 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
4 Q2 m' Y5 ]/ e3 _ \如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
* D, h+ t6 R+ I! f0 e6 i. a! G% d* T& t% o' c
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! F, ?0 K! R9 v, Y8 `5 Z& s& x" V5 S6 X% Q
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ k, F4 b! X; U5 l
5 i% ]7 T" }2 ?( C& L" \It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 n1 l9 Y& I' g1 U- U. C% O, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science& D) m, l1 U1 y- z5 L8 N) \
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this; T5 q0 h6 y! W" p
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: q! U$ j) b. T( iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general1 C# x$ J& p* {) M3 f
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
, E9 q5 p' h$ E! Nshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
" k# @$ p- ~! _3 p- wwhich they blatantly failed to do./ N% d( Z$ _! X: ?
# Z! z6 l/ V" W4 U& a" c) O9 L+ S8 e
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
2 V8 f% |. \! iOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# L; D$ P7 F. S/ t: X; ^0 w, h2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
4 _% V# J; t ?+ k( banomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
' `8 o2 J' _1 c4 Ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! `( W7 ]7 H. eimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
z& _4 R( s3 J1 ~, I" ^6 ~difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) \0 L$ B# p. ~; t* l& Ybe treated as 7 s.7 `7 @6 m+ I* b5 A3 A n4 n9 i& u
0 P* G- w3 l3 Z) i: E0 a/ b( O: {" QSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' M* M' q1 E ~. ]2 C# z) }still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem# M0 X! x2 [& [: h7 O; c1 _
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
5 V. U/ H0 U T4 j kAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, E; y$ R+ `5 y" w- J# j# e
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
. k/ b& N$ F6 o" d2 MFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an0 M d3 `+ D, }9 K7 _
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 Q" A1 ^3 Z' }- @0 D Hpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”9 {& h! w2 J9 T7 |. u
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: c9 ]3 I; B3 b2 ~; p% @
0 V1 D, y: R) b( gThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook8 K6 N# c4 c% p- ~
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
" \! t" Q4 i& Dthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) e) _1 C! {- V% ]% E* hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
# Q: x6 |- _+ U) sevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 J! k# d8 L+ P
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World5 Z1 y. c6 M5 q4 e3 w- z/ y
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
* w# f3 ^( S, ptopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. ?/ @) l9 n+ O" |0 Ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle& a, z; q. K% U8 I; n
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this a, c1 ?8 W3 F, e4 U2 T$ H5 G7 F
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& i u3 i9 {! j& q7 i* M9 i
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" m6 }- H. q2 r" @% f2 w0 Cfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 D5 t% b( w& a
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that" {" f, W0 l9 Z3 X3 T1 t" o
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
0 }8 f* w* @. `" K* w+ m' ?$ s- A, V0 B' w$ r
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
) _. W4 a {+ u+ m8 yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ u; |" l( s8 q& S% M
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s! N- A. f" r3 S9 |7 y
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 c( B; O& ~; A4 R$ Nout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# a- D- m: O9 B. \; y! u3 `- x* K
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 p( Y8 Q" j0 d. n% c2 kof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
5 a1 [/ [6 H6 a, _' o+ s' Slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in0 g1 |. `2 u, q$ Z5 I9 \
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# l. w1 c6 ~! l9 e! o0 G" Sworks. s1 |7 r2 q1 k4 r; S
) z" O! I) {* S6 w1 ]# f+ H9 R- JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
" `$ ^) b" c' H4 w, a1 Himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
8 i8 w0 L/ t% u+ _/ i5 Tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, B8 Y0 w( d& O# pstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific& O: U' j; k* ?& g
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 P9 f0 n% z0 G$ Y( U
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One6 I9 W& Y, f3 Z2 w3 C& J* Q4 t
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* T+ s& Z/ k# N) Fdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works; \0 M: U! I C' x1 I0 y" Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: v# D4 R6 W% y' r# |is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
: g. c7 {5 |1 {9 ^8 t2 ], Wcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 {* H/ q- c3 a5 V7 C0 f: e9 owrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 p& d/ o' M1 kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
. j, m" P$ T! s9 |3 s) N0 X7 |' I( xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 N* Y6 y, H4 V/ f( Z& c
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
/ r2 y: O8 ~% I8 b( v5 }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; O/ @* L! r: T' [- a. M2 W
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
: F! y$ V$ T0 d. @8 ^( jbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a4 P: f+ y6 G# r* V" M
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ D# y% `$ P4 _
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
1 c: j V; D; t+ k, wdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:0 d0 E) V7 |/ G' N. l( _* U
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 M0 N! k. w' u, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is2 M! V, n. l7 I" {- f: a
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- v. m4 e/ v0 qathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight* b- i- U/ u& C) S; u' ?
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
0 M D1 v6 ?: X* ]3 V& O K8 Y# ~Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ W; x% j% m. ?$ Z) O+ w( r
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for, k1 w0 X9 Z5 Z/ u$ {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 z b- C5 i* D* ?1 \
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
' P- b* |, d S; s" c: [3 |4 b& m4 U" ^& T; ]3 ~2 \
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; h# Y7 L: P, ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 ^3 V$ b; e) U, ]; S. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 `5 [. c; w5 U+ r; }; D! I2 nOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London$ G' u% A' w4 `; t
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 Z5 L6 ~- g% P, H( B$ I, Udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic# L. {+ Z! V; S W' X
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope3 j+ u5 J% z5 N9 @& x
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& u. Y% v2 l) B n( b# _
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this1 u% F5 b/ C- ~/ y$ n: Y: D
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.& Q2 h4 d- ^, z
! a |. h5 K; E7 ~
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
* Y% b$ E+ u' R5 G$ |: n Kintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
+ N; O5 g% F) Y$ m! k* r* t5 asuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 a% N6 `0 g3 `- N8 D; T. t, msuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# u' M* e+ l; W1 O+ z7 C9 k
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
. Z9 G) M9 i. f x, u; [% cinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
6 t# S7 B- M1 }" j5 ?( lexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
, R& o1 q: d8 y+ K* _* Margument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
% \3 C5 A( L' F3 I2 Dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or- h8 K; P! N5 i- K
reporting should be done. |
|