 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
, I4 E' L$ `: C5 J如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 G5 ]8 Y/ T, ]; p$ Q- R
0 E; X$ s6 _8 H9 m! R/ u8 s1 Uhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! V7 y* E \; Y2 R# Q( g
& J+ @& w* b4 F6 d* {3 o: y4 ZFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
V& l# ~ l) d9 q) H
/ _$ d$ S/ z- g0 S9 gIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
( c9 X6 f% ~* q. r8 l, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 t! u9 Q2 S; l2 `# E. k- F
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( l- |& u' J, N- wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' z/ L7 s6 T' N R% p+ h: l, P& R
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
4 b6 O. V m6 Y0 z8 C; Upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
~1 B. K8 U+ x/ @6 C. i. Kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
" ?4 O! W: l- t2 ewhich they blatantly failed to do.; D8 }: {' g4 W: L1 I
$ w( F6 U2 f6 a/ V$ s* C- XFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. ~9 Q6 i4 F4 V X, ?
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
5 J u# X! `$ k" Q) S2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
; E& L$ {8 |8 Y: k/ banomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ r- q% g+ O9 V; @8 r l8 J7 k
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* z8 R% N+ M6 A- g8 pimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
* X6 T) T! s- D* s- _* d2 O b& Ldifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to) i; E- H% U& i2 v+ D
be treated as 7 s.5 l3 k. N9 j5 M( ?% a Z
7 o& N/ [* I0 H# v
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ W" s' [3 A& X* [3 vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem d- O+ F* N( i6 C, ?1 l- }# ]6 O. D
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
; N# \% |0 O2 e" S% HAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! B" U- g$ u9 O1 T! \' v-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
' E5 U! J1 v* |, NFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
. P; u2 ^: R1 A5 nelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and7 O- U8 T+ l* S, S$ H2 r3 |2 q
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) A6 }9 j1 O% Y# Q. w: K& H
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 N( ]5 i/ s$ J Y3 Z" |" ^
& p: x! `" u) F
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* m( u& n, R" V) o' d1 Q
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 ~1 E6 H+ {5 W- jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
% N, e. I$ _3 z4 ~7 uhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
2 n1 h5 {6 A. X% [% f, cevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& [; p; A" ^& s7 r
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) ]6 }; R8 }# A
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another0 Y' A; E8 s0 r
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
/ M3 V: a1 N, Hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle+ P! _# a' Q6 p" p
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
6 i# v* X. |3 V Q9 Y1 x! @/ cstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
5 W* }" z9 S; \' L2 O/ s8 F% i2 lfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam: x# L3 q. r4 u% j2 Z' O' B
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% }- d% l9 \" ^1 C4 yaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* U# |/ h# f9 g. r7 r8 simplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ _" O6 X2 m. M, ^
- b( X z$ B8 N# {Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 {9 x) G( ^: n/ j6 Z L) D _
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 f' s; v7 I( [$ R: ps) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s4 i+ h( C) x$ S% d8 V: m7 a& _$ u0 F
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns9 R, |) [* w# h
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) h P, b5 n! ?! i1 `: f' @. {Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; p8 s/ \1 n# M g4 A+ K- i
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" a- K/ ]5 m% U6 I; Q3 ilogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* O; W3 `$ d+ I, y, bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' R2 \# y' p1 |- S! p: [# yworks.
( J; X1 U6 _( ]- [9 [7 O. z4 d7 j+ Q8 b- Z$ x& C" z7 B: p- o
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and+ A; J8 f" H; m0 S
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 g9 E! |9 L8 C/ O3 R* H( kkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
8 k8 r6 S- I/ z8 estandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific# P/ k9 \7 ~5 V$ ]4 _1 r
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# v+ l! {' T$ f" R7 p
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" k1 ]! N/ L9 Z$ ^1 h5 fcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to u1 Y \7 U! a3 X4 G
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works T7 J: u0 O) l' Y6 T3 N$ \+ [' C
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ o( ]* c/ y6 ^' I) M3 s% u" {is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
2 S! p: z7 o- y& o5 Q! xcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( }+ e4 e% F. J- @ s, x& V6 T3 W, ewrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 x$ ]8 S. |6 T0 m* U' hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the/ P4 B1 T& C. h: c' h& Y% O
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not3 b0 |4 b( y1 v" k& b
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; z; p- `" Z1 c9 \: |/ D
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 J) v E2 d6 O1 Q# t
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) V5 S9 l( p/ s: H% l1 H5 Vbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% ^! T6 m* X. |/ Shearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& i ?; T5 l1 f# d7 l
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# E( h: p% V4 X9 l
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; y# \- X* e( q" U# d
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
8 G! v- b* V! M9 ^1 A' G0 m, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is5 k- _( e: Q8 s) [' @+ Q( H4 v
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% f2 I2 u1 [' n+ rathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
' }& { M9 U+ e6 Qchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?& _/ m% x% e( V
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( }6 u1 C9 G" C7 \- o9 eagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
4 b+ T+ m# D2 h& s; xeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
" c1 ~" Q1 \1 Z! r3 nInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 h. I* h* }9 R0 K3 ?7 Z
* m* t+ v: }4 L4 R! @Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ R; ~/ M4 X; y" c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
2 ?" ~2 |0 A1 K. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 s2 c g# N, d- g
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
8 ~0 S( i7 g! s. a4 fOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for# J9 [" d% ?/ G. S$ [- ~( O+ O
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. X6 m7 g( c2 ]3 a9 r( {
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
' w" M+ t( E) ehave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& @8 B, b. R7 H& P/ x; b
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this' U8 Y* W8 ]3 F
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
[% F& q6 t& s f
. Y7 S' j% `8 u' ]8 SOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
4 Z# s/ f7 q" fintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ u7 y/ O3 s( Hsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
$ P5 a% b; ]8 p, s; psuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide7 N' c+ }8 I: p
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your7 G- P0 X2 s% b; ^
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 V f- ]* Q5 {# l7 b
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, p* B, [3 u/ z# \" C- \6 R
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 }$ M' G& z9 Usuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or6 s% D( f/ g& C- Y! M' ?, j) ~8 B. n
reporting should be done. |
|