 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
[7 _2 S4 `3 z- q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' I2 U; R* u* l4 V: z, U4 R% y( ^( y: J- A3 |. ?1 B' u
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html1 B# c( J1 Q- r8 V3 i7 T
0 x6 @) |$ \0 n( l% n7 J1 z9 lFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ Q3 I6 U ?/ z3 J2 R$ y! s" ^# H
2 _9 v6 n- f2 ?; G/ R& `
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 @" Z' k% E- v: t" N: U, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 {5 J+ u; \8 D2 {
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ ?& |4 z% M& W6 w, eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
$ R, g2 u4 C8 e$ F6 j0 O1 m; Sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
) Z! }$ p5 g5 j: r/ m& H! Epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 a, _7 _$ p% L/ X: Bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ Y2 I I* Y) P$ y1 b Hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
" k, L9 N$ D6 h! ]8 ^9 j' P
5 M7 `9 X3 G( n# K) ` o& LFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ r& ^" o2 i* N5 ~5 nOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in, B7 V5 H3 a, Z- V* D
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
' v0 T [1 [) u$ @& R4 N! hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 s# G% n# n: z5 R, A Q f
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( @3 p9 a& m9 P4 J
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ t+ @- v% P7 K: Q6 o8 {; R9 R6 k& i4 @
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
; e# |+ j. t% k. [% zbe treated as 7 s.
% {5 {' D j1 s: ?3 e; ?( x( L6 ]+ d8 U) q. o! n/ D
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; E0 x, C- k! [2 E e; z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem" M' r! c2 s1 |- d4 S( b
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' o j0 k% E& o. s6 l2 y1 n
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
. a$ f c6 h& D8 C' q1 ~: T-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.4 n" P* L- [, _4 x
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& K; o& V. }" P5 y
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and: P6 a8 I# |( k2 G" D+ m& p2 y
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! i" e; R6 _: [9 b9 G
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% F5 q$ S& t% G2 X
0 r( C7 v/ N9 i0 [) ~5 jThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! u: E8 `, I9 _' K
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in) [' U- p5 |- C4 W' _+ e
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so' Q0 x/ L: N. Z0 ~3 y# M& G: a
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later4 Y; Q( ]1 S; t9 b: L
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 T4 }' Q2 N7 n( nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 }/ q5 q" g5 s! u6 g, j( C
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: ^5 p% o3 g8 V U, _- n
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# Q- z0 K& i& [- L: `3 {; Zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 v9 ]# ^6 S$ V1 g0 E8 u, T, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% i/ R* I7 u1 J$ X: T; Y% @strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 L% ~, P+ N8 p. t3 H* V; Cfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. x- F2 @5 d7 e Ufaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 s: ?% f, M) y# P4 |
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; d/ Z; C! m( X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* ?. ], Z# q; o: r2 c5 ~- Y
% V3 W# A; N" a6 }) M3 oFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( a2 f2 L1 o! k: q+ tfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
9 I& T7 w9 b" i% z' j" js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s# D }( |/ }- \) a! c: h
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns$ R4 s; c1 j* D9 ]
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 B A; `9 f( V' {+ ], V/ y
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 Q) q6 _- {5 }% ~% ~
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ F2 r: l/ Y$ Y* Alogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 _) M: N# X- g) ^
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
; C' J4 x( \. I {- o) qworks.
2 K/ N# S6 A, E
% d; F; |: g& V0 C/ h- M6 [# oFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 I/ X; T3 z; l4 y: Oimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
3 s" Z7 c6 w; e- w1 I4 V3 H- k6 R( okind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
3 }9 N, W7 O! g( s& i" q0 ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: _( c0 W9 l; `# _papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and5 M Q x3 Y1 i+ h7 _- d
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
& h4 y( p( ^( C2 ~cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; p% y- M' x7 L; O( J
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
" _3 I; d+ F0 k+ V* Gto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
% D! D% v( Y2 O: q' L+ Sis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
- T' P: [; w9 k3 gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
" f0 f f! @% S, g% }wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly, u( G+ ]' {6 o0 N
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ x) k0 R) z6 k; P' Y6 k
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not) d1 Y) m5 l+ e+ A: p
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ j8 |9 B! D; o. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# J% K7 r- Y* l! j6 Vdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 r0 o: X, O/ {; S @9 Y, b- ~, C, l
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a, j. a* H4 N1 h6 e( X5 O; r! a
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
6 R6 m/ _. }* Bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
J" p+ n* Z* |5 m G, P O( pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" ^$ ?/ f" _/ X9 }+ d$ M, m5 \0 lother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect5 t# F7 V$ U1 p$ b7 O' S
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 z( a6 O5 n% L' |, }
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 j2 q/ n3 R+ d$ J" C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
; d0 s9 t' S- K, u4 e# X! bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
! g) K6 X3 S( ~0 ^' \! W$ k2 g5 zLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping7 W% d. F: D$ l( A# L* y
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
# M- ~7 ?- S- E" y8 \) n: y; X( Veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
$ [* }8 b( Q) |4 ?; pInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?2 Q0 M% L) k( P8 ?
8 g G' I; J0 {) W/ tSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-, c1 v5 C- ]9 W/ D1 o4 C" M% J+ C
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention5 K1 H$ n# I7 |$ b5 a
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% l1 s) j# ~$ t; T7 A! n4 F
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 u3 Q( p/ P8 N1 _
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
) S6 a# T1 H% [# ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
: }) [: M6 n" vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope8 [0 L6 r5 U5 r! \$ b' `
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a# w+ {) H( H9 [; N0 K
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" n H2 S" H" E
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye. ?# @, J& T2 o) |. ]( C0 t. {5 J
5 A9 a% G$ p; Y9 N; \Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, @. {# w7 z, @intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 n+ M: w+ N+ b, @' jsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a G% P+ h/ }/ S! L; a* k+ w# F
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
4 X9 T8 Z5 h& {% ^# z9 K; Tall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
8 m/ X- V1 o6 Dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 d1 Y V I' K# y1 L
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your! a! H5 T. T! j" L
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
2 {! ~1 p3 p) Q+ o5 R& vsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or |% o8 {9 I" Q. n- M7 T, g
reporting should be done. |
|