 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
' ?% F( Q$ y( @& J# W* v6 W( I! y如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
1 y5 f9 B+ |$ i+ {7 {1 S9 S
* y& V! W+ p6 ~- ahttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html* ]& n" S1 F- y. {; j8 [
- e. I% A1 E( T! Z3 d" c1 Q, ]FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 |( I2 T5 f; o
# f, ]# Z3 c. iIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" W- Z6 H4 R1 b* i- P- @: o5 q
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( ]' {. D% q$ _; Amagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this! N. l& s. M& r" d5 j* G0 k$ v
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 r! ]% m5 Q2 `( P' K9 iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
4 Y* j5 p6 _, F4 x) J( T* t4 jpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' F; n; M6 h( z& |$ q1 t% v: Y% ^, Lshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 J8 |$ i- M7 x. Z8 v+ T2 g- n
which they blatantly failed to do./ ^3 z, A; N2 k3 s6 V8 \2 ~
, l9 `$ x# |0 w$ R1 r4 B
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her( i' ?8 r$ m: {
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' v2 I, E9 J4 t" X3 a; i
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' I6 i# U4 Y4 }7 z
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous1 c, i" c. ~# T- }0 w6 V
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
9 G8 k! S# U& D cimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) \0 A/ I A! J! j1 |/ \& q
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
( j3 X4 { ^0 H& v0 G: Wbe treated as 7 s.
4 W5 J2 J) o, o7 c
* @5 w% o, A8 [- H3 F3 FSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is A6 N9 G$ ~* ]
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* W! U' d! b- c7 {, S' u1 _impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
" L9 }6 V1 j3 B" Y2 ^An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4004 E7 m7 d: h: ^2 x6 `( p
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.' }& O$ \3 r! d( Y
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, y1 N. h$ d5 @# velite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
4 h8 @6 A$ n. o# Z- k& E8 epersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
; D( [( P: d+ `based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* C' w2 \3 B* @
8 {5 M. B/ c6 c& j7 c! I& cThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
! M- n- F2 g( e6 w" _2 pexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 f/ d8 I& M y0 H2 E# sthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
( L. t/ v/ C4 M. i( @; phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later! W: o8 g. N% f! u3 g% w
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s3 {1 Z: M- v6 `
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World& r5 o0 i. m- B* c/ v/ _
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 B$ `3 f0 z7 l9 ]
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other9 ~+ X4 H( S2 n* w9 L
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle0 C' F* p6 Y% C
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 f9 f1 U4 W' g4 R( o$ B+ T
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
! T" M4 u' i9 J, f6 [5 T1 I, Gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 ^' b: P% ?8 w8 J h! A
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 W' T( e2 E! }6 T3 caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 L/ _# f7 C0 ?7 l4 w
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 Z Q9 q3 U: F/ g# s8 t
9 z. T4 c! ?; p" t* I# U0 E
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 j; f- b, d3 J2 D% j3 I4 {four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! L- T0 c! }# ^- ^# S/ S) w% ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
+ y1 r6 O. q! k. r; P8 W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
5 V% K' t9 p! @3 p: S/ wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
: {9 c# \1 O/ PLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: j2 R" |: ]$ F2 I6 @( N
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 l. k# A6 N4 z) zlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
/ H1 G& ~3 H( m" G" Eevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 q" [- _3 E: v
works.
( N0 A" @0 }- ?# Z
9 q; j2 `* h1 j( a3 x5 [+ C: C. vFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 q. a, D) ^. x/ D
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this. n9 l5 _! Z' K) W5 a1 K2 t
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, r. B$ X" { I* F% @standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- Q; |% H+ Y k" j* G+ n* Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and' N6 m5 S( S' m' d; k: z
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% p6 [+ g/ G8 ~7 r8 g) j9 k5 r
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
/ ~( D% C( d$ e; Bdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 v* d( o/ e9 e, f- y% b0 m: [to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: c9 n7 T/ I3 q' ^2 nis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is" u- d, j: G$ o( A3 u6 u& g
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he+ R# y- A) U- [+ N
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; b; E" I4 ]0 `- s4 g+ R
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
1 W) x5 T/ r2 O% [; Qpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
& p3 h9 Q8 p5 D, S# L5 R9 }* V) l2 Ause it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
) V( a+ G' h7 ]% _/ k. f. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
1 k( A- c# B1 ]* w3 M: J1 rdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# p, _- k$ @2 O, g4 Ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 i9 R/ M! S4 v9 T6 @$ w0 \hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye- j, I; w- x7 I' P0 W
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
$ h/ } M- R5 h. D: Wdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:0 G, H7 G, b# _ e* l8 Y* ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect [9 H8 |8 h8 V' d: Y+ y; w' l
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" {. f* K4 \4 {4 y+ i) xprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an- C+ K. v4 d) `/ _$ I% d
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
+ {& ~3 {/ `$ n8 b/ w' R" A! P& |* @* Echance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) s B% V2 E7 D
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
7 |7 I; Q, V1 S9 T, p8 gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
% Q y) u. f3 g5 V7 M- n* ?2 x; V' ?eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 }+ q- D z8 o1 i- n* n
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) S/ Q. V0 l/ I+ G0 Y. a+ t8 @# [4 P( w. x/ v$ u- r& g
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-" K6 E& L# ~" ?% @ ^
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
+ q7 ]! h: }5 {4 b& U. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% l* m8 J) S5 Q2 g$ p
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
! n' H: X* M: pOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for0 o; w( q* k, F
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic! h$ m2 U3 S( u e! e
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
6 T; q! P3 j5 P Y# P0 X$ z Zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& z7 @' Q; X- j ?6 T$ vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this* @" o$ k- R' ]2 [- g. n
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 c: f/ b5 ~" X1 e
' ?( q8 ^7 w. ^$ x2 _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
( X s9 U: p% r/ Iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too) w6 E* s& x b% v
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
9 \7 H- {3 K' i; osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
, j) I; e! a8 Z1 V3 Ball the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
/ v# h' ]6 m8 ?* X3 b* winterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# Y; T$ t2 H; {' o, @
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 i E& @$ t E# f" v
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 d' Y- s0 |4 k% ysuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& U( w" O, m- y- S$ Q
reporting should be done. |
|