 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
4 e$ y! q2 X0 s+ h如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. t7 Y+ q9 x* T, V% r
6 Q- P5 e- F: Q9 p6 a2 @0 E H9 nhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html2 h9 W2 m" C6 j+ j
" m9 e: F; V& K4 ^* G! QFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
+ T; Z4 z) r l8 v2 u4 M# N z, \. S/ _5 M5 e6 k
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
+ K, U! v/ ]7 w# T B, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. t% _/ @7 z+ }6 }, \2 H! S
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ x4 c( g/ G. L; l8 H- a
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the" w: [+ T/ |6 h- y+ j
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 }+ x) I: A2 @0 m D
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 i$ x! t: Y. b2 u
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, M3 A* w, ]; j% W. h( L+ Rwhich they blatantly failed to do.
/ ?4 P& G% b+ ~5 h: @5 w, i! F2 I I& w, p1 @
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
|7 D9 x4 K" o4 h! e+ \; C7 {Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 S1 X5 R4 I7 P. E0 p3 q$ D0 y( s% M2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
3 h( n6 Y% C) Z1 U' y3 s: P# Banomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
3 R( V# Z; p: g9 a8 Hpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, s/ l: G5 y) x( z% Iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 r/ k5 O, a9 P; z1 M l" m6 I
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 \8 o+ s* o5 n) w2 u, c( Fbe treated as 7 s.: [( _" w/ o4 }+ }* b+ b
& ~# k* T: o/ x+ X, f# H4 YSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
* \" F; H9 Q7 n7 Jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, k/ n7 r& V' \9 [1 v4 h, c
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
- ^" i0 K7 m Z' @3 \/ `* PAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 V' c8 |1 I7 W" I
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
8 U% g$ T- v/ sFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
1 x8 P0 d: x- }: {* qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and6 h+ t/ `8 n5 [' Z2 e0 z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 s0 J9 C2 M9 K
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.; D$ y1 Z, @5 b( }
9 f* G! j, v0 e5 Y
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
4 l c% S' X, u4 w' kexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 Z# k3 s4 q: B( D. W+ x( A
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) O6 V0 U1 x: H9 j8 c. }/ _he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later O+ e9 {0 r6 ^( x% H+ x5 F
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s4 j4 u. Q5 Z. N, f& k; i
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. P: V) X. W: F) ]- |5 O
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: h% u8 i4 i0 i
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other# n# W. P3 [$ g" L1 _# [3 D
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& G5 y' ~, W( { V7 U4 ?- k, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this3 M3 D0 w% @+ M- A, N8 k
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ n% i- s1 J3 y z( ^
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. N% E8 [* b% ufaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting* W4 K1 q. E0 |# p% d Y
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
& C$ R7 P* B; p0 a. J& ` u( E4 [implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* o; J: p |& N6 p% s& g
/ D: J$ ^2 m7 S3 [Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; r5 H( K5 V5 ?$ h+ X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ ~5 N9 @3 M3 U6 Z9 L+ u
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 p/ }5 a% M& X. k7 y( W+ W3 |
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns9 Y3 n+ n1 k ?
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& S* Q' X9 a* C2 N) V3 |
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; r! f4 b7 s: ]- A$ `4 u$ jof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
7 c7 U; h& b! _* X6 E1 X, ?logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 p+ ]. p9 j# V+ Q F: y# severy split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
6 _0 p" r- F1 Y* o/ F4 C" Fworks.# V0 y$ m, ?0 c' d
4 I6 U# E2 M9 x8 P* |7 U! W8 r* M
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
" z9 H- L+ s1 Q; ], d& |; nimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
- J: \# H( K' A% ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 N7 Q* _& `1 Y8 E" M h+ J
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ m, D8 K9 j% s8 s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and" |$ j! a% ~! R( c5 D/ d
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, k* w4 O# G. s
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to# H9 k: x- I& ?6 x5 t' A3 v! V
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' d# d; E1 V5 b
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample5 R' {! F- g/ L
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
4 D% n! I' o$ @6 o8 T6 o# N3 f: ~crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he+ d2 @: c$ N* C
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ \* [ R5 ]4 \/ o+ z3 Q' `advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
5 K t" F$ p0 dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 U8 \% V" @1 P1 luse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, Y2 t$ L+ ]2 q, h6 f+ v
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 I0 x- C: u' o! D; cdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ g0 Q. n5 M( \2 k0 w9 n- obe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 t4 [/ ~4 l$ i- Q4 j! s
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 X+ f, P4 }/ Q
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
% G; K, k3 U2 z0 v% Sdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
, A1 d* ]( T' {* s: n1 C' Uother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' _" c" C& T' V: ]
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is+ J5 E9 i% R ~9 j/ g( t
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
9 @. ?8 Q; t' F7 j* a* i ~athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight& D/ `& T9 n& f9 v8 h4 H
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 z) V- D* g4 G4 V9 `2 w8 x7 h; K5 H
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
, \! r+ L' G0 ]8 R, w9 Bagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 c; f; x$ X* e; Y
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
; g1 S5 r6 _2 x dInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: W+ T$ u" z/ o
9 D# B0 n7 J; y; a
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* K) X2 w% M& i* L* ?
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! m$ h5 E+ n2 B2 B
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for W7 L- `7 ?1 N/ Z; Q
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* q& L+ S0 b7 t8 pOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for4 Y2 P& S7 ^: C3 b3 n7 p
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
" W' l8 E; r) l6 \, s' R& ggames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope/ n, L/ d8 C- _& Q9 V
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
8 ^; U/ j: O; b, R, c: cplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this t0 y. L3 j: U' U) ~9 G
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
) h( E$ K# ]; e, ]3 M
% Z) L1 I5 M+ _6 H: z' IOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 r8 l6 o0 ~' _& R5 C) \intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ K( V) B( a7 J+ h+ }suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ ] o. q! n5 A7 d1 M* E; x
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' @' U a( \% g3 N. M
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your9 d+ O; c! J% a! |0 B
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
9 h0 a) A+ z5 _# c/ `# jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 H+ @% [% f' g: {7 g( ^argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal- Z* r0 u6 q$ }7 X7 {
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or! I8 G* a5 w* n: R8 Y
reporting should be done. |
|