 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 JIANG6 V7 G& ~" l+ x" I6 ?3 S" q
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。$ i7 `: I* }3 i2 j
2 ^3 k! s/ q) ]9 L) Thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html4 T- M9 V8 v. H6 I
) q/ {' ]4 b+ [$ |. [FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
9 Z) `8 M e6 i0 l2 K
) Y- d: W; B* J) v+ y8 j' y8 ]" YIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself7 F8 N+ _0 C& M" ^4 ~; I) p
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science/ ~. U" F2 m: N1 O- c$ S/ n
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this4 g. f8 X; o Q Q, t, I! S
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; ?( x! r* L- `5 Iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. ?0 a' Z* m$ d2 P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 F3 c! e: q8 j& f( r
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 l2 {7 f7 }2 d$ c/ s, Kwhich they blatantly failed to do.; ]8 M" V" x1 F V9 G: @
: u* B3 F" {' F1 F7 B
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% c/ h4 \) ]2 Z/ p# ^$ ]Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in8 u$ S* L& M7 \6 ~+ [* _
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 W. M* Q, P. S$ l3 A
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ H- N0 S! O2 O i( z
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( x2 W" Q% E. F% s5 `
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; e$ j9 l* P$ l! }4 }: cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
! L( L0 X: j! G* a; i7 lbe treated as 7 s.
" S8 F. n) A, \( f: B a) R6 w( I, ]# b
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ T! {; f0 C- u5 p. p8 \+ }still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem2 i# \1 Z0 R4 B5 T" i
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
/ H+ W: } ]! [4 VAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 G4 ^5 `6 x( G) z
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 I S8 P- b! y8 s' `* W, OFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an4 O" N: I. \+ i$ Q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and7 p8 f' N, h4 g4 P4 q( e
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
7 u6 h: e+ y) [7 j" }based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ l, i S2 z5 ~ j. m" L) t. a
+ t- a: p ~; V9 e6 M9 R; E* DThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
8 y; I1 Y( v, z! f$ Eexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 ]3 J0 I2 G) H; ^
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" _, y; D2 Y/ h: Q
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
1 N4 P8 k7 [. |) _+ nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" {! U* k. Q6 r
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
& T, W- a* T* cFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another4 d# j! I+ j/ Z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other, {6 N0 O% m4 }. \9 I2 y& C
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 U. W4 _ U( K8 X3 A2 \: Q8 J& G, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
o: u! U" K* d# h+ z( i! Lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds( `2 ~, n0 x+ Q; `: m2 t! }
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ p+ Z) y: \. }+ T# e( Jfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 X1 X' `! ] a! H
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 t: t! i3 J/ I) P: ^implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.( ^0 F% f9 |6 _; V
0 e5 P7 M* f! c8 |7 u* r' vFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 v; H, }2 v1 |
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! H- f; Z& u3 w4 Xs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
( T4 r, w1 B o* o2 U. F), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
9 Z0 b! A" y2 iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
: J1 A: s) z" RLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* p- a+ H6 s5 l* D# P( S+ rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% i8 D1 I" v) Z( l. [# z5 M6 R" dlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 [& x# P3 h- m$ e
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 `/ ]1 t7 i2 |7 A
works.! ^# V/ y$ d* n' ?; M& l( v# _" B; j
$ x( e* @% \2 ~! G: jFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
% E; i" F, ? `implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this8 ^8 z- K9 b8 b4 y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
- F8 Q, }! e9 k1 J# l1 q5 y% [standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific! k, e: T& e; E
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and/ u; t/ ^( u9 @1 q5 t7 P$ s
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One/ s5 ]- x) f6 v5 i8 l7 e
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
\; g5 q6 }+ T4 K1 Ndemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 F; f: f; v% ^# A
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample6 e8 a9 p: c3 Y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% Q4 n- } A5 R3 L" O9 v6 fcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
; j1 y$ g2 u& F. G2 N6 H# Rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( Y% R) G0 k- T! S4 W7 O8 v
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
9 b( l0 N4 d. S# y6 H# Epast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% ]0 N2 {/ W7 }7 X; Z+ D6 t
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
# B D+ D0 J7 D. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; h+ z9 U6 |6 f
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may# @' T! e2 b4 d/ I1 N1 |& H4 q: }% z
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- m& e% t7 \1 X* K; \' {/ Q1 J3 ?
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye; a: I3 T2 e1 k0 E9 }
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
/ B) _. t8 c' }/ e! a8 Edrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:. q$ \) t5 j/ }- R0 j0 q4 \5 v
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 N+ E; a! j. n3 R, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, ^# C; w! G, H$ Q4 g3 Oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- K' O' p G! r6 c: Kathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight5 e% a/ m# @) f0 _7 g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?+ L9 J6 g+ _# t- B5 A, f
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
% @/ R) W9 Q# f5 ^" y# Wagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for" m9 W! X5 y% ?& n# H/ s
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, H* ~4 T5 ?* W- l+ bInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?0 N8 T, [* w1 S9 |" o
0 t3 D1 A, r0 `, o. s: d8 c
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 S* ]' F* \0 I* |, Y" p1 t3 `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention O; }0 k$ B/ r
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& } x) v' o/ J4 g; ~3 u+ _% m5 g$ y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London3 ~9 X9 r. O& D: {! X7 ]2 W( C3 q
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
' g/ r. X7 s* e7 {/ H$ U! h. |$ udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; Y( ^8 ~4 M0 G8 h( F
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope* i0 p7 e( y2 F) T# J* S
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a8 c/ Y' C- Z! T5 K, p1 q5 r- s
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
- u8 X; e4 ^# ?( e3 @possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ d6 q# L7 D8 f0 B& r3 ]% V
5 E) T7 G1 O& @, a- o6 nOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
% A9 Q/ D- m/ i4 Lintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 |+ _* m3 H, A4 W. Q! U$ M
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
- K2 `+ j. k* `6 b) Z# `suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide; j# M6 ^1 W- A" }' n* D( Y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) W, [: l+ P- r: i# _. i
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
- v* I0 q; D5 z; |0 c0 C6 Uexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your% ]* F! M( I, O0 t
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 [ e6 m: W. i& b% [ ~1 Zsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
! A! r* I* Y' A' d2 Yreporting should be done. |
|