 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; D" c" _# t0 q
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
& }) {+ P# _4 ] P3 Z y4 w9 T+ ?7 | l9 C$ O( O
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
. h, U$ z' `' I5 p* W1 O# Q S4 s7 X
: b# J! k( P8 U: V5 FFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
" U9 y% P/ N& y- ]$ T2 p- f8 ?2 ?, b0 U3 e* e9 d
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself0 _% [. {7 t q0 ]& X. T- k, q
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 X/ }9 ]3 S, B% D$ [0 Z. K
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& _, J& O- q& R7 t/ }$ W) c# n& V# r
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the) P0 K3 q9 B, m t p) S2 \
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 _: ~5 d; Y8 r- ^populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' z6 [8 g2 y8 D6 l, Gshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 w# z# k5 s' o" C& E6 [
which they blatantly failed to do.
q: m9 A+ _' V2 |3 @) G- z" g; t9 P8 h& r. n
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) j; h1 a2 ^& ?; E8 w5 e
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in( I7 y8 Q# o8 v+ s: A, C0 P) t
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
. X! T( Q5 M& B7 j6 oanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous# ~$ Y+ I. H9 U2 x) ]
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an: f& ]4 h4 O. g/ k: |# `2 r! o
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! V* h R7 R) A& r9 X( M2 Q/ pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 k+ w6 m% J" o% ]* K0 S: i
be treated as 7 s.
5 h; N {7 s+ Z8 ^" Y. M; ?: _: ]1 c$ A9 N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
8 V b6 V6 C" J6 z4 u2 c" F9 ~, zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ a- T4 h/ p; J" p$ }+ O
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- `2 W" ]- P0 a* w1 ~
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( S! l& k _; Y X. f-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.0 m5 _$ A1 \$ l# N; a
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( K) h* |, y. ~elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( a8 Y. p; d; @0 | r7 _persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 o% \$ y6 _& L
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, d; T( g, p+ Y. r) b( M, R1 ~4 t" ~' p# p, B" W+ o
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook) M9 ~- y3 I0 b( \0 R2 B
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in( _$ V6 q; G, S
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so9 }8 g8 Z4 f5 i" w
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later2 @ ]. L8 l# h1 D' k' Q
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* l( v; B% h6 n
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 k3 U" S* Y# {( NFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another8 V$ f1 m0 b7 N% |% T. k' Z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
- Q! h: {' r5 Phand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
; _, \. d4 h$ T5 ?, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; T) B- |, {/ f& Q' Vstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) n6 q, A- S, s# N2 x% u' ], N* b6 Ffaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
' M8 [ d& K9 Nfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
2 z$ l6 I, y8 t$ Easide the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that) s+ h9 _2 b; M# z
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
x Z4 D, U Q; {
/ m1 H$ D9 n4 [4 p) g" V% s. o' aFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ v/ H8 ^3 O* ?0 A) L/ V- i
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.935 }9 ~0 l8 e. U* I6 _4 w9 G; U, m6 a
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
8 _/ ?1 @, d3 y! _; H), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns2 ^( e/ w! Y: r% O/ m' |7 m' F
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* N3 Z* T+ X# |- O! J" k; n* e- D: OLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind \1 x' W0 p3 z9 ~7 D( R! G) {
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; h" t6 H$ F6 p+ o0 D
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) {) S q9 e, }' r7 P
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science6 ] l4 ^- a5 H) J& @7 }
works.
6 S$ H% T* R: O5 A \/ W7 z# ^6 \
) L, `. ^" K w( r& LFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) d* \' y l$ x1 |6 j$ G; uimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 X. O/ |, r: W4 l* ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
& a( C& E4 c4 u- q: nstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: x+ M) e( D8 \ f3 z1 fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
; x3 }- y9 ~, _% _7 R9 a3 ^; dreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One! h% K$ S0 Q7 G0 W7 [- C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' l& I9 |/ i+ v6 Ddemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works7 Q' s0 `) y% }1 l9 v) Y6 K/ Q& _ i: i
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
- N# ?$ q5 @8 w* x9 Lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 b$ O7 }1 v! _6 Icrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he2 B% x" z; {9 i/ ~* N3 G
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly2 r0 @( g" D( s$ }1 q. H9 B
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* i" K2 @6 M, g! m6 i( Tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. V6 { r3 \+ I9 Ause it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation2 \2 q3 `. l, k0 ^
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, H$ k0 [# O. A3 Q' j, A Hdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ ~0 V0 D' Q: f; Abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
+ ^* [8 x+ M- n9 @hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye3 R5 d5 s% Q9 |: i
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a; k% }* ]8 @* U I" \1 p5 J
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
( e" S" `7 G# Q3 [ h; Hother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 L1 {, b j: h4 y% f9 ~" H# t, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
0 Q, T5 S2 [$ ]1 N Zprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an7 ^9 O4 P# {) e
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
5 a& @$ b3 K6 T. F6 o0 e7 [chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) O- x- w* {+ u9 p2 C X
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 \: ]/ J/ D3 V+ {+ L
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
% N& p* h' m# X0 ]1 j; aeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.7 J" O& ]% a( G- `+ G
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?9 g5 k2 l) u9 Y' ?4 a6 b7 ?' w4 \
+ t" f$ |1 f( I/ |( x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! D6 ] ?0 }; }7 @! [1 F1 F- t
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
1 _4 | U/ {2 d! [6 t2 f. e' `, s& M. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- w7 M+ ~2 Z' C |- y/ [Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London6 h5 v; a9 R/ C2 S, `( `* F/ E
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for9 A: T' c8 W- l
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
2 h* q$ B, z8 S+ Z1 |1 r5 fgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope) u4 h. X8 `7 l- R$ z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a5 ], b- C0 Y/ I; p
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
* h% h$ A0 r- d3 Q( e; i, Fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
& P& S5 W* R% a+ H6 c5 k2 c% g
6 o$ O! ^) D P2 A4 v" e/ MOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 p6 z, l/ A X* P2 d, ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 w0 Y: c* c8 Z$ Y; X9 ~6 O
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a+ U$ v/ E; ?6 s+ h8 V$ ^
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" Q/ B3 W, r/ sall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( h) ?7 U* u5 |6 K- Yinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,$ X4 T9 }/ \: z: p& M
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- H5 }, U9 g6 E; S! c# q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! J7 I% h- C I# ^1 F# m6 Ssuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 O [4 D7 x" d+ C4 J& Y: b# Dreporting should be done. |
|