 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 JIANG0 v; G: u' y. N& l' s- ]
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
; D0 a9 L" K( h" D1 Y5 y2 N
9 } J# X* @; O* R: Xhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html2 L& F( D% Z2 {7 @
- _, Y! }, F ^" u2 r- S
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# Y3 q( \9 F2 ?* e" B( I R k v; n0 O [3 r
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself1 j/ c" w) R, m8 X4 h+ s' M
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
2 _6 K2 D; \0 jmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 V: A' Y! h( m& dis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
& t/ `, p8 Q. e! Z7 i9 K- \scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 K% y, {$ i/ V/ G
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 U" K8 Q7 [* Z8 `+ mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 o1 Q4 B9 V4 n+ m/ u
which they blatantly failed to do.9 b q( v: _+ z2 u
8 v; a' S( ^$ a& ^$ wFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her" {' V4 n: n/ K: u. W* U: X ?6 }( C
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in2 N* M2 h2 B7 Y0 i: g
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “# W) Y- i; Y6 m6 p6 D4 y- N# T
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! E* b) K1 P% Z1 g& E* }2 @
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an T" C% E8 \( E4 [- p1 J
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the }: }, @. k7 R' m/ e P1 t$ q2 u
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
: E5 d7 S2 Z* u8 b1 pbe treated as 7 s.( p; L3 G+ W4 ]2 t1 }" ^8 ~4 O& b
& ]7 M- V- q& H! m, K0 e) ]Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is' e, i9 U$ U0 `/ \( l( b
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 c2 d3 @9 o& {8 v Rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. b" k# ~4 I& J) s7 ~8 ^5 d
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( H9 c% p& h6 M( J/ q0 t-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 G2 C6 @2 z6 q6 q0 v; ?9 I! jFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( I9 F- |2 v4 ^elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and- P- e; d1 V2 t: {: o( `" C/ ^
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”/ E/ j8 J( }: I# Z' m; h/ {
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
! f, R& M9 H! B! c. c3 |( G; m
. x8 c# C' l9 W, F4 j4 LThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ ^) t: [. P# l \" @; rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- T: {8 T1 {( ^1 {" ?' m" p, k3 T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" m" T$ s o9 s. d! a) w* {
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
/ w9 H8 d& n; i5 @4 Cevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s. c5 H& h* `) W3 e3 ^( H
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 U+ Q: T; @3 n/ ?, VFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- g& _& I- q2 t. h# K1 O+ l* G" H
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( Z n8 g& K6 R! D2 ?
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
- }+ b% @; a6 f6 h* k, s4 i/ S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this4 y, a7 z% A/ a' H! _- t
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 x$ l6 ~) \* U# C& Efaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam9 o8 T1 i& x4 i/ C, n# W
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. {" l1 C* j4 ^' {1 Raside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that8 e; e- b4 P$ G
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
1 [9 W) c9 }6 ?0 R# [
& P; V3 X- c: X4 u/ B: fFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
, F; i7 I0 Q+ m1 V& Mfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ E+ M1 k0 \$ {9 n
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s# Q, i: j$ T# t5 V& O
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 U+ s# @" h( F3 h- n9 T3 }out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% R4 `6 e5 `9 u z. U3 y+ QLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
- V0 I1 ]+ w3 G9 |. K u: y! Bof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it1 _* M. c) ?5 ]' a ]. V
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
- @% s7 T9 _6 m2 }6 r& i8 }every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science+ ?3 G6 E1 N* v8 M* R A
works.
% ]' c p) E" M/ D& @* m$ f' u' c7 ~* k5 Q. Z4 G% u
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! H% ^" i3 `6 `0 B( G
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) x- L7 t. q0 X3 R6 akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that: t( z7 l/ m% K) ? _+ f0 [
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific0 A5 L7 C1 t' A7 S" p" g* o
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
: f% g7 t. p) q* p7 oreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" m. v9 U- n9 dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& ?: `6 W4 x4 ?9 I! U. Ddemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% x4 P! z* f7 C' |$ c4 q
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 b1 n0 p$ S& F
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is! \% v) H2 w$ O
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ T: L6 N9 f/ [ H9 _* h+ {wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
' ]& v1 z, n5 t* r3 x8 yadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- ~( A- Y3 Z2 b. Z/ T2 j# O
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not! A m: B" |! D; @: f
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; x1 s0 x1 a l2 v
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. E( \4 ~' U2 F: w
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* M: a: W( s5 {7 y; n l
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
Q! f; s& U- R; Fhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 D- ?- j; d) I# T( ]1 D
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
: R5 {5 }+ u6 J1 C: u) @drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 p' R- X! r, ]7 L3 Lother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect) y" B& S1 {: @8 n+ ?
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is" p; d( L0 S! I' Y- M! p) I5 j
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; V* v0 i& ^& I. r
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- e8 Z" Y5 _, jchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?* g' ~. N# u7 I- `$ Z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
1 x- x) s' r' q1 W0 pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
2 z% }8 @" W' ?! ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
( G2 C% B# c8 j9 l& C- @* dInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
8 Z( U: m8 T3 |' m* X3 u6 L" n2 m! p" \5 V3 B0 x$ E$ p6 u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
) J" ]# z4 O9 x4 ~$ ncompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* f& H* j. \, Y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 ]+ J; _+ w Y0 U
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) Y4 Q6 Q3 Z$ l8 J7 O
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 v7 N4 u5 Q+ S( Vdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) W, v8 l4 l3 W$ D5 A7 T; kgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
' t5 ^# k6 ~8 C0 ~4 M+ F4 ~have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& o1 V2 r+ F8 q8 ]* ~, W0 o5 Jplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, X0 G$ ^) x# Z" S# c1 T$ Opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.0 @' v, O' y9 q5 A
4 H2 K d& T3 H7 XOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did ( L7 ]7 k1 z; B# s) R+ ?- v5 E
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
5 _3 d& P' ^6 Z3 x9 A) Dsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
. ^+ ^4 a* P, e8 j$ ?( }suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide: u. v: D, B3 V h% s: b. S$ h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your" z: O0 P2 k4 _. e/ B
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" F; @" G& ~% L* L2 fexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; U* x3 n; V! \ C l
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
+ O9 K% ]7 X$ L& l8 |! k Esuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 O' A: M4 t H/ K6 `9 Rreporting should be done. |
|