 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 JIANG9 V* _/ S! ^3 x$ x/ A
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
1 ?3 v6 P- I7 u$ _& b) ~5 @
2 U7 X- @2 V% ?! g# s! [4 i$ @http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html ~+ ]/ x$ {9 ^' A O# a
2 g, S: D5 f7 \, a& x& r" w& a
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& U( b% Z9 v2 T+ A# J7 s- O1 m, G: C# k: V9 w
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
( M3 j% v; k/ ^# c3 T, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 ~. s) f3 I( ~ _) R+ Z+ j7 i
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# G' E/ L! e) T1 S/ T- u, iis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ Q/ m* r. W/ A) @# Uscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general0 c3 s& m& K, p& f& O
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 J/ \$ f& O, W d- R
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. _* {0 r, w3 k7 x/ l9 F% ?& v- z7 P
which they blatantly failed to do.
8 S/ U3 \% m3 Z% W: _1 {+ U4 i( N* z5 k. C6 D$ i: S
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ `! m6 Y2 R$ n3 n; H. D' cOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
A4 Q1 {! Z7 W) I+ S9 m0 q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( c' ^2 y# Z" b; Qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 G! P- {; A- P7 u% t8 _
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
W( V+ z' }/ w# ?1 j/ K# qimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% |& U0 K# u- z8 M& g7 I
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
4 `5 Z7 T; [* zbe treated as 7 s./ l% A E; r; E$ h4 [
) E, w8 y) w' RSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
4 i# Q' _7 x! a# [/ l( b5 hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 F( @+ m9 I, C+ a; h% Dimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ _" A. V( R, u) kAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
0 I4 e+ V; X) J# |-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! L# ]* p+ j( w6 X$ Y, p
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an0 q$ R. f/ ^( D
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and1 z" @9 V! X. u0 G! ~. d+ o
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 j- N9 c# U- ?% c% `4 B f, ]
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
( I5 ], s* P# M; x5 j3 v! i0 P, `2 j- [$ a
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 ~1 w2 J7 D$ s
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
! V7 Q* O/ g% Y5 Y" l" bthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so1 I) g7 A; P4 B" k6 a$ _
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 N3 p/ F# L i* q
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s0 w! S2 A1 c4 b+ z- m8 a+ c7 c* G
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
" \1 ~; c! @/ z- o. j' `6 \Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: [* e* n2 z6 m; }; X/ K0 c
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 L8 F- T# U. G' p
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' \% `/ B1 x- c& o* g( h+ \
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this4 c' }" X6 M1 v% g
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
9 u3 z+ f! f" }9 @faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 @; Q: }9 B) S+ I4 ffaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' t+ A' ^) H6 {' Q, s0 @" m' X
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
4 h5 F! A/ D% H; l( v, uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." s4 {% O" {6 Z P
6 ^5 [3 S! [8 J! e! FFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are% s3 F$ p$ P' X5 t; f1 v# U' [& `
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 D3 y0 t' {( J& |3 G( O0 r1 ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
% E* } U/ a) N# S0 J! |' H), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 @% \- b- u1 ]( }: d+ Dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! @7 h9 J( c, K$ B; R! r
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
+ s1 e- e4 C) ^of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 A f' q( F. m1 T
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in* a: Q4 T, x U0 r; \2 P+ e
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 l; D, h1 ~* G8 rworks.- D$ V+ s! k/ B G9 `$ j& g
: y. ?' n) u) g- S1 S
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) Y- q8 v' z% ], Q- j* \implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this3 R% U' W, K u. J
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 E9 X; I7 @6 X7 Q( rstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
/ C; p8 ^( d! K) t. G2 Zpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 W* W5 _( r5 Wreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
% |! o- I; C5 s3 W }cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; d b# D2 E ]# f. n* X8 y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" f3 E1 T; u r/ k
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ O l5 x, Y' v8 V& J1 W0 Tis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is+ u! {% d' w2 ~7 Q6 L* ?+ F, e
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 H! M* Y! M, R. V) h5 ywrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
0 K- q/ e% c4 h5 l4 A. Aadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 M6 _: |% F: b" \+ {4 ]
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not3 n% v, d) t/ O: k
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
! L+ q( o2 u# l' r# h5 P! m. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are/ M% c. h3 G$ }1 w" c9 r
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 _$ }# y+ G+ G7 q& j: U6 y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
' Y6 b- L' i$ C1 k* b; @9 \% mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 R) j1 \% Z0 H' e5 k' F2 B6 [has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 r: _8 Y* s' d) U3 E, g# s( z1 }
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- C( R& Q$ Z- [* O+ |& ?
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect k2 E2 N# U* b* h2 B$ P
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
6 m# e, v1 n% k; q5 cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ k. K7 F. q. k* q; r! C% ^: Lathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight1 M8 B) c0 W/ z R; e2 s
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
$ ~6 E2 C5 ]7 V% NLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping- J3 S" y& P1 I/ K5 [
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
$ \2 x3 S( m5 S) @8 d3 f% \: reight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.2 u( a. }( A/ b. [, J. V
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
3 F5 C: E, r, U# T& R
7 R. a9 |6 ?" c9 c2 @. ]( VSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-; x) U: n. l* n- i9 Y: z3 p
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; L: d+ g% U1 u& z4 C% _
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 D1 f3 Q' q# m! A ?Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
/ ?) K& x: u& u pOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for, Q/ t! g/ O+ e; B- N% e3 X" O
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 J+ c4 G3 l# r$ G# a) igames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope/ J& ?* z# ]# X3 e
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% k' q7 |8 p" D( G8 N
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this4 w: X4 Q& r: J* I7 b/ d$ V
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye. [* y7 r" s8 w) X
6 }1 A9 [4 p+ ] Z/ b- Y4 v
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did ($ u F1 E( a- K3 A: J, Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( F, b: i4 X4 c) u0 p0 _- i1 I
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 ^. e7 T8 q9 ?2 F8 bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( V( r/ Y0 K% L( M2 wall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% o% ~7 g. V5 v, F( l2 Uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* b# `, m7 G$ _; H6 i
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
7 R/ ^. G Q5 s7 V$ _0 uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# b% ^8 T. s( l7 o% Rsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or) p0 l. O* c9 O! o9 l- X5 q* P
reporting should be done. |
|