 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
- M+ F$ F6 h. ]$ V$ c7 d4 R如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 ~. Q4 H" B- P w2 { k
]) @! J% X3 t: o+ J4 a$ k
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 d/ `0 o7 N9 x+ ~# `2 Y( c
5 U8 D# N* c3 O% x- q UFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania) C- u2 ]# ^8 a9 }( j6 P
; N: ?0 H9 R/ m" P
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 D& u/ a, B$ s% ^4 f, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
0 Y- S2 p: B# m3 {! m- O0 Smagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
5 H' [' ^3 Q( h! s' Z$ nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
8 r( S+ _$ E" @9 I7 g4 \! p# ^3 yscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( K1 D+ D, d4 ^. E0 l' A$ r
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 |1 w4 [ ?% w& S0 M4 y6 jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
5 E% C5 `/ F% U N5 k/ Swhich they blatantly failed to do.7 A* _" J3 e, P3 r. q1 E
& @1 ?. [3 H8 b5 H1 z, M
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her: f* A* F/ q7 [# O# C8 |$ L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 ^2 W; K1 T/ ]
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “: ~" d, Y7 k0 y8 ]. Q
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous$ d! `" g* @; v' @6 u
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an2 Y* W( z$ w+ s% x9 ^! r+ x5 P
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the8 K: r/ P0 c, M; A
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to- e+ x n6 u8 e% V6 [
be treated as 7 s., C* @; F3 _% I9 _3 r. t
" o) b* ]" R' D* xSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 @: W, r/ R, m: u+ e
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem ?3 O0 ~6 {1 E+ p) K
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) c+ A/ V/ t3 M, l$ u
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4005 H! n5 I6 O7 m% q1 G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
' D& Y6 g2 N' _9 `' G) rFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 h% H0 Q! ~& O% N" J }elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and1 J% q( M4 T. _0 j
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 I# f1 n% A5 [9 v5 r8 i! i; Sbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.4 d' M4 q0 S0 J- c
' N1 t( s& ^/ ~2 |' o( c* [( z/ K# pThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
T$ W8 [6 M7 C+ `example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! _& v+ l! a7 k
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
% U$ ]* Q1 |8 u" H; j* A3 `he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. b# H+ K3 C! \% b! v, Gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 T }2 }: W2 v% Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World3 g# l" n9 q# [6 w
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% H) F" [# v! }; h1 S( {topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
7 o. |0 A) N# ?! ^& q" E2 L- Vhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
; |! @: M: H. D- h5 W# X, Q O, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
7 W2 c9 j. f) I: x: N/ tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 y3 R9 ?' f' Q2 k3 G+ r/ x9 \
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
5 c2 ~7 _7 a+ V: Dfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; F% ?, l+ W6 M+ e, }aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
: ~# [( @6 P8 ?# c( O: }& \implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
5 x0 J- z& ^ A; F% o* M9 l2 W! ]' W- L, l& k! G& J: U9 [
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
+ D3 o6 ]/ l1 a# yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ S7 y, ^) e& W1 N% T
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
! Y3 ?$ Y, Y% {, i I& Q), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ X; j% Q: d- @( w( K. P
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 T) b" K: K7 X8 x5 a) }- I
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
# {* G! o3 {$ ~' Mof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 a7 g- Y3 B3 O/ c3 p: q( `# C
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) A/ Z% `) y$ Uevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
3 j4 e, m8 y1 b; Pworks.
& ^8 w) g/ x Q
* H5 L; W% G( K' `% KFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- {" l+ z: @+ U2 K, w' N" y' A
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
4 d3 ], i5 W6 c+ E; d. E4 xkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that$ W, A& d4 x0 R
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific7 Z4 s7 {9 D( \' H# |
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
$ W4 ]; Z) s# B) y& ?" d$ o7 oreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 V, ^9 P5 G5 K7 z7 o$ F
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( c! H5 \! F; edemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% z* Z* A, W* n: W" T
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 F6 T( T0 l5 }9 M& m" z
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
[. v* K, K: Qcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% R$ Y, [7 y; }! jwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly! r7 }; W- h, \& ~% k+ P6 L0 B/ x0 ^
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; L0 r( e2 C; T, d2 T
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not2 L. @! ? Z2 Y6 {2 p
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ l/ v6 J& _$ X& A& `7 E) r) d
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are9 q' |# b+ z h( K5 m5 P+ v
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 t% P. Z8 F8 k# ^# G3 cbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 v9 e7 y4 r0 P$ u0 v* b; \
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye$ y ]% F2 O2 r: T
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 K/ {" f. H, W2 y ^8 z8 x
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
3 Z k% n1 E D t' z. l' tother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 `9 T S$ s3 x8 S/ l" ]
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ M$ f) |8 {8 y, y- X7 P# Jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- v* H9 v0 v" V6 y0 k2 a: `0 aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 }+ m& N" l C) r9 U- wchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
6 }1 E& t3 X' T! p! F: c3 k+ PLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
9 `, m$ U# k. _9 Z; [. m/ d: Kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 H4 d# N* g0 yeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.7 h7 u/ t* k: q8 w' b
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
& o# B; C% {- R4 ^3 |& a' x# M4 z. v% e& |/ W6 h. b
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
/ h0 R1 n w6 I8 `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. s* i, }" u6 }5 e3 m. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 H$ s& N8 q$ d! F4 [3 p" VOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
- B- s$ q5 F+ N/ n1 MOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 C1 l' Q' {, v9 L1 _ Ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic n3 }) e5 O% q) N( ?3 X* [
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope0 I% j1 P/ \* Y) ?/ [; V" F6 }3 _3 k
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* c% D0 R, ^! b5 Iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
3 D( m2 S" E) R3 B4 X- gpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! @( v: {" S5 E9 ^0 f1 f& c; t) B6 Y7 Z
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (, O1 C) }4 ]! p9 ^
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 X; |4 P" }. a( A6 l7 \' `5 d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a- p: s4 B8 H0 _" d
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( E7 ?- j6 i! u7 E1 R3 V. yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
* k% h e' [- Q' L. J. t+ F! Pinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 {9 {' A- T: p
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
/ M! B$ c8 `9 T8 b& u$ Z1 `argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
1 J5 M/ T" f! c+ bsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& ~5 p1 e$ ]% k; u2 y! S+ a
reporting should be done. |
|