 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 JIANG6 @9 `8 W) E7 l* N
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
( u0 V* v1 ^" ?9 h5 O. f3 N7 |4 H' E( v$ n# l# N! Z+ q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html1 ^- Q; `3 B3 e$ J9 j. c7 [ @
7 @+ j/ o. H- s! [& U1 J* `
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ [$ D# d+ P: s6 r+ q6 t
! I, c7 u M' g, a& B( l: P
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself4 e/ @6 r, _; ?2 p
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
_ {0 G- d! zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
; @) x" O8 w y' ]3 H1 o2 k: ~is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the) F4 U) W+ e4 {
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 [0 g! e0 P* j+ upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 r! ~0 [5 K a( Y( `
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
& D: Y; e( _/ ^5 w8 mwhich they blatantly failed to do.
# x0 G5 O8 z2 r$ z& f
4 V9 I% |" Z4 y" Y/ [First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her7 R3 J/ f* I& ~, L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
W( R- W, d7 J* S0 U9 m$ v2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
4 m. s) w: ~7 f6 n8 C1 tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
s5 q0 c: f; a( `personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ u( Q+ P! T7 Z1 {: I8 }improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 I' _- |2 y3 z& J) p/ _+ B$ ?
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to) @" z, n8 `) M0 N: w# J* `; s
be treated as 7 s.) _/ V9 P8 [! K) v
. ^" I7 u/ {' q6 A+ A
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ ]' ` B0 X ]9 e* t6 `9 \- n' tstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
# M' o. ?# [2 K$ M+ v. J% W& Eimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
. Y% T) w- I( K7 F8 H2 rAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! B7 [" u# K9 v( ~; u-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
4 k. ^ G' v# U" { W3 iFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) z& {' B/ v5 ?+ M/ t
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and! r- x, h9 u" W o
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
( _0 q0 P( b2 N& i4 Bbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# q& W, I" \$ T. V! l4 C
) V% o+ P) f8 N# }0 s8 j: c
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; c: H' y- j, u' a7 @
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 K3 h" w5 O' [6 r9 S1 g$ G4 K8 T: @: g
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
" ?+ O% ~" q: P& V) _1 W5 O! khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- H7 H2 i: q- P2 N
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% Y$ c7 P0 z" a$ V" S) q( Tbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
k0 h# Y( b4 Q: _Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another6 d- [3 ~" ~) |% U5 z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ c* y; @% Z t; A# ^
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
7 j+ [" o4 H) n3 s2 W, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this' X* X7 q2 w" G% Q/ h, D0 y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& c# {, q+ G$ k7 O, B# d7 Lfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
& {) t4 }! }, H) t9 K* lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
9 l0 M; p. x) `/ ~aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' ]- L$ Z) Z+ p' [9 w) B
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.: X) e% U7 G( V7 E2 y* b
( c& D3 J7 q% o6 x2 M2 |
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ q' L+ H! Z" Nfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
5 S B. q+ @2 F4 f6 O4 fs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& a: |0 L! v- e& `
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& _( M$ o) J0 f6 S8 E- {
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 i; ?% b0 ]; ^5 |Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 B. u& m$ f, A+ r
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it% o1 G7 {4 z2 `% h
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# E- B# u9 d8 P6 J0 yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 n- z( Q7 z; X4 N$ g6 f1 s" `works.
' m' V4 W1 k6 V' Z) X& Q9 S7 g" Y/ Q4 \8 g! v: n7 o
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
4 |6 @2 C9 c9 H: O) [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 l3 W- t- D% T( A' l1 D
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that5 C( L* \0 U; \. `0 B# c
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 ?' a! v$ O! M, M8 j. k7 c2 O
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) D) M- V. J- X$ [reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 K9 l7 W4 }2 D) R6 e4 Q& n# _
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
) D" H- B8 s: {5 H0 R! \- Qdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works3 ^/ ^ ^9 |" Z) x0 a* O+ P( Y5 `
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample. f5 v; Z! [) N: `$ |3 G: d
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
! }( q! E# ^! I, \ O, jcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
. T/ j1 i- o6 A1 \# pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 N) e& j4 \9 R: H+ jadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
" W- v0 P. e6 Vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not' u( O5 X3 n! N7 [# V
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 ?' y+ v% B$ k% _+ I8 f* u9 T8 m+ I. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are+ k( |. B) x# c- h
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
8 _* |) A& J; E! Rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% E' Q' ^1 ^0 Y3 p1 qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
' ]( d. K( a# p$ n' c, rhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
: h4 o9 p+ L, G' [0 Q& @drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:, X3 |7 D% ^5 m2 F8 o2 q
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
Y7 g5 @4 m: _" n9 y+ P, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! J1 Y) J. V) E* Kprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
9 F9 j2 M* a c8 f' S, d9 n, D3 xathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. _# r! M& R' w
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?. n3 ~9 r2 t, Z; v/ m, \
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping# e: i* B& m" r8 |. I! p
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for: g% k& z( k, M8 {% Q
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 @% T$ p" j- _) s) Y% g. T6 T8 u; yInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?) H- C. b6 i6 ^- X
4 D, a- q7 n8 Y1 A7 x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 p9 j$ N8 n D% u K* U1 d
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 p& l2 r; C. S% c/ E. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for5 H9 j0 v+ k" H+ i$ y2 O+ {
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London8 n7 o9 o1 T# u( m' s
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for! M" l) z! g0 R# {$ Z1 y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. d: p- X H) y; [$ o! v5 v$ t
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope J) f T/ Z3 `" c
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. D2 @2 w0 n8 z2 x) g5 i6 xplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this$ _$ C# S. l) S6 N8 L- I6 x/ t' J
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.3 p; C' C+ j$ w" s5 J
1 z. h% u4 v9 Q9 h* B) G qOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 l5 Y3 z( u0 t2 d; p0 l* q9 P
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 d5 `2 q+ z& r8 q
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a3 j/ y' y0 S4 l& j" T
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide+ M$ `, t: r( l; \0 K
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. {" Q: q8 H% B! H
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ q4 p( a0 o6 f/ vexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
, Z8 x- S1 @0 A+ u7 y* |argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal# y H9 [7 \: P: s" `% s$ g% _4 y2 b# D
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& }$ A& \% w$ J B& N6 V) Q% T B K
reporting should be done. |
|