 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
8 W0 ^* M, v: i4 l9 B8 a如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
0 j9 C9 q" L. k8 H: T- C0 V2 Y2 Y
# ]7 F0 r6 I, o- W6 fhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& j5 \- R: O* ~. f! h0 Y
6 E' s. Y- h, i1 {' Y8 F J3 W* l5 g! pFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
* [7 e% u6 O' s- X/ \7 [' Q% Z/ E3 p' B& T8 _' ^9 W
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 N9 o: Z$ Z% S) v6 P1 y
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
' T3 t2 K( o/ s5 @magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- [- K" M8 s( d+ e$ fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( ? u! _$ U0 H/ Zscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 b; O6 Y5 b" p4 c/ y$ D
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
3 W8 t! O; ^# R3 r! vshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,% G, R) g8 y4 W u3 m( e
which they blatantly failed to do.( B x& ?0 v2 s' i
B9 k) B+ ]5 T' h! G' b9 C
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her& c' z0 a2 B- ^/ H6 h/ Y- x" O
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 M1 `7 {- O1 j: ?2 `3 a& L
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ T+ }" ]% b" _! a4 `, uanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% C6 u9 J, H6 l, d
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
8 k" M" k& r3 _3 w+ timprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, c" c+ e& B+ A" ]5 D
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to; t0 Z+ k) g3 Y# r
be treated as 7 s.
4 r7 w8 T2 C3 b+ [; M1 S7 W4 x( |9 A& s6 ]' @
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ l/ P: e/ {' k- F9 ^* J3 Ustill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, A5 t* N7 b: Y$ K: Q) ~4 K
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 N. s: O* t( M8 z$ }
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
3 J& N: b$ ^; V1 C5 F, U- z-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ E u3 |7 t# H7 {7 w) w$ V6 K6 G
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, M" ]/ Z% \& K) q3 P" Kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 W$ f- }! W+ F5 S+ p! Epersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) r2 @2 N( K0 m, O' k
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
2 D7 ^9 y! v3 d6 L! R% Q/ V! A. |. G; r. l1 w5 U+ M6 w5 e4 _
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* n! P0 P. K- D2 F/ [+ sexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 C6 T8 M0 _- A0 F1 K7 L
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so- f" X9 Q1 l; M6 o
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 R% ?. m4 ^: ]1 w n/ M
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s$ `5 Q/ D) R6 k" S
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
$ c* F- z* }6 B6 {8 n9 G8 G8 ?Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
: ]$ o% H% O- r) P J# Htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
1 S# ~3 K( j) ` F7 Q# Qhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
2 C( r. P$ I( _( a" I3 {, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ M Y$ K/ }& Y3 R! B* x6 }' `: b# k
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds5 L# C* Y7 r" k2 `0 U1 H. p
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam4 [. u9 t! O. y ?
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
2 p8 Z+ ^7 m: c) z. b7 k" baside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that* ^& z. r m# `( Q, O2 S F5 @
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# M! U5 U7 u0 v6 F$ l2 R: i, Z4 t; ~% Q e7 }: F
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are) i5 i2 V6 K; z0 ~
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
* p/ i' E- V# K7 [# ]s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
L. A& h; Z" I7 @# |* g+ B), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" ?1 U2 }# ^1 r7 H' d1 Zout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 l! _7 c% F+ e3 E5 MLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
- r: m% ]5 W# ~$ @7 N$ ~- Mof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! i, X3 _- T6 I+ |$ ?+ ?; g# T4 \! E
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
$ \8 `- f" n( W* O/ q# Kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
/ O" J" Q" d- x1 e& ^works.
* y# O+ w3 }' T: n2 q3 ?* s6 K/ T- A
* {( Q( \! J i; w( F1 T% sFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
+ J7 o. ?( C, p E2 B( cimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 ]3 v, i: `% E" g2 U8 Ckind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that* Y3 ?+ G3 ^" V+ \/ N; M r8 Q% d
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. l- E3 q( c% d' ppapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and. S& b8 e* u1 y. R7 R$ N) S
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& \5 B. I m4 X: r* j. {
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 x/ u, z# `- {6 d' s
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
3 C1 i7 Y) x% b' j$ B( Dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
! \& u. D+ I3 W# n+ S A6 wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is) \7 _3 X' G2 T3 P( V, |/ c
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
5 v* l* A$ Q! J* owrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly8 l2 u6 i3 d/ q' o
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
' S( o, I0 E/ F1 s3 j! }past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not) R7 o, ?+ `/ f4 G. o
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" x e: N/ W* [' Y* M. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# z" v: R. @* ]9 e7 Y5 B: r0 |doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
2 Z# L/ J) |( ?7 u2 jbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
$ s) P. {' N) g3 [hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. T# O6 c# v9 T% s( ghas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, S* i* p' w" Vdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:$ Y6 J, r2 W$ Y5 ~$ {
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
" U" u2 X" ]3 p* X2 {, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; d) W' A( j* h/ z7 x
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
; c6 d* \1 B \0 a4 Aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
3 ]. J( q2 O$ x$ J1 k( Mchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
5 | X y. y' RLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! t2 Q* Z6 Y% f& B; g, [* Uagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
, a! ~& w5 W' A- Q0 u4 {4 i( ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
& W; T) P5 d3 q$ N, iInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?1 d: X! B( c& S8 {. ?
' C3 Q- {3 J- K$ ~
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 @( v( ]9 U$ m9 i+ ~. Z6 |
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 d i6 {* X& b$ c1 ~
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- ]/ y7 K$ @$ F8 N \- f/ ~Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 l: C! Z0 K% s% i0 D
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
) Q" X6 h% K8 n, Pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 \; V; \9 w' I/ |6 j( t
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope& F* l: E+ J; a% F" r
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" C2 E9 L* d" Z' [! ?) t$ C. N" h
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: n V c) r4 P' Opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! B5 k: e" t1 P# V: Y: p( W
) ~6 c+ ]- e Q8 U# hOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, u* G# ^" o( z6 p; h J6 w, mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too, V3 w8 {# X" m: ?
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a& c* u- X! B! f/ ~
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- @. p# A' [: }1 S# F; x/ G1 v' B. Qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
) x- n1 L8 L2 d9 o9 Q' dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,) B5 x5 ^7 D& D$ ?! m6 Q7 R
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 J0 R8 q5 f& i* H" V, G4 e) ]7 _argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 `, [. T& P* Z
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or- g% {* |3 u- @6 u B$ S9 ]
reporting should be done. |
|