 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
0 C0 u4 k4 o# A0 _: W如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 |3 I+ r0 r$ X0 w6 D
h5 i* J5 Z+ B3 l+ }, B
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html9 z. M* x5 Y0 \/ U
: i! f) V8 T" n+ z. w4 f3 CFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania N+ v# \# L7 {+ y0 U
% c! b* R& X5 Z; MIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
/ Y: e- `: _, s/ ?4 [5 N) Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. `& c2 Q* ]/ L' \4 U2 k) W% }- zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
: O4 C) P9 O fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) p @+ C& m7 U, T; r; Gscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
, a* W% E9 f( t6 v: n! a0 vpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors/ I9 X5 A0 G& d& h9 Z& t# e) i
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( n& T a6 }) D- k
which they blatantly failed to do.+ v$ A4 E3 u; K% g7 R
5 d4 ?& X" Z( G( ^7 B5 n0 aFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; L5 R5 m# [5 G5 M( p' s( y( hOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 a, a ^$ L. `# q& h/ j+ O! K8 f2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- j, C* s0 l. |$ {! \$ Wanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( m0 k' f' R9 Vpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
h" j+ P. z. B3 }% J/ {8 L% W% Uimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) r% ^5 o9 e8 p- R) \0 ^" q. H7 m! Cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
M% b# a1 n8 D c' T4 Gbe treated as 7 s.
7 W" |" p7 }( j5 V% `$ |, | ^1 Q7 I9 @/ M# a! N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
5 G- [3 f& Y1 x; m3 w; ~+ F& Astill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
7 o- ^4 c1 _. S% Wimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
* a7 l% C; _; I2 g$ p; JAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
$ W2 w" b$ o4 T. b-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# K/ C- Q1 h, R6 ZFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 a) R$ y( ]9 Y7 g& {7 s& v n
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
0 R4 J8 Y. {/ i0 p" ~, m% o. @persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
1 e7 Q8 P ^+ Ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- u( M" U, Y* O3 K7 v& v* ?: F6 B; T. e' U+ t8 P
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
. h0 b# X. q8 _- k" Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 ~3 _' h2 K: Y; N* s! @/ F
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
; z7 D; G" o/ W1 n+ Dhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later2 \' I* T! D' Z2 g( M8 Y
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& Z8 W3 j0 F( D! W
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
! b, }' a! H9 J# |. j5 ^+ T0 UFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 w+ J6 x9 i" v& g. x( H) Gtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other8 z2 q. s, t. @
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) F+ S, s# A' k$ @# m+ x" Z& K
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 X+ y2 {+ c# y$ j: K0 O7 k
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) @* p7 B s' sfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam9 n, `" }0 P( G3 r9 ~* a9 g k
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. G% i; W9 c# O1 Z* ^
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that! Z* Q, P/ L' ^. A# k
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.) ~, z) K c# _
K3 z- D9 {* f' s0 b UFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are( Y) s! }7 j+ ?! X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93" N% u! i2 @# ^- \8 ]
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 U& k- e, W8 O
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
; k9 [- p8 c) C- Jout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
v# S" o; w% Z" }9 _" GLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind1 t/ N8 r' \- q$ c: X
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it4 e/ |8 V/ y6 u9 q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
0 |/ _2 o9 A; a1 [5 `every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science J+ Q* Z& x8 Y" H2 n
works.
4 i2 @/ W- j5 e5 w h
, h) ?' R* n# z4 }# N- `1 J X9 g8 AFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and+ }7 Z# T5 a$ d
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' a* \6 J; z8 v4 `0 a6 [
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
: R6 E4 v; _$ m3 \3 Y; Gstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific! n5 c% ]! U/ a; N8 e" S) p# u6 P
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; `! s, g; C0 U( v( U q0 y
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One9 I) Q2 h1 z& G$ j* o0 O6 M% R
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 z3 o3 q& z l, i4 C9 i9 Xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works3 M1 q4 i6 c" `- B$ {3 P
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample/ A% A# c& U) d5 ~! {7 N
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
* I( `8 H4 w4 x' _: tcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
+ X% o7 Z6 a7 Z; w8 }0 P5 A0 Q rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ L% T1 a3 c4 c' qadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* W# e$ g5 D8 v% F$ spast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
, n( S! l5 W) F& F6 |+ euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
% r: L, V, C& J5 C' C2 p _. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
! ^9 |( Y( `2 B) W jdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may0 @1 V2 @2 ^9 W: W" S3 w
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 P& {3 J- Y8 i* k5 D/ W& w; a) n' hhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# V1 t; i' Y! S: w! K; E6 D
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
2 M; S. K L& T6 W3 O q Adrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
1 o2 S. ?: M8 u% t% g# O* Q9 c& wother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* P+ j9 L2 Z. A' a
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! t4 k2 M. @% `% `' F
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an- h2 i3 q. ?* G# d" {1 X+ Z: b
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight2 g# v5 [ b' Z* D& j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# I9 z+ I' x* x# O- \0 iLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& B# b/ L- I: w0 e4 F+ g' ?
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
' h4 r0 t7 E" M$ m2 f1 e) w* jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 R$ ^( b; a' c+ V- o, t% GInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
5 v4 a& W: U, h# V4 b' l/ j5 J' ^, R! u8 O- C/ }
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-/ W1 A' `9 r5 u. ]2 q8 S
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 C& Q! r5 Y" x4 n6 L8 |
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 U! N% _' J# H) fOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 S( ^% [1 c1 P
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; r$ a% g. ?' h$ tdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 F- D* `3 ?$ S# _. sgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope- I3 U6 o3 g+ X3 v) `9 J3 k5 b( o( v5 y
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: Q5 ^, j& V( n8 T! s4 x
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this' s6 A4 R( y( Z4 m
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
( I& W" d L% D, F; Y. _" Z- O
) d/ C& l! {7 d& IOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 k0 e1 H/ H# p w
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, b1 Q, Y4 A4 a6 c2 R4 W7 wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
# m" H& h& z w- ^% b" S- Qsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 f+ b+ Z4 m9 s9 e9 q. B4 uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' E2 p" R; O# y! Ainterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 c! i x; y+ ?: u9 ?; f
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% K, L, c+ B8 U/ |1 I0 r& v5 ?) pargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
: I; o: H& {8 b+ Osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 }* g, d+ j1 d- x `2 i9 b. Freporting should be done. |
|