 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/ Q- \9 A E; M+ b9 q7 v
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
7 ^. @# f- c6 G1 A$ ~) |& L* X/ x2 c) C* y5 I: E( y$ ]
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
) {" Q5 J' w8 D$ f m7 `* {& o, e& q7 F9 V% p8 c
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania( h3 D6 p! I* E# X
/ A* q' h9 p) V O
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
( r/ _+ r5 l0 E3 Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
% ?" X3 e- b- M5 A, g; Kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
9 F: e. s: n" o3 d$ Yis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the7 q3 e; m4 l0 H5 b a$ T4 }, u
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( u1 {5 s4 i$ r3 |) P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" F- j% }3 |& S7 m- _ b: p7 ?3 hshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 `' r( d- W B' O- h
which they blatantly failed to do.# B A5 n Y* C, d
. a. b0 c4 B. SFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
- q8 R4 [5 I# n% v l aOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 N4 ]: I: s8 P8 k& o; P s1 ~: u
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* |# S, t$ N1 X- U! Ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 q4 p" D, j) _* @4 d
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! C" E7 ~' U, X o3 p; X
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
4 }1 n$ u7 K* J- j( j. ~0 ldifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ q! }2 p( Y2 L5 m9 kbe treated as 7 s.
4 q, |" s$ v% f7 e9 }$ V7 ?" j( |" @! W6 F
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is/ Q$ {% _% U6 E4 V0 j
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
2 e4 \% V( l% L$ C7 Fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& B) ?7 [! A% `# N- mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ v. ^ h& y6 k6 i8 u9 U
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.& k! Q2 l. ?% ]
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
8 s4 o2 }- j9 u7 ~; Velite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( ]9 q% c9 q' S4 @persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
* D# ~: o5 ^3 c1 ^8 N3 a) v6 ]- T: _- s, Abased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
' i- W6 N2 m: l1 e- Z, `. l: D K! k' R
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
: ]% r2 r& i; Z. [& ?$ J1 xexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
c& K: O2 m) A# ~) j/ xthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
0 s X) L* [/ z2 H: ~he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
, U1 M) ^5 g9 a+ P4 D. {/ Eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% a9 [- w1 Y' `; s( d* h* o0 _/ Fbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
5 `% F& B6 R p, ~4 l, H" TFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another; [) y' V" p9 b
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( ?; t* d2 j4 _7 x; E* J7 l# M$ rhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
$ S) n0 Y5 C- x/ F0 k, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; S2 A! ?5 U" q$ _3 c& j
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 x3 e! x, b$ H" n% b) M
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. P! ~8 }! C! P+ g% S" c% O
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting5 G8 y! m5 \* y# g1 Q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
$ R* e- P2 k, e: V* ~) U1 vimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; m0 e9 H+ i+ T0 e Y7 L4 Q P2 @1 }. t% D+ t, y
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are4 D& T' Z" @, S, X0 g2 _- p/ V
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.938 }9 u& T$ `6 m7 h( h" m
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: E A( O- _1 V# a6 }$ w
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& P* \! @1 l1 R7 ~& l9 o& T# i
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# I- e# [8 ]: | V7 l: x5 V9 N z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- l' t: W! j( b, O
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it" V( X$ D J* a! ^0 z% s
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; L9 h7 S5 f; D2 Zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science. D1 Y5 I/ s/ V6 N% T
works.1 l0 c0 Y/ j" J: ~* U' O$ @
5 p3 b6 G# P! U- J' p* GFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and+ S6 S- `6 W( J
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this; l3 {8 c- z5 k. T
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
8 } }) }4 I8 p7 O5 k7 jstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
S4 W n) I9 Y6 v4 Hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and+ Q6 f# U$ |* `/ {
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
3 |/ z# Y8 N! ~8 U: E. Qcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 f- ^# I6 K& c3 [! Z5 E' u
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ T. ^, p' h/ R! \. B" E
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( J- |5 |$ a* Z) `+ h2 x& C. I
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 i e1 j( v) Y: [
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 p0 n2 H" f1 @# `. P' s
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
3 B9 j) C. m( H: aadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the. P' [# i. A4 I" _ g9 {' g
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not: b/ Y C9 t9 z2 L* T$ _) N
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
; z* O c4 t$ q$ r- h: B. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& T( m5 v- T0 i' G
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may3 k# m% A$ e* {. T9 v3 T2 _7 ?0 M
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
* j$ B% y* D* _3 K- L" p3 dhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, M7 X! Q! H& [" F" E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
! J7 G0 v( _+ K# y4 y4 Jdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' W ]& ^4 \/ u$ m: F1 rother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 f3 ^) Y( S/ E; m0 G, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is# X8 B7 q' ^: @% u7 J6 z, v% b
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an3 a" W" @' h, U
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. K9 |* N2 a1 O+ x% g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 z0 T/ A9 B9 A& W
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
\ ]) _4 B8 }) O# Xagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 z; q; q _& O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
! f5 y7 N, J' `6 q7 D! W5 M8 }Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 A: w& K- V c2 w# s( }' }! V3 [0 P6 N) O2 f, h
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 n* i v4 @$ j! E' x ]
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention& `5 o+ e' O! l% N. y; M
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for! n/ `5 p2 [6 y9 b% }
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
" F4 k: w+ I0 i$ o ZOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
% P) G2 q s) ~7 Tdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic D8 y, ~' A O" k9 H; p
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope- C; h* c7 q i ^
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 q$ f2 v7 ]3 i( T1 L8 l) O" {player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this8 d) m; R7 S# j* i* I- q1 u
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ q8 C- S1 V* [
2 _1 W! ~0 I5 _- V; B" YOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- a# p* a) o& J1 ^9 Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 f% `# V6 V; W' [9 d6 g7 L( x/ O
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
$ ~; h0 I3 p$ i9 O3 @% [6 }0 l, d, ]8 csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 P" ~! r- R( r* o$ p% `. }4 t7 W
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
! m+ Q) h' E2 }+ }, f+ N+ T6 q% V9 }8 Pinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
7 P5 b$ b4 k) m e$ g' w6 g' Eexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your/ c* `0 A' ?( }: u1 T% i
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
* u8 ]: y& j p4 nsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 T8 j! n: Z! k0 x5 p% [; jreporting should be done. |
|