 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
8 A; o% W6 y( k" ?如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# g' V+ X, v; U' W6 r ^7 P) E: c A
8 K1 v* W9 Z2 {6 P$ Bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, A7 ?- ], m* l4 n4 ]/ r! M
5 E8 N1 I9 u1 B9 E# {" J; i3 ~5 iFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania; R! M/ M9 i: F4 c0 J
9 ~; L: [! Q- F6 o3 LIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself+ o% @. r5 X/ k
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
! {/ z; Y' v+ b: fmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
* z: F+ [6 H; @4 O5 W, }8 zis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
& u3 u$ f) E; Z0 p* _: u3 ?( x4 s3 Qscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 d; R5 D# Y) [9 |4 E# G3 m% Zpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors: M/ F1 Q% B1 N
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: U* J) _& ` k' }
which they blatantly failed to do.
8 e) u! X! n, {; W' g
6 ~7 I1 T/ b$ iFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
9 i. A% s8 t! o8 c: c. K- wOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
t( f2 w( I7 Q3 S& P2 w& e" ?2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' J" [+ w' K. }) t1 y
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 u9 I1 w# z' R" r' ?" k- s9 Epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, X& X/ t' o9 Y s/ m3 L5 {2 ]& g
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the0 ^& c0 Q1 v) M$ S- @2 r
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to+ V6 S. J$ n. {, F
be treated as 7 s.
# Q. V* s' U/ a) \/ W4 B
% Z: C3 G6 ?; A6 ?( [7 S, rSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! U& R# _* z( }; g2 T7 Bstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% @' D$ a2 H: N; r: T
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 c' U' K) q; B, T$ [. |0 wAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4003 Z/ }* X* y# o
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.+ C# p7 D: L P. t8 q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' n2 P: X( G# Velite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; y4 c+ z; v% B# [$ O) g4 V
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
! b4 o+ ^9 \' ?1 U, xbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& [ [2 c8 i0 k3 X) ~8 X; [
) W# C+ y9 d$ b+ t( p9 RThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook& T1 u4 e6 F7 A6 \0 V! i, }( p# C
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 W3 }3 o7 Y7 t! {3 I
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so; L0 ?0 ~1 f2 C) k
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; ?$ i, h1 B! V3 hevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s8 m+ x8 X$ n# n
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ s% W. v4 `3 ]" O9 Y
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
8 b: \6 P1 A' w; `* j" Btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
/ x' J) q- N/ C9 T1 e r& phand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle9 _) t4 e, }% z3 E; J
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this' J' S9 \# `+ G& T5 k4 `
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 \# {1 G1 \% ]4 y
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- r5 [) p. O/ f' A
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting! _. X+ N, ?/ ? r/ l: x
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. X& C; x; y! C" D2 y# B7 }+ Yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.$ K1 z q- O# ^7 j( z, F
* K& l, _ t+ V
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 x7 i! A8 B) }' T$ Jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ w$ v9 o4 t, S3 ^* w
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 ?# ?$ i8 x# f; m7 R0 I
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns! R; F# K% R: l! j
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% o& k% N' |8 MLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ `0 p( V3 O$ _: a
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ ]* B# }4 ]/ O! Klogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
& C4 C) A1 R- H, N6 t9 _: Tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science4 r/ Q/ \9 @1 w* Z7 b
works.
, H( P; I3 v8 H" O
! {0 C; r3 A7 j$ F0 n0 M' Q1 MFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and8 w/ `' R0 O: x" S' V
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! l5 ]4 z. G- ` fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. \$ q5 t6 f4 s X7 V& b
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific2 X6 y9 |+ M1 b3 g) w, s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
2 V4 N# e! x1 F- G% g) \7 I" Greviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! s0 p4 ^2 T, `2 z, icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" W$ y$ q# m+ h& v& i
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 }/ \8 R* m7 J4 k
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 ~5 D0 i, h7 N' a% cis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is& Q* u1 [! ^" a
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he0 x, ~9 @9 N4 e, x
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 @1 v& r, _# Q$ X+ L P
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
; t! ~* ^5 _8 }6 Dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 `- e, ]6 E" u$ nuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# O: k1 [) _. s
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& V9 Q- `* [8 R0 S. E5 y. M
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ n: W) R/ u1 ~be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a6 N, v, G% w; R: s/ ?
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# A% E9 a8 N' v
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
7 T6 [% w. H2 L1 d6 Bdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ D3 ~8 g- L" g/ n! Y! kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: d/ r4 U8 u/ }
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
# G( q! F& z* z5 P; K) y, |probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 _4 I: t/ E7 M" |( ^athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight' _3 }1 |9 ^4 [$ J! L# {- [! G9 k: z' L& Z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) V; g. m4 v, Y; y( r* N' jLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ |! ^* c2 a8 B# p7 y8 ^7 Tagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for0 Q2 V. h* a9 x$ i+ S- w Q+ `
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 z6 o5 H6 D! a5 K2 U8 F- m* ]) F. N
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?' P1 o+ V M6 L7 V( n, I
. ], f: O- S0 f0 n# N
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
! P5 B' S2 \2 k# u# P8 lcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
2 G) Q& ~6 S( M. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) A, X8 s4 s% a+ V$ @6 D9 rOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 S, P7 {# O1 \7 O5 @Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for* c, E% T: E" O. O+ q
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, \5 U/ j2 g: z- p* Y9 N& kgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
! [" ?: }2 g$ n. ?' Qhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' O. p# ~4 v. F" x2 A! j- F; ?8 v
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; I+ H j3 ~* k# p: a8 ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.' N! p; }5 j2 p9 U6 w
& g9 i' d- x' K; a; n5 r! _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (8 g7 [0 d$ G. U# b" s
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
4 V" A: P3 |' k& S! R# jsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
3 T/ O( s% R: k5 nsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* l* }5 s) ^" d
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your$ V" @ v- |3 F" T( x* f. ~
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
* R: d' w* S& }, lexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( F/ X: j- F) y9 x aargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
3 g2 X4 v3 L( d( qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
5 e" T6 n4 {: ]8 z. {* M8 Treporting should be done. |
|