 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 JIANG4 v, ]3 T; O# E' g! d2 Y0 y
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! M; _6 r- {, h/ K, Q' I: ^) V
9 N; p& o7 c _) ^7 Whttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html q& }/ u, F9 F2 e+ B# A6 T- V
4 V- b; R) t" Q9 x! W$ z6 OFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ @5 J4 ?& D! L1 K6 J
, r* ?! g$ H; s" R& o) r; mIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
( x4 }8 [% f' W( }& k, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science, L" p; ]) w( e. E( A
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& h2 ^$ M2 |5 I# K7 ?, r( l
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; U! n2 X1 ]0 F7 F4 w# o5 nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
$ B$ w, k% J- m2 Vpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors5 `) X, H+ O9 X/ k5 N6 @# d
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. e! g2 I1 i" C; g8 @, L {8 M
which they blatantly failed to do.! r9 \9 ^ {/ ]- Z* \) U# p; |0 [; b
+ B O3 N& Z3 f; B; P! ~( R; `
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% I! r! ~5 c' [ d; ]7 m" BOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* W( {) y/ C/ H; B2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" Y, ~) u& ^2 G0 }9 J5 U
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous1 N1 L1 f: }/ n) Z! r7 ~& {
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 `# u. H( Q5 D9 u4 t7 }- Q! C, {# D
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! A& T2 W$ o/ {- | }difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 h$ i; M) B6 O/ Y, {$ H
be treated as 7 s.* E) X H9 l6 m1 m# z
5 a! ^/ C2 O8 _7 W3 X& E
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ J" z6 V7 Z* R5 S& k; @) i& vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 [; ~7 D" D8 N/ W% [impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
/ N/ P. z9 g3 L! H# uAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( Z- v) x; m H. O3 j-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
5 o/ ? @: z: y2 s' d9 k% KFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
9 D! g# T- c, D, g% K/ Y0 Lelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
. s" s" z- t. `6 w! S8 _persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
! q8 X5 e% q. ^/ o% J4 W) o9 ebased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 H, C- ]) x0 |- Q! O$ V
* u3 f7 w2 D* p# N9 r
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
( ~- u' u' c+ z+ R4 P8 w. iexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- _/ ]9 d- M* g
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. g9 z% c) }" p8 O+ P h- Ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
2 ?$ R' u' T' i* m( J, k1 Eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s8 F6 f5 m0 m+ o! j
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World6 {1 i2 Y" w% T) X
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& S9 e& c& M) c* a5 F( u) U( h6 b9 Y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
) \& ]! z% D$ G, p* q: K* Z- a' z) y. Whand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. J1 y& g- A; I- W& Y2 D/ f( ^
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this2 z' J+ ^ Y5 u! B$ [. v$ R
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds- }3 x' c" }- [
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- M% j; x+ w1 S$ i2 v% I% G
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 [2 w4 N: G8 X0 T4 V8 Caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that0 U N1 Y7 l. L3 [3 F( ]8 ?
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ [3 x1 |4 F7 E8 A2 b( a+ o1 k# i: T9 L
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
8 W7 j+ A% o+ D. R' nfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 Q& d- \; |' h- h0 hs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
, g" ]- p0 U, g) e6 R; w), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 S$ a. n$ O+ o! p, [% \out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
! A7 W/ q3 N! B& B C" W4 ~Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 _. L8 C6 w. Z5 ?of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ }/ i# P* N3 N4 F+ Hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
. J* o$ ^/ H5 e$ c+ H" Z X) B! @every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science+ T9 F" s/ q ~4 q" M& c
works.* m6 _3 H8 v* G' L. g
1 F4 I$ W2 |! G" D' P3 m9 ?Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
/ K! D+ W* h0 l* ?! V0 M! t" q+ Aimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this& W1 k+ q+ \$ C8 g9 @/ T
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
: \( C2 {" E& G: P7 e7 v2 v2 [standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
8 u% h) E! O, J, R+ _& upapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 V; I- Y, X& o1 {/ M* M: C& K( e
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One7 W T$ i$ ?# l2 ~
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
0 i( r) B" n! w& Rdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% Y2 x. e9 U9 V' G% G" h
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: f5 D% }2 S& Z# ~5 d8 Q5 Cis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
* |# p6 m3 v& p( E8 `- n! n5 rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he4 L5 l5 E6 b0 I( x
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
+ G) `- _4 L, |: m# O0 O Ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
( r+ G) S2 C: ]5 ppast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
# Q" e' ~5 k. ]( ^use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation9 |8 Z! J( b) j0 V
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ A4 ?& k- E. {6 C; ~$ w# M* f, Bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 ~! Q7 T6 |! I; Rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 x: _* }1 C; r7 Ghearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye/ `( {# l; v0 h. f4 p3 K
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
- B6 q* j8 ]$ w+ C! V" {& gdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; j3 Y5 d- O7 S$ V3 l7 @
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
$ n5 z$ Z8 ~9 h( b, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
# K7 n' r) w4 t/ f1 Rprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an/ t( {. h7 r7 y0 R; T
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 |$ }0 i1 j A; hchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; F3 ]. c$ b* A2 jLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
' J3 R% K# ]$ j3 Q/ [7 }! Vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
7 N0 \, H7 x6 G; P! xeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.9 T' i* I$ a/ m7 q8 t
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! N% H) b9 q5 S4 c! @. P& F
* U3 V5 Y/ i( s |Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
8 _- { |& L5 ~3 [7 @# icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! _% q8 `6 M' h. M( f. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
! E" C% [- Z" i$ V* d! POlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' ?0 f3 k1 t, r, u3 z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for* |/ I4 y( f* y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic b0 ]6 N. t( |( R8 r$ B* m: g. w
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope* S2 L' y4 ] r; q: L
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& O# I. m, j* j: d! Nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
) X5 G A( c! |5 Y" C' e }) [possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 f6 n9 E! q& R5 w) W# I5 C( ]
# z& i! }% V- r6 v% POver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (( S, U }' @; H( ^) o6 U
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! x) U8 ?5 a7 X6 B2 s; k& Msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a, D. K7 Q8 l/ I: x2 g/ M. d: j. N
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ j# M: z& ]+ m% b2 y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
+ X6 b6 l0 z0 ?( finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
$ \& \9 q" O$ Hexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
) N1 y/ w- m4 \6 [/ x. _argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 k1 U% ~. |# C2 t% \( i
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 |/ H) E+ P/ x9 p m/ }5 M
reporting should be done. |
|