 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
. a; A) b9 c* r8 ?9 I如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ B: K/ j5 U- [( k3 P* F' L/ i) R# B2 z: U; _0 o x) V. t2 n
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html8 v( F" G; E% |; O6 `7 ]
& k& s. D* Q4 Z s4 G5 g* A
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania( Z) r& |8 ?: u2 s8 s" [2 p
1 l2 a8 p0 l& i' F1 ^5 C2 p$ C# tIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
- D* c/ ~; U$ A8 G* y; y- e, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. U* s/ _: |: Imagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ I) z) T- V1 `/ }. E4 v. [is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ M4 N0 y; K' }9 _+ \. C
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 B% F3 [7 f: D- C+ bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
3 ~8 b+ f- q4 a, zshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
: d" e: a1 C& K! h hwhich they blatantly failed to do.2 u0 d+ ?; P$ H& P; u" u
4 A/ C4 K7 P$ c, n
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
1 C9 Q3 m9 ?/ WOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 x+ [) T+ s- R# a. {2 B8 H2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ h6 K: g8 ~+ U8 j. j* m. d
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! c! E$ L. G* N3 N
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ k4 N" _4 x' C f2 U* `improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the8 s K/ A7 c, s7 i& G
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
" b4 K% @( G1 [) y+ M# z0 Tbe treated as 7 s.8 |, o* F' V( u& L! p3 Y
. D' |/ z2 u' w8 f% Z5 z& MSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 p+ Y9 }- D( B6 Y, F: c
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, ~+ X, \! B, n! d0 h) {
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
2 i) F% D. I N, z% LAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400+ q1 c' G; l. ~9 c4 M+ g- A& f
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) g9 e+ @! h( M4 r) Q& f; jFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
1 q+ s) U3 N# Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and6 I- M4 G+ N& l8 |1 T/ }8 M6 `
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; A }+ z, {. @ ^
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ }4 ?+ ?9 C* P6 z/ M" [8 e
\& f, H$ c5 m( d% L: E6 aThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook( G$ c$ F! S; w7 _! [3 C
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
" d M( R7 q& M7 H7 `/ \- Gthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
8 m# T5 i# z: Ahe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: ~8 A$ J6 l! ~ ?3 _, d% i
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s0 ^5 V6 X# Z2 V4 O7 F
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World( p1 w: R: G3 \0 `* s
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% @; d# h$ M8 g% }4 Etopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other# Z" \9 n- s2 L0 b/ _( F$ _
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle% o) `- B* A! [
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this5 k3 M4 ]* U, k; h
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. b7 @; U K( D7 f7 G1 N% @
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. z- I3 l! |) Y8 C/ p2 q% d0 e
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting" d& C3 r! v6 E/ \
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' u5 _$ a0 s, _. J9 @$ R
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; j+ R( A/ q: S8 l7 K7 |
/ L- @% a1 A! |- N ^Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are. H _7 C+ h9 A0 E \9 w# F
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! d+ D, C2 U1 K% t% K9 ^s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# M$ B. A( `8 x6 g2 t), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& b0 @% l% {8 Z$ d. Y) w. `
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) o0 l/ ~; ?- K5 [
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind8 F# G- D; G+ l) e' F
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* c$ u: }8 \% q& rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
$ X L9 P* Y$ P8 @& k( P x* Q! g5 Gevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science7 J W9 N7 p% _; N8 D
works.; O, c9 b7 D* K9 B% o3 b) |
+ F% |, B8 H' n
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
+ `$ d. J( [: J& jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this8 y& W4 [, I! y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, d9 E) @" o- w1 J% H: r9 H; i
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific& T5 m, s% @4 K, T4 H
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
% k6 N! N0 m6 H! ]0 mreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One$ D2 E6 |. `6 l9 a" }. \
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: x& R( ^# w" p: u U4 ^demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
& E' U* s/ f6 _6 {! k' k3 pto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ F; v: [% K( G( E; D1 Z
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
5 I8 N' Y6 w& i, z" [crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he' A) n j3 j `
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
" [$ `. I$ x' Y5 X3 D( Zadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
$ p5 \+ L$ o& H8 B; b# z4 j! Dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not, Z1 y& Y! R" i# i {4 h% f. B) b
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" |$ H; ^- T; N6 v) W. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
4 [, }8 D; f2 D4 Sdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
4 ^; O' U( z/ W# \ g7 Q3 [: H4 r. cbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# k9 k! K2 q8 J* mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 o$ T" l; [9 q, }& p' c1 I% B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 ^9 e, @# [. n8 {drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ G1 L* Y! D2 b" [
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect$ [3 K6 c5 L1 l, ~5 j
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is6 L4 G6 |0 C& C
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an1 c1 M: y* g k# z1 b! Z1 E
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight, d; Z0 t4 L$ b! N* X& g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
' K% l! d8 D+ L& u7 pLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
" V; E$ y, M) V8 f1 U. V# w/ }4 uagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
2 j% w |# ^" l/ O5 w0 ?eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- s5 p, l# {( ^Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, c+ U; p2 l- W9 [$ l' u" P
3 p! i/ J5 j# V; QSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
0 R$ g. P" q, I, j: S7 _9 q5 xcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; i- }' I6 J2 k( g! E" ~. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 j0 Z" h& l+ C3 N
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 m* r: W7 k c1 fOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for! ~9 z% D* e" s( u2 f/ Z
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% C1 R/ v3 A# m7 ]. l! Mgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope" E7 f; D- _4 g& q5 o1 g' [& e. m) g% v
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a, w- i6 C2 P) Z( v. T9 H8 p* l3 J
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
9 J: l( n I& Y5 K9 Fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
, u9 H K2 z V) B$ p' p
6 B! Q. ?4 a" K% Z0 @6 ]& J5 jOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (+ ^1 j( f& q* X$ F% p
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
# r4 U5 N7 X2 z4 l; U8 D9 Rsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a1 p3 u1 C$ B3 N) z. K$ f9 T
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
0 N/ @% Y1 L3 h! p8 K: m6 P' Lall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: b4 ^7 g- {: E. t( u* v' Binterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* X# C# X& u1 E) i# { O$ }2 v
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your( v. [/ u( x6 {% L% @" R( Y
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal2 ^: ?# x$ f7 I% f, T- z# ]' A! w
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
" \3 s1 u0 j2 ]% H6 Dreporting should be done. |
|