 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
: Q' V! P- ^+ I) q1 g2 _如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: G( e$ ]) G6 ~+ ^( a( p
7 a8 E: _! w& w& o; q7 a6 ~& ^http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, J8 N+ l q3 b0 C/ F% K! e5 s
- K6 @5 Y& O9 i8 i r& E; A2 v
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" @: J6 G ?$ m& o7 g+ I
; g& u/ L9 V7 G3 l* J
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself2 P5 E+ J! Y6 G" T! n0 ]( p5 X2 i1 p
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 d. r& e+ G @" [
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this' f! C# z! }1 ~5 R1 g
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 R0 I+ d9 f* a& S/ k& p8 m1 {, ?
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 h7 X3 F& t% \: D. N5 H. q8 upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
z+ `; g' }5 I, \should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 }+ d4 ?3 F! ?6 T
which they blatantly failed to do.
* n: T/ m; T# Y4 b. y
* \; n, F" f$ u, h3 l) `First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
! ]: a: K# K) t/ {3 UOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" R) _# @3 M$ k7 i3 y5 `8 F
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
3 p" y/ q* ^% B X' n8 v. [& \anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
' A; f( i* W. _( Jpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an9 \ t( k8 k! `" x) G5 c% S
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! M% Q7 [# \5 H1 Bdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 N' u: m- s; x3 n- m* x
be treated as 7 s.
0 @3 [% |- \" r9 x% \1 E" U6 I" H' p3 |
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is o" y5 f" R+ f% D+ ^6 n; O) t. V
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ `0 C3 o) y7 ?7 y4 j# O. V
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 p1 K5 S1 Z6 }* e7 @; F. s0 TAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& s0 R7 m$ y. A$ Q0 F, D-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.3 h/ ]8 K* }2 ?! N; L
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* V( x- A0 X' u$ l4 u7 B6 `, B8 O
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and# N: G+ y/ m0 M! d' w- u1 _" J$ _
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”% E! ^7 r! [" ~! N2 w7 q m
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 r7 A# C0 C% E( C
1 y# j O+ O- o8 Y% m
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
, W3 S) g; I* f! Y+ S! a+ \8 texample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 Z* M1 [9 |, Q: Kthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
O4 }) Z. Q7 G ^ S/ ?he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later6 X4 w. P# W: ?. u
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s6 R( D5 t0 t' i6 n
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World5 j* U) ]( n+ }
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' A x u% [# |$ M3 e Ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other1 a" v$ s* V% t0 f" j
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle9 o7 @0 \/ d, j9 @) W
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this2 h9 O/ X$ l5 i5 P. l/ ~
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 [8 U. U7 w! ^8 E+ ~9 M
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 Z* N' ^8 _ g& afaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
4 E' |0 z, B4 V. g G+ S8 z1 \3 \aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
2 u. I! l/ m* ?9 ~4 Z, m5 G$ T4 himplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 x" ^- y, u, Y
. I* p: I1 R+ o0 nFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are# ?. K- q! J# |$ j Y6 |9 ~* V
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; {/ V/ Q2 e7 e2 s
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ q: | P& v# i: E" ~) l! o. _: `# `), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns) X: W; I8 E k2 J- n% U
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,4 k; x/ \: [- v- U
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
" b+ w( ]9 P ]1 A5 Cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
# F7 L6 P, y3 X8 o \9 K5 nlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
+ m4 v+ X% T: d6 R2 p4 ~/ a) T bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( e, ^2 ?; Z) _works." g- ?- q3 j/ q9 \8 G# q8 g
) B. @1 n! X: K2 ]/ kFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and. B8 `. z. G; @5 D, \5 U& E
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
- z3 W+ l* ~9 }7 b3 ~# ^kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( Y; P" w. B7 Wstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific$ N. j: N0 R% v# z5 N
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and4 r: k4 o, t( N& k! g# L. e
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
# Q0 W2 f u1 b2 G% Ncannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to) b3 r6 ?/ @9 P$ Z5 t/ j/ [
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. C% U4 I2 S3 Q C _6 R
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
! F# X" l& S8 S8 W" tis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is. z, b7 K# {7 \0 k8 K' M) W
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& w; z" H/ [- @' R8 }
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly$ F6 d9 E# V0 _3 l* F6 P
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the, H9 Z N$ F, p0 M5 x e
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not( ?" o% d ~* g' U$ H
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation J: l* g0 g8 B9 U4 j2 H" K2 f
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
5 z' }9 [, G" D8 C3 {$ bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may/ o# d q9 I9 {) C1 t3 w% l
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a' @' ?) w+ |$ U; ?- N
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye3 N2 v) G d. r, w* ]
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
! Q7 r! Q& r1 a- tdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible: c; k4 g0 ~- q8 \7 T1 U p( R
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect# B$ B1 O+ F: D; w4 h
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! Q. w$ G; g0 H6 f& ?
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& z7 H' T; E8 n+ ?6 `athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
: b/ q( {$ \$ e* fchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
6 l7 z# ^8 Z, J1 aLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) R. b- g' l2 ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
( l5 p3 b8 F2 J$ l/ yeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% z2 z3 W/ K# ]+ i
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
( J+ ?# X- m$ G% c/ R9 ~7 J) G( l. C
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
4 Q, X) n1 m: A3 Vcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. Q7 F9 F* i$ D7 ?; t
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for5 @5 X: N( O/ F$ K* E
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
F; n0 h/ i' c/ z& Q6 GOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- ~" V' R' r- R3 q
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic e# d+ e0 P+ H t' c9 |
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope2 H4 O, o: ~4 n( G
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a8 Q+ [+ N% f3 ?9 T; x
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 V8 l+ |8 |8 X* n* Y+ e) l/ Cpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" ]0 s! c9 E; a% N, p3 f/ _% ~
/ B- S, Q. ]% T1 r5 x! H# UOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (% e7 ~3 u6 _+ t$ m+ ]
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 v$ `8 i/ x0 gsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' P/ N D# r7 d* t( ?/ [& Z d* T- Dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 E4 A7 d( `, h, b4 Q% z( p
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your' w1 a1 ?2 v5 z6 n( Q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 |" U6 ?$ h: a
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your+ r. p, p/ V$ {
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 c$ n) ]% h- @
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or8 d/ @! u6 a4 ]+ ?. _7 j+ N
reporting should be done. |
|