 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 JIANG7 H0 c; P( R$ w) V% R( y* s8 @
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。; m) w. P4 z; C' b
5 E! p& _5 C( \4 q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
g0 u& y# w' I) P% T) N X
! l) y! e8 j5 `0 Q0 F+ MFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! D8 s8 E" X* Y( o, r
$ z" ]+ Q2 }5 a7 W. u, UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself& @# r3 J6 b8 ` y! G
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
6 j# O1 H5 U* `" kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: R- }8 f' \, H
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
/ s8 C. D' x9 h9 m" u2 P- xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
# q2 p& V! n$ Q4 h9 z9 L. X4 Dpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors! \; u! D) l K; p% `8 ?
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,* z- t" c/ t& f
which they blatantly failed to do.
2 Q5 c7 }4 L9 x* g# j! T5 ^7 \" G
4 @( h- |5 A. q: _/ V( lFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 O; w7 d5 s; X. V0 n8 [* W
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 V! c3 f8 c# x: s0 S; H2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 h, x' P- }0 [; p+ \: v4 B
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
h, U( I. d' ]: L. a4 h% R4 W0 ?personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: F/ i' v8 x: nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
6 c% o/ A) e* V+ Wdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% ~6 u( a* c& \ s
be treated as 7 s.
, l3 d6 E& e7 a3 e* U: G
7 N9 X3 f0 i5 h$ SSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- P3 r& d, x3 t8 k( G" Gstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem! V: k4 {0 }( E
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. ?4 Z" T0 a& o3 U2 q) ~4 q* `
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* ^% Q% g6 a; ?6 B$ Y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.* t+ D, o& d: |0 f, ?
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an4 M6 ~) }: D; r1 C0 q+ v- B
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
$ q% X6 ?' o' \persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 f5 N6 m) E- N; e0 A! t3 n8 B9 {based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound." s* v; |& H+ ~" r( t& n' p; {
2 G5 H1 Z' y$ A7 c; n/ CThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 y3 b# @& B/ S1 Z+ ~" g' f
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 B1 m3 Z+ E1 E7 }) ] `
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
$ K$ ^4 e3 i% H4 F, x. Khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later0 s2 \8 A! `! p M6 E0 y
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s1 G( u; ?2 D- p) b6 [' A
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# Y" E# Z1 o+ I9 p1 l& `Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. p! Z4 W1 G0 }topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
: c6 W+ D$ b( Q, I- Fhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 l; R* Q) [+ W/ U5 ] v5 A
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
9 \7 m1 W' P0 y6 d7 I5 l5 Bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds# s1 l' |# Y" a2 Q6 g( d- z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 f- F( x% g, |3 M( l5 Zfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 z9 q, t- s0 d: y2 X
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 \: d3 P, q4 I
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
) u# Y$ Q7 Y6 P( H: L0 p6 K
" O0 ^$ `1 p6 |) B" ^( ~* N; t6 \0 aFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are( V3 J# w: X+ v& |/ `
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ u! s- x2 F3 J9 Y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& H! l1 z$ ?2 _6 d7 B
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% b5 {, l8 g9 {% l9 ^0 c& X8 `8 c1 bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* b' a3 z* D/ t9 ?" Y6 mLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 c! x% }7 C% ? ^$ B7 q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! @5 ?& e7 }1 L) O: Q, A5 E
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
& F3 h! E* m+ h# G$ J* Q9 z3 `every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science; U' s+ L0 U% }1 j0 G% W! b' e
works.4 h( q/ O! l5 p) Z
& w* H( a! d$ \9 \% {
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) S3 B' f) v! Y' G
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
0 q; m( n1 W8 T! Dkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that4 u6 Q* O+ E1 b: _
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ ?; F2 k9 f/ d2 Z) Opapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
[4 P6 ?% {. J/ J% p9 kreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
( \. _5 J6 r, v5 O8 H! [) ?# N8 T: Wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to' } X8 N6 v( w* w+ W
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
8 }$ C9 }$ U1 e, |; g$ j Dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample; x9 D: c8 L, |- f( v
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
- M' a' H+ X; M# q+ {: F/ s/ Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( i! `! r K+ Q" K; dwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 {: I; u- e$ l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
4 r) v- A( W# ` j- T1 l7 n- Y& _past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
& j" t v# d4 Z3 i8 e9 r6 Huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# r1 @9 O! t* s8 p' h
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
0 z. C: \% v- ]$ Ydoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) v: t2 I w+ B c
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ n, d8 H. G0 q6 d/ I2 {hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
|' D9 q6 l( @8 l9 jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
6 z1 ^, }, b; Adrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
# K) R/ v. H; ?1 V- Xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. {( E9 {+ C4 a% Q$ w- y
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
* E4 c) h6 V2 D( T3 jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& x. ]% [ n8 j& H5 Q! y, aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# Y& u7 s% c0 Ochance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
5 I! E; Q' d; m' H& YLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping- B- Z! w0 @4 s. E
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ c+ t3 ]0 C3 z5 @2 p
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
$ }- [9 ?. T( T, l, I; VInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?4 n3 }, C8 p/ d Y, \8 c
* Y- J0 R- a3 g5 C' g7 S
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 T6 _1 m2 N( Vcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ \ I) p$ O) a4 Q" }
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
5 _* K5 t. _( x" oOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 e& [! `5 v t1 ?' e/ z, `
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& _* f+ u. ~% c% }& p4 l; Rdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 x L: }' b. l) j9 qgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope! L1 F! U2 x5 P" ?: [
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a, i: ~9 O. T9 P }% C6 d
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) N5 r5 G$ J8 k5 v d0 R
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' k1 S" e' @+ F! w0 W2 \0 t
. T2 W" p% l# N9 q- y: t, yOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: Q& S( n0 Z% O8 a3 Tintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
2 @/ d9 \( F3 j3 ]( c4 usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a/ h8 `+ ]0 t# A
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. x4 C' D" d' [- o& Gall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 [- j4 _2 Z2 s" J
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: H) a; f* f; o* m
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 O0 b6 d0 f: b# Aargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal7 v6 r, B1 o$ Z5 n+ ]2 Y7 E' X R
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' a1 E( t- m( b
reporting should be done. |
|