 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 JIANG0 f8 k1 {& K* Y5 h, Z
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ x; t( B+ e! U/ J1 X5 v
, u) |5 u) O2 K4 W* J/ g/ e7 lhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html' l5 q2 T) I; {: w9 v
' o6 |( B9 b6 G, `! {- ZFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: b6 U1 p7 c' I1 T, w. S& i' `
0 U9 k- P: H. J
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, M$ l- ^% G( t, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science& F1 v4 F! v) n, i8 v
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
/ l" T! H# B) Jis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ e9 p \/ P4 x! x% b0 e; G0 P2 H5 t- H2 iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 s3 l1 D9 p; Y' {' c
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
, R% m9 D6 s; v- p, S* v4 ?should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ J- a! P, j) T. x/ P- `, swhich they blatantly failed to do.; X: H; N O- F' N" j, }
4 q' P4 d1 u2 Q& fFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
# d0 I8 ]5 o( \ z8 aOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
A& G/ f7 ~) |* l, u- h. ~3 T$ L+ h2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
& A( D9 J4 ^4 {# Uanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 C6 K- v: K; b0 x: R* Kpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an2 g. H7 Z0 h4 |$ ~* b. p
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the. w( ]# R, b7 l; W
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
6 y: B) m; t+ abe treated as 7 s.
/ Y& T- H. Z8 f; H. c
$ s% E4 S/ x/ C1 }# i* d5 sSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is% l5 p' l, v5 t& @& R
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem1 a! M& I9 `2 |7 u) B
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! { Q) j" _1 s8 F) N+ G3 H# yAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! y; z1 e* ]# Y' |: ]) z5 |-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.9 Y4 Q) }) N! d! e. z) q: n7 y' G
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: w- I! r+ J9 `: b
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ ~. A4 T2 F- [! U, \
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ X* c' ?7 t, |+ N* cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 a9 C# C7 Z0 Z: |
) P4 @3 D" u; q8 N# t9 KThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& H2 X2 `5 Z& Y' c: K2 L& ~example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 p7 m3 p% o8 o+ o9 x4 ~
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 k+ {! V. A/ b" H: ]he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% Q5 z# q2 L O8 G, w
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" a* e5 i8 y; L& c% r# Y% Obest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
. I1 i) N8 k) F0 G7 T3 A VFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another+ A1 A( _7 A. W5 ^! [; W/ b' C
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ W* l6 {$ ?3 J2 f7 O+ Uhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
( [- _) z8 C7 A4 K0 c/ i. D5 b1 a& ], in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- H$ L7 e4 M8 \. K; z' `3 w1 Zstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& g/ t6 I' |! ? |0 l: E5 ~% kfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ `5 g6 e' {" c+ P. N/ l) i' Z; E8 E
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; D+ t- x- ~5 {3 \4 w; K! x0 i. Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
2 H. |/ }3 X- q) \1 L& I& C/ Wimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.: h8 v3 `" U. U9 q4 T, _& v
6 `" g+ ?$ T( W! sFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ R; y3 n1 v, n! ~0 p
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% U7 D' Q. A' }$ `
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
! Z$ z P. l' j) m8 C# @), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& O; @) c1 |0 d' g9 V" \# ~& l
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,3 V- _$ K, A6 _4 I2 I0 D+ i
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. y8 t! l: g b! hof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) h) p2 o3 B4 V1 G3 ^2 L0 v4 ^
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) N3 D" k1 Z9 d4 \every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science* M9 [: Q& l% I/ K- u9 k8 J) N
works.
* u$ I' W+ u# S9 v% r- n( E
* A% D, E! F: U9 @& Y7 l' {Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and( q+ o& K& z9 H& d
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ S u9 U4 r. [2 i$ O: Z
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that& @. e3 l7 N2 k8 [
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 k$ ^% U- J6 D( R% M! J& Z. b
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and) }* h4 @4 c! U2 Q2 t- Y
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
& U& Y! I" l4 f; n6 I8 {6 o! icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 g9 H( A ]2 K* {) t, j: o1 U, `demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) C( C4 `* d6 e- k
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample4 L# t, {7 R; g# b8 A$ ?7 h9 t# y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" s/ G4 Z; d" }1 ]crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 b0 _7 U3 f6 ~- ?5 Q- Bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly9 [. |" X6 ]: e- u6 [
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the% E6 _( H2 n* h& T0 u" l0 ]' W7 v. E
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not+ j- K% U) @' W' C. s: u$ m
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
! f3 N! o1 R# x8 A% V% w, s+ V. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: J# F1 x+ t3 x1 f+ ^& V* e- B
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ O& W& B2 U, B) d( f# v- U7 N7 t
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
7 i2 V! G) g% P" z N' h; Yhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 Q& F, @9 F1 C; H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& |! q. M( A% s G$ ^" ddrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
$ ~* A; N: F6 l: x0 D1 o) D0 vother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
. P3 y$ P3 I( d) ]& r0 f" x( \, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is( Z( C+ o, Y* W) K# u; {8 A
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an4 }5 ]9 F0 a. E2 y i
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
3 o5 n2 @4 J3 x) ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 S& s/ a5 I/ k' j$ kLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping: b) q2 e- c. B
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for1 |8 U/ b% B6 I. m
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
9 B3 @! T, C4 i* _: AInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
; v6 G# {# m& @! X1 Y' ^) o: I
& m. x1 A/ q5 j$ WSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-, `% k. V- l# ]/ [8 A+ v
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
9 w V6 x U2 s. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for8 J" ~" `8 Q& {- e0 l& p/ J
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: ]9 \- ?7 z0 g" I1 [/ F% NOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for) z! N' r5 t+ S; _& x: t7 n
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
A2 b' U8 [3 H2 Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
+ R% p1 ^5 j- i# zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
( C% @& }1 W9 \: y( I7 K# Vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 |7 Y) u, @$ ^- Epossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye." x: T0 J9 C# o& u# B
( c* v% v; u! T$ jOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ ~1 ]) E8 n% ^* x- w0 |intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too& l& D3 ?, Z6 n3 Y8 M2 n- b
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: b7 D" q3 a5 G" b
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide; i) d7 T0 [$ E9 e$ U
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
1 N1 \* w5 Y) u; R6 Dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ k" | h% N3 K) z( q2 E( A2 ^
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your" u' Q. h3 J0 c0 O! b* {
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal, g I; ]* } {7 d7 |, S# @( X
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& \* ]( f* m% X& N n1 \3 ireporting should be done. |
|