 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
5 V+ Y. k4 ^ ^! T如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
) ~1 T, }2 {! m7 @ }. I. Y& ?
* I6 X3 S7 {9 }1 s# K) V8 x- ~http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, @2 a2 Q( F8 U( F
9 a% v c4 I4 g/ U. T6 hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
; o& C9 ]9 ~+ C# F, F& |* Z
9 ?2 ] I- t0 w! WIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" j' F7 x0 |& L* [! P7 z) p J* E
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. A$ |3 h% Y" _9 A
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this; [7 I0 \% \8 L5 r5 V
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the0 h1 L w. B* c% l( ?- x: C- o
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
0 c' N5 t, J, S' Tpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors( g% }# I1 p8 C4 [
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context, p9 x$ e6 r* R; r$ E% Q+ L- Z
which they blatantly failed to do.) w9 ^; h. s; U7 c9 I+ T4 l
3 S" N* G' \$ D
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her p( j. D/ O! V4 a5 t
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# f' I H) W0 y8 \2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “/ v9 }9 Q# F! v- d9 ? |
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 @# W; j$ c3 w, h, r
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
) ?( @: F6 j0 U2 i+ simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 q: W; U. u& z3 Q% [! {difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% T" C% g- d- tbe treated as 7 s.
7 x0 W& l8 G& L# R3 a/ m: F7 X5 q ~+ `
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
6 U" c& v' K0 B/ hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& c! i( Z8 G9 u4 {0 q# ~2 A
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
0 z, L& t: g3 H Q5 LAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400( }0 N1 Q1 k/ _. L. D
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& X# V. \6 n. ^! R' ]+ mFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an0 z( f" K( R" X+ p! b+ p9 c
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 u6 ?& F8 r( Vpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
4 t! J6 k& I8 ^" k" k" L. ]based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
7 E. J2 J: q, x* g7 K( E) ^5 ?& o" b2 c8 c: E: v% }# [3 y/ K$ p$ |
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook ^" Y+ B; i; a; a, r1 j
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; @( M7 I6 X% U. k3 dthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 P) Q( h% Z+ @" e! b$ y
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 ? S, G6 k& Y/ F/ ^4 r) {events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% c; J# f+ f( ^$ f7 _. b
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 [6 G. e Y; c. X) eFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another) y/ w3 d# a2 w3 h, Y# w
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other: {% d# T- W. C! D7 A* Z
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle0 b) j- M! h8 f, Y8 R
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
9 ~: T9 F* f: t4 Z6 t( }/ D) Lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
; J( }, M! @; ?2 a9 J9 w8 Rfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam3 q" b% u/ w' B- a* G
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ d/ f' \$ r: I$ f6 I0 _5 U3 A! r+ E
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
# h, s; J7 S! U0 L/ ]implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# j. s4 z2 y7 y; |$ z
! n6 A7 W& Q4 r( u* c8 iFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 V( P! `$ G. ]7 H2 K. X* i
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93( x0 y: R# Q8 \/ l* H+ n& b
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 k5 X" @' X0 l, `/ V), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. B% R! o9 V; |& @+ gout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,2 I+ n% @& j- L X. p# B
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
2 o+ G- B( v' L9 Q: f# }of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; |6 _; L3 L2 E
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in* \9 D8 E6 u( e
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: D, }& G$ X. T2 ^% L" Fworks.
" ?: c; X9 ~* S2 `: l* ]* M% d, H, O4 q' p3 y; |5 }! p/ c m
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
3 T) V# e( M6 ^' [7 s* timplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 O# x4 X' ^4 E2 a) B9 w/ Hkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that( ~+ X' R- I% D- W9 f! |8 z
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific7 B/ W7 `; o) g
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and+ T w% B8 N' `! X8 |( _' O2 h. A- H
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One$ ?( R$ @& e) Z) `5 a
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; ?8 j+ `$ |5 J4 r
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
6 z% P0 ]/ p. a7 ^) Sto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 h: ^. E5 p+ y# P' V
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; x: O# x/ Q0 `crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
2 n; a' P: C2 ]" S$ s) P2 dwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 ~: }9 f) C( _5 p+ S( ]) G; G( j
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& ?! g2 p" k, d3 j4 o! _) h) Zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
2 {! ^" R5 C" B9 C% l5 q: Tuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; U& `9 Q! j% @1 U* G
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are8 k) \4 N2 H# G4 W' R
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* C) e" W3 f+ y: s2 x4 H, x
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 h U/ F! v5 G3 J7 _* \+ Ohearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
* B8 `2 q4 E( W* l' o+ U& Xhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
( X# i S2 v; Odrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* c1 O; \' Z- i% m: v9 {, d
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect1 L9 A! U& n6 T
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
}" l5 T" ~ L0 ]7 O8 Wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: H# ~5 r. D g3 v* t
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
1 e, {1 U5 B+ e* Xchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( b7 h4 d5 i1 a% S3 aLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ q7 y* e% T- s e; G2 o; d5 I1 A3 i. Lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
# ~: [" Q$ N3 n0 d" H. Feight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ C3 k! X4 } D
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?/ q( G% l( Z3 \* x9 r
$ E. O9 v! g1 fSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-# A5 t @* I( R# F* \4 a0 i& Y
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention {: R! P$ q N1 A3 S) P
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( d0 n2 \; t' E
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 w1 @5 K, c1 l8 _7 x, \Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for& s3 K3 M- z- |0 J1 Y1 `
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
' B/ F k7 b1 H- C8 i% dgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
% e8 u- A6 s7 N; C! G2 zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
2 b* k4 j2 k9 y4 u! M: f% Iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
! i' \3 M: B7 r! Q- c# X( k* R+ Q1 N4 Jpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 }9 d7 ^" r3 H U
8 k1 y( ^: x. T: cOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (; x% y0 Z' \3 l; l/ K8 {
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
5 R2 N" @, _4 }1 jsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a7 X/ D4 b; h: o! t6 S
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide3 G3 c, E- B( N" T+ x2 a$ @7 q
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
# p& e, |" W5 }7 r1 B1 Uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,& u' V. E& E6 x2 H( q6 Q
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
$ k* K% C; f. C4 T h4 X/ ^argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
. R; L+ y. C4 }such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
# A$ D4 V' t! j* g+ }9 p; Nreporting should be done. |
|