 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
4 K0 c; Q( W$ G如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。" C; t; O; i* H* u+ x
, H2 Q3 N6 ^ B: R+ M
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
+ M% E% K. |+ D: P& ^, e
1 }8 W9 n1 i0 m9 Y! WFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania- I9 ]) `9 _7 G# Z9 y0 j5 U- `
" X( u0 |7 n$ _" m; j( j/ l( W& o) tIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
/ e2 N$ [! E+ X/ t( o+ I, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. |2 f i% z# a: D! X, l
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this5 e" [* J: \! C' ]1 F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the$ {0 o; L7 W2 ]6 s
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 R/ ?/ N2 c# x$ z% I+ \: `
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
! i# f/ f1 h! lshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- j; e$ Q/ j- @9 n
which they blatantly failed to do./ y7 x3 D4 N3 ?. y7 r# T$ k" M
) W( t1 L% I+ o2 C; c3 |First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
+ u1 O! ^, a( ]' POlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& E) t, O' f0 S: ^' A$ ^+ P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 c/ U7 {! f& M. R) W8 @8 J [anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% o* Q$ _2 @" A8 `personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, x" A8 n* |% ^% s
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& [( i) v$ D9 M' Q5 {, L: W
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# y9 a: z& ]+ I& W+ s% l* v
be treated as 7 s.
/ I* t/ E* l9 N3 i. h3 W1 C# O% `; _7 {9 T
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
) b& r+ k9 k$ t" q1 A# jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem5 V6 d5 C" g) B- A9 a; L( R
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) f- ^/ p$ A u `" v
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4007 ^* V6 v N, s0 j7 m
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( l4 y4 V7 x4 \9 c# J: V u {For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
7 s- A) c) E4 u* Celite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
1 f: N0 q- d4 ~4 ?persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
5 y+ a- D2 F5 Hbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
1 H1 D. Q7 G$ Q9 `! `! ~. U" U" w2 l# J8 k5 q/ d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
- T/ Q9 s/ N; x1 f% h$ A+ \/ Zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& T) y# O% F" Q7 P9 A9 ^
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
" M$ H+ K& B/ H0 Whe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
& S: N& i( o& z7 q# e1 F. |* o) ^8 ~events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s$ K$ b1 l8 k$ l" K. i3 p
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
! k# N$ U$ Z, J6 }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* J H9 X" J8 J' @! ]
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
' j" T& a- l. }9 L' ?! _( Ehand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ m. P& H% ` b# b% U6 ~, d
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this) f, a8 V" |2 M9 c( x, Q2 O
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
6 K8 P2 S8 ]+ W6 f: s8 q! y# rfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
& T6 M E& O1 I- z) g6 q, tfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ e7 S6 {* s! I2 |aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 O& c, h! j7 w0 O8 u* b5 L, F" d3 U
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; T$ s, P5 k' P$ i( Q- K, L, B" Q' \0 h
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" n2 t! x, `& p% {
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 W1 D# s. B' F2 F3 E8 M: hs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 x5 {& \% s M L8 `
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns7 f2 q, F O; z; _' f/ g
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& d! d/ e1 d M, b4 n+ b- E
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. i2 B8 z | yof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it2 r; u- d. d8 q: X! y: V4 D( b
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ ]; ]. ~. M0 o* |1 I
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
3 S3 h, v7 q0 C! s: w4 b+ iworks.
! _. j2 P! O' h% {+ k7 w' p X T% h2 g; X# P. z4 N
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and/ H$ J# d+ ?( T+ x& p3 M9 P1 P
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
4 W( D9 @; i- @) |+ |6 @kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ c# |7 c7 H: R- s7 W* A+ C1 m
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: R! X/ ~8 }! r# Qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and: n" W4 k/ r! m$ U
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, c: H/ K0 O& k4 \% q$ Wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to3 a4 }. I# U5 {
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
2 r* K2 A( a% \0 R' Cto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 u" t6 d, v$ W
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is& B0 X. G2 n- L8 F
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% J. k7 t1 V4 x) Z, p8 y. qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% G6 ]- X4 X8 K. g3 tadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
! m4 Z( f( Y3 e1 t6 r( g4 cpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ p! A0 p3 a+ K& {, h' i' ?use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 Z! j% [8 T3 z
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
4 T2 p, V/ ]& odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
6 |4 ]4 s9 E: ^be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a* r/ N) c) k' g0 o3 a
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# k1 x. A! c7 [0 Fhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
- r* G5 Q6 o) Q. t0 {+ Edrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 _. t4 I' g. xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 P- Y8 T4 ~+ s3 t. l
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is r i+ {! Y' \/ A" v8 B( A6 d: v
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& D6 |/ S+ P3 \1 lathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& i$ {$ |/ R2 Q* ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?; Z1 L' i% U& r' V# c8 K. M2 l* ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ z7 @! t' {0 o
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 V1 P+ z/ {" I
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
" O \! q( ]: _6 K+ ?# WInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) g& D2 Y9 O6 f; {
% g" y8 g$ p: e# P; ^2 qSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-/ a a7 C' E* I# b% ]6 u
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. o& |# q" n7 ?; i. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for/ \2 e i" o3 y9 K
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
# [- J3 ~: s7 R, A" H& e+ COlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
. o% V R5 f7 r/ J7 A8 t8 y; Bdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
+ R3 L+ ~; }5 W' I1 m# n; M8 sgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
2 W! i0 @( s" xhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 I' A7 s( ], @
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
) V! Q$ ~' z U: X4 k/ kpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.) Q `6 R, c& j1 h: e8 d" B
$ A. ^0 K1 A$ d' _# EOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
7 S' r8 h" f5 B. t* L( ]# ^2 cintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 e4 B* W6 F4 I. {0 f4 x; Y n
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a% l. ^* H+ D7 R% G% m+ Q, C
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 h- ?/ D, X- {, J. N3 b6 H A- o
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* v7 d; m n$ Z$ e' ~/ W# r
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" z5 G; J. t" p& o: iexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your# Q- {; _2 w# k
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ {' B6 t0 }* Q- C5 P
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
6 h/ ?9 E% p2 R1 jreporting should be done. |
|