 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 K& Q1 [' [ e8 M* J
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
2 L! f5 b( [( b" Q/ @7 j- k& [4 w. W- v3 [, l) D. E
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, h1 }* F8 J9 E
: i! ~7 T0 K9 n4 w. S: J$ Q) T
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 \7 j# A$ d8 Y( R4 V3 ^ {/ x0 n$ U7 n0 [7 N
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself+ r# p6 c! }: q' o4 [4 o2 `
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 g7 H0 p2 F* F6 o# c
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ h1 i. m& s4 D; J2 C
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; n& U0 m( N, |( o% I' x* _# \ r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
+ u/ [6 e4 H. i; U6 J. A7 Zpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
* {$ d1 m, t9 V/ K y* g$ h# Yshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. h5 X8 D* y, awhich they blatantly failed to do.2 g* f. I- Q2 u& `+ i# t
; h( V; o$ l# P- T' N
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 t: g! Y. c. T) v- F* FOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
# \+ v9 a. I5 ]2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “/ G" G' h2 K7 Z1 @
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& \% q; {6 c1 @; R& t! Y% lpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an% @5 g1 q1 D/ q H4 `. z
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
2 r6 G3 T" X n7 F7 o, g, zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to! @6 `; J+ U t" _. t4 O4 t
be treated as 7 s.2 L: A! `# w$ C6 c% B. v( ?
9 C, x7 ~1 _' c1 K$ c3 t" Y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is, t3 w- ~% {' Q7 X% h+ x- `
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
' o$ h& t5 S! l( f! X: x, Z( g( Ximpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' S+ z+ J3 c7 `
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
" N, a2 ^" x5 e F, Z( ]3 k* |-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: f9 c6 M$ d" \' p
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' q( a, z# u; ]2 a( i3 _* y9 p+ felite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and/ m' s+ e$ H e0 ?5 x; |+ l/ A$ l- w
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
5 v+ x; U2 V9 B. |* Q$ W6 Hbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
/ [& `) S; Z- ]& s) |
! ~4 p! i8 h" `! jThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ n" i* P& x' W, mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
4 p, {8 H4 q2 rthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so Q. Z/ U; e1 U" u b9 \; n* G
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
# H6 O( r5 @( v. tevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
; l" A5 x2 I3 O" ^: m" W! d4 c# ^" _best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
, U" u9 x% E" Q0 k4 z! z9 QFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another# _9 H/ T+ h0 J1 m0 q! \1 f6 [8 d3 d
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
: f0 n: X: B5 N. t# Rhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
) N: b$ }" u; @' ]+ Z- s, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this! `1 c( `- [; S( D9 I$ y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ F R5 Q" x/ i- t8 p% {$ Q' l
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
( {0 l+ o9 N4 `/ O. G! efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting2 E% p2 ?+ ^+ S: m: d# G! v7 u
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that, S: K, m* D7 i( M1 H6 l9 b& r
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 A' D' E& {8 j/ ~1 J: y; n$ W8 @5 y( |! `* v3 f
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ k* J1 r% B/ u5 v, @* Y
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93. b& N* |! U* R8 T# H4 l
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: Q- Y7 ?7 E- [+ r" p$ W* k
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" z J2 P- s5 r* Pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
" Q5 F( U2 k- e2 ?Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
' Y$ h( N1 n6 Uof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ E( e" V$ E- _( vlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
, {( w+ [+ M6 `* G- kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
6 P8 ~0 @, ^8 P6 d; aworks. L9 v7 N! Z5 R# r* C. {% M' v
- ?' x, e- ^: y! `
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
S F2 K6 B$ j; h5 t, @2 n( Y2 Cimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ p( z6 A+ |8 |( K3 J ^3 {kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 I! [* Z$ h _& p, ]
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) f9 [0 f* T( ~4 @4 x/ Qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, I& V, T- u0 ~reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 }& M3 m w: P! ]9 S: y
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! P0 u1 D- X- D$ P
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
- t2 }0 ^' i$ w8 E7 Qto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ `9 \5 k ]1 Q: e, I6 Gis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is. j$ w1 ], C2 m
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he+ w& @ @7 f+ X+ S7 e, D" c% i
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
- r1 u$ Z9 X7 \- p- S: h, Xadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the+ n; S0 H$ P1 n! F( I2 G6 D
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not J- g; _1 Q/ |9 y5 N
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation0 @ s0 w' ^. T% B9 E& F5 R
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- h \1 `) B" K) C+ s
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# \+ [8 B+ H% ]1 t8 |' E, V; ]be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
" Z9 M, f$ V8 Q. e. p1 Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. U* i2 `0 V) J' Shas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% V6 B: L9 K- I! W
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" R' X8 D* F9 {( ^other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
$ ?0 r) p( _6 g. s3 B8 \# X, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is1 Q% h' F8 j; O% s4 ?, p
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
p# V }0 K& |5 E- a. j9 K$ P% Cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight* ^5 U& i' @; P+ K9 d ^
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?& ]( g0 e L9 n/ L8 Q
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping8 i. Z+ c. J, w4 x; w- G. `
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for& I! C D& T$ T, z( a- m
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ M' b6 q& F# x# H3 r
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, G @" M. G" \; _8 B: U$ |0 `) i' a9 @4 f9 i4 g; X0 f
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 [! N7 w4 l2 n
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! d3 w: ^& H1 A+ K+ D
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 B7 o/ b9 G/ |& N
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; A0 H+ ? D) }! F" w- tOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for# v5 c3 t! ~' `; V# F
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
: D& U# a j1 l" pgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope4 T& h# z( p0 F+ Y) E9 ?
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 I9 R8 A6 [/ _/ Xplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this! w' B4 O. R5 l+ D9 _
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.8 n/ S: g5 i0 k7 x. r; p& L
2 j& T+ S" ? v W) l9 P+ S' bOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
_5 @2 f) J- c- O& Cintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 w$ S8 O$ W: b* F* `
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
; Q4 X+ r8 o( l. n) _1 x: L( qsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
5 S" n: D; M+ E# rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 X8 D; t/ q- U2 f1 R
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
( t) ^/ J5 z; \/ ^- jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your% z8 ^ O5 C* f& c/ q$ X5 P# o
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 m, Z; E! d8 k0 D u. Z8 @ osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' ~1 l% j; ?) L/ q- M8 c7 C
reporting should be done. |
|