 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 JIANG1 }7 ?/ U4 N+ C) p9 U6 W" d
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。; o* H" k( Z7 r* }1 r. \0 e
w) K% t7 B* Q6 w+ Y+ @/ ?) `
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html$ _4 a0 g1 c2 s0 M* k% K2 x
6 d A: u, |& H7 f ?% a6 u, fFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ }- n) F4 h; ]
: u. N3 p$ Y: ]# Q2 S" j
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself3 r7 `$ w( v3 _6 {5 E& a$ o5 T
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science0 ?) L) Z* }6 \0 e1 R1 M- v
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
4 z/ m0 H1 J; V- u- e( L T5 ~is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the- |" r6 r) G! r2 l* @* r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general" @! }3 P6 Q2 @: L ?# U
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 z" V6 U* [" e: {3 z# S3 u9 C
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( U0 N1 O: B# @3 Q& h8 T
which they blatantly failed to do.
# E, {3 v9 @8 @! a" e1 {8 x3 K6 I0 k& D5 ?7 n
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her Y5 I; \4 X" \# P8 v
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 }, c1 C! @. j, b1 A
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% p6 z! z4 H" e' V; T
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( q5 o6 l! \6 ]( J/ m5 T
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
# _/ c* X* `. G+ P) ~: Nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
( ?. ?( |) i; Q: ^2 ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ P# ?" a) X8 q G& R0 ^
be treated as 7 s.
+ f' f; F& ^: R9 D, _' p e
. }5 L! f+ }. H8 j8 |Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is. @( D9 C. v, B' A! j: G
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ j2 Z4 Y+ L! b1 K
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.7 h6 C" x0 P* |2 h
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 }5 ^ r: c+ i2 X
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* c- M5 L2 R6 E# {" k2 |( N* L& cFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
/ u' W1 `/ v- M' X9 welite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
' S& {1 [. Y" }persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
i0 y& z% y6 ?4 `0 bbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
# f( V% a+ R: Z P
) j0 A: w) I& X$ W4 \, uThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 M) T, d* s9 q$ z; }
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in( d( M+ ]3 K E# W* X% ~6 N
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
# o1 _2 s. g }. `, Y5 Q, [he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 ^ X$ ?* h6 A, }
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% `3 j B8 L5 o- A: ]best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 x! r) C Z2 g
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
) m) T" N8 s& U! R V# wtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( W6 J' `' J" _0 V
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle U; k7 i2 i+ n( ^& F; P b# B- B/ E
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this' l) ], s& p9 \2 \" P" G
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) e- i6 @6 I; [, _faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- a% c& ^. p z3 a% u$ q, _5 P4 n( d
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: K |, H Q% P* o2 a& B5 A
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# o/ o C# }8 x f& m+ T" c6 C
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.( O5 @ K4 y W. h6 x' I1 f
* N; i7 c2 x( i& c- ?, AFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, n. C6 \5 e4 f7 a' ^6 [! n
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 k- N! p! p9 e; `) l% c6 p: Gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 ?! u( e, H/ B3 f
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns! n6 r! I6 { f9 f/ X& e. N: g0 @1 Q
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 \' T$ E5 p* ]: T0 o
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. }9 @% U- B G. G4 q2 v8 Oof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, ?# m8 K) ^$ I1 B
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 I3 A7 E9 l2 B% levery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, \+ i' D) R& Lworks.0 b ^' ^/ M N# ^
( S7 |' h4 ^. a, V# @Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 C$ M7 N6 U. t4 L; |implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
& [7 ~/ H3 E7 G' ?kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
" C3 i% ^2 R& S; b: V' Sstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 s9 Q. e, J' S ^( K% dpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
3 N9 U0 [5 A+ L3 w, Ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 m, N1 K! k2 E3 ^/ Zcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
" M4 p5 ~6 K7 h6 P" F8 Sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( {0 }' M7 p4 N7 Y' R+ h
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" L# u& K8 g" F& V
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" @* L% d6 u' \% I4 Gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ N7 h3 T! X' m9 y. }
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 U- M7 n- E8 [) s; l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
% v" p* ?& I+ R; w6 D& Q. ypast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 {! \( a3 X8 r) N U" E% B
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& m9 \9 ^$ N/ f! b& I8 A6 D. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: L3 J. S# q, b$ i" P! v- g$ [: d
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
* L* v* K2 `: ~" s) gbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ ^3 {+ P( }: R8 }4 [hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye! T, o2 x! \7 Q% ^
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" J, ~9 R0 \; U$ qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:' {: x* o" A- R6 j, c" P
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% z+ L! y5 `) X; R% X, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 g7 m/ R- R6 |8 @& k. K
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 `* e) W8 G2 l N
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight) @! \' Z+ T5 o- O3 P
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# m! b* z( D7 O) KLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 c- r' X' L7 _2 Jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for- U3 R, A& C2 B4 K) l5 A
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.& R- D; M! ^' A; {9 |
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?/ X7 ~* w: M7 P
0 j/ p: a1 J+ v0 i1 KSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* s7 W9 D. J3 E @& T' x2 f
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention/ \, Z2 y; {7 p( \5 `
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for4 M9 F( m' C& a9 K, T( L& t
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: C7 {5 x/ _2 A! r
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for) `1 Z+ N/ _* b* R) w- L, L
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( d! O+ ]8 X" _8 v+ @+ ~games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope7 ~0 b$ O/ V0 J1 i: V
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
- Q! i; q, w+ y3 h7 n) zplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
) {$ f) X) W0 v4 H3 G& G) h1 upossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: I6 c9 J# R, s$ C( k" u6 h& ~) S! c+ `" `8 v: C) F# y" H( ~
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 u# p O* T' o$ r9 `' D, s
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
' I2 O! H0 H F6 r! wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a f9 m% `8 J/ c: e% G5 l0 p9 q
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 z* T3 R+ t% @) B- M# {all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
3 ^; O7 `" t2 W. jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 ~4 D7 _. [. d/ I: gexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
. D; v% v, y) `$ s. r, D. _* @argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' }, _) d3 s! ]" Z: P* y2 Z, \
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ E4 P+ P. R! ~" D2 y3 T& N8 s
reporting should be done. |
|