 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
2 n- N9 j2 A" h/ C- m如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
! l& J! x! I, E' z6 m1 k! g" @+ v0 O2 [3 ?4 _. ^
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html/ S0 x! ?$ s# I- u2 t, B# }8 w
! l z2 i, M3 H" h: [) v+ ~
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 o8 I0 Z/ |6 U# c0 Q3 | |% I
( J. o5 O0 ` ~1 n
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% T/ j! T/ |: D. ]5 D$ a9 r! u, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
p" l( p+ u! s, {6 imagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this w$ u4 K, F3 n8 k; R0 T5 d
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) _ H" q4 P9 C4 {8 Mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general9 ^6 s: L6 p1 `: R5 S2 }1 I' x
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" T) z4 W+ u: m. T" E9 ~( v$ j! j% \should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ L. M7 m4 f# L' K9 ?which they blatantly failed to do.8 s3 B1 C6 B8 A/ D* s4 `" B$ P8 u
! o( s$ w7 k4 N3 C9 X' C; H2 bFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& c4 n( w9 K0 v6 [- IOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
% k9 T* e$ a* ]( ]0 ~7 B( o' `' A2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
) w+ t" y! ^# u( v% Xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous* \! n1 n& p0 ~, Z
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
' L: |' X, A; Z8 e5 T( uimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) e2 i& \! v: ^* O) j8 N& S% edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ b+ I: {8 F, v/ Wbe treated as 7 s.0 Y+ t* C5 c/ F
* |0 U* @- J# [0 P1 ~
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is F u+ h: q' J8 T+ u5 G f
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& v ]5 K/ C, o( J0 d2 Bimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& Y+ \) j0 U# Y& M" F' V- c8 JAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ ^, B2 @* u, {- H; X2 K# T0 w
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: r* i' N% C! }1 V8 X* Q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
: X% N+ E! `, x+ eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
2 Q L" g. J1 x5 R" vpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
* r. `- q/ E. J. e% v5 ?4 }based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- c `' L! n; g9 O% U/ Y8 D7 o! H0 Y
4 A# K1 |0 G& O: ~, sThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook+ T& s4 C6 N$ F
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 W4 m, T4 ~+ b1 W$ @* D6 C
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 L' j; U# r" d( phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- C( M, V& u: s5 E5 ], {9 l
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 x' [* w9 o- O& E3 I0 Fbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World: N" D- |* I3 v8 q( ~/ J0 T
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
5 c3 e. Z, e) Z# Q# k {6 ~topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
2 ^& i. U D; \- Bhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 b+ B6 Y h# |5 Z# c( _0 T7 Q% w, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this" A4 r. a8 s; l: }' E
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds% s) M) O' o/ B% _
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam; Y7 m9 R, y1 t
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
! v8 b/ G: Y/ z- A. X% maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 E+ K" D* G: m% R4 P$ X* kimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ b b. }$ x7 T- f$ t3 N, O
# E7 f$ b: \; {Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; X& g6 X0 H8 V9 bfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93- x2 F! {( L3 z0 `3 }* [; @
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 z/ A2 ~; E w7 K" x: `5 O
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: o5 I4 E4 r8 d7 iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% v" T# u* J/ f5 |1 yLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 ^* E! l- M4 O" B$ mof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* v) v- f: y# T! Klogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 t' u! W4 j+ K! Severy split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science- E+ e7 h' W( X9 Y7 h1 c
works.9 L" b$ d- c) ~" ^8 G' o' i; d# Q
* |6 H5 T% V3 N! \4 ?3 YFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 u9 b9 s+ ]" U4 I6 q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ c1 u' O- S) z9 H8 {( i; W z0 pkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 d# B T- m0 k6 wstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 B( k( u( `, o) R. U9 l1 k& H6 c
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 ?' A+ y E9 c- Q* b6 i& R% _# F6 }reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 e8 F$ B( P% Y2 ^. wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 P$ W7 k/ ]' K C' ^, |, @, G- Udemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
! g& R/ S1 M0 J8 bto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample# S/ V4 q: {5 R: V
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, W* V7 _: E3 T& jcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
. j5 _# h$ G, G9 _wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
" f+ P& x, ]" ]advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the x( g' @6 n. F& A6 k
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- q0 z3 x' d# E3 {use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
4 M' r( Y- M: P. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are$ R, H3 l v: G
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may, @7 J6 m; W3 e6 `
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% f5 k9 w9 A4 |" [hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye" Y* f8 b( E) g2 y
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a/ d; l( k' a( C6 u
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
! X5 m" M$ L* F" j- Jother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% U% X0 U# y8 @( z, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is/ z) w4 ?: W8 _7 d, ~& ]
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: O4 m4 _2 K& ^# e
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight9 G! @! \6 Q3 V I8 P+ I
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 B" A. J' Q* T/ ^1 E2 r
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 K/ ]$ `" O: k. R$ I( Sagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& z0 K* I( n% Aeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
9 Z) I9 | z: s5 n" cInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
# ?6 d# d& \. |* Y* J' |
) {" ]- P5 Y) E5 ySixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-; Q9 I& }, I' @* x2 l0 Z, a
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention$ l7 L; I7 j+ E4 S, K
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 I$ q1 Q+ K$ y# z' U! v
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
8 N; ?; f! U( U; m. r2 w' XOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for H8 m d8 x& C# {7 E5 F2 W1 p% g
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic, _$ @3 S5 o7 `7 H& Q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
2 A, X' ^: w3 [: d9 U. x) lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) q o! a* k0 y' x3 `3 `% B* }; r
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this% q" L/ X6 s5 L% i; S' A7 \, V( F. ]
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.) L' a, ?. m- ~( K6 @, ?, C
* F) F- \# C0 u' [+ q" ^
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
* W8 O. w& Y' h+ W v Y1 D! t$ U3 aintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too# x% a, C# \0 |& D: A! R& d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! Q+ R! ?5 |: i1 D9 @suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide% T, n' Q6 y0 b5 a- r% X
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 G, P; w2 |& n+ i B, @interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
' d' a1 T, S) p0 `% F" Mexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your+ \ O* J0 d1 z0 ^% j; c& r
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, K, K# @! q4 \3 Bsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 w4 O; o/ g* V! ]6 f; T( ~reporting should be done. |
|