 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; v. G. f( E* G' S& F. F
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。0 V# s% h! H/ `
5 J( H1 m* R# s. A6 ^! Bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
9 h o' T% }- c4 @% p: i9 ~+ W n K0 A; d6 t6 {
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
1 Z" A4 @- K8 z8 u8 e; r5 e- ~
9 P- p- c5 O* C( `! @' M/ eIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 N7 ?$ |3 W3 K5 N, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
* L0 b W! ~ q1 y* x3 wmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
: I) {: Y }. {9 M0 q4 L0 i: Uis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 k# g2 S& L1 g$ J
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general2 l( b* d# L* h; W
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 u/ m+ l7 i' D6 K0 Y5 R) A
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ p% b; l7 T9 Y( n2 T* p1 G4 zwhich they blatantly failed to do.3 v; R u3 w, l% |6 ~
$ b: q9 Z6 A! ^, u4 A/ eFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
2 f# d9 j( {2 COlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
' n6 ]+ Z4 y6 X' r L$ t2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
& t o* q) r8 Z' I: Fanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous; A0 y: f0 P% t% E- d' `) Z! X" r' o
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an* _( z1 t" b* I: ^- Q. `
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
" b5 i2 u7 y) q, B4 {8 b7 jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
- v# p) ~" x( R7 {) d) u. E+ wbe treated as 7 s." q2 e* ^ N7 i b/ n( Y. V+ t
- m$ _1 j# |: y7 Y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
5 z2 _' y% H6 Y! Xstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem0 P @/ l- G: @. f$ O6 Y t9 A( h
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.0 H- w" |! l' X6 f
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 y$ h& |. H" {4 V I( g* _-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.$ Y$ e- [6 F6 q+ m
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
" K V" r! q5 Telite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and* z& i2 {/ j. X0 N* F7 z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, t; v% E. r! j" }based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& |( P8 x9 s1 x7 d- o( \/ F% o6 t" _& Z d! S
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook% W2 j/ o4 r! a. b
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
) Q# A' l5 m! s; Zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
$ y. H( Q) S: che chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
6 ]4 H+ ~( G3 D# U) Oevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s, D2 g5 K2 p* _/ f% X! p
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* @7 L* r3 P# b7 tFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
5 [% s$ {2 w" M. ^4 i6 d, r' Y. Mtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
/ a- e! i. ^6 k2 s4 w- n9 Z4 T) {hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle% I8 Z% K8 j: T8 V J
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
, C2 f- O/ a9 [$ x! |' fstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) Z: K) k/ ?' h* ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam& O" m' B, j, E4 h
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 A- _1 H/ R. C7 [- Y% [+ daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; y. w# i' V7 r
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 v5 `% j% y; x) E+ [' M$ H. A' H) o6 P6 }+ ` h
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are3 K {; s$ K( z. F
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 r2 m: C6 x \6 N% Rs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 W2 Y n5 B$ Y( D$ w+ W8 O. E: s
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 s; e& f3 |. i
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 X9 M; {3 f% B, ^
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; d5 B2 H) z" s1 e8 P8 @of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ I3 H) L, B6 r
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- v4 z: Y8 F* {) K" D/ |: z+ ^- B
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
8 @$ z F! E" Y8 x: g8 e' Vworks.. q- S/ |1 ?% `
* f7 x6 F8 O4 q9 p% A# ]% c
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
# F, ^& f! N1 W' T( ?implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
& o! W4 h% P( R! i2 Akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, r3 W; a+ r6 ~ x. |5 L6 C1 C) h: ?+ B. sstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ k7 f/ f9 K9 P2 x9 R- hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
; @# z4 G* i3 d# treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One/ K: T! h' m& I; a0 ?% A+ [( u' D$ J
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to5 j$ o( Y# U& S J
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works+ n6 D2 u4 f1 h9 \
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' R: W4 a+ c8 G- z, |* E/ Gis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
: M: i1 U. p( y3 p# m6 ocrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he8 |! y0 R4 V" K6 E$ i' F, ^
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
0 N2 [9 S5 E9 T( q. X' V; ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( O- l0 n5 @" I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
3 J2 I- w' K2 U* @" t2 N$ E& `use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation/ ~# F: U: g7 z( v( W0 }9 _
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. k& y: f7 x2 \* T0 b6 d: d
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may j# O2 @" T, I `5 G* ]$ r7 E
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 f( g3 z" E7 \* d6 N- ?8 x: jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 ~, h" }8 X# \5 R9 W/ Z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a0 Q( ?+ E% `& I5 B
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
$ i! v& p8 }6 uother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ P, D- ?- T# s7 ^, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
: X8 G' {1 E, i x8 v# wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
# {8 _* E8 j- [2 Dathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 _% i' N& g+ D6 dchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?9 N6 z" y% ]6 P) h. ?, x
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping6 e5 m; J% k5 q. l0 I m
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for% ~4 t1 }$ I: x7 c' s g" S( M
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.: Q( k, L. ~3 v, S! r3 M
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. ^7 `* k* k6 {8 u" O
+ }" q8 w8 M, w3 e2 e3 b5 z) oSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ @5 B4 z+ p7 ^4 t3 d- z; I/ Ucompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 d0 L$ f! G0 S1 E
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 Q$ D( E# S# I2 e; s2 `
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) w) ~; ^+ b7 b
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 a* G5 ^7 F( x- N( r4 y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% R. E' u6 v3 o6 C3 C7 A. O2 Ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope& K+ C( _0 |2 C$ g
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' h2 f c, [" uplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 F5 }6 H4 @* \6 Q. s. Vpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ W6 B* s" ~6 g$ Q7 ]. N# X9 T$ Y' F" n$ _& K/ ~: p. {, n6 H
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (( V9 I4 u) e) }
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too8 o6 Q+ H; X6 M# `' M
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 j* H3 i6 ?5 l# m+ Tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" f R- @3 k- A7 v- c1 `all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your2 @' E, O7 y; a0 n: r; o& b% i9 w
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" H+ s. j. h1 e' F, ~7 |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
+ X* N/ J# H1 o8 ? p& Iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 X! ?$ B' J4 _5 w+ e) C
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 A& i- |' e8 I A4 m# n5 \9 l6 Hreporting should be done. |
|