 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
1 [5 `7 j1 B! O1 l/ H& _* g如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 o: K. e6 O( E# W- }. a6 t, n9 ]/ l2 @; q) A' {3 L4 M
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
4 S. R, U b. r: Y9 M
* j ~4 W2 P; D3 g6 c" QFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
% ^( |2 S6 L! S% I, y) t x R# f
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself* M [0 a' V3 x1 [ j3 d- O+ r. q
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science& x1 U! {! v* r3 G( p) x( S
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" W- t7 Z3 w! T' f8 Mis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# m0 P2 a9 k) o% N4 x6 |1 gscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general! d8 ?2 ~3 \4 x* p- A
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors, D4 H p9 M6 f8 V5 R% n
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ e# O' A8 `: k3 \0 Lwhich they blatantly failed to do.9 c" O; G/ O# j" d8 @ ~( r6 R4 d
, H# h2 [% ^+ V' O1 D6 L. mFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 }: A' X' L3 J1 AOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: y1 {; `0 B- @" `# _
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ k/ T( l! f$ G6 g7 G/ N2 y& u
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 T* d% r: v* n$ z. ] D5 b
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! \7 X3 b! C+ |8 k! C, `7 _( ?& T2 Fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ z4 N E" d% O" e* I# Ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ z9 S1 p9 b+ j1 ibe treated as 7 s.
) q& w: z# H6 C u1 f4 K- d, ?$ l
" `% C0 z; U1 f, i5 h, iSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 e X1 |. T) x; @6 L4 ~( M3 ~: u* S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem; a' _$ P. l. h4 y8 d
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' Q/ [$ q. _& G0 V/ P
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 O' k }) E n
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% K+ ~, ~1 L8 R( g* U1 l
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 L& }' x5 o% A. t, L4 N$ ^, K5 relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and. j/ B! Q( ^" o5 r8 N
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
4 E" _# o3 s, \based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: x; S6 a( X9 O; o; j2 t. I' J. j
( `7 x9 R2 E. d& M ~4 W5 n
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 y. W; i) p7 i7 ]0 N# Zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in: }0 {! B% k5 S8 E
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& X" _; x5 ^2 b) y" hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% a% @' c: \: k* O/ l% f' M# ~" w
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
2 m! o- |$ R$ H9 t! u* ]- O0 T9 Ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 j6 L; {$ I+ x: k) I( N# W+ r/ c
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: d- R! i+ v% A! c* ~$ v
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other8 N1 r3 k; r+ j" `$ ?5 _. g
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* M" l; ?% x. H- k. B ]1 q
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this! Y8 q+ v- H0 I+ S# S
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
' ~* W# S1 y6 s/ @4 D! p& V: t- V. Tfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
6 F) k# z$ C6 B) n! i$ z1 M* ]: gfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: D# k2 q7 a9 v6 N) J. e
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that$ X9 y, v1 t2 I* z( F; `
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 J8 d5 `/ `: k+ N) P: W6 b: [" D+ G
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 E* \( G& @4 R }3 I3 k; t# y
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 b+ X$ K h2 c+ gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s# |5 s$ K' O* Y; _
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ H1 U5 `! V5 f) p, \! O; gout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
0 t+ D4 l( R( w- i! b. D' QLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ e9 M' K% f' O5 d$ A9 o% i
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 F& q* ^; I& N- Slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in5 A0 i8 `0 z4 R* U
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) p+ d8 U, i' ]0 ~) u2 Rworks.# h% n% w6 O i4 m- p
, e! _' Y" a: Q; [; `9 rFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! `. ]& L! q& y. U8 Q( Himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' U; n& }; H* p( E9 T3 j
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, a0 }+ h" A$ |; l4 V. mstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 q9 ]$ I. K- r& Rpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
. q' @7 z0 F. @, b9 p% }reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
$ r& w0 ]7 i! t0 D( l7 b! Ncannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' l0 L0 c+ Y7 j6 G. kdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works! Y. f& ~" m1 @
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 ^9 l5 r6 i& N0 G. R" L5 _4 lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is. @8 w% H' g0 z6 {! c- d- _
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' u# c: C2 k+ j5 |8 Awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly. K6 y. k! N {8 f% V: h
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the. l4 p7 k- X3 o. V; y
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
X: Q2 @& I! O4 @use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( j; B% U4 Z* q# U$ o' W; v) L
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are9 a2 b7 f" Y) |, }% s q; |
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may7 `. o2 D% M L0 [) w0 y$ N+ _
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
P; b8 Q. ^$ N: rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye. z# ~/ ?) q% k) N1 g6 J
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ C" {& V7 z6 q( |) s
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* B9 v+ ^( @4 Y; Z; K
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ g. `$ Z/ O' y5 R4 {, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is2 ?( O/ {4 M6 q+ o, C& j
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: K, r+ w9 \$ V3 `9 U: q: l6 Y0 r8 f* _athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) Q4 [6 }! P/ ^% k) D& ?3 M# [chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?7 s6 u( @4 n: [5 Z8 H
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ I! z% I2 f# `& V) z& H4 Iagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
. [! B N5 v" q. i$ ~eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
% ~* y# y2 Q& K- uInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
7 q1 \. z/ q" `8 q U, J) c2 m4 o4 N) |4 l. x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 r. u9 f3 G! K/ w
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. e, a0 v* c/ Q0 V+ f
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- @/ {+ ~, o) l6 J: lOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
7 V! y6 Q; U5 y# p% `$ J! ]% A0 @Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
/ x( W, a5 a' Q( Q& g- [1 Edoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 K. O4 p( G4 `# ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
: }; Z8 l, ]7 L; yhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 V" h, q, N% x! splayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 U5 n) O4 q) _5 K. Z& wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
2 `: A+ n w* w3 F1 X, {, h( i3 X7 \8 A7 O4 l6 i
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# O( Y" j0 q/ _) F5 x) Pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 ?. ]' |* ~3 B8 c( A
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& r9 D+ |# O1 N9 S' Isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
# R7 Y5 I" N$ S8 i J: b+ ?all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your' q1 O/ d; d$ D5 Y @4 C% F6 w
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 @; W/ W" Q* r# G8 T3 w
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 {' K9 I7 L- O& q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
a7 Z" F Z" I+ A3 wsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or6 M+ o/ W+ X( ]/ N7 t9 _% j
reporting should be done. |
|