 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( l8 }6 G: L9 k. e5 x! B2 @
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' W0 S" I1 H) j( d' t% M( M8 \5 r: Y- u7 f1 u2 y: B
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html6 T+ D+ x" | n$ q3 [
$ o' j$ E# x. S5 @
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% p1 ]! Y, p# b
4 f: I {6 k; C* n& [$ t9 X
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself% R1 x$ ~" w/ _. g0 y
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
, l2 n9 k5 q: W5 N+ hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
! i8 d4 U3 Q+ k* eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 S! R6 z7 K- X5 t
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general! O2 k- z' t' A
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ L4 {4 J2 m0 c5 a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 Z+ o5 q. A8 E! Lwhich they blatantly failed to do.4 D( B! Y/ p' v2 p" j/ O
/ G0 S: n/ a! L: u; p+ y5 `! f5 {First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) o! {( A( M7 c8 ?/ F0 O" ]5 tOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
% Y F, {8 E8 @ q4 i5 N% P2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( l6 ^9 H, u6 Q/ L5 o& b# canomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! q" d! c& q; |
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
1 K% Q" y" ?, u5 j3 jimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the y" }' R4 l2 W6 s3 w3 `1 A' X9 r
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
1 @* x' H& a( [be treated as 7 s.+ {3 @! p* J$ L" P
# |. P# I; _, b4 _
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ g/ S- `7 u) U+ H3 a" E3 p$ pstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
g7 G* E6 V- vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.% Y" K/ u( h' r$ h5 m$ p
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( C, O# ?& w4 S' h. h9 n9 ]0 [-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ W$ C& U4 S, ?5 d) u5 vFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
. t- s5 F. G. h( m0 |' Relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 E4 O( s7 V: }* P6 v1 D# C+ `persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& z! a3 Y" H( r
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& D" ?: v6 |) d5 k( b; L
- X5 J3 s9 ?/ @6 nThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- ?3 c" e G1 F8 X8 g5 R
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
% g% B# n0 N( H& I: {the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so. p# W5 m: K7 {# ?. n6 d
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
, A- h8 j9 m& K$ h- X: N* Yevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
. Z- N& P) ~7 c# ^4 @ o3 h* Ybest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
" N( _4 b: w; f% Y3 y0 Z2 @+ i8 DFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& [3 h/ X4 ~( x
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other9 w3 W2 x5 @5 V* {1 N! H/ G0 n9 m
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
$ l. J7 r T+ q) `, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ O% K) w$ ~5 ~4 ]$ C
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 n7 p) g/ i$ o h
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 q6 N0 J- N4 B( f# s) D* c1 Lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting# K0 T4 R+ }' U, E1 |- ?
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* h. ]( F! Z4 T6 y* u& a- [implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.3 L, r2 ]+ B4 @% L8 m
, e0 _$ r" y+ x tFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are% N# Q- i7 N* n- J; ]
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) a4 E$ N6 G2 B) f7 ~+ V
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. o) Z9 u$ @! O
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns5 {5 t7 |7 X: h# {
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: y& P% M( a3 t" p8 K. ~5 t* f
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 P% N, f6 n$ @* {/ R+ j. O
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" s) `7 [- E1 `6 y: I) Ilogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ e7 ~1 C, E4 P& G! U* t9 }) j5 y/ i% W* U
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 y7 N& z2 F) fworks.
; R9 t7 Z9 R) d
. O3 V! B! b7 lFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
6 {+ f: U1 U5 ]& x+ R& b& Mimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" w5 A. p) M# J% }- A# F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
1 e( T0 e, O* s6 z) Bstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
" p! i* f5 {, ]papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and+ \" ~5 ? J% x# X/ B
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One! M( }- V. Q' g+ F: L9 d
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" L1 @& N, ?0 a0 @
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
* E1 l9 j; M: G" a' mto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample' x6 x; W3 X# b. V) N
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
$ x! X4 c. S$ A9 w( x% k; ^% Dcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) Y7 ]: T, ^! S( M# j
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly4 R9 ` H. J, n! ~; ?
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
- a8 |0 i+ C8 tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 H! p7 k- A5 \( s+ B ^
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation9 @8 P! H/ t. E3 l7 c
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
) e/ k: R% i' v, U1 H9 vdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
. k0 f i$ W8 A+ {. ^" L. e9 a8 }be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ ~3 o* r! s B; k, Ohearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye2 K- P$ s6 S$ [2 Z+ M
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
V, g' {: ^7 T" M1 udrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:. s1 Z* S$ n! N1 B( c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: S' D8 @. @3 V9 r- u
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; |; S! u" {/ B. N& x( v
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
6 i6 j; Y. V1 C3 y* E U# Kathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight' G* b+ F5 {; b/ f1 g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
2 J V0 i5 ~2 x1 G' s# S* S* OLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ d+ u Z0 A1 n9 Q5 S) L6 C: T5 ]% @
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for k+ @3 C9 X% E1 Z, B
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.# D, b6 _7 }4 K1 M/ E) ?
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( j$ i" `- t% O0 @
- k6 c" u2 e- Y4 O1 G) P$ |# Q2 lSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' X9 u4 u! I5 q) K7 p
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention0 R& }+ p! y) w/ A' S; Z
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- _ w5 S: e/ {- B$ sOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
. @0 h2 {* J. T5 rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 Y- [4 z& ?' G% `7 q7 _doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( g: D1 Q! O! o* F) S& n0 ggames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope! X' t# o E5 z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 p9 N2 R7 L) w/ I. o1 z# g; wplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
5 E0 c* a: q3 k# [possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 H- W8 X' U3 ]9 A# g
9 n- i' |5 g: bOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 ]# b7 Z r4 _- `" ~% N8 Cintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ S% T5 n5 p( e9 Z+ msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: r' o E) l# W% T7 hsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 n1 |: g* L3 E) T1 v
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
$ t7 R2 u) R+ p& c0 hinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 I2 h3 z; ]6 j7 S9 x' `9 Jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
: Z u' a. P& {. m, J8 Eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* x T p* d- S( }
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
2 N! t, ~, L; mreporting should be done. |
|