 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
m p1 n$ K; e4 v2 H4 P8 x; H如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# e5 g( I- l6 z8 V- `$ Y
! n' V" |9 Y. O! d' Chttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html! U- w% `% [ o, d. {. r l
/ C; }) x: G1 @$ g& B
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania/ b& r8 O7 g% \* Z# e ~. y
4 p$ c8 t! `- [- WIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, i5 U$ E& ]- j* d( g, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science' u3 S+ ^+ p% ]& H, D
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, X8 u3 [" X; K& Q2 w' e$ Y8 X3 sis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
2 D1 Z4 `! a$ {" u+ e" Gscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
( v+ l9 d! {/ ?; k7 T1 \# Upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 O- I8 G u! z! J8 U" Q* e
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
3 ~. J5 c* K+ N+ Kwhich they blatantly failed to do.$ E& P# J+ g) i/ o7 g- n" g. y
4 {+ k' V: ]7 H1 G( H) }First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
7 }# ]: v+ f2 w+ \* G5 WOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: g9 c* P2 N' U/ i2 V
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “. H w- V% M% [- u/ s
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
+ R8 M; M9 h4 X4 ?& [7 ?. m( ypersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
4 T+ X/ k5 R9 d/ Limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the0 n7 v I$ B J- s3 y4 G7 \) z
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
# | R0 W& G0 {# |be treated as 7 s.
* u* G" g: h( X# n/ y: \+ F" `& H2 `" |5 w
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 s9 K+ s! m+ d- O$ M
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
h- m( y4 x$ J' q& Nimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
; k/ u6 x$ u& `' \) D" T: q D, C3 L# `An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400( b9 u+ f! |4 _1 L
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% z' O4 L2 C0 D0 D* w
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an1 S6 x( ~: v5 A: N7 Q+ k; v
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; m! T/ f& [1 {1 j5 }4 Y! q; ]
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”* m; {4 y: I( p; ^0 i5 r2 O3 {; g
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ c, O* `$ k' B8 @
+ Q, @0 K# z+ }* \ B* RThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
, [4 F( F( F) M2 }% oexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in6 z" G5 f& o2 u' j6 r$ _* ^
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
1 }9 w' U# q+ g" h$ L% E: |" Z, fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
3 V- Q6 p3 ]% Q: N- v8 nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
1 C8 A0 }+ E. a2 Z3 M( i. x4 Ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
5 ]: |5 s( v5 a( E. e) gFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! Q# x5 |$ g3 C% o- g
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ ^& a5 h( L8 {4 C# Hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle2 U: m8 x: ?7 P+ c
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this, _' d- Z8 p/ g; o9 K
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ }* y$ K) y6 D
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam c( W! I3 q3 O4 o6 i
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting# m u! T8 o7 }) l8 X5 n' t& c- N
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
4 W( e: y. j0 {. Y) A& R3 V) Ximplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.' u6 g8 q% C7 f/ C T+ ?
3 A0 z0 \) M: O0 v2 F7 r3 E9 t
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are# e9 }6 S, _, B, L2 ]" s
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
. e" O. v$ A- g: {9 d, os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& g) n- o; ~2 A8 }- p3 D& j
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
( W; y# X+ p. j4 j' Fout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# q5 p! a2 L6 K3 t- k0 Y
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
, A8 N, q: f2 i- n$ V) dof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it. x! ^- S6 c s; c
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in; i! {9 X/ m9 v8 J) S7 ?* o& U/ L
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science T6 S4 f; e+ @0 B
works./ S% p3 M; p/ n' w) z( l7 m D
8 c; j6 B" G. S$ @2 C' V7 G3 F
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and( Y0 ?8 G; F0 r1 m2 D
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this i/ X2 A9 z8 m7 v# {6 J4 q' r
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. R+ f' h# H' ~* c6 l7 i* a
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
* V- }& ~) x9 T+ H; {$ D9 P1 T' ppapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 w& S; P+ ^: L7 v4 Z
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* F5 b) [+ ~! [( H1 J
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to8 I0 \; G$ [, W: {
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 W4 G6 {& ^" P# s, N
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ x) T" B+ F7 ?is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" V6 ?+ ~* C, x& f+ Z( H' Jcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' t3 B3 A% m, d$ Nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly4 `& t, K0 C2 W
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 y. O0 `+ i4 M2 m1 epast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
, v7 M6 Y9 C6 K6 N* M- Z$ m) Duse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
9 f- x# }" o* A& {) O% X) M. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 W* |0 A$ D4 x/ V& E \0 Y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ \ G( [/ ^& q y1 q/ ube true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. ?/ e2 `0 L1 r/ V2 k+ Y
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( w) `! `5 U" M0 E6 L' Q+ thas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
% [5 O7 y4 }% z$ D4 `. n) U9 mdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:4 m a- ^# U8 A
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: k% x8 m6 y) E9 T% X
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 U) N3 [) a1 ]7 l# e
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
) m0 o; E8 H, r" j, Mathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( t( N! @0 S5 ?3 p# |: f4 w& h
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, D( n3 u" D* _- p, S
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) q0 A* ]3 b$ n( d0 _) t$ Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ \1 s, B$ a! G1 G2 h
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 @5 u1 u, l7 q* _
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?) Z* K3 d2 t% Y
0 a2 i: d- A; i0 q8 k
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
( Q( q' J0 Q" \, A w. N6 ?: Jcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. K0 l) O5 r P# s! o4 n. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, q$ C* ^: c% M+ f0 v) L
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London$ q1 E n6 w6 [" N
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for& B5 [6 D6 f6 K, S3 S6 u/ C' T
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
p- J% ^! w& K. D8 q2 j: Ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
4 r% m$ p( V6 G. ?6 t9 @have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
1 Y# S( U2 x( r/ [- vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
1 K# J- o4 j' Q4 M( x5 j+ |3 ppossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.! r$ f5 ^ ] v$ \$ \- k4 M
) q+ t7 E3 A5 j' T4 S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- d2 j7 P& p- s! `& J
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
4 n# X* ~1 `$ G! v5 e0 Bsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a8 S; p7 j S9 d' j- }, b9 d
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 C" ]1 ?3 o6 |$ H% |* g4 Aall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
) V$ B$ ]3 H, Finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. R& T$ I/ z- N& W- B0 E5 J5 _1 R- @explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; T- L# Z0 Y; V
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
. L ~ j8 d! esuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
5 K4 I0 d7 Q. ?/ W) i+ B! n* {reporting should be done. |
|