g( |0 p$ oOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London+ p( N4 [. x& f8 M& h5 Z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for% R t. X4 L; s
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic1 V: R* }1 d6 }: H @6 ^
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope9 ?' G- e/ J' W
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a( c) \4 ?6 m# F7 I% \4 W8 U; }
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this- N9 }- @+ ^$ l9 v7 r
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., u% \! r1 o H g, a( ?: f
1 `1 c' r9 E* w! LOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (. c1 u. b. `5 W6 _
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too8 \! C# @0 E; M7 {& M' {) H- C
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
4 ^. x8 k& t1 tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide( T8 o2 q; B8 Z; O( b5 B0 ~
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- h0 A" ]$ n3 R6 D, s8 g0 N8 d4 [4 _ x
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,4 ~, ~# M! n/ p/ ?2 C' \: k
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your* A# k. K, Q# e8 z4 \3 M" }2 K
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal7 I1 w/ X( H2 c
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' X% E' m. t, n8 L; z# vreporting should be done. |
|