 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 JIANG2 A, B7 ^* b! J, m G+ ?
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: B. Y! }3 T" _6 Y( O7 U
2 S! C; x( b7 ahttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html/ @ k4 x b7 s6 @4 L
1 @" L" m, f+ {! F9 y5 D7 z
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ D6 ]1 I' E$ |9 t6 ]
1 v3 u& j1 S6 C# i# s- a- QIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself6 p6 L; H/ d7 k1 y# n
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science: i! S7 B3 i* a: c
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
) I# ~ V! q( c$ u( f$ L* O( qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the/ J/ t, i/ c+ e! }) ~# {0 n
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 e9 \6 N+ W6 y# t6 d. Y- G* `populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. M; S7 W9 U3 s3 P4 X, b+ r" a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,4 Z6 p1 c/ P n- F/ h a, W# p
which they blatantly failed to do.% A( z3 j$ r5 V: q
$ q/ i l. E; q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
: I$ f+ s; t; tOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
5 t9 |, L3 a1 }8 G& Q% O2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% M3 r6 m* @! u) }9 d' Q
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
+ m: _; h! Q. x4 Wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
% N& Z% B1 c8 _0 a) C& {$ B$ z+ u3 simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the1 t. q) X# H/ H) ^5 W
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) ~, Z0 \: b* k" d. A1 m8 bbe treated as 7 s.$ C3 }! _! K4 q6 K* t$ x3 Y5 K
& J1 ]* J: A0 Y; \* q) p3 [4 |
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
" L' R& U3 n @0 ostill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem! K T) I6 [8 y. N* {6 D
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# _, t7 E' u8 |& _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
) C9 w7 Q$ |2 A1 Y0 i5 X-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# v% ?" K+ U% _- ~: v9 FFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, J% J$ X# e. g) C3 x. x; u) g6 Kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
9 L% O: y3 `+ k; c; n4 d4 J% Ypersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
& L3 t: j: n" f& S2 p8 J5 fbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; `+ A/ X; I" c0 u9 l
' q, `9 w" a/ l- ]% YThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ K% @* w; [/ Y6 c6 ]5 Q0 sexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ v' K9 z) i5 n) V+ N
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, t4 c) M$ p. Y( f0 V
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later! g. N& ~2 z6 t$ S4 l2 X
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s- \; M1 H1 Y8 ?: b2 n
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ M: a6 w4 p% \8 \, D& w/ F
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
& X5 s9 S; y- j- dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
1 _+ k1 S+ ~, bhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle0 B! S- S5 I. Y: ^8 r q( m
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this* h1 V, C7 O( Q
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 e5 I# i& [& `- X, e5 u6 Hfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
' X g; j, G/ Z% l" D! ^! H! Afaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting% x. k. V% b# q' s# r
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 s. C6 N L) ?8 ^6 ?, ~( ?) ?
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* i6 i& Q5 ]- Q/ n* D
9 H' M: C# U$ a! H. x( MFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
7 L* h) b( l" w& o# Cfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
: a$ }* j f( [& B9 I1 x4 qs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s3 L4 m2 U, r6 H z4 F& d% d% a& H
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 s1 ?; f# n& J9 @$ c3 kout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
9 H7 ?* m' g! d/ @3 L8 P* RLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
! Q. \1 [1 k* T8 o, ~; B7 jof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
e3 g2 q$ z* f2 p% `) V4 u1 s3 zlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# L/ I u' \( t/ }every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science1 l W8 U/ z" S" V* \( P+ P% w
works. ?3 T5 S1 p* z. j
, v: H3 v7 ~- r+ ?; f8 B4 QFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' z/ s* _; Z- O5 u) pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this; I4 s0 H( |; Z% p& a
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 g0 @* h% h$ f5 L5 G' [1 x
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific! e( e; B; h% b
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and) r; P5 k8 D8 }
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 { j% c4 w$ q2 M" p4 Z7 C, v
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
" h1 e. d1 W, @0 A2 J! bdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
% u, F- \( j- w; vto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 s7 X# o# S/ {0 Z4 D5 Jis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is$ @" f5 q9 _3 T, l* K# u, V
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he* {& U* z& z. q3 ~" s
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
& ~# Z0 q: m0 H d2 [2 @; i5 M" ?0 Gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& Z6 y- O! `( N5 c
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not& t* c8 N$ Q. V# Q8 K" B
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 P9 R5 G9 |$ ]# v. i
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are6 {! v f6 P0 z+ i3 Q, b* c& a+ U
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 {# ?/ ~' e8 N u) Y' D; E
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
- p0 z; A5 o0 N) p& f% y( R8 x5 phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 w# [& z" R- w T* H5 [& U
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
?% ]4 a9 o9 m/ ^drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
. a3 @1 @' v. j. z bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- A9 t5 V- y9 B7 \7 V* _3 g, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 Z6 {7 z2 p* ~; i! X7 f8 ~. `2 M
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. C$ Y- \, @/ W/ R9 x2 ?2 p% s8 Z$ n
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) |1 v9 e, G# g, n9 Z9 l" nchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?5 v1 Z6 O2 B7 Z& X5 N
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 s3 m* u. ^; A3 Q% ]! J9 h9 u# n8 `agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
, W0 \3 d6 i, q! s, v e5 reight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, K/ M% R3 c' Q- K7 iInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 c% a- g/ [; X& n5 c2 U9 z' T
$ m7 W) b; O4 r+ w% T
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* N5 G# F( y+ `* @3 k% ]( f
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention$ x3 U% @6 u2 w. t2 o
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 u" f) q8 \# Z y3 h* \; s* Y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
3 f m5 ?& @) `Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 Z( L; \! `/ Sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
! \# h; X+ S( ~$ s& M) `games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
1 I3 K, V4 N2 T; [; G. w- {4 |* ehave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ x0 W7 a8 ]! G4 f& ^
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
5 B7 u! x/ ]/ v$ ]. vpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.! a1 S5 w3 k& |; D; w% ], E5 `- d
+ V/ l7 [- k' R5 d* g
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: f; d1 B) ~. y% v* C
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
3 Z, e' r* O4 h1 isuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
n* M* n$ O' o ^- Z3 Psuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 z: w9 S/ R" U1 j4 h; q, S8 fall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- ]$ j5 D2 V# q _" D- G
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ v3 A/ P5 L, b8 l0 z0 Qexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
# K) W, a1 W3 B4 c( h: p: p. xargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
: }/ b' V! f- Q0 }such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
/ e1 B6 V3 v) Y+ L- s7 {reporting should be done. |
|