 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
) ^: |8 ]/ G8 X6 h& }# {0 Z如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。) @2 b% f) w: ]; G* k
) O5 m. K0 z* }
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# n" V! C4 w! y3 _
# i" y( Q3 B6 {3 J4 N& vFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
4 ^* v1 Y( O* l, s( E3 D; N: W3 {+ y2 g+ R' t
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
; V: j- X: F7 I8 E: _1 U5 {0 D, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
, q5 {" x* [2 ~magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: p/ w- K) z3 J' G
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the5 U; }( W2 [! g) ~9 i
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ t) R+ Q5 ?( Q% H( c# }: g* ^9 J' `populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ d: Y( q8 @: Y( B
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,* L& q. I/ D# \9 @% k6 ]
which they blatantly failed to do.
" e* v k8 ]$ `/ Q0 ?( E: m# T) `5 P' H
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her$ J$ ?& v$ F# @1 Y* p
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 C! t8 s& h& ] |. u1 o, B
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 ~# r% `. P% x0 R" sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 d4 C# s P' I% s7 o+ W
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; Z( Q' |8 P& {5 v
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the4 Y' X2 J, }1 w* i* l& B7 G) }! |3 M/ c
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
# E. p& \: t* Kbe treated as 7 s.
J2 F7 W5 ?+ R! `9 z" H, x$ x! u$ O4 N$ Q l) s
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
, Z# a; W6 x5 pstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
% w: Q4 q* I/ \impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 V+ U$ N- O+ z& v4 L C
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
% ~% C1 S v6 ?. \' M-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* T& \) ]+ z( f9 o9 [For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' i! Z& w$ n2 U# l! T3 g7 b! s+ v1 |
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and0 O# V$ Y+ u* {+ ^* `
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 \2 h2 h0 Z# U
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; {4 D& N2 W) D+ C5 S+ x% g
( J. u. a# [' [Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
; A8 [( E. M% t9 N8 G- mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 @' H& F; o( j6 e9 D# [
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 E, s7 a; m% l2 ?9 L. V+ ?7 r8 Ohe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
3 q$ p8 b7 [( w: s9 f0 Gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s! N. c9 A. W, [; y; O( ~* K1 q, z
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
. M! V* B4 Y4 E2 b+ I$ ~Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 f* f& t ^8 l; r- Z6 {" @- {
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! ?. q. m% J# V3 J9 R4 H: Ahand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
. d/ Q3 N! h7 k( K0 g, w [, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this w6 P x4 d" E" ?3 c
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) ~- R1 n% U" _faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam8 L8 t1 P1 ]" A9 |
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: ]7 K [! f L$ m% T( a0 o
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that1 k# i/ U, X0 P$ a) n
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; \; V' y3 } [/ I; W; r% ]
, f# k |6 Q( X: g8 h" m7 e# W: U
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are* f* Z v/ j. V( S
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ E2 Q, l* e, ?4 e8 }
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s; R3 X. ^4 F4 C) b( t9 _
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. E# ~! w9 \# |5 {out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 `& Y0 O" p# i3 O6 X
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& U6 a& |' `' w& J. u$ v# |3 Cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
) f' S8 |" N) S& W; V, H6 I* Llogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
3 T1 N4 D/ e0 Y% T- revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science' f, w, f3 d, b
works.
" W: t& t, d2 Q7 ~7 e
6 k4 M& O7 h; U- M' u. w$ g0 UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 `* W+ c( w p! yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% B" H6 `1 r$ xkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that5 K+ ~& A$ r' D# f8 U2 _
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific+ i1 ^6 p) `; t* e" r
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ u ]8 ]: I3 ~/ I, Greviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 r) g9 c) G# a2 N; z3 zcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
2 b- T% e) |4 ademonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
$ {) M& X4 U2 P5 q% zto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( A0 g9 b* N6 H6 P1 @
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ J6 O0 I9 M" {- h8 E% S2 Scrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he# u6 t$ r1 |2 m; P7 A/ F0 i O
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) d- c9 p! F7 L6 F8 r- w0 h3 T1 h& c; h
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
3 d3 L6 ~5 ^& m# k, fpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
0 B" z2 ^* R- l/ v9 p) h0 K! Zuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! O. F5 l4 V, G1 b& @
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are# X3 ]: J: F: E k0 p
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
& }; S. R2 S& d6 E0 E! Ybe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
0 O! K6 J i% D* t% i; a: T6 Zhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
+ E. @9 b% r+ i% ]( L, Y2 c ]has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 L/ a! d8 `- \/ Mdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- h; q7 c1 E. B% E1 x3 Z) [$ q7 kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& F* j; U4 j& `; R- ?, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is% m% ]1 x* A# b, l k1 K
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: D# \- h$ N$ ]+ o/ o) p% Sathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, |6 b. x, j' m' o6 h: Vchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
6 l; l, D0 J# \% gLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping2 [4 y/ L2 c1 c* Z& e( R
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 }9 h( l4 U+ ?' Y; y Z' Leight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% L1 K. ]+ o- O# V
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) w% }: J! m5 r& u+ A# J
# i! B4 |9 [; `7 C9 y# ]- JSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
H( }$ M9 c# A& Z( c) m0 Ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. K8 r" g9 ?* D: G/ X+ c. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
q0 Z ~8 {9 n3 u) B5 wOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) d% h! C" ]5 ^- F9 J7 p
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; v7 T: S3 j$ q4 @
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( D# d/ n8 [; `% r$ Ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope. A( f) x8 Q, j3 v3 q- g. W+ a+ f7 Q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' w2 { t; B' r# X2 nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
T2 L3 T0 V6 Q& k B: O' j; o3 Fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.1 e4 F$ z6 C1 c+ o* t
- e. N$ Z% p/ j* G* F1 ]Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did () C- k {% D' h7 p q9 j
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 M6 ?+ _# J5 c" t" M, V
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
* G9 F9 e# q: M( f X8 Bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- K0 l0 r" @- H+ g( J# ~all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 B2 r) |! L& h p( X+ t
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,, J8 w; d. b ]8 @6 K C" K
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, C" L+ W1 N8 n1 O
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ W/ ~, l: l+ V" H
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or; ]1 d) k9 Z7 ]9 `* p. s
reporting should be done. |
|