 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* q1 C, b9 x+ R. F1 C, I( Q" u' d
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
4 Z! H* C# M; g d
2 O& v8 q8 I3 o2 F6 Uhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
" t9 T4 ~0 e3 `+ o3 v. X* N
' |( A$ B+ K; M1 s2 c1 t; u, t; XFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& H: b4 |' ^6 t: u1 @. q
# h# S' }7 G/ p. j3 s$ m
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 \! C( V( S# x3 ~0 B# J, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
T1 ?& M' u) O; v3 }2 \" o& Xmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this. l) D' J9 |& q, Z1 N. T7 n
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 ? l5 C$ E( y3 P0 p8 o Iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
; k, _9 _: n- ]' X3 D' g7 tpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
. f; c7 |# C! t1 D/ W' ishould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% Y7 @* I: n+ E* N: Pwhich they blatantly failed to do.5 L& T/ C% `$ U4 _$ T& {
5 S: B6 f, M2 Q' Y2 W% L$ G8 z$ c$ s
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
! }0 a3 W7 z4 j! w4 _" t! cOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- ~+ o+ T$ e, W9 B$ v2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 W1 V a, g9 W& ^anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous* A* ?4 Z4 p3 ~5 w6 Z, ]8 i
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
9 {" V, z0 k8 r+ f7 r* Eimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ g; L6 D3 H" y' G, Y. P
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
C" n" _- P0 Q# F2 c/ {! @7 Sbe treated as 7 s.
5 @2 ]0 c- G0 G+ b/ o7 R
2 f' E( k2 E( f0 ^. G. F, \. tSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) V) E$ _% J. a! \
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem( {8 s" k- A5 V$ ?3 Z" R" m: u
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." C0 t2 Y$ z! r3 K; D. q
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
. R9 ^5 y) J2 u$ ?! \2 }. _! u-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16. j. T9 e- e# z$ y0 G4 X$ E5 n5 R
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
% g5 b' ?' \5 }) F0 q% h5 A8 M$ xelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and- J7 a3 m+ l# P8 K
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”7 ]% V& L4 v; N" u' @- K
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* l5 h+ a% i: c* M7 b0 q! C- l/ H$ {0 @0 ~- H8 A* a6 H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook3 F1 B: H& S( H9 c6 B: i
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ I4 g. \' Z/ p. S5 A: d" R" u. w3 mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 y) ?* J* r- n$ F |3 O( q6 X
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later4 D7 O2 {3 Q) m' C: L) |6 b( A
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s$ W, }) S5 Y& H( \3 Z8 d4 _1 q
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 c+ d) ^' A( T9 Z/ q6 u H& _) ]2 u
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another3 t( P6 z( @1 N1 d& ]0 i
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ _3 K: F/ H' m5 w
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 L- K/ y ]$ C5 ?, O3 [* e, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this7 i0 J. R; L1 i, G1 N3 y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
* t n3 H+ ?) G' T* G$ k/ }faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% D9 _% v8 L' P$ T9 `4 vfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting, R9 S; J' @6 f {
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that& c: j1 x/ `; s* _/ m' q
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, O7 l* T. c3 m' q) d; J" q6 }4 Q- c) }3 B
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
5 E2 j g) I2 q3 \- efour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
+ M: O# ] y3 m( v4 os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s9 B; ~0 Z8 T2 B; o6 h
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns1 i6 O! M* @! s: a
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% Z7 q/ s5 S0 ^9 qLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 a. Z9 i9 Q x% pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 w9 D# D1 O8 S! }
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
z- S$ a) h$ revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
8 d) D# \& y9 r3 ^( Eworks.$ u F9 e" S% @( {) ~$ ]
$ q) w7 {2 h+ d
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and K/ E5 t8 J/ S# `4 J/ @2 X8 F( s: z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
( \' a. r, ^$ P( P' I5 ]1 Xkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 t" ?4 A; y* H+ l% z# p9 Y; f
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific3 O z% d: _% _3 h# I
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* V9 B/ g) u; Y; d) G
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One! Z4 [7 r! p2 u
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to- K; y+ f/ T! U; h% C& Q6 X
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 F3 Z; L' B' e7 p
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
6 s0 m0 P# N9 n7 F6 R0 S! vis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
) g0 F2 {6 I+ b( z1 U G( T; Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' t, h4 W+ ~2 \+ S! awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( M$ S! F: T* x" I# C O- {
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
( b! A s# M) R" t b& Zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 S# D/ T$ l- k1 P6 ~1 Z
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
. a, s$ r' K: Q# G8 s- L" X- V: B. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are' t2 p s# _/ n, c4 T
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may1 i. Q6 A5 d6 a9 E2 I5 ^" x3 J
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, }% |/ L4 x5 o6 A! H. whearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye$ E" D |0 N% m/ X. m" \: ]7 I
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 } a) N- w, j3 E2 i
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
8 L+ C; H% e7 T4 N5 v5 A1 Oother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 E1 G" a0 I* q5 H& h4 P, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
3 p2 t! p; A- ]% B! [probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& j2 f: v" ]4 X" H: N9 u8 W
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
0 ]# w6 @: j6 V: T, b8 V$ K2 M5 ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ D4 s7 h6 [( P0 SLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping- O/ J7 S+ E* O6 L. o' J
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for$ H, p& P7 S! `3 Z* i
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
! s6 J* B' x( |# mInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: D: x$ |: E; l
3 B8 v' h6 z( `3 S1 A
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! @1 l8 n0 k3 } R/ J
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; m* f3 k3 D% U- T; f) W. ?- j
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% E3 s9 E) T. Y4 O; ?( \9 R
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
3 c4 L; K/ k" @7 |: ~Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
0 V8 K; q$ D9 y! M5 pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; j. M, U5 u* z9 f
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
7 b5 t g& G8 L/ L9 Zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
8 }& V% y1 k2 i' Y3 R0 N8 Z$ mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; }( ^7 O8 f( ?7 S' D) B mpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., k i' M0 G7 w' ?0 F6 w# `
) [) s( k4 w6 r; C+ @: NOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (* W2 v6 i9 ~# W1 ~. g, d* b; d
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too* K c# E% p9 t% o/ ^2 z; {* X
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" A# d/ p: H4 c' v3 w# csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ t. F0 V$ R7 Q3 S/ M# Lall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
! s% V! ~+ m0 @2 {interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" [. i' m% a6 X- e6 U: hexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your+ `3 U& Y* m6 s W ^3 z' g* i
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 D& W6 |7 k' d* f+ J R) a4 {) K
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
) r U- `! N+ K1 i4 V% ~reporting should be done. |
|