 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# T# S. n7 ]4 a& w
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 D5 }5 l& @4 r# {
1 i1 f! @6 m- X0 S7 X% Z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html. ?; K6 B# F5 G) o8 d* m
. U3 W! i# O* q) rFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
; i2 K. V' f! d% `$ T6 o! _4 {8 _& u& ?; U) Q6 c( }; h( O5 d
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ I5 m+ i: n" I$ w, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 u* S' b% h- c% T. q4 `; _8 k# Lmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this0 C- _' j, X. X* }% `
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 J; b) q2 {4 H2 F% ?3 z
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general9 ]" I5 d$ \: r; \+ i
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; h Y n3 G) H [- F
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
; l8 h! D6 X$ N% F, W, ^6 C" n% ?which they blatantly failed to do.
* \- g$ i5 h9 d; w# |/ |/ q7 V- R$ a/ @! _1 T% E
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her* x; S, D/ F% a- T
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in% N9 i( t$ R Q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “5 N# p8 ]. Q7 b L
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& l7 {2 ]! I3 v8 U' H2 E: t4 ]personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
4 ^: B- e. U+ M }8 M) Nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the( {0 P+ d- _6 B; U0 y
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# t ~# F z) m1 Y- }$ f8 X
be treated as 7 s.* |, y. L1 T9 E' E' h
$ t( w& n* p+ p+ K* X& j# N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is' _; z7 C% R0 g
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
3 B) F* z( c2 i: I' L8 D6 F1 v. Limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, i; a' T4 Z& N( k, _1 r! MAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! B8 K7 `3 l0 Y7 R2 i
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" B7 U3 e. K/ e8 s6 B2 V5 `& fFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 {+ Z }5 S9 f2 M! @8 Y
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and8 F: `$ D7 M, @3 [: K
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
& Y4 W5 k f2 i+ W" _3 kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 J! U5 I( y/ K+ _ f4 H
- z W( o L1 a8 @
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
r5 u+ I) [" e5 K& E0 `example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; C0 g" \8 x* y7 h% E& Qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
( R a* C; ^9 p9 M4 h, dhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ \2 v2 C# {# Q) W1 W! X6 e
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s5 p+ @' B t+ ?' t& @! }
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. V$ N- e; o8 Y; N0 I7 _
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
) M4 f" P( ], O9 Wtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 |) R0 c# N7 R9 w H+ N: V
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& ?0 E' E. ^5 s& U, O, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
2 h+ c3 v9 c. ~5 A& r7 fstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
5 b. y# ~3 o/ @, O- Ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" s1 J- H- c p( @9 Ifaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting6 g1 ~' \5 n1 ]" A% N& g
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that+ B6 Q6 { a2 z6 @4 N
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
2 ~( g% ~2 s5 f4 o9 \6 {; c* b
$ _- |3 B6 w* VFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; e' A) Q: k- y& qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
. A2 q+ x+ v, ?; i0 V. o1 vs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 L4 ]6 s2 p( C! |4 [
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns! b7 w8 ~( ]# V3 i+ W
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," z3 g9 X# D& c$ ~, O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
" @: m' H3 @& ^, k z5 D! dof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! K8 g2 K% c2 v6 o# e
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 | d9 N2 c1 {: |% T9 eevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* i [) @) j+ y/ Wworks.! `8 }$ T6 \7 L+ R W9 k* [' B* M
* ~1 S- E; D2 I `$ I- Z3 e' rFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 i0 T$ h# ^5 g
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 Y% _0 D$ T! ~$ ?kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that# S1 V$ T5 ~' Z$ W& m/ S) B
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! g" W! p+ y0 Z! hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
9 K P( f. r3 u9 k" N% k6 _! qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
& z$ M2 i q/ M# Icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" y0 L$ }( K3 v a6 q5 e* D
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
9 z- I8 K8 U2 s2 F0 Rto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 ?& {9 Q4 E. `7 G, xis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
# N; Y9 m/ A/ i2 v- n+ p% }crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he( L2 x+ S$ s5 Z2 @( [; n
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
- R+ E3 a3 M/ l8 Zadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) @( a: V& w0 ^$ a9 s, Apast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 {% F$ D" @& E* u( R
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& I, p; d' f& j' P1 M5 {1 [) A. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 Q1 n% T4 h: l7 n% a2 Z6 ldoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may6 z- P+ F, q: I
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a4 M2 O( G- M0 w6 R
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( i4 V9 g0 Z0 C* T: M6 W, rhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a+ h2 |/ P- h# w
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
, ~" _4 `. m* e7 S, z7 h. h! S eother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 p v4 ]; j; w: R7 I' W7 I( e7 H+ N, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is D& o C7 O# I( m9 u
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ Y+ i7 ]+ m7 i5 i) ^) Tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- ^) C, f! X2 Y+ e$ _1 S3 Dchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?$ T2 N# [& F9 A: z- I
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& S- ~7 ?0 Q$ A1 A3 Z6 M# K6 e
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 X* T. B- W" M. [+ {! m' Y
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances. @0 _. x2 z- M$ r) H' ^
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
5 Q: X5 ~% G! w9 d0 L
7 z# F5 _: D- [" GSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-" n8 x$ l! u" ] ?; @* H
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
7 u( b! A) i0 V7 ]- I. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
# f2 s* Q# u- Z. jOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London" W+ }3 N: ]* g7 ?. y: D
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
0 Z( g5 M. e7 s7 P1 d0 Tdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
1 }% p5 I% ~2 c6 C! g( ^, P& Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
@$ a% Y$ k7 H+ `! @0 f8 F8 ?have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- g8 V: H+ o! X3 y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
8 }, A7 h) I4 a/ x7 r' Epossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 t" H0 v5 J/ v) C! a& x! r
% w& W3 D' S4 i/ n$ p2 ?Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, A, |6 l9 Z! g* \6 Uintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
+ ?2 Y5 z( a4 x" Xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
+ E7 w9 t$ s7 G& |7 u R2 nsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide( S0 O y, o( }9 r
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your& ~6 c4 Q3 w" Q% R" j
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. s' u! z% F5 ?6 d3 B
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
0 s& o$ e! `7 ?3 N9 Margument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal/ I' ?, b2 W2 f, J7 d6 |! F
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& o1 Q5 ^1 R% V5 ]( d( i
reporting should be done. |
|