 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 JIANG2 m& P+ r" U3 ^ e
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。% o- |7 X+ N$ A4 i/ u0 S; q7 G/ y
: Y" r+ T! R0 `http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
+ ?4 ` C, e/ h) A7 v/ {
U# ~1 \4 B9 u7 kFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania' f% z) O5 C) B. p2 E% Y
: m2 |8 `; f1 nIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
9 {: Y4 E4 P: L. }1 U/ A1 m, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 c4 E8 v0 r: z3 ~8 Q6 U4 Y! T0 t3 P
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this' N Y8 F" Y) }' W" i
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the& |7 l% j5 H" r' i$ I2 A
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ g# k" B2 J8 n1 q2 kpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
P2 S5 Z, f9 {! ?" H* O' F6 j2 c6 ]" Jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! A+ H1 A! W* b/ z" L* Q
which they blatantly failed to do." V$ a& Y6 ?/ Q9 G& h
/ @- s M! W: ]' _% b
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
' w7 J* `0 [2 P o/ z/ WOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in5 Z2 W. Z ]9 ?0 p% A* y# z! F
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
7 b1 c: X: t. B5 S$ w& G1 d" Eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous1 g0 }6 v! {; `
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an6 ^- {, D' Q! U6 D' `. \) I
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 m) b+ }. p" p1 E! Sdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
; d( O9 r& [/ G, o1 abe treated as 7 s.4 Z+ p+ K6 z, t4 d
$ G3 ~$ _! N3 A9 j0 O2 T4 J, @
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is$ b% }! J* Z, d
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
/ j6 Y( W) M8 h4 j! }) Aimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 v' I% \8 `1 v3 b9 P- IAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 T; ~" v* d' H, e-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.+ |# x, z7 \; T& [, \
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an# ~! C" ~6 S/ }1 W% I$ X
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
9 ]7 O! ~4 @1 q, z# x2 vpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" s' `& T5 n$ J
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ F9 }( g8 ?! C5 R3 R: _/ m7 `% |- H& U) P: O
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook3 K( z M8 [ R r O) ?
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
% t- `: V/ i" u( Lthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so0 M! H" P: l3 \2 b8 b
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 w. u6 |& G2 v8 W1 oevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 H" u2 C9 q$ ?/ U/ d, Cbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! r: F. H' X; `5 x
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another" _* q, v' |0 Z2 `
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ i y& t! R! C& `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: @8 |9 ~1 g& U, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ t* U! L/ B# l% z$ G) astrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 e8 O1 T+ G& m! u- y V$ ?# Y
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
2 b) y- N. u$ V, C" P* M: \faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ @. f k8 W" }2 B
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
8 p6 P, E; B# A: M8 k* Iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 r1 L. e. h& w* _" W
# q9 Q& a- W& r& o! ]+ i; K% zFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are3 |$ F x% R3 r- [$ R1 X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
6 p n* m! v- Bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
& ? c7 R/ M, k( p" l: S), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns) E4 O/ J, _. l* _! K7 G p- J+ o
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' E: g/ i7 u2 y: W0 RLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 r- m7 [3 H& @0 P) Cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
5 L5 H7 b, X( I4 [0 R: Zlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
4 Z; t0 u: g6 _4 p" y. Oevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
7 w/ x* j M6 oworks.% C; s4 l+ U/ y$ ?6 z
% {) ]! R- w; V2 T- V1 UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) s. P( e% e8 ?/ s* j( X: K# v
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this4 `0 | K' J6 d+ e* l6 O
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
' Q: t$ @( L/ k+ p, v7 @, z, kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. V* ]2 ?, D- l# N# |$ Ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
" n8 t/ P1 i" m- j4 ?reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% {+ `6 c3 h9 r) ]
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
7 b) P3 e' ?2 x* L$ U' C; O: ]* ^demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( H7 R' F( { z/ r7 \
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
- k/ o2 w: @) ?( cis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is8 G: R1 G+ ^3 Q3 D' N7 A
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 H. G8 c/ I2 ^; H" iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
( c5 A. t1 J+ S' h" v8 B9 ]advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: W2 n2 o+ h+ R; X% m) P& F3 Bpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 A+ l8 @0 Q. @. Luse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; G) `+ s0 `+ R# ?: I4 C
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
% V3 s$ R& {9 @/ {* l6 W1 Adoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( ?( T* x8 c, F6 Q9 w+ T" C: D- Hbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ g* J3 q$ k- n2 X4 t) e5 ^, dhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 @" Q# h; i1 q! c8 v
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a2 L: o" z: f( N- ^9 z& r
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
5 k0 a! G4 A: \% u0 T) sother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 @) a" v( m3 ], anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, H9 ]) S- M% M: T F( bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an4 f6 e4 J W7 b
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# p% B) @8 Q+ G4 \+ ?chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- y* t: ]$ I: @
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
; J3 s+ w5 A/ {& Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 Z( y; _9 ]+ _/ z: ^2 K7 J/ X# p" W$ c
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
1 }4 t; S8 C) u+ a0 ?4 MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
1 Z5 _4 M& Y1 L5 y* x5 `, Q8 K6 W& z9 t0 H0 C% Z4 m, C
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
" M5 H) g& F3 I: `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! p3 h) L. I! L- z2 Q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for6 @" T/ n/ L+ F' N; t. r k
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; B" V1 u/ d4 x) H6 v! c- d2 w YOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ \7 ?$ {$ c( C- vdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 z* h' B6 ^( }) ~
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
3 G3 M7 x1 ?6 p* o2 d5 W. }have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a; L) |0 {, m$ n8 h
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this1 F/ g( j4 a0 `4 a3 l( C2 s
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.$ M( n5 U5 I# y3 ?9 M* R8 s
0 P4 I# {+ w( A0 k9 ZOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# u2 M3 j" G0 s- g, T L! nintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 }: I* t+ i1 c2 |8 dsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
6 R8 H9 k; I, E1 X$ d0 Z2 Osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 H: B& z3 L2 D$ i
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your7 a( m4 O+ \1 t* ^
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
; Q4 o" W7 e9 Z' p' Fexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. s$ j4 k( o `4 [: r6 d5 a
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( A! W; O# h* t5 y( m: ]6 v
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
" v' Q/ q6 z4 ]6 P5 d0 |reporting should be done. |
|