 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 JIANG6 ^1 U7 }+ d. U* B0 U8 q$ j
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ c- n( b. j$ M$ A" W: Z$ O) p0 M: x+ u: l" J0 z7 x" g2 F
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html$ r+ N z9 l6 @* D: H# y% g. z0 m
$ g3 e$ n+ n1 ^% g$ p) C0 SFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
0 Z- D3 I) q& z9 {4 D' q/ I+ W/ t1 V, p r+ H4 _
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself) {0 z' ~; V5 F9 f' d
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
! A, z) j$ Q2 ? K( W: b' hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" i3 t3 u* D6 V. |+ v1 `" H8 z( ?
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
1 m4 f8 F6 }& K9 t/ Sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general' H( Q* B$ S+ h8 F$ Z( t
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
1 Q7 D' i; K+ K. |# A( U- m6 |should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,; W, l) N/ I6 s7 k1 Z8 [- q9 h* m: ~
which they blatantly failed to do., L; i7 B+ N; w! P" f
, b0 ]7 e6 o$ N" xFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, e+ W; ]$ f8 qOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
) j6 z- ~7 y5 A: C1 Q4 ^2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “- K0 V A; n, Q
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ u& p1 d7 t4 T+ L7 i" T
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
3 J% K8 J( J/ q+ @* ]1 x2 n3 }' limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ S+ ^, z" n+ P, k5 ?$ pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to+ o* C' i! [0 {5 w) r3 T
be treated as 7 s.6 P6 F3 m; Z( ]8 |
1 w9 p8 Y( x0 Q T4 X' R0 dSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) Q8 e: _6 Z e- C& B7 L( E; P
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
1 i1 P- X+ k' u, \, N2 \impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ t% P/ Q. p+ ^* F+ |An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& X' S# m* V: l* R9 i5 z& s6 N0 _ M-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
% W3 v; M1 Q# |3 }7 @+ [% X4 T1 Z! hFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
8 s q. `7 Y! v! n' ~7 a/ O$ gelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and9 w* X+ o# r/ i, Z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& R4 ] o: p9 H0 B1 ^
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 _* ~4 I# l1 M9 x/ Q
( D0 z8 o. k2 d1 N( ~Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook" d" W8 u+ N. C5 e2 u' H: w
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 O+ N1 u! I) Q- l4 ~) Othe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
' u T5 F: m3 y( y+ w& ?1 lhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later D# q8 Q- m: J+ w+ P1 R u6 t
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
' b7 x$ w0 b, sbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
! x+ m; [% `) J& f: O! a" ]Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 E! Z+ T/ N/ _% c, B
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( N9 l& M" y- d o4 d) `. A; G: ?hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
' ^4 u# [5 ]4 ], in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this7 J/ y8 Z2 [& o
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds3 R$ J) ^- s( `, V; C
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam' w; O: h; H! W5 [( x
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
9 v8 p! r9 w) {$ ^) xaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that* y7 @/ P9 D/ [- @2 `- K" X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on./ |: Z& H' `' i* N
7 o6 W' g# g& n% D) y3 m3 \( L3 h
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
" y" {( ?7 I# d7 S5 R) w/ L/ rfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
) y6 Y) I9 A- U& ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s3 ?: D' U% S3 m( A% H
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns' L( z. s2 P; T% I6 t; }
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
0 L$ t; A) N8 U# Q! J9 ILochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind& a4 h* P3 m, l& U, T; h# Y
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" C4 v0 N% S9 ?' tlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in7 j; D% \* `# O' \' \! }' A" A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
1 i8 ^& }, C( o! Nworks." [" r6 n2 b$ s0 C3 B
K$ `4 m+ m7 c- P& k: a/ t( OFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 R9 x$ D1 p8 l
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 L* T' ^' O9 q6 U' fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% B% \. e2 K( u% \' Pstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific( k& v7 j3 \1 x- n1 l. C$ z
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 [9 r; p6 x1 g* a! Hreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One' S) n0 _' H! \4 l2 X' E9 }' I
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. D' p& Z" r$ }9 o1 @demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% d" T; `' }4 y' @" u
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
* e9 z, {/ K$ t: X7 C! ais found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 c( ~# W) U& v1 B0 Z0 vcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he9 u* H& {- o6 }% Z$ {* q' `
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
* { _9 O- p2 O+ \7 ] B( ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 v4 U' v# V9 b' m; v5 kpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
* }! s* x& D# X; q6 ?* y+ buse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, Q- n2 m8 ^" u' y1 K. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
2 T2 j$ n: o( m1 t; d2 [" _* _doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may. n' K* u+ k/ j6 @% d4 d! e
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 K1 v" ~/ P; t Z5 h
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye$ f7 p% G; V& ^* o; Y9 U. F' z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a4 b5 M" H! I! R% @1 m& b' ], G
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& x3 f- g! {% v) E j( b0 g- qother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( L" q9 ?& J2 Z. W5 n
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) ? s2 {) ]7 @% }$ \probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% J' y8 J+ K& y5 B7 T( e
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight2 x- W8 ^: x% v, Q+ O
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
2 E9 }7 }9 O( ]7 P( D1 j3 ?, HLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! U/ C3 o( q& d6 ^/ Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; ^" ?2 X H" Y f( Ceight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! E/ F6 S" r7 q! s6 r
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 ?6 {9 N6 o: @5 M3 U! j
% X. A2 A, J5 S. V" v: O, SSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-8 p% l3 o. H* d: H' o7 k
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* z* @* [. q7 c/ F
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
& b) b! s1 L0 Z6 l: N X( kOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London3 y! n- b! F1 i) m* D! X) s
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
$ \0 V" c3 U$ ]2 n% h. Odoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ g1 ^9 p3 ], N8 c* B( n8 ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope5 ~; D) d2 G$ v
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a; x3 a2 u U, I3 ~
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; [& r- g* \8 q, T0 s$ {8 gpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
3 Q- a# w" `# a' _. q) {) s) b5 G) w& Y) G, z8 S7 x% ?
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (7 z) L0 i [, H' U* T1 p( ]7 q2 Z& V
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 p% e }& k$ ]9 v' ~+ o B
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 T. u/ {" f# ~+ u. _) U% u
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide6 S3 s0 K9 o9 S! z6 X9 S/ [* ?
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your, }$ [" G$ N, l$ K R- X# r
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
: Z( [9 s" `5 x3 N$ M6 c; k+ Eexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& P. J9 C1 I5 i' T
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& x) z W& T4 c5 W G# f* _such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' E. O A- W! {; s4 I+ d7 oreporting should be done. |
|