 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$ i2 i/ }( d6 y/ Y$ [/ H3 m9 K8 ^
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ \" J+ `+ g9 v. S+ o% E# e0 C/ ?" L: J" M, I! z! r4 e
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
( r; w% Z. L3 C0 g
1 S" J' v2 K% f6 g3 XFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, t% ^) N. R, \$ U0 t) y. R- J( x( k+ v+ o
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself1 `& ]; Q, U9 t5 ]& }8 h( h
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. y' \0 V8 @! |+ @$ T" q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" F- x$ I4 f. `2 n% ris not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
0 ^0 Y- z% b5 g ^' p% M$ M- lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 c' T0 z5 |5 w
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 z9 G3 s4 q8 D Cshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,* M% R4 j' m& b& @6 C* J
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ j5 `: v) q- x ?/ m1 m G% `; [$ H; o* Q6 o
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
. n, [2 R: a+ b1 @5 fOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' U7 p" }) C' Y" C( E- u3 Q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 I& {+ O" V. u7 u
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( C3 z9 w2 N h" c! r; Spersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! z- m) R7 W" q C8 Oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
* u6 {' S1 w J5 tdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 r; l/ z/ ~' C" O8 _8 ]( \! Mbe treated as 7 s.0 Z5 ?5 K9 r1 q* c
0 q6 R) _3 O3 {7 V* O5 }( J
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
, d* e" m m2 S6 T. s e: d* Nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% U3 _, E+ u9 H; i4 L7 E9 Q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
~7 j x3 t; b( q! LAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4003 N3 f9 O- V$ Y0 t
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& Z7 }( E$ T0 Z" A" a. K+ `' U* fFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an- b) ]& C0 U4 m& w: U# I r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
0 @0 D3 Z- Y, B2 D# P; Lpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”7 [; p! A' k+ l3 b" M
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 v" [ p: P( T7 h) `+ ~& o
* E: s. ~( A5 x3 C7 _" E, |0 L3 {: T
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; T; a$ k/ A! V: S
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in1 n1 `, _3 e1 d1 n- I. I
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
7 e' e5 ^2 `0 u2 whe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later& o1 q0 s' Z5 r5 N% j
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ L; s1 h7 Q5 r K* `9 y+ u
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) S5 A7 I7 Q' g$ OFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 \) L2 w- N# ]% w+ N7 N; n, O0 [topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other: S# S. x J& [( g: Z+ i# S1 q
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
5 G4 o' m2 a1 T' E, D; S: ]& s, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& f# _0 H0 D& y* ]strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 ]" ^9 M" m7 A' ~3 c" ]# jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
2 M6 i B8 b& vfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting6 D& o) l3 D9 h
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- {! b/ Y* o( M. d' W$ r7 y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.3 _" A* t8 I, }$ i+ ~6 Y
+ b4 f5 T0 N, F; ^
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; d! x: H( W4 J% z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* R# x, w# F+ P* h' @& Y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 S9 Y$ N I9 L1 W
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns7 D" I" x: O7 P2 D3 e0 N8 B1 l
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
7 h: s7 d# s2 R: i& KLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind. ^ ~4 Z. a3 n* ?0 H! r& j! }
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) U* _0 Y2 e9 Y0 A. d
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 e1 F Z% }/ e% b6 v v0 w1 fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science- u9 D/ K% m1 P: [
works.
: M; k* A/ O! y; ~( P4 F; b
/ ~; J9 u8 |6 nFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 @5 g& g8 }4 N1 M; U
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this( o) ^& p4 b( Q, @$ W
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
9 d6 v) w0 S9 P# astandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 Z6 _8 B- Q, c) p
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and4 {0 L' g) {- i& U8 S
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, L! ^- s# V0 D# {6 h2 Rcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: |+ _7 D9 X- K6 ~2 n: d' A" O/ Xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
1 g( c! M8 N' \& h1 G9 e4 s s6 Z( A2 Eto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample9 I! ~( U# Y0 Y' }- |
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; S0 o! V6 B1 ^$ Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he4 D8 k1 @' H* w! ^
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 p1 q# t0 s) V
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ C J% W/ [, k! y# Q: L5 S7 v# g& b
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
+ y/ S$ ^4 z, q. k$ Uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
9 k, |9 B4 u6 B# H; R2 g. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are4 i5 k# t9 E' J t0 E
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ `9 h2 h& `+ b$ T
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& g8 c+ b! A! `, v, c2 \& o
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* B+ X, `, j6 A6 X: x3 G, G. |
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" Q& q0 v( E# g N8 v" [ z7 B
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
) X2 c0 M! c' r* C' Pother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. L$ }. z* w( C. M
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
5 N) L. m4 _* v. @* C+ M/ aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 \8 |7 H% d0 c) r5 ^+ c, ^athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight" m! q3 [0 I# U* H! Q( j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 [: L% G% l2 {9 T% ?
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
9 ?$ ^9 f+ C: a; W/ Iagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 P% M; C# Z! \, h; Beight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 z# }6 |' ]4 x+ ]Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
7 q+ L8 u2 y! t1 k+ a7 l- u8 g3 g4 b4 n5 j' ?8 x u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ H+ C. ?! i, {: D
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
6 L* R7 U' l! \$ Y" B; b1 Q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
: p6 t; T, P o: O+ P1 M% D. aOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 ]* @# c3 |$ c6 X, L
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
, |4 G7 f$ C1 q, D9 a& |; Idoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic& G7 q8 m6 K, Z, l) C4 Y/ `
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope, {. ` ], v- ~ b9 H7 i
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a9 O, J! a t! [7 p) G, ^& ^
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& k- w1 }: x% F3 E/ }
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 B3 h7 h! Z- ]2 W4 w) A
$ k) E0 z4 _( ^+ x5 W5 v' Q: `1 z7 p
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did () T7 {8 K5 `% s( D7 L6 V9 Z
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 K! p! E+ X9 jsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a# m- U5 [$ k2 v# o7 y
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide- \; ], \" g! v6 c$ u7 ^9 }
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% j! k% N3 {0 Y! Iinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* f Q# u4 u) H U* t1 {# g- P
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
0 n( e3 m; D+ ]' W- F! largument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 j8 |9 A/ W: x
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
* m9 x" A' K; Y/ a$ B+ y# ?reporting should be done. |
|