 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) [, M) p/ D( `& Y( p( `
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
j% y' z; [" H; r9 [7 u0 H
/ X% r# ?0 t* @3 ~7 u! X; n1 Vhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
. }1 Q9 P* _3 _3 E# w$ P
% x" R0 n! S* }FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania i; T' }8 |6 T5 @8 j! @+ a
- W" k- q9 M6 y& i ?" r+ l7 n1 aIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself! H, H2 X. {, Y
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 f4 \( `9 H5 R1 ^& d2 pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this6 p1 m# U" C! C( D( z, \
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' O* P% D' ^3 ]. O
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
! d, t8 @( y# d! i' Z6 o* j$ G8 l* ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 g9 n* D3 }/ E- \
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# X* }1 n7 G4 h: w& pwhich they blatantly failed to do.8 {& G+ q& F) E, m5 B* J P
6 X' Q& [) H; A* P* k' BFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ L% d2 J3 \ m3 IOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 a% f* V& V0 z7 g" U
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& P' U+ j8 [- U9 l2 n4 e
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous, w) u( ^3 N3 H- z
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
) n+ a. L7 ?/ S: }! M1 B& Pimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 a1 x4 O5 f3 z8 x$ Bdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to, _ P; L9 W. F! f. i
be treated as 7 s.4 }0 }0 K! C: a: t B# G& n
/ p" s. [% }( @* Y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
. F: ?$ m7 U0 J4 v6 Ostill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem" y: s' g+ v$ T* x1 i; O) s2 M
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.7 |2 k4 h" W8 n1 V- h2 a, }
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 a4 j# ~2 ~- \- o-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ X/ w: A8 [* N: A9 nFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( V E$ e7 X9 m, G' v
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
$ h) V) O" e/ S% K6 ~persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”/ `4 G k" L( g: ]( ^/ X2 Z2 _7 N
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ R4 c4 b" i* Z7 O3 S
) a% R7 L0 v6 A: cThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
6 v% v% l2 G, T: `$ u, \$ [& Aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in9 }/ h/ I& q i: U5 c
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ I# P9 e! l2 g' |
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. O+ x6 G) I6 i) `3 c& p Sevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" |6 B& M" `" U" V8 Q. Zbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
; E# m' K/ ]8 p1 `Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
; z! N4 b% E( a' V! I9 q1 Ttopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other9 b9 ~( `7 {5 p! c
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle; T. Y* [; O& l. T
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) @+ m/ F, F; d2 o) e7 Y4 hstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 H& O, s# S% k" Q: N7 S0 ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( S2 r% u6 [+ u
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting7 Z3 A/ w1 J( Q# v; E: M( h" A R
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- D( ?& `4 R8 X4 p# X& o+ ?
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 |, n+ Q3 y7 }2 V Y
* }5 G) I7 {7 _. WFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 x, w0 B" d) U! `$ G5 A. j% E( a
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 @ X' ] X+ v9 f" f. Ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* w, X4 o% ^1 q+ [7 v) v. {; e# l
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 ^1 E. n) T/ W9 sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,% G3 ], Q1 B$ _- @5 E: P6 k/ s
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. l8 c2 B" ?& \5 \( `of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 w& ?( h# \* n. U; ^# I2 ?) y* u
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, A! x3 o6 s) c* O- k% c
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science( a- ]; x& i, H$ @, \' P) z# P. A
works.
' k" V9 o& F. J/ S* U1 ]* u$ Y! B& F
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 k& V' n2 x# k* R/ O3 gimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! D: z* C# m) F- p* bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that8 y1 @2 y; g3 @4 X i1 d5 d
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 k n- x0 @, k6 y9 Q* y- `papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
J1 V; I { A3 `" Ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One2 M; b1 N" q, p
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to& _# w% v0 |4 j
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
) Y. T0 e+ R( u! S- g! i3 s( Eto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample# C+ H' z& y4 f" f
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ V' D5 |3 M( `) `# P# H z4 dcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
2 T+ { L/ c! {# _& F0 g. twrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 a- `0 v( e! ^/ _) uadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ v8 q* Z9 q! h r9 ^7 Y# r
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not- c1 U N2 |( w4 J) q1 R1 [
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 [8 p5 ?: J }* W/ @+ {+ K. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
/ E/ ]( O1 l7 s- Y t% @doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may+ m0 X- U( N2 o5 m# C6 q
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 d' n' t- ^5 k2 mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 ]4 n' J) L, F8 b4 P2 Lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# S6 e/ A; M1 g% _( D. G. o
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:. d) Q- y! }) g: f2 I0 j. H
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 j4 q/ j0 D5 h' L C! V, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" K8 s7 s2 m- E* [0 p _7 Oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
1 N: z0 S4 e/ p: x) q. nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: U3 f, l0 s( A; U
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?. D- `$ D8 v- d, d2 z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
E5 i) x8 F/ B$ ^$ u ?: l+ U. vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
+ V/ e7 z2 d+ }% ?eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' G* \1 A |( L3 |: f. oInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: [% ]8 x2 S+ ]/ `1 X) Y: s( K" O# z
4 @- J2 C9 A8 n8 ^5 N' Q& O: y: v
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-# \9 v" x: {7 V' i
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
% J. I5 D- r: K7 R. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ x. M7 d% j" M2 w. IOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ S( R; T2 v* e4 Z0 BOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for3 x7 _( Z7 y$ h6 ?0 S s* p
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic6 d7 {% K4 W. _
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
7 A' K9 e X8 }4 a) A1 Dhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a g- N" _. J4 A1 t4 s
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; h( I3 |" s9 ~4 B
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
3 q; t* @4 s: H& t+ R! S4 b3 p6 z9 U' e3 Q, S/ T0 ?2 H
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did ( o& c& S/ j* a/ }! K$ Q) K
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too' w( {- x! t3 K
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 G1 j2 B3 `6 P& G
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide$ ?! N7 R/ Y8 g# L8 ?* ^& j0 l
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your% o$ i( j5 Y9 W
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 L4 c& T) D+ k3 S4 F- J
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" B% B7 E$ m. x( _0 K5 oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& E8 A+ n" w6 \3 M& Msuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 I& z! ^. v7 J
reporting should be done. |
|