 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 JIANG0 t# v8 S+ y8 o9 X8 \
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。; Q) z, A. w0 w( c" _
$ i4 I! h& L6 V0 y" lhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& M% d5 u7 S9 M6 B7 M# m9 C
( l4 A# G& f( z _) w8 Z1 C4 h
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! W% t0 E& I# I2 m1 i$ ^# `9 M9 f8 ]7 o( t+ P0 L/ N
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself4 Z+ R" u' n* x1 r- F
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 L3 }) @% ?: L2 o, { b1 _& |magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, C/ w5 g$ Z C$ P# ?
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 q. }5 E B$ U
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general" |& g# v) T- g' a8 g0 k
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 y3 y5 i# e1 E5 N6 Fshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 E6 Z8 M% Z6 M7 h$ X
which they blatantly failed to do.! J+ q- s$ @6 Y9 {' B% w3 l7 G
5 z; A( R1 z2 Z/ o4 [' u+ R
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her+ h5 C* J5 X/ F A# R7 `6 ?9 Y
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 j& \% g! J) ^ S# U
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
1 T8 L/ W( @; p: f! G( v+ danomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
6 c) |0 H+ M1 w6 h: V3 h" Kpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 G$ e, ?3 w. O7 h( q4 ?# Dimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. k+ W1 U& {! {- idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 X5 q. E& c$ S6 G; P4 o' |, m( h8 X& o
be treated as 7 s.6 S" `" T3 {% |* n6 T0 A5 ~
, y/ C" h/ ]# n8 c- u" @% {5 u
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 M' ~7 l5 O4 ?1 nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem( ?. B8 g! N% M$ M
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.8 ^( E: a. d) t7 \1 _0 A5 R
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
0 A r& F$ }6 d-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
k5 z0 [7 K! J/ L/ ]For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' A; k+ x0 t2 s5 ~8 o) g* gelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) k1 W4 R' ~* q1 y
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 I) r# o, X& A& _; p6 C8 lbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
) G$ o1 R3 y& @# d/ ]0 Q$ {/ }# U, ]4 q' o( f- l: G* _5 D
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook" f# H4 d% }: D$ K. l z' L2 m
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 U v- ]+ Z6 K- g. Lthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ H) Y, L) ^5 D- Ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
+ D/ b, d0 y8 sevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* Y; Z" S7 y/ D. B y, m1 f
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World; k+ m+ T# m: e
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another+ O' ~# D% j/ {1 r: r7 x. [
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ W: W% m* e0 F! @5 s" z% s, I V( s- yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) r& k+ k7 c' f4 s$ Y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this4 x! |( U2 J3 ~
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 c4 M1 C7 ~8 K. e# ?+ _7 e; U) x' \
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam m& F6 N6 g' n1 Q
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: ~) v3 @- E3 H) z
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; r7 Y# r" _5 M8 |' K) O9 yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 M5 p* D0 j4 u3 S- A
" ]7 K, v3 n# Y6 kFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- z) x7 n. I5 K% {& Rfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; ^: ?4 E2 o) i. @
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& g9 N8 P; c8 j: @
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns) P0 Y' [& b$ x/ u
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
7 Z% w6 z( f* I6 R, T( ELochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind! L5 M1 B( O- j! A
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 ?2 O0 A9 i" f( B: q/ L0 D
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! L; v' q# X% @ k) yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! c2 W) @( U- k+ X. nworks.
; _9 x2 N1 X: F9 o1 y8 }, u
. w, P4 j" o8 JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 ^, p$ s3 }) h$ wimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
" y% x% [" }& Y$ ?8 Vkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that5 b6 ^: L! U5 o) w/ o8 v
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) z* V9 a! V. o4 d/ O1 L o8 n7 spapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and" e& ^! i3 k9 c4 M. k" F
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- j. k7 O' [1 v& q C; x: p
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 A4 A5 g8 ~' z4 R# b
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 V7 U# A4 n) T' H( z& j7 U, J# H
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ F" Z% `& Y E( ?! @8 _3 Iis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is( n) g8 z( L* s$ v% E7 T7 I
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' U6 ?3 h) t# b1 W8 Rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly# A* e4 R) s7 U
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
7 w, a9 T L# Bpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not5 l3 U6 j/ A/ Z
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation$ M }+ g$ k: r
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are) ~# P# ?. C3 p- x$ r' Q# H
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
n* l5 U( m' F) R4 ^. A9 m% Ybe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 u9 D2 ^4 V1 S7 yhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye Y: k" P5 E7 V8 Q2 K
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
+ S8 b: L6 [- y l" O- E9 [$ D: hdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
3 p& ^7 P. Z% h! J, e" Jother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
, l$ t2 r# O p0 h) f/ x, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& E! K: d0 d. f+ z! G
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
! p f& {; j1 d+ d% bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
; v. w6 @7 i J1 Rchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
$ ~# N- v+ V# C) w( ?Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& T* ?9 J3 i( l' T5 bagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for0 t* ^$ N) s) O3 i4 u, W
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: V( L. K& D9 w5 G) F! G' i0 B( PInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?' d! q* ^3 z3 s& K- ?$ W
$ U, r% C" j7 L( U0 I* ]1 v, QSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; s0 ?4 y0 G* W( A$ M' D8 P) Icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention( J, k* v" C7 p" X
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 k% J' w' I9 o: j, n8 T
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
' q. u- w, K; ]9 ^. ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 o Y+ `5 K% o; x T
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 K# Y! }% o+ H6 s* zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope# d, K- r- d0 w1 p, c2 @' c3 n" f
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
5 }9 D; y( Y* Z/ g# Y& Zplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& B! M! c% @1 w' ]
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! O9 y8 k' k( M! q* W* [: l
4 r3 b: V: v/ b8 }Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 {# r9 |1 V: i* d' s
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 R! [ C( r5 s2 n& rsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: |# f- ]+ l" }
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# I; _" R) m% I5 b; b: T% y+ S
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 o+ E- @# l2 Jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
9 V, d; L& o, n: @$ G% d; Zexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 O: m2 m& M8 |+ Targument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal8 }5 K$ m1 a# {3 q
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
: f e7 M9 G# a9 s Areporting should be done. |
|