 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 JIANG8 s$ s) Q2 Y. J- b j7 h" B+ ]
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 Q+ N/ r- s( N& e
- e8 _# H' `6 ?
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html9 o: j0 J- V3 [1 [) i* \6 E$ J6 ?
9 r# w; `6 U8 V/ J' n' K
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania7 v& C G" ]! R8 [- N$ F
, Q% I" e! D3 {. E a1 a9 bIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 q Y- `" z6 O- S( X$ {/ `) l- o, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science, [% W9 e2 f4 |8 I; E F1 D! i0 w
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( V/ y. I; i4 G+ Nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the1 r7 H( D0 `9 D& \( o! G
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general1 H3 h8 n8 [) e4 F: @9 j
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors2 W7 s ?3 L" Q4 L( [
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,; l$ m9 A1 {$ Z+ Y) ]
which they blatantly failed to do." Z2 G8 D6 a. g9 E% l v! M2 `
/ n1 a. m! Q# ~/ J: p
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
7 ?7 v9 t7 e" V, D# b, E& DOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in4 q. _/ w5 L5 r9 ]4 g6 {/ ~2 O! b
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “0 [( ~) i% j [2 y5 _/ L9 @
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 f4 M# n n; S: e: {
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 {6 y4 S' \ Q/ O. w# O* e
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
' m6 Y- n5 v# }/ S# i; o- [$ x2 Edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to/ A/ V% h6 A! M8 `* g
be treated as 7 s.# x. ^/ ]% L8 R) s+ j, L* I
2 P' o) B/ O; O8 \
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
9 j" T; ^4 P$ J6 }- |* r/ [0 Y: }still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: c1 F/ G6 `0 W: G1 D: fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ I+ A- t6 @7 wAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
9 A( \8 J1 p& J! n) r0 @ u-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.) A8 z# F* r, O# g, `% z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 f( j- d- V; \. F
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
, n# E& n* S# n) X1 Opersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# N& E: B3 ~5 |% ebased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- U# b* K3 x- c% r2 w
, F9 d1 d+ ~ ^2 l5 x( `" a% C: e3 r
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. @& o, J1 b. F3 g! k
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in E9 z, X$ |/ P) |* ~/ ], ]
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
4 A* i, A6 ?4 V/ S2 ^3 z" Lhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( u6 h& H5 K4 C! k$ V
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s4 S; ]7 w8 c- @! o* P
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
. _* [) D' X! f* B; N( I6 ZFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ o! K' T( Q& \* {& d
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other0 S+ k- U& ~" k# J/ _
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle9 V c8 ]" U3 z- F9 [6 @- B4 Y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this3 S! b; f1 \, y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
" f8 i" M, \$ H1 f. c: Wfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% Z: j) R1 Q+ c- d i+ _
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
1 m( l: p$ h/ Q/ Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 \" K( a$ q! h0 P) p6 Mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.: Q1 I; O% Z2 |# r. g& n3 R$ o
% A, m6 n$ A+ v) S7 D. U TFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
* U7 a1 F; P, C, {1 s p- j+ v: q) \four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% S& l2 b7 u4 E( q/ D8 {# w
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ \, J; G9 Z9 H* Y1 F), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 }8 C6 ]) N) r; Zout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
0 ~5 r" i1 E1 e4 k4 _+ ^Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind/ l! Z6 T; P! K8 x; |3 S5 F/ Z
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 ~9 q1 v6 w1 G* \1 q/ O! e2 f) B; `( w
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
+ ~2 f( X- u7 oevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, u- k( i* h: U1 e* b8 Z
works.
3 W) I' `/ X, g9 ~3 i/ {0 d( _$ u$ {
9 u- n# b3 K2 w, @Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and' x( a- x$ p l4 T8 Z5 v: K; F
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
& I8 F W& D9 @% c" A! q# jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that% X- W) I% `. L0 [, o* w7 D" ^: {
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific {) q1 C0 K, a5 m# ^
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and E* B! l3 ?' D' z- ]4 r# x
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One5 d/ L. \( z1 @$ @: o3 h6 A8 @
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* y; e Z, g5 s" |' W
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ o# _% S$ f7 b9 }
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample. d: m) @$ }! ]+ G; I! M% F8 u
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% X* o! X) s' r' X; e" }crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
) O0 b4 ]9 `/ W* u( Zwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 K3 p J0 P' a$ d* Y% C8 ]( F! l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the+ ^/ f9 ]* c i. m& h
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not' O: z' A) `! m$ C
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation" w0 t8 X' |8 n, y+ w
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- I' k2 P0 Q! J2 _$ U d3 i
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may! x( u7 h$ {6 W' b$ q3 f8 P8 B5 Q
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
! L) ?7 R, ]& }hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
- v( `5 D) u' @9 nhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
$ O6 F! d0 f" W) F: ^drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:4 T& G7 D w' i
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect; b1 A' e9 E1 G
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
: G j# F# S" _" @& k: Oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
. `" w7 r5 m+ s- B/ S# K1 nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight4 A2 h1 P/ W# v
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" `0 I' R: S! D6 \) v
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping6 b5 s w: }, b# ]- p: X5 [" S
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 [# Y. V! i/ @% Neight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.* q0 t" l- Z8 D- U" {0 x2 k$ W+ q% S
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
" S9 M; C; \) G/ q3 Q- ~4 E: S+ g: G- I7 e8 K* L& m' w
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 A8 f% M! p% k# {* x7 j: Scompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention( ^3 A" v( q6 w- c2 _3 C
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( B2 n2 Y! L! C( v
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ \7 `4 [" R4 |* o& _# o' OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
8 ~3 b8 e/ G% q {* ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic" w. [6 K. C' F) W6 J: D( A. ^
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope+ b2 e% p* Y+ W4 a6 ?2 K
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- u! z3 Y! z5 X
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this/ ]' Y6 E8 s3 g2 E" @4 D
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" s; P& e2 S$ g s4 t3 Q% k) k5 F7 j+ N" `) O: q& [
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ W; n4 i4 C8 }4 dintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
+ F6 z% ~$ D' ^7 c* ^ r1 _suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
* y4 G" L7 g5 l; f6 e6 G- Z+ ^suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 A- s; I5 z. D+ W' k: u" A+ Zall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your& s! t: P/ Z$ t% P2 m' z2 r: Y
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% p; @8 c& \+ Q( {4 Q5 f# m
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your$ X ]3 f0 X7 B/ o
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 l9 ?6 I8 A: k! H* c# Asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 T7 H* h: X+ C9 A
reporting should be done. |
|