 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* u' r) d1 L& N, S4 A$ E
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- P3 [) q* ~2 [! u1 R
2 L3 E+ m6 Q8 ~- z d
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- h, }) Z; c; \6 @
2 \' ~& {1 X: ]
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& D) f$ V1 I9 z! J
: x: H3 `7 ^/ e) N1 H# j+ z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
5 a, Y- m8 p" t" c; `, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# r4 p. R& P9 Hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) Q; b8 p5 o: V8 F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the L) S8 u4 J1 Z! O
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
! F& x4 a2 y7 }1 opopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors+ o# y* k& k2 _1 Q2 ?1 n
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,$ t" b( F/ Z2 N# e$ v# L' \" J; |6 h
which they blatantly failed to do.
: y/ d. t8 p- R" _
$ {9 ~- d, m: c' B; D: AFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& f5 Y2 @" H/ U1 X2 |2 M3 rOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in( w- {3 v" ~& v3 v! q2 k
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ R0 p" K" ], R& C+ J: M: |% V( S3 @anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 J7 R' o+ @ h+ K! O8 s& o
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 ?/ ^# ^9 p/ {, J9 O# W0 y
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, X) X: k/ F1 X W3 t& x
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to( `& X3 ?6 k( n8 Z% u) t' _
be treated as 7 s.
% Y- g5 u# G7 S) s) e; c9 N5 d2 }9 M* ^+ f0 g, }6 o
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" {) D3 F1 `$ F" @8 o1 U
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& F! w) W8 w( B O1 ]: K$ Qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.( {4 H+ r; ^7 k! W$ C; o0 _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; l( y3 N! m$ W6 O-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.( e7 ~ F# Y% L( P# i6 I8 W1 `) }2 T
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ M' i/ G. D* M! i9 q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and6 ~& U4 I4 |* F" p
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”/ D1 p7 t) j& Z$ `( d3 X
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# P. x* [" d- d6 h6 U! x: p
: Q7 Y# r5 N" W5 s
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
. v; i5 ~" _3 b. d. T& q; K1 o9 Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 h' M9 {3 l5 }( E; ithe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
! E0 Z6 q2 P0 _3 s. `. ghe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: G4 g7 D6 ?1 u4 r: t1 d) q7 Sevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s7 o8 k/ ]# h& U8 E
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
( @- P. f9 T; B2 B9 b6 a9 B! L% [Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
" b1 o! a9 n2 J/ s! wtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 [9 x" v! [1 S2 ~9 ]
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. j' k' x# d* [3 j7 o
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ T" e m' O7 d! gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds) @& R0 P# {% ^: H# p, F# r
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam* S0 O7 b, o3 ?; j5 ~
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) |) M3 {4 p5 N( gaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% A- J) n4 L( [ ?' x+ y' Timplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ y2 B+ @5 E2 i6 U" G2 S* c0 |' J7 C) [, K7 H% t, h
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; I! Z8 z. Q& l
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 }. U7 f" t) z7 K$ T% gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# ?' F6 K4 r; r/ n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
# i4 b+ N9 F( X. S3 X' Mout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," [" \ d/ ]5 C- H8 d3 L
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 D8 m4 k; p( Y; i
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* B+ L: b2 [7 o% K! s# ~7 m- Ylogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! M" a) u) _& K* R4 Levery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 S o& q) [, {6 @+ s, {8 p
works.0 m5 Z6 Y: o& F% ~8 P; {+ W) V( u/ u
, {) _( z5 Z; l& j# } UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and( ~3 }; U: V! b$ @+ N% f
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this% i6 X3 \2 p; V8 D% {* y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ b+ h; g& b! }' V7 A# I5 \ jstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
8 {$ h6 E6 T3 I, f4 y$ B ` apapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 g$ I3 _# r) c; V% W3 Jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
# \% P+ Y& w8 ~5 E( O8 j1 Dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
0 E& Z" J' j6 w8 a$ N+ ~demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
! y5 C& B1 j0 i: o8 Zto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 ^$ v# o. @1 \0 y5 r; Q2 [1 m+ Eis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is' t' T$ J3 |# R) e
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he' w* b2 I, c& T5 \
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly, h3 e3 }! E* \/ j5 T& z, ?$ G
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& T% g9 ]" i/ f, S6 o- vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
X; W+ q0 }9 [use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
- ]- H& I- A2 ]1 q. m) n. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
1 n# ?. b; x/ W1 t1 ]doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& l* Y/ r, _1 I8 }" G5 J. Z- N
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
" S, r+ y$ G+ Z$ a5 @; thearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& _- B5 Z: t1 }) \: C2 z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a3 q. s3 }, }7 R) A
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:4 J( g8 D0 T# Y; x) n
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect/ [7 D6 |$ }5 w$ B7 b' p8 ]1 H
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
( a6 Q7 c; z9 cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: \, K7 H' e0 {0 Q
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: N* r2 T# v: x- F$ X/ }/ p
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. l* w# ?* }. k V( FLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ J: b6 Q; z% s0 aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 R5 Q" E7 ~+ y9 X) N
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% z) d+ F0 K _# `" C
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
M$ {5 x* c! I* m
& m6 c8 ]% I7 USixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-0 H: }1 ?) o. D; z7 H$ z3 m
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
$ D/ y& O8 U% ~( ^* V* E+ s. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, I9 m* f, s* A9 F* dOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
6 ?+ K2 t9 j* C# x; i9 i' OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
5 Y/ k7 z+ D0 p t0 R* m$ L8 mdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic& F& n0 v0 L7 B8 A
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
? o: _ a* qhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a9 W0 s& x1 m) n
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
* T4 T1 c& Y |& f6 ?! |; b8 {possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., d) H# n; f! B0 S' y6 w
6 e9 e3 Y& Z9 g3 T2 a
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (6 `$ U% S& X5 m+ A* [0 d, i9 k
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 n. z) \" B# ~8 @ R8 ]
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a" S: \$ _- s! D. |) V6 N' M9 X( Z
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
: P7 Y: ?# ]3 D9 S3 S9 k1 s* Wall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
{. P# T5 W8 N }interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 ^; R, E; c$ T
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, K: U1 Y# B) [6 ?+ o: Z5 q; ^6 O
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
2 ?) l* G" N$ T4 U2 S( B1 Osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( I- [8 Z& }- T) M4 \1 R
reporting should be done. |
|