 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
: L, Q: x: J, v8 C如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。2 \8 g- d& J* c% s
2 r1 l' j! H' K! N6 |' ]4 B
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ p% {8 A& k* f& K1 E1 D5 P; A: L4 i5 k. |1 t# ]0 v, C
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& m5 ~9 v" w4 [
- \9 p$ o6 L8 X& j) N
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself4 A7 f q0 D1 O2 [) q1 h3 Y, G
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
$ i D* q$ j0 ~magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, c w2 q- f6 D& L1 g* ?* I
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
1 p% Z" F* e: j# M0 A3 s7 V/ \scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 L2 ?; K' X- }/ ^
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( ~- s8 ^; X4 A, a5 I" `should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,, U8 X \+ ~8 ?: N3 g! T: \* S
which they blatantly failed to do.
! {, n9 X3 L8 S2 G: D7 ?7 b& f1 P
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, [4 o+ B* j5 j2 x5 cOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in6 z" ^1 Q5 F1 Q$ X. S5 |6 a; z
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
! c X4 g" `' Manomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& S3 J- a' }8 h2 wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, U3 @4 r0 Y+ k
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ i* F' c N. {8 Qdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 L* @+ J% {/ O; l' `/ ^
be treated as 7 s.$ c$ q* g" a" t! i T, @/ X9 z2 l
# O; ~) e% C) U
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 C- Y- \% R6 _8 R& R* X
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
3 P, M( A8 u; j/ U; himpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# ~; r; c/ b/ G
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
* X8 W- u+ P! ~" H5 d5 K! Y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ Q8 r. l" _( S# D: t
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( e+ g* y) Z( O: p( Q' F) k: _9 ~* X
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
) ?! d3 U/ i* x* ppersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: H+ O5 G5 A! L3 t* Gbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! p( F+ F T. H& e: y
N- n* t! W9 |' FThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
! I: u; S4 `" ~7 [0 b; `: E) j8 @example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& p$ g. F6 q4 S- ^8 _5 F3 l! w
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. Y+ D7 N) H/ w7 Z/ Fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
6 @0 F1 s3 _5 {% F: H& T* hevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
/ c% t4 {' j( A, b! `& qbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 I$ C+ l6 h& f" ]
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
3 q* |9 J& G a( S- htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! I: m% d8 Z! K. n2 W, e- nhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
0 N' m- J" q$ _# c6 U- \5 ], in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) p" G. t( [ m: W0 n, D" mstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds" G% Q& s- w6 K: X/ x2 v" n+ g
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 p5 D8 S7 Z$ M2 `faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ E( L1 } f$ P
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% n6 U& p3 W" I5 E4 U
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! n v* L+ ?" ]% ^" N4 k, s# w) p! d! R7 s1 z2 c1 r
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; l% {. @5 \1 T$ b
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 F$ y! z7 Q; n; ^( I$ i
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 ~0 d$ K' b, S' O- l) e
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
6 c" \- B, C2 Q ]5 Fout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 Y. A9 Z: [# C" d+ ?8 G. }0 ?Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
7 r; b! W; [8 J- {* Vof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ q, u/ G- v* [9 o' F' |, w9 {
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ Q2 V0 |0 C0 _
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( W2 M% P- _& L( c4 ]% {# p* aworks.
; A) q1 v- H; N5 p, \5 ~5 L1 p8 I+ v! _& d' D' B3 C
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
a9 O6 G- q8 m8 Limplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 j2 L$ ~ h: }6 D2 ?; Vkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
/ J3 R( t/ i$ M( \! l6 Rstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: H2 S& O/ h( d% K/ qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 F) o0 s2 \ G. d( N$ U
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& F. `( Y* M- c& S5 U
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to# ` Q' _% e: o7 \. z: N* x
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
2 a( ] k& i) Z# J' ^( u. nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: U: x! a. ~1 @is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 D7 D9 n% `7 Q" F: Ycrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he% {- U" f( Y4 I
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
( P7 B* J. K; W: wadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: d3 H7 ]# k" d& d
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 B. r: J# y1 A6 B
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( D0 q& L# c$ v5 X) l( ~# O
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# |4 H/ L1 |1 F# |' @! C! [2 F1 ^doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 S8 `5 [8 c/ I; k
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 D5 E w. T7 z7 ~
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% X" E+ g _0 A2 b
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% r- F: g3 h3 c7 G7 L
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" ?" }1 I, h9 T4 fother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
, T" p9 i& t* h; y$ n, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 ^, A+ a$ m7 T X3 O$ i, Bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an* \. S. |2 M) ?, E
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) N4 [/ [* \) X/ q. Lchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) u6 S" ~; H- b W% u0 V9 y# XLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping" ~+ g4 k$ `" z! \
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; H7 M9 W- b6 ~1 Q1 Y+ ~$ geight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
6 {: E" r: j v" Y3 E6 f4 S& h# kInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
' _! X$ `7 H, {8 w. m/ p. A. p7 j8 t2 d" T
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
! j/ ^8 h) Q7 Z6 Pcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; X4 d8 ?% |0 d3 k. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for' s3 q5 e4 G4 Z& m( I$ } m. O6 x
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
( U! D+ K, ~6 lOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# q4 k8 B4 H4 s- }+ h) |# F# Bdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# U, n5 ]& C9 {2 G' S8 l! Dgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
/ Q! i& W3 `0 U, c/ }have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a. D& s3 t6 ~' W
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
3 k6 U. a8 R8 T( S9 Qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' z& _' I j3 |, G U8 r! { o0 z: k5 m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
! S3 |8 K# l+ U( o4 ~+ d! T4 N Eintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
; t# f! o5 Z$ l% A, I) k6 r# v6 Usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 l( }) b" ^( T/ r9 f- o7 w, w* Hsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. D4 }6 t& g0 S" }7 B( yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, A# b( ~, M- u5 G* \interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
' R- W' [( M5 P8 a. E1 rexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
4 c" A% h" @" w& _' l" vargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& m2 ^" |$ y' C9 \# _( g+ R( isuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ m8 q# h2 k2 F& m
reporting should be done. |
|