 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( l6 S6 L$ Z- F k1 f6 r6 ?1 T
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
7 v9 L! V" `; `: U: |+ |1 V: e
+ h+ T5 c I' a9 o: Ohttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 ]9 L: {% j& Z- W( |
7 D4 h& u3 A/ H4 WFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' F$ U; k: j" A, e J, Q/ N
) E5 z5 {. S7 N) M5 e2 S1 L4 vIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% f0 u& _4 l: d5 E9 L- w, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science5 r% S- N( {7 [- W$ ]1 h$ N3 s
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, B) l1 c4 k+ U; B$ J* g3 o7 ois not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the, C8 g$ t' b; y# |7 x0 P- B! P
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* e: L% B! s: W
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- i4 K) k$ \- M) l3 \- h- J+ u% Cshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 Z8 ~' _, T( z3 A" ?1 Xwhich they blatantly failed to do.
: ^, V9 j5 _$ S" J! Y3 E( {3 r8 n4 p+ z9 _4 q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 ? z# `& r% Y# q: O# `9 FOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 E) X G5 _( ^; U; y z" V% Q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ s1 V5 e" ]4 P
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
* o3 P; z2 l2 P% Xpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 u' D- m. b- D/ e
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
1 K: y1 m R( @difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 `- p) q/ E/ E# T6 G b
be treated as 7 s.% C7 u4 L" r) i% u$ I
; A v( O# Q8 }Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is+ V* J0 s: E% Q- ^, f- X$ @
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 h C4 o }( d. p
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
% F0 X. N- O) |' |7 Z! B9 Q7 [An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 w: `* F. C1 Q& }8 o3 z/ t
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) a J8 d! X0 j) h f% ~For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 y3 u* W0 H3 S% [
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
B+ P3 F* h' U2 I U, s6 M1 Lpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ q5 @" B8 V; z$ _. j/ k/ Dbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# _0 z S' `, g9 q9 [/ }
9 Q) R: y* j; Z3 PThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
0 L+ Q, P4 \4 t+ h9 Zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* V$ ~# x- m# [4 K1 Wthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so) `" v. k9 b7 w7 L* y- z
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ Z4 D# u9 m- v, h. }
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
; F! C0 ]3 B- I5 |best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* I! U; p( g3 I! l2 R
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another/ t! {9 i8 n9 B# u5 g
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! [" x8 ]; s1 A4 J3 w( N5 Y( xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
- I y& }, o8 D% r3 S [, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this% j8 z0 R/ Q3 ]% m1 |) A5 }
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 X9 V/ M8 e$ n
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% i% n) X6 j/ B% u5 j3 {$ u$ ~faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) k+ T3 j/ \2 Z+ d7 [: p K# caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; f* h; s6 I: v J7 s- g& P; A T9 Kimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& k5 ` V1 P; _8 q7 x8 ^! i+ l# D2 t& I7 O4 m8 x& b9 k* s
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 x: K6 t* ~! h. q3 Y3 s7 @, ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
: S% w9 T1 E3 ]; y: `s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 V1 @" c k) a- ]
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
5 a. Q" H) e! {( z3 ~2 o: [0 hout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. q( b% {2 f$ e
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
6 U/ H6 {7 i; i% |of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ j$ ^0 T2 k9 B8 v1 i/ Nlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 R: B" i/ Z+ S" Z1 n2 r4 T* i
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
6 l2 ]6 l' P6 b* a U4 ^* tworks.
3 Q! L7 j! Z# r
9 x. j5 G% s& g$ Q* lFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% `% y8 P( { ~
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this5 [. Q+ H6 G! w
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
4 b, [1 o* B6 tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 Z! {! {& X c5 E' W
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; b8 l1 O4 B8 c4 F
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ _' s8 I1 w" U# U- D* Ocannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; M1 H0 w. {2 |% H
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works& n9 X, L' O( J% W# F6 [
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
, w; t$ o: h8 ^is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
# Q7 J ^/ |: x3 {3 ^0 ^( hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; @$ c0 H- U3 Y6 z' p" u; z" d
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly4 m# u& O; L. V' f* d$ C
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; s D) ^$ Z2 A" ~' q/ p
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 Q* Y& d: \, B( d1 Z# N7 H
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
* D2 \8 e3 w5 j2 V4 g; }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are% N1 ^1 E! {: [! O9 R5 f- r) V
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may4 `, J/ A: [5 n& d, A1 w# l# _
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 b2 h/ K# A& O% n+ P8 k
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 \% ?/ ?. E; N# f' o% x
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" q( x/ \% u# N6 }/ U
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
9 F. j5 ?( R* K1 E% p1 Dother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
+ x6 J! r: }4 o( q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is1 k7 o8 V! k# a+ U0 X
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
, j! n/ N& ]' p% B6 v: jathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, e& m+ c) Q* Uchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 L# @& s, u; |0 T9 k" f X- ~' u, O' E6 Q
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping+ Y+ P3 ~% s- g5 z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
* b2 W& S ]7 d2 o: N& t% Weight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.( X5 D5 f, n+ x/ l2 q9 g* Q3 M7 c, x
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
- D$ X5 x; o5 ?$ ]$ j9 f8 o7 u* B- A9 u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
0 n& S/ Q9 T5 y% |7 `2 kcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
) y f) [& M. L: N- \7 i( N. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for* d; y* k& T. ]
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; E2 ^3 M& |3 b
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; k- Y0 d' U' p2 o" [$ R
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
! Y, ^; I6 b( R) t4 E2 E8 @games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
7 ^' _1 X7 F/ ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a, N2 R& W0 e" q. ~
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" k) w `8 a1 N# X5 s2 x. g& u* X
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 a. P8 H" F* [+ A/ e0 d
: R* h8 H3 W" b
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 m7 B" P8 U- z! a8 K4 X5 U
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: T+ J. l$ z# |$ H! F8 ~
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ @+ ]5 y, \! G1 B2 zsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 r. c/ @* ]$ Z4 i7 D8 X1 dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 {. w9 M" x3 e6 A
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
2 Z. z! C: _ c% k# cexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
6 C- E J. J) K/ u) y; M4 u* Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
% P1 r5 W9 F8 Q2 Bsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or5 h; N+ k. G; x( L
reporting should be done. |
|