 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, w8 n6 G5 D4 m9 _4 }
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
. l/ U9 F3 ]+ L+ n6 w
1 Y0 M: {1 @! T; t8 R jhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html+ S+ j- s6 H& z% S: h2 d A
# {9 i3 _% Q0 h9 I4 H: G2 fFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: @% l0 z* V1 @) X) D& W& U, _
2 r [4 y# ^. k
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 k' O) }% s3 W+ p
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 Z$ ^7 m6 N* A! Pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, R& X# m5 W2 V l! y* t
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) t' f( m, @& V- @" H# T1 ]- M# k+ Oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ e# ?. x( z3 f& [populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors/ O+ g6 X) n3 d0 {9 {
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
2 f b6 f A0 N- d3 |" R, Rwhich they blatantly failed to do.
. e' `: L. o- U* ]# C; c3 u8 o; a, h/ Z6 M( i4 i( A2 J
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her9 B) P% S$ e7 Y
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in* R: m( z3 y r* m: [
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* M% ~; g2 p4 G7 ]) t' K3 G Panomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous0 R) U: s Y3 _0 S5 X0 l
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 `) ^$ u8 T' O' x/ b1 R- S6 aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the- A6 [- w5 u7 ]; F# ?; Q b* u
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to, @- h7 A5 y7 Q; u; _9 Z5 [
be treated as 7 s.
9 ]9 C2 h6 x, d
$ t# ~+ Y. Z0 x) P9 m" |* `* [7 RSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is4 \) G. O0 @! ?- F" O2 I) B) t
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 D7 ^) u+ r2 f6 s2 m- @) {4 \
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) X2 c: ?" V$ V$ q5 NAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 x o7 T0 G! b( [* a0 }-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* }3 J) D) f& S) fFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( q; }1 }1 n. I0 u6 ielite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 V$ m( X! B$ ?7 a$ gpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”3 _; j0 B+ ]: P9 B& D
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
0 r! a, ~9 ~* }7 g6 N. d0 z- S2 Z, d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook( C( w6 t# m- y% b
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 G, e/ R1 O0 A
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 I+ d' `# K4 @8 ?0 A+ lhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later* k, I4 y8 U6 ^) g" M. c/ d ^" C
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s Q& n* O5 b9 F9 z$ ~
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
9 _7 i. S1 L' eFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another4 z7 S0 K ]7 n; M ]) k0 O
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. n" F m5 _5 b+ B" b. `+ P6 _3 ^hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* W$ v% ?4 M" c, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this* J+ ?3 T) e4 M
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds+ k4 S' E$ j7 o
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
/ n+ }; u3 O) n6 mfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
1 Q& ?! K. q$ Q# O, i9 `* paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
2 T7 j+ d. G3 [ m+ b7 T4 Yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% x s8 F* N/ W/ z) Y
; P/ W* _! }5 P- z3 @/ ]
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
! P/ x$ h' {* B' Kfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ @) S/ l: p- N4 q% D; A# u2 q. h' x0 b
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" ]( X2 b3 a, U), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns- R& k# Z- F* r8 [ u0 j
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,2 l. p4 ^) Y: q/ f9 `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind) l1 R: l! ?# ]: g( N
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it# J% [9 z7 Z8 Y& R& X w7 S
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 z- ~% r4 o9 S
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ v' h. ]; G! t0 fworks.6 _* e8 y! c( q5 B& ?. R/ K
$ R' l, o' P8 G: a# Y# Q+ ^' N* AFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! W; ^7 l3 i S- L5 W4 ?. n& ]3 N
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 G# [/ P1 P( B0 q+ okind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that' @( Z8 d g c0 t' ?6 _& |
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
( H( i4 r& n, R U& z# J7 R! j+ E5 Mpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
( i2 d+ j* F- O$ ?reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- H0 y. Q; Q$ N/ X$ o* H# Jcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ u, l/ V( q4 i0 O% @3 ~% Sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 f( t) F( M$ \% a9 C" O
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) J- W1 m& d- M7 y" I
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# N& U) `* A/ [( N$ ~5 F
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
4 o& H+ Z! k# }( cwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) Z0 {! h2 Z4 Z) ?9 `' S& nadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the! V4 n8 o2 @* Y3 u+ h
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
% F& M- H+ k8 S8 o6 [+ Kuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
: N% L* Q1 W- T7 K. D7 K: w7 h# w. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, Y+ X% _7 L5 Z- n8 v0 ^% d/ _) \
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* f% w# a" b% T, b) h% g7 C* F
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a# t6 Q( z4 w- X) M' y1 {8 Z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye- C; {8 c$ t- ?* i6 c4 N6 [, ~
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 b+ [) r6 V5 |) D% d2 Ydrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
0 G0 z) Y, o% t3 u3 Q" q1 R! Yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
9 c# |/ |4 u# Q6 V, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 p9 |' y. R N* J$ f; h
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an1 b! c8 x1 ? C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
7 _( e/ |- F) M" _; L" ]! }chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 K# ~$ Z0 ~' e; k2 T" o+ L5 f
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 H* I1 `/ u& G, r% N
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 @/ U. \) |) Y3 W* X& ~/ v
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 h3 \ L1 }; x# p
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" L8 T, u: U" |% O
d# Q6 Y- y7 g! U8 [7 O
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
- S, p5 `# [3 i2 lcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
- q, F L( I" t. ^& V0 ^4 Y) n/ \# m. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for8 k3 x! Q9 `, ]3 q
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London5 l& e0 X! ]/ T/ M- o
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. h' x* ?, B6 y* s. |7 K
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic) X3 J/ i; }3 r0 Z
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope0 U$ `' P+ a/ Y* n4 c! }, V
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a$ P+ e R8 G; t- \- c7 D% ^2 X% R
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this% W# _- d& i+ a; u. |
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 `7 h- W; N+ Q: ~4 B
0 \1 U5 }$ Z5 }/ D& uOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
( m K `9 V) H" mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 U" ]1 h( d; b3 m- P, |suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a. {$ n y# \3 J
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 C4 x' l6 Q; o+ Nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your9 ^. ?4 s( j/ M8 i
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: R% ?& q' b$ c9 {* t
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; i, q( l9 h3 @: g2 ~
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ p6 L2 r: T1 o$ asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or) D- `+ @" W3 w1 E
reporting should be done. |
|