 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
5 w: e4 u2 \" F# o! j9 h如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# p; @, ?. ~+ E3 N! d9 K0 Q3 r6 V! \- u0 m; q% Y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
) @. M% M6 P* T, V v$ \9 @0 D# ^5 Q
3 ` i4 q) m% y( b9 F( HFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 u" v4 \1 c, p* K; e0 b( ]% G* L% g. }$ N2 B* \* l0 F1 U+ D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself$ j6 t: b6 L, L* k* I
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science7 }# B7 X4 X# d- B; C
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this0 I! c0 \* E2 b2 S9 R! f$ c
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 T* K( ^5 K. o6 n+ ?& p& sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
# {. p* u" i4 a( }, ~. F& }5 j6 Upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( c9 C* Q- ~5 E: n" v5 Dshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. [/ U8 y& k# j+ W1 q
which they blatantly failed to do.' \+ s" Z, F O
9 s2 y | l( F% i" oFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her9 d8 l: u* w9 z' I4 M: H
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in, h) u7 I+ u9 Z- L6 X
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
4 U# u7 p; k( _1 _7 H" x! Sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous6 U9 K% {. K d2 d/ f' ~- \
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an. Y6 y$ `4 a& G; M* `6 ~
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; _3 k& [* d5 Wdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# E2 U7 F/ E" C* g
be treated as 7 s.
3 U* h9 ?6 c0 d! f l K! t# d5 f' U+ [7 D4 @0 _$ m
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is4 N$ H- n7 x6 b3 Y6 H) p* S0 N5 X
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
0 r/ d' u( X: Simpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., u1 H' u; \, b& L( f
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400; o! a! S) F8 i6 D9 J- s
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
. C+ O$ R7 L& u: y6 A WFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an% e- A; A9 n3 j1 O
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" `' \' p) m, k% z8 @) M9 x9 j$ I8 m
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 X& W* b0 J$ O, `3 ^% t% vbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.4 p; b+ P5 p" f1 P6 q
7 f% D) C9 j& F6 C
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 }* n- }* B1 K" E9 V+ D* i: Aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, T# o' X8 N" P# @
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ E; G( t' V' p* R `- b. D
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( |% ^, D( ?( G( P6 M9 z# |& _
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% Z! D2 `0 k4 S
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 e7 N7 K. ~( b0 _) \$ h2 \Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- t7 {5 W: I4 P* |
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; K: N+ ]$ Z; G9 e8 J$ Q7 a
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
# @4 A, W8 d. f4 ]# f' z, a, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
* t3 y# x! N) H7 dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 c* n2 D$ D# q6 Z2 Z1 cfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ n* r& q$ K" }; f5 m
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
* ?3 z; E3 F! g2 Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
6 M/ |5 }- f$ `3 M) fimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 y9 \" G1 K; B
1 g; {8 e6 u' qFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
0 H. {. H% v- f- v4 c! H# ]four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 g9 N( D( J2 w/ xs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s" }7 i g" g$ I( W
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns; ?' L) E s- C: C5 {9 s( |% m* G, i
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 c( P: d+ [1 vLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 D3 G$ a! c3 S3 ^
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
8 H& j3 ^! l/ i& O7 E- Slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
9 ]" J% M' X7 X4 }7 vevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: k/ {; _/ S: S5 W- Zworks.
4 G& s* Y g4 Q! M- W) Q" [0 Q$ B4 E" k+ g' P1 J2 R
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; R4 Q3 ^- M; D% cimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
8 S) A D5 m2 t3 f+ P, j$ m: ukind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that# _; y# `5 t8 t
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
* H" w, A& B/ F& D( Kpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* p1 _4 S# Q4 Treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, y2 {) p1 V o% D
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
t, w4 j8 F: k; jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
6 a7 H6 s2 X1 g+ O f# Q4 ~( Zto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ ]; ~7 ?0 z; J" N7 M- K
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
) c1 l) ?" ]; M+ V, E- D, J Xcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he! r) C" q4 O* e
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
0 x0 K* j% f/ a" S0 badvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the! l! H8 r/ `1 }+ X$ T
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not( @" F) K& D: \
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
$ s6 E/ t7 J+ x9 o# a0 o, ?. B' E. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are' U7 J% v7 v$ B7 o' X% J2 b
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 D* z0 s2 r. ^4 Rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 f+ `+ b0 Y- X5 j, H; i$ Vhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 T% M' K6 D/ B2 a$ ]
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
4 n2 }9 a. m- Z( _5 Fdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
9 b0 [* j0 `' Q: cother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
: D q( Q$ {9 E, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! L! O6 f2 `1 b$ ]+ g0 |1 o R9 sprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ T3 w5 [/ e0 |: S# E2 | A, X
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: n2 R- v3 u$ ^1 ?
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? n" g* |4 c" w8 v- \% T
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping* q% N, [1 s# O& W2 b5 \7 z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for& r% J! y2 {4 p0 W4 Z8 j0 ]. R0 c8 _
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, y4 h0 H. F- G# |* S! _Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 x# l, @4 W8 j' n7 k7 L! n$ o
% L1 S" i5 N- D& I* V- K- ?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-# @! d8 W3 o$ J, \; a9 e
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ t: N$ K% U5 P! A4 C* I& G3 m
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 m3 m6 X" Y( ]# d! Y+ E5 MOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London% \2 E; b H# j7 \' j! i+ x9 U+ L
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 C9 ~7 [& Y) f4 N! A. |0 S4 a1 Ndoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 u9 q' V( ~- b% R# T: n9 C" I$ G
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
# Z" v6 ^8 o# B7 }- J: Chave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ Z9 b: m+ Y' v- @player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
( f! |: R8 s" V) q- rpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 r3 F2 m7 H6 Z7 y: J8 F
7 P+ M" z: a' r' t# g2 ?+ N3 ?
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (+ t& B3 S8 m: y. y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too' C/ }0 y8 @/ y$ L# a3 V l
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& L4 t& u* A! z$ i$ gsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
0 O. n. z2 u9 L( Z' `all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
2 L1 O& m9 F8 u8 i" G/ v" pinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" t# W# V7 C; k- O4 Z' dexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. l! _& b, [8 `3 |8 N$ L' |5 X
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ w, o/ Q2 {+ M* R9 Xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ m6 p/ z! l: R/ I; Hreporting should be done. |
|