 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- O2 K7 d ~# s8 C3 Y2 Y6 j
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
) I! Q# |$ T& j, _! b1 m& p3 Y7 }
( W- w' ^7 J( w; N+ Ohttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: P& a4 m# V. i8 _( f' s
' X! v5 ~2 ?: g* i+ B, B" @ \
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
4 j* u' D5 O% u( r/ w) Y, c, I' J' q- A" s, m
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
+ U* E) t3 A3 |8 Z8 u0 k; q, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. I2 |% z( t: [' v
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ B1 A2 d! j9 O! Y. V, v
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
* f: F A6 Z0 T/ l: N% E0 l) Oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( D$ a1 ^5 `: T! O( |
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% W; F3 e" O4 K+ X3 L
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,8 K5 {+ r- L% [5 j* H
which they blatantly failed to do.# q6 k7 y+ G* v& S( \# g5 K. \
5 v1 U& X4 B% Y8 G4 n. V$ {) l, g- q5 S, YFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
- v0 R# u% F& H& L w9 b3 kOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2 R' x" S a8 p6 u' ?2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “6 O7 v. K! q# \5 O) A: g
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 i, `) X- v- epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
; I2 f! {8 n& \& H$ Q8 N9 \7 Wimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the$ D' B- i9 m$ ^; E4 K
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
! v1 E( Z! J- ~. M {4 {' ~6 ibe treated as 7 s.
" @0 g [7 i' w* B
* {9 u. x$ o C1 u1 J' H; OSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- ^3 S& U) Z$ e* @9 U; S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
/ R# L& K5 F+ v% U- simpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.% x" |* T" r( K$ g, W5 o
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
L6 U# B- ?4 q& e9 s0 i. M5 G-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.4 s( \$ u& E( t: V, ~7 @, E. o
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
4 [4 i' k$ C' _1 K4 d. ~& kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
! [; Y3 I) a3 w- E8 Ppersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
* O$ B3 N! \! l9 _ I: o1 @based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
4 l, d- u, V- ?. @* t1 t2 [
2 T0 u4 T) h3 RThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
4 n" w/ L9 p7 }" E' }' dexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
& o8 o: s/ e0 y5 R. ?, V% Q9 Lthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
5 H3 @! f' m8 R, g8 W9 jhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; b. N- }: \! [. B7 A i. ~. K
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s7 w2 ~4 F- s/ ~; X# O
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) e" u; I* g' U2 r7 o o5 j
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 E* V7 b$ }5 v5 J1 S1 r+ [topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; p1 z* z- f7 d2 v6 |2 a
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' R# a6 `3 n3 h- e
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this( g: U3 y+ a$ ~& Y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 j* y8 I. D4 h& C6 F! r: b# K8 yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
4 t6 D( q8 r8 H# P" N' }6 gfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ M* F1 o* l# y
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that5 B6 s; m( p* x* J2 y/ ?( P n/ L
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, o+ B# [# w# T) z1 J: i6 s
' `7 i* j7 _1 m b7 N4 }2 ~Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, v/ C* t% T' p9 f9 `' e$ e( z. Q
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
X/ R1 k/ }8 m5 w2 p' U4 Ls) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
, p/ [6 G# e, i' w) y6 w/ }5 K), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
4 `* R( Y" V0 N3 s) L6 pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,1 ? Y$ x ^8 ~4 h3 c( t D6 ~
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind& P% M% e9 _- C# G/ V7 [! h
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' a* D0 z. j5 H" n7 k
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& g' K( X6 ?( D8 k" ]- Q
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science2 T' `) C& ?2 i. u' X# ^
works.
7 @/ G0 a* l/ [) g$ p) c$ t7 t {# r+ b: X1 q; y. F$ r U1 t) L9 y" F
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 d3 Q; ]3 Z) r4 Y3 }implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this9 Z. {3 S F" m9 H
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that8 n- n0 u8 b4 c; U: \, v
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
% T. }2 F2 T3 {& M; E% f9 q' U% \papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 u) Y* U1 G( [5 Z- Vreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
7 L% H* o* _# c+ G D, A/ o+ N3 ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
$ e2 r( Q4 i1 r' H2 Z% L; cdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
{2 X' s: Y0 U* Oto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
4 T3 q& f6 I7 a$ C3 D4 I9 |is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; [2 W0 o5 p" g1 E9 w/ S2 Rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he* X1 W1 `! X$ S# K( @3 y4 Y
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly# o& p. C: o; [1 L( v
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the) f) \5 z% F7 p% |" p1 [# }
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not# j/ b7 N; O7 H8 p, {
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ n) t9 {& m! u" f, @0 k. z9 k: ~" S. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are4 C# K9 k. b; h1 W b$ O* Y& j \8 B
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( z/ R! p% d, d7 _/ ^: ?: R7 _be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a$ v) c- C6 a2 S
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye) ~/ ]: `" |4 Y# F/ c6 T. f
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a7 U! S* ], b" {( T4 ^9 v; q9 b2 Q
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 @% G5 s8 S2 @& q3 l7 S q( v; hother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect" Q* [* E: W# A. h- q0 z. v9 E6 e
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is" U# C" P- W% i0 f
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
, X9 i- W3 ^( p( z) qathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
: R' R8 ]7 ]9 x9 ~* L+ N; tchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ m% N+ v7 S# E! U
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping: a) r" H; S. n5 A* e4 ^4 u& k4 Y
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 H( h8 l- ?" K1 G
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, w* Q3 U q6 k$ X4 K& g# ~6 y# UInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 ]5 h2 l+ ^' y' g, p
" q: t4 s! G7 R P6 a/ T6 q _Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 l. Y1 f# P. h+ z9 o( [* S
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
# _ X- h+ n& a! V- |, _, h. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for* I0 u; U4 c& o, ^1 ]" l9 Q- i
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: `+ l( w% M3 W8 s! ?2 N
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ P& W, c" d' E( D! E: D7 p# ]
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ e" I I( A* N* d0 Qgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope8 [2 U: D2 |7 R2 N/ `) n/ r
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
+ L4 F( y$ Q c* {* J8 lplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this1 M: ]/ N5 T- m; k
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 z3 h* |4 _' U# K, o% U) a% P3 m( T& m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (' G# {+ W) K" f$ y Q. z) ?
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 h- j$ X) G! j6 a9 F5 [8 E
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
% ~' @6 K; j, x! d2 e2 Ysuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide7 M/ Z d4 F0 `
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ h& s+ ^% ^6 c. ~1 D T
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
# ?& e: R" h& f! F' B7 rexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
- k1 N4 H2 Z' C( l) uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' N: z/ w( f# V' f \
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
( E% p o* E6 P* V# h2 x# S* wreporting should be done. |
|