 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
: w- X, z. C8 y; {3 _8 w) O# ]- R如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: o7 }" ~8 k5 m1 V7 l7 y
3 v2 K& o. G. p: m- d5 q: e3 F" {http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
2 G" V* E3 Y% y- @' [
$ F( [7 l3 N Q. P bFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# P" _7 g* t6 Z$ C" ^/ o/ G9 l# L$ \' w* o5 w1 C2 X( n: {) z6 F
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& V; ?' m# d" O) g, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science5 I! X/ c% q m
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
; F) ~3 f* {( T6 Qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 M; C, ^$ _; q( I) y
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
+ T: y k9 g$ B$ |1 Bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( p2 T: B+ ] ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 a F( V3 c7 E8 `7 Fwhich they blatantly failed to do.; z- D2 g' q* f) x/ @7 F0 X
# i+ S* [( i- n9 H' bFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her5 K$ g- ?: Z3 c% h2 G
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in5 k6 [4 w$ S0 K2 ` j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 w7 B; l$ ] |+ Y
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous" I, R+ R F# Y+ l- m
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 I; G* [& U9 w8 Z/ Z
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ A) I, q/ t1 W0 f l
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
2 S5 v4 h. o& p- ]9 I, abe treated as 7 s.
. X, a( X: K, t7 Z' Y+ x7 \4 L3 m; z b. k ]' H& b
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
5 D( z. X0 `6 _) ~( W, f. i8 [9 A* C* Istill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, z/ H M9 X2 H" @1 i1 `
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 J- R0 y5 g# o8 F4 vAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! C- B+ Y9 @, c7 z. o! i-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
/ S9 V6 t; \- B+ @, X/ f/ D+ qFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an5 Y, t. g4 t/ f5 k
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 S" y: O- u- Wpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: `( X. E2 i. ]9 Mbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: z& t. @+ B6 p# D% E3 ~
7 W8 L# w# e) k" @2 k0 O
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
" K7 @, @5 D! Dexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
- L" {+ x: v' t' `5 r3 zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& n; |6 i0 |! k: e$ f/ }" ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later1 t6 }5 d& P1 m: H! H' l9 c
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# P ^; C$ u0 i, F$ J7 Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) U5 T h% \3 n- [
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
$ r/ `. O- s! ]6 utopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' W3 ^" E6 W2 h% M) s
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 i( @* a& c' v, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- _% y! G% j8 D( q
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 Q8 Q) J+ D, f! ~2 E, @1 r- D
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% F. Y0 }$ ~ \
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# D$ r, T `1 f4 Qaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that& q0 M9 P8 R' ^+ L: {" s( o/ t9 l
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& W y6 J) M3 k% w& e) f" ^# a6 j
' @; D, T# y% J0 }& C8 b9 x6 w" cFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
4 z5 s8 ~) X! rfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
, F2 X: g- W0 B9 ?1 Js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' @6 ?' z: k. ^+ y) v), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
8 P2 {$ S& C; s% h. a3 b! Y+ Aout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
5 [! v6 u+ S8 f$ e4 E& \" P! ?: xLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind1 k2 m! F! [9 l
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* Y+ ^8 @" O3 U: ~' e4 K h+ C% M& m( `
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
/ G z4 }8 B; {- ]) p5 z6 Xevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science y4 \/ b; E6 p5 P7 A, X% W# b" T
works.+ n1 j2 l; ?. _( V. x: Q
, ~, I% _/ P+ t; d8 \# c
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
1 \: A- O7 ~) [. g( L+ N h" cimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
0 `0 X) T F |' Ckind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 o# a: _8 }( t, t E
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! `9 l* e% k f! X% e% U5 ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and' R+ c' O' u' H1 [6 a
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 N! G, t. y' T3 q
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
6 K! f+ c4 s% q0 bdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
$ D6 |- U) |- ]) K) v' q( c. ^to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 N/ D5 ?) ^& P Q* p. _/ Fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
0 A% a4 f( J' Pcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he! I' R! ?1 A, H- u4 G/ Q* Y
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ V4 u! {2 t$ M. r8 M( P9 J0 \advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the1 {# M: V) t) @
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not" p. [+ _1 o2 b8 I' i* v
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
# o2 J6 U- B2 C. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
% T% d0 @& w( M) U+ zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 ?4 ~, o2 m3 {6 M+ {4 Y* gbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; c7 a( M( L4 K4 X" |0 P1 H# ]
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye. ?5 M3 j5 L, k& a. B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
6 x! g3 g, e" idrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
. n; E3 _* W' S% Oother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- g ]: P$ l& l' g! O, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is$ _/ j& z" j3 N- i
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
; O" k0 N7 N; I9 zathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
: L/ K8 s# t9 ?2 T2 ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# Z8 k. A6 s7 A, CLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ [7 u. o% @# e9 l2 K* Y3 X/ W3 Bagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 u3 @9 ]6 @( D. l9 y8 `% k; a
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
0 T% E7 e! I+ J0 X( ^: m% ?Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. V' Q* ?& X8 _: s
R; |) B! R) O- X
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
, C6 P1 U" J8 W' C; fcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
4 _" Z9 j; k5 V1 F# k4 R. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 x, r6 E! m! d9 g: F4 l' {Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London( M2 Y: m& T9 u0 ]
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 j+ \( Q5 X- k0 hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 e( w+ H2 Y' K; d6 ~3 Bgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
$ ]+ P! m) X1 k' X, x+ a `have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
+ O/ a0 Y, Y& vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this4 l$ g* ?! [$ B; M2 m
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! w4 ^) v( N/ ^) Q4 [4 w" y
( R# \0 C) @3 w: f8 fOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
* ^9 ?: c: d/ [, s: Qintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ l! b: I- z, x) Z( Y
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: D- y' L# S$ a# L* ?+ Ssuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 V B+ V8 o1 V- R( eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- ]8 t2 l; u1 n* n, Rinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 t+ y: Z, r% V) oexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 |6 U6 {3 r: t B# p! Z1 H
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ O. ^# n9 f( z; usuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' J6 t& E! W* u' O; H. c, ^: Jreporting should be done. |
|