 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$ ?/ S/ S j4 D4 ]7 D
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
% U1 g. |6 k! G5 \7 a% u& P$ @; w. R+ v; S
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( g) f8 S1 n% S. b* f) h$ j! ~
# C3 ?# |, ^& A- @7 X) A
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
; L/ v3 s- Z' I0 d" i6 P. g( @' A, Y) ^) h4 K
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, H: E, Y7 E9 @- u+ F6 t, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# C( ]9 A. L$ C' i2 l# O+ g% z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" S0 k' G2 m" ]" ^8 Ris not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: E0 L% g/ ^4 _9 R* c
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general% G! E, v' e8 K% @4 j7 Y
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
?# S8 ]1 t, C/ o/ \) o1 dshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 t- h+ }# f! D0 p0 |1 V
which they blatantly failed to do.
2 P: d! ^7 o5 }: H" i/ ?$ M/ p1 a3 d6 T/ O5 ^1 ~( q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% h6 ?8 z% A: D" I4 M/ G- P P% e8 Z2 VOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 j+ U/ s, x! z% }, l/ {
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
o0 A5 I( x, `- g7 Lanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! N0 O- Z$ d% ^) b. C) H5 |- B
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
6 d g1 n9 Y3 [: G( ?0 ^improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' h3 l4 J( M$ O9 p' G( E
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
2 c; \4 S$ d1 x9 Ybe treated as 7 s.
4 Z9 m8 e: ]2 ^" ]( \4 E
* J! j7 L+ n, j3 B5 W! U) mSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is5 D: G6 U& U, B# X% T8 m( a
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem* A, t% p6 W2 s
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. ]6 z7 O! s* \& e/ A- m( `2 I
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400- |) u% w: |2 @
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.2 v/ Q( p- n E; p+ X! u+ V3 W3 M
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: ~* }5 A0 M6 o7 `$ N
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and |* w& H6 _/ o- c
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
' \, f% a! K# o. c' V8 @. z0 hbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.) x' ^) u8 h' r
: b% J" n" ] f1 C& t) OThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook7 q* F' w- l7 E- {
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in( \+ n7 n) P# s! k. }; D3 \
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
: ~. ]+ \/ ~( t( n3 khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
+ Y% c" ^$ C, y+ L& \( Jevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& v$ W3 x9 N& `best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ E/ G7 W: }3 A9 o% V; [Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another6 T* c. ?4 H* L8 f
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( J/ v0 f' H! i6 z, Ahand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle% t8 B$ J* D& a/ }
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# s& q$ [2 g8 s# C* L# l0 \1 ~strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 G# i0 r# e; @5 L$ }; x c7 N& I
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( R+ G- T, h* _* c, @
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
& {# _! L) N1 r2 R2 Jaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
1 D6 U6 E i( c- E( f, oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, _( B8 \2 P5 c7 `, Z7 Y( I6 p- z& Z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
8 a5 s) ?& [8 z! kfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
/ \3 C* t/ h4 M2 V J/ ~s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ s0 x% P' K" Z4 `; x1 N1 P), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns1 A/ U {% J7 t+ H3 F7 N9 L6 C
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
# r! I0 R- J- L) k7 `* _Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
! P+ ~) ?5 L- u& Dof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
4 G& G9 c$ y6 w2 y4 v2 Dlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
: Y. W. c, Q" eevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science% d+ A' n+ n; J! \4 q* f& X
works.
; y" w! H$ v7 [. x5 l. f! x. e1 Q; A/ ?1 P8 J! p/ Y& D
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- r- o6 J* ]* t) j5 P k- ~
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this4 E6 v9 h$ d8 b1 R
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
" r2 `. J2 M+ F3 q: @" c C$ lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% _' u) ~/ z0 f$ d2 h6 x
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
% h9 T1 x& f- V5 _3 t7 E/ |reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 K7 ~; g$ x$ y& N
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ i* O3 ~1 H4 o+ l
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
, G1 g% ? c6 k& `- v( s/ o* I# Lto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
0 c& U3 p* P9 a5 k' Kis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is% J c( G" ]& ?; G) a& l: e" [
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
: q! E6 Q1 d0 O3 \' k! _# E0 N! Jwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
- f3 f9 {+ d' [advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, |9 H. d9 Q% f+ m! x0 ?6 t7 S, [past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 o* u" M4 O" e, g1 Euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( u1 E7 o5 L5 @
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
: }1 B! o$ @& g3 xdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" e" k* \# c! x8 }, j
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
+ }4 Z- m% T& x# X1 N0 K+ `" Bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye; \, c' M- }% j7 z7 g) }2 `5 F
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a; l0 c8 F0 Y" \0 m: p
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 _% [" g! |' `1 C+ v# C
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& Q' ?# X) t3 A% L( r: M6 H) d, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
9 U) r4 Y' |3 q$ I* M4 z6 e1 @- \probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an3 g. ?8 E" d/ V, f
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
* g+ _# q, H6 Echance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, V+ e* p7 h) Y: r% S U! Z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping `7 r& d$ G9 L: P
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 E- \* @3 O f& T0 b! n" @
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 s# u+ I! c1 J
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?; y2 z5 _4 o: F2 H
( Q$ n$ W j; K
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
' ]* N3 L( z. ^7 i G* Gcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention: Z+ x9 f- O+ @) k2 w- l
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
$ `2 _" h6 [1 _/ U& y9 TOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London3 s- ~& Z4 ^) l
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. f1 d' n. [6 L$ A- @' {" p
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 @; X- |5 ~. mgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
" Z0 g* c$ j5 D9 {0 y: t. Ghave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) c9 ]+ U; _8 Z7 G& ]
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this0 q/ J; s- P! U- P! J k; P/ X
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
5 w) X! F* f8 f7 ^( n. k+ h) c8 \5 D
* a0 G+ m( ^: i0 {Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (. e) F/ Y: ^$ r" o; h/ U% ^
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 U3 D8 o# e- ]/ usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a& [3 i# G6 ^- e" V% |4 C, @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* _* B& @* a$ d9 n' l8 y0 z
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, q4 _5 I$ \$ u1 A3 Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# x' K( D- f Q0 z0 M+ ^
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your1 ^" a6 m. g0 X, X! m/ _2 R
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. r. a. [0 A8 U. q2 H4 ~; M
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( G; e3 q) v; Q
reporting should be done. |
|