 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% o4 {' r2 w5 a, v! l. k
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 Q7 U% B( s& n- `8 D
- S: E) j2 L8 A0 v
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& I4 d( R! Y' l, S, d
! b( j! @8 R+ C, l" v0 R
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 Z) Q" F& I: h
. i2 @9 E1 a- m* z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
1 {+ o( ]" k: K2 u3 S! \* G0 r" s, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
% b# {- w4 W* s1 kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, |- ^* z% h* H( |! f# { i( K4 T
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the% }# w! X- l, o" l1 m' V
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) o* b3 ?3 |, U2 J1 X$ B' K
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors5 S# H9 i5 e9 n
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,& _' g' J$ q |# M
which they blatantly failed to do.
% ^- d, P3 C1 T% V, l7 E. M$ A+ Q$ N8 r. k. |
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her/ [4 ~& y- `' c9 M& Y+ {" H8 D4 k
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in6 _+ z' d* y+ D! W# Z
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 Y) L$ ?7 w; ?/ oanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ B0 e6 S1 H7 A- G
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( e8 k9 F1 G/ Z8 L- v, H
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. u" l3 L& w; N. I0 M' T" fdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ g* C5 D; |$ P+ L! g6 W
be treated as 7 s.
9 c0 h( i0 o# {2 T* X5 g) z
4 y2 [8 Y. k( D2 j+ kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 y2 e [& `' { S* Y
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
. m; \0 x7 M" D% s, j1 [9 r0 Eimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.5 x! V& e H' k5 x$ |/ K
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: H& q8 A) D6 a) E-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.( v! \' [/ R5 R5 A7 V
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) c# Q6 {9 J9 N2 m
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" ], k% y5 _& S$ q# @6 O3 B1 o3 ?
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 Q9 L5 K: j1 _3 w5 y; \& _
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
" C, h# [! {7 h- r" A! [; s0 I g8 _ h: [* e6 f
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook4 P+ s7 r6 U8 Q W; J5 w
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in2 g+ k5 }( H1 N, T6 B2 U
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
1 r- Z) V0 O$ ~# z% q; ghe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
3 t* `% F$ g- ]1 f. X6 tevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 X/ N8 l8 d' i8 c* v7 Obest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 f7 N N2 @% L- H7 ~0 u
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: M; H3 @0 ^/ F+ h
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; ?; g, l$ v' @ Y+ }
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* l7 w9 t c3 V0 i6 f) w, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 l% ?$ b2 I: d, _strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% n& }! S* E) l+ e6 Gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
$ a, r9 j8 [) G' W6 ffaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
! T M1 y% A* v/ f1 g2 o5 \0 o4 vaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) b- z0 y; L& V4 H5 \/ v' t2 e! Mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
$ f' n" h9 t$ D5 ^
- [; F( l% z0 D; [) @8 }% TFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# ]: K+ [# i0 U! Jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
% f7 H. X1 n5 F- O" _& K/ L- ms) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' ?& a$ G% E) b8 x% j
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
& D) ?1 Q3 U7 X( l/ R+ tout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 r) c8 |. Z# `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
1 K9 _9 m1 f, y5 n$ N, b5 [of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it3 T% V# s8 p* x
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
( c- G' t% q) ]0 q$ g( P$ q& Levery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 @& y4 l* `2 ~! W; H$ j3 M; `2 |
works." L8 v& x% U) j: s5 R
, F1 Q j2 d$ xFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: F! g" r/ y: J7 L( F2 Wimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ S8 z5 w8 Z2 L, f, t
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
g2 c6 E, i& X Z8 G+ M9 Hstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
; X' A" J% X; S- L' p* }8 ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and/ U' c2 g6 [- f
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One" m% V0 j8 X. a
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to& ?/ W0 h7 Q9 P
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works* x7 |- H* C- A+ T# F! Q) V1 L
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 `/ U# _8 I7 Y( t9 r8 v. uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is. i, D# u7 J5 e! L- [( X2 H
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, {5 n8 _4 A! vwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly# k# S- H) \4 D8 }- Q, }) f
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the# W4 j8 L9 c0 L# Y0 }
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 L/ e9 N, A3 U( O7 s: huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation5 V6 D* b7 V/ Y1 j+ b- N
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 m" p; \3 l" E
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ I4 c* ]- n7 i% {9 o& H+ ^be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
+ v% ^+ V3 B+ C6 u0 h5 [hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 n4 `, Q/ Y' O5 V* n+ v7 s; j
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 J9 h. X! b+ }; q& V" q0 n
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 ^9 ?# Y9 ^ `# C. B) U8 [other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
( {/ g( e% V; i0 V% Y, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
; k5 d$ f4 ]/ W, ^3 @6 F+ C4 q& Dprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
}. Y+ o- T# L$ Iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight7 z8 b3 k; R N, T. b! l9 R9 O
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( d( ^) d* v: T# r D P' cLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
. B& B- E/ U! y Oagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for: s% d$ `2 n8 q6 f! Y. T+ H
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances." |9 ?$ Z" O( S
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 l H4 e; U9 t Z. z/ S ^
( h9 @3 [' h* e2 _3 e P
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-/ ?9 S2 n6 |6 v6 Y
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention/ E3 U. ?' W( S' O s8 B
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- I5 V4 d1 T; o8 Y& N& x+ J/ J$ POlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London% C+ Y- X( w" \& L
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 T9 u% z* \5 `2 l
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) G2 p9 D# z2 o# k8 x, ]/ j- A# z& Wgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope1 M+ p: [! p5 r- |/ l
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' J. s: k8 T! \player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this5 P6 X7 D" F: [8 L4 I& J
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye. A0 j0 e1 y( L q6 z! `
- `1 R, s3 f& ^" O6 w+ ~
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- ^/ F% ?8 s" T& C
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ R+ Q2 a7 G2 B- [
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 P3 j, S/ H3 Y3 `* B7 Q$ d) esuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 H' Y: ]$ ?9 ~0 H; S3 B; q5 k. Kall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 r1 X+ {% l( q( k2 t# s1 w
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
1 c( Z0 K% h! B' s2 }9 Xexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
- o- G% u% r, B- q \. v. @# P% Hargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
" s l4 G, d- M$ V2 ?% _. }! esuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or" F# E0 }6 ^* o7 _1 J+ X
reporting should be done. |
|