 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 JIANG6 p" `+ f" y( D+ ?7 t% e2 o _
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
4 }- ~/ m4 d O& l/ {: G
5 }; w J7 [4 o/ s/ xhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, g- |" _9 e! Z. e w
; i C* }6 n( ^ ?4 aFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. K" I' f! l2 D- H2 y6 [# u; d4 {& x- m$ n
+ E, p2 I; ?1 r \3 p7 n; LIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ M* Y" {4 Z m7 I, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science) `2 \& m6 P% n. ~2 J C% G% h, {
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
]+ N' a$ A/ ?7 a, W4 Z: bis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
[9 a+ Q w8 }: [$ vscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
$ _) k& a; @# ~ h' ppopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
; o% a9 N- j# M& t! Dshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," C9 M0 v! T' n e5 Q; o) S
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ j5 i: D& F( a6 ~' Z! @9 O5 M" c/ p) [% { F+ {
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. j! w4 I2 a' }
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in2 [) z0 `% y" w% p1 l! o" r# e( ?
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 }7 e$ f# c+ E# V* x$ D2 xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ U0 |$ q. R) C, r
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ u& B+ V9 B& G5 U: ]- H# iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
: s D9 n1 t3 @) Pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
0 d. W, |( ^" T* w, R" K8 Tbe treated as 7 s.2 @% ]( I, Q' Z8 P+ J
- d2 h* n! w5 V1 tSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; v8 D4 L. Q% i' m$ v0 u
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
% }& h+ M, M' n- G& _/ Q$ g3 `2 eimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# Y' V& A& }( I; t, I0 j
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
6 h* ^: n9 \4 U9 o. v$ Y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ ?2 x9 ?( s5 aFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
5 }! G, X7 D/ L. b6 Telite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 B3 `2 M1 G( f% B# M# Qpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
( `, u/ s, K2 V6 k; {based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ n% }1 h- i$ b
9 Z% {4 g \1 O; T+ z0 F7 oThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook( H! I$ U8 A$ a |
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, @# i. Z' o- j
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
3 a+ u5 t8 U5 ^2 Fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later1 X7 T8 c1 T* l3 O4 F9 a- G
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
) t" ]4 \, O4 }9 Q2 Rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- y$ ~ y7 O# _- f3 nFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another/ w ^! _7 Z% N
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. v' _9 N/ T+ w5 V" s# lhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 l7 a- Q( ?" f" U
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this' J+ u6 h( k/ m2 U
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
6 p. b, |% t+ x# Q: o' o& [+ F l' ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam' @5 p3 Q/ A/ G5 x) t
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting! `" w! k0 e! }, R+ k( N
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
2 r+ i" n5 E/ K8 s; p2 H, ?( Zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 p% V% V8 l. X+ t: |; \) V( N8 ^8 X
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are( F- i+ w8 `' c+ z' F
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93: X' }2 E$ t& V, m" m4 l
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s$ b* A/ W' c; A. |
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ f. ~& ~5 V/ I7 a
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ a, F% }( H+ Y
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; ^, v) ?3 [. h2 `! G) f) ^
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it4 I$ H6 c( e* F. Q& P# d
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
v5 n ^3 ]6 g8 V& g c2 j1 gevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
8 s$ S6 x$ f0 }6 Rworks.8 U0 B. `; x* [' u5 O
. {2 [% `1 t$ ]' q1 a* c
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
7 O2 V; L2 r) W' R2 U( v7 Eimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this, Q( Q q4 w S
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
! U* N: d! w& n8 Mstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" W' f7 f) N# e
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
. P2 e! a! ]& G0 b% kreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
7 r L' q( {3 Y7 P _cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* U; K3 w4 u* F
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 I, e5 V9 \' U7 `: s
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, s- e5 f" K( _3 ?% U0 A
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is6 a7 `2 Z) I" o
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 D2 z- e4 ` K/ |wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' p+ x& w1 h" V* F0 ~' L
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 ]. z+ A/ r. U% A) d
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
0 K+ z5 F* K; } P, X! Cuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' x2 Y. C q& ^- Y5 @
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are! e" Z% A$ @. o; C5 S; P
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- O4 `6 u6 x$ {+ Wbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
. ]& K& r/ z9 J& uhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
1 i% C" t. h+ ?7 ?3 X9 X$ lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a. D4 N' L+ Y2 A" p- Y( w/ @6 T
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
% S, U I7 ^2 ^8 O, }( nother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
" d! ]5 x. G0 _* z4 w( [% C, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is" ?% z I7 O T7 J0 B% Y
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% ]: w I D' q: X' ~athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight& O' {! E: p$ v
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
0 p1 T3 h# x9 |6 v" S( k$ u4 PLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! k e8 T9 O* t; Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# f; y2 o8 b9 b
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! ^2 Z9 e' ]& W' s
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
* G! k9 r$ Z D. |' i/ O* s7 q3 s
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 g9 l1 R1 }) g3 L" _/ R* s- Acompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 ]; V, X. K7 { J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 _/ B- g& I: n8 vOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; f# J+ ^/ }' X+ L$ nOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
7 V2 i; Q0 a# N' jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic6 T5 W, K: _4 I! E2 t8 ] W
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
3 G; _0 g4 E' y8 w$ D7 k! B0 bhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ k2 S V3 e7 W9 O* n. Hplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this' V. Q- P O8 X) P
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
+ ?. B6 y( Z2 G) L9 p
+ U. T) m4 b( w. G7 iOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did () Q8 U2 h/ ]) r! [! g0 V
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 u p: o/ l- r2 ^/ g6 {3 Ysuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; ?/ _% ~6 Z0 j
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ N2 a8 @% x0 r3 w) s
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) i/ c9 n8 e# T: F3 H! ~& `, c
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," d3 L8 T! W7 Z& C2 V; U& w
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
$ H ?; h( v' }* M9 iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
5 M5 Q, N) f/ d* { Gsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
# m8 T- H$ ]6 d: [$ p) p4 h/ hreporting should be done. |
|