 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% O, O* f4 Y! }! q! A! w2 Z
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 X' Q n% K0 V. c3 I
! v5 q" _7 I$ e6 i0 l0 u) `: Ohttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
- ^; f' |* D: Y" c$ |6 W. c; O1 ^. F. [* D7 p) Q3 f- z
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
7 s1 P/ o% r+ }: i. s
" s# @$ x6 D N4 K- ^. {2 uIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
3 K/ `- \) u0 H: R, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# ^ V. G- o( `6 H, M- j. `
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
% A) Y) W$ L7 R" \! Y; Q7 S9 Uis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' ~0 j5 Y* d5 ^1 ?( h' f9 Z' h% n
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
; Z I i# m) Vpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
; O) @1 ~) R; r8 C2 D7 @/ S7 p* hshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 \5 k/ V' X6 n* C7 L+ a3 L
which they blatantly failed to do.- [3 i) ]. R. E8 _* G
, H9 i9 h5 g9 h4 L) o; cFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 }5 i8 {) ^9 r/ S& B, V1 jOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
6 t" |+ x9 r8 v. N v8 q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 @" ]: ? u/ l# x5 {. B6 ]" D
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 D- v' s) u, g3 J# m/ Fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ U8 D5 V4 ?' y, Simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ |; b* f& f( g# {
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to0 i9 X9 M2 ?- }( l
be treated as 7 s.; d: O+ K1 B- |: F5 [1 K
' K5 g8 \9 z. l8 ^$ A" DSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is, |1 J6 c. h" H
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ f4 X h: f0 G: r+ h
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. q$ H3 n; z1 r) O! [& x9 o
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 e ]' ^9 S8 n) t' B7 @' s
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" O# r- }! M3 S/ AFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
7 R6 y& K3 L+ belite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
. ^0 G0 V" B6 Cpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
4 U1 O- y, c# _ [0 ebased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: I8 U. c& e# n' F1 U0 ]( C, r5 F- ]8 w8 M7 q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* S: U; A9 \1 U( U4 U3 F% C aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
) u5 |& u- N3 c; R( mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
! p: p( t- d0 h! ghe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
+ a# p1 D4 M! j/ U( ]' K/ jevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s _; q. R; n; D. i; [
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) n" t; W# b- b Y6 G3 P
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& X# k) O: L8 X8 W6 `3 R
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( z$ ?/ w) h2 c$ {3 a0 r1 _& K" Shand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
2 ]5 ^) T9 f5 V% k2 c# \- Q, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this" C, S2 J, }( |+ a) P6 |9 p9 L/ p
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ f" K( ~7 S$ h3 R( m0 E5 N+ p
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam, J( q/ K7 R. K/ v$ P$ T3 F7 A" p
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
6 Y1 L* F4 a3 v; ?3 U/ T8 a' Z( Oaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) e7 H- T; e7 Q! H- ]/ Pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.) m: f1 g1 D* c3 `
0 y! z; G" ~+ R# J
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" W$ g3 |/ X/ d
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93- M( U1 m4 d' x% y8 o* r
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
( F2 k% L, L& ?- l6 N0 c7 L), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ {4 y* {/ s; A9 u+ F# ^0 a3 |out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
( x0 \! x+ Y- ~/ k! DLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ R" w' [# c7 X' i4 i5 \
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it V% I/ O, x& I* |! \8 O
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
/ ~9 F8 E8 y. q4 }' Xevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science/ y5 u. g) R" b
works.& @" \+ H5 y# @( q
1 S! N% o; b5 [0 ~
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and4 ^* W" @6 E1 l& q' m: t
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 _/ U H& q3 I2 z4 Bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
! f6 Y, M$ ?3 Kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
5 u4 ]& C, C6 X; q1 ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
" W' M. R: T/ K5 [" X0 Treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
' P4 m4 J$ e2 I2 ^: X1 {! M+ Y) Ycannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 y% N: J2 U7 ~demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works, O& d8 k+ ^5 d/ \6 x6 b F0 S* L w
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 K4 y6 t' ~' k4 U! q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
7 {* ?! f6 ?& F( l: F C. ~% Dcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
- N+ X: u( d' _) q( G2 C2 ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* f6 O& M4 [ d; n" |
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the Y% }8 L5 A2 K8 [4 E( l
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
% `* N; e v" G6 F/ T- K/ yuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation q" v: V+ D: F( w T/ X% E5 L( |
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ y/ X+ D* p/ g8 d; z; Vdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ [, N1 Y! L& j. r5 W. } @: R6 gbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 \6 a7 N: f5 m( K' M0 s
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 P- [ K4 f; I8 H7 l: | Q) Chas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
4 S) k r f/ O8 Idrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; \4 Y9 R. n5 H! f8 j6 K
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* ?! I& `! U, l8 [) M
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ s; e3 ~5 D9 K$ Lprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ T; V. E( C+ J0 f6 i$ Fathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight0 |& ~- ~' V) p, h& ^
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?( r1 j; h4 E( S3 y- X
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 D" E" {+ Q2 k! F, N3 W
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
) X& m- I! c* j D* feight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! j0 v0 j+ V9 V
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
]7 }5 V8 z, r w6 T* i+ E+ g
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-( C7 H7 _0 F1 t. c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 B6 R3 `2 p& P- F7 k' E5 q- [7 M4 G Q7 g
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for8 b! J, n" k- u5 A
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
0 l6 R% s* p- V7 M0 y5 X3 kOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for+ d6 x+ D7 B v) j: ?
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
& c9 e; I9 S7 Kgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
6 N% ~# ?$ z, N% ~$ O) Vhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a7 N. p/ V' u- O5 [' t" c( t+ a
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
/ t. U( [+ j/ O& f$ I6 q! l7 q6 |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
) n) b# T2 P z* v A* |; H4 O3 l6 n6 g% b' W' F7 c
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: Q4 d8 S9 }! N6 W u, H! Qintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
/ w6 C) ^) q+ ?2 Y, @. Qsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" [1 l4 ^& }0 Isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 _- C) d2 a- \8 |4 j; H& pall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 [( z* G' b; c q6 t
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,$ k E4 w( d3 q4 `: o' {7 [
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 I: k* x- h& _+ Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
I& W! q( D9 e" Tsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ |$ n! e. g5 Freporting should be done. |
|