 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$ a9 O( R- J1 o O3 ]
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ J+ w% [$ K% U6 V4 q) g) I
' h4 V- u) T& ^7 Nhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html Z9 Y4 w6 T, g, A+ y+ G1 r+ l
! `/ c: [+ d: R/ \; QFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania d; [# F0 w: A3 s5 |
, t% x- m4 W( V0 B9 _( f% |It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself' n( U% \1 K: X) s; M
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
& B9 L; E) G2 J X% M0 x }6 B" }magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this3 D* C3 n" A0 ^0 g" q s5 _/ O
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the( z' s+ b$ Z1 v" x8 @
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
$ l/ L+ }/ I" `% ]' wpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
/ T4 k) z! J4 t! K9 Gshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( k) a& d; s+ M
which they blatantly failed to do.
; T1 p% p/ n3 ]4 N+ `4 U4 d7 `- A0 z$ H; q P6 q- N# _& v3 m) U, @
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her1 D+ o. x R H2 Y! b
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in, ?2 p- r+ n2 y1 l
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “/ x& u+ c! T4 `7 }# @& G3 Q& P
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous k Y i# L7 w" I
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 W9 }; l& y3 t- c. U* S3 F# \1 g
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% X6 G" t- N8 R$ U. o9 k& b R! e
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
- }) [) B( }8 [- j. qbe treated as 7 s.
9 k% [+ s5 g3 o* h5 i4 \* D$ V, Q; h2 h
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 Z4 T1 T4 ^. ^: Zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 w1 I9 `" `8 x* k0 r9 p* aimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.4 Z1 i* X! I5 c
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ V. X$ \' ?& K-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
! s8 `) k$ |# _3 c: jFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
3 q! {0 S7 G7 U8 k2 `+ R w5 eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 Z2 k; I/ u% M. q. M
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”% ?/ W b2 A$ \$ w" D( e
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- d, F7 I T6 C3 u7 S, Q. d
7 T8 @; A7 z2 m- W) [Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ F) T5 i( @4 |0 Y* j$ y {- d1 Lexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
) h, U/ P2 J2 R: H# {/ P% }the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
' o* c, A, g1 Y3 P0 T; \6 hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) C& `% t3 g9 l8 Bevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s8 c V( x" Y; ?( c. C; i5 O2 s
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- s! ]2 k5 f0 Z5 J- d4 PFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
& h# N8 y1 ^/ D6 Q- L/ u# Ntopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
/ O! F, E4 `3 ?* k3 F3 D; Ohand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
$ _) d& Y: q3 y) q- u, c* \9 n, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this X+ R$ `2 U- j. H! y8 e
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds- ^0 ?8 q6 B, d' M
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
( d, O o6 k( ^& G+ x ~0 Yfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting& X; c0 z% s& i% z
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 O& a3 @+ B- v( `8 P
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
% V8 y m& b$ q& ^5 t5 k, b/ o1 K m7 Q i4 ^/ T9 U7 r; r
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ |1 p7 H% M" ^0 M6 r9 i
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 {% r* W7 W* Z& w3 H! I3 `s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 Q/ t8 Q/ R( a5 w- t9 H5 V), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
1 w+ Q9 B3 m( r( c3 m1 wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; h+ y. X6 ~3 d: V% T$ ^+ q$ `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
/ t. P5 j. {& U2 g! w5 Zof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it" L3 \/ p5 {$ ^- A, V' o
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
2 x3 x8 R# h d6 {every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science& z8 r- z' k/ S8 w" h
works.
+ H6 ^6 M) E# Z# {( ?9 o$ `' g6 F2 u1 ^" z
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( [* X0 v f/ pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 j& c6 c5 v( y. Fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( @1 X8 r7 v5 t( ~ t; kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
' i6 [' t6 }. w& {: cpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, g8 k! }9 O5 x _. U* k; f% w
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" M) a) y+ ?) v9 ]/ Ocannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to& {& O- Y. h6 \6 Q
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: d: V K' N; A5 `5 I
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 g; ^3 V+ L- c, s: z
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 x5 E( F8 X) I( P! d1 N, j: }. M
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 n$ d6 m1 [2 |( i2 z2 v8 p( Dwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ ~$ a0 c K# h3 T- P' wadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
% x) T0 k/ N4 n. y& }0 \past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
_2 B% `: |* ^5 M6 j1 Guse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( ^8 a% |9 O6 k6 o2 t9 M. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
8 x0 m# X5 ?; B" Ddoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& _# m3 A% X) n" u8 e
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
& M, m+ [* |8 k8 k5 @6 Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
1 i3 O. u7 P4 ]: u" ?; Y+ G. Dhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
0 p# @; `/ m+ T1 w* cdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:! X/ }: G& B) j! f, ?
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
; B, Z$ r, @! L, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is7 G* y8 ?0 Q1 E
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( g9 {2 G" V( Q, }) d! Vathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 t' t! j. P1 N
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?& ]) k ?0 M& j2 i0 h
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping8 U5 W: _0 l- V9 U# v9 p8 w
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 `; P5 Q* {$ Z& k$ d
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- A# w9 [( Z, N' T( d5 b
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 L& f. d) ?8 u) m/ P
# G: p/ r+ ]" t0 q7 c% T
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 a2 ^4 \6 c" |( ~9 Q$ ?
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 N8 L- H/ x+ {# S: s. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
: ?; q {+ y7 |) ?Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
6 p8 N. K2 m/ r# O% K2 tOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- a" |+ K4 q1 d8 X T1 ]
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
- Q8 N( x5 u* B+ U: x+ }games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
6 C: l9 h) `1 e& R/ e4 N) v( Dhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ V/ Q$ e4 F5 Y# h% B* q$ p9 {: }, T
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, ]+ h& F# O8 apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 w6 }6 Q) b6 H* M+ o' D% o8 f( v a3 ^7 M
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (1 x7 d4 N9 f) K' B o H* q
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
* r) k0 b/ e5 V: v8 osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a. ~2 M* T. M/ j8 T
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide$ ]( B) d" }: i f; i5 X' D
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
3 t0 m- [# K6 g) F( w( Tinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,' u$ [( Y$ @; g3 X, ~; R/ }
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
* T& {9 ?0 ~' B; f* {4 p1 fargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal3 m: i, O0 }7 `, q8 u
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( [) c7 E7 i7 o! U- V' g# W% J# o
reporting should be done. |
|