 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
5 S' ]4 t5 ]. s$ o: V4 U7 z( J+ F如果是中国长大的，英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。% D+ e9 i8 X& E/ a$ d3 X! u
5 q- t; m5 v2 r2 c- f4 k* z$ }! f" bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
) m, F) i) c7 a% A3 o2 k+ t$ k+ D! M: y% x' \/ F( M, f
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, h6 U/ d" L, i0 M+ t- z
) I @7 |. j/ mIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) _) l. D: q0 s: ?6 h, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
9 }2 A& @% Y! d j2 tmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this4 S' b7 S7 O: G9 J# {
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
& m, o$ L5 P9 }0 I8 N. D$ Yscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
6 Z4 Y# a/ X, w7 L4 L$ cpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- Q( c4 t+ R/ k) l" I4 }should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 `# @$ X3 j R" X
which they blatantly failed to do.7 M: I. ?3 I4 {, ~
( o/ B, @* ~! y) fFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 B4 M2 v% Y, U+ t
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ X. P8 ]$ a3 O a2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 i( F5 C! O* j4 ^
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous) x6 x$ p) ^: v$ U/ t
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
Q$ Z& h/ O' K& M& l4 ]6 {improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
' i1 m9 K% `- h( K h! Wdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. X; z+ K9 A+ `2 h1 [) @be treated as 7 s.
) a, {3 d8 g" D, v* a+ q! E( c- H+ C" |( w* t
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
) ]/ f3 _6 L1 F# S3 O; R$ Y3 Q. H; Estill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% ^! {+ C, k% p {, p! q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& W4 W+ x0 P* ^: T) ^9 f, tAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
) v# U d) F5 c w-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 p. l+ J" p" o& j1 MFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an1 S7 c( `4 f; L/ v) x$ ?; O: J5 x7 S d
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and c; L6 J% v) c! a0 h
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
' G2 b5 J- l# e! @+ S! k0 ?based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
2 F' Y T8 I+ L2 T1 J
( C# k; E$ J7 G. x; ^8 UThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 F4 }& d9 ^8 ~; z
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
, t% k8 e7 a4 A P% b7 J( mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
5 p5 h4 R+ Y) Y& c, P" \, {he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
- v: \, U& ~) pevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s' T" S6 z8 s2 M
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
: e9 o: j9 J. O3 FFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another6 v- k' @6 b. ~# C1 Y8 V+ G
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
$ m; a) g, K9 Q, W. v' T3 xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, l0 W- [' K( m: p, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this6 |. f& ]' x* a8 Q# H
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 w' G* f- Y0 n) V" }* X" P7 k; C
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam: T W- o" V# Z; P/ r }! O
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
- T3 u+ a6 G n0 P$ i3 c& Oaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 i5 k1 e, s* J4 Limplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 j( k, ~2 m/ m; K( L
4 ?8 ?+ e$ x; _" ?* E9 E3 nFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
2 N* q( [3 ~/ a% k' Mfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
) z( E5 e" Z+ w$ R6 S" A% bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s( @, h/ X2 z7 s2 z( a
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns5 _0 D+ K6 N3 Z( t( E
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," o/ v) H, o) N1 ~
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 F1 O, ?' D- w# b! h) m* X: V2 U6 P
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* C" i0 S* v1 k* J6 e: Y% _9 Y) Clogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
& s6 e. p$ f. bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# X: h' c0 U) w7 ~) r8 N. ~works.: W) F S$ {( l3 l$ d
9 W% g4 S* k+ V" t
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- {5 w/ T' f- v& y u! a% q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this9 N0 h/ {5 w" \
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ r# ?. b* P! Z9 _1 L- {
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 z: A+ m7 z, I& B# j( y/ B
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
A$ Z. [5 I3 _7 D3 @reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 N* G, [1 c8 `0 U* g- F* `$ r
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% [9 S* [# a4 c. ^demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
S7 V/ F% `" `2 Zto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
( W; D7 L ^+ w" ]is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
1 _# q. t( D* C9 ^0 Ucrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 u! i' N% X% lwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 g, ]" ?7 C! n$ @1 N1 G
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, m2 H* v$ e0 k# Zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not; J/ w6 a% z2 A( k
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, F2 x \: O6 i$ }; ~
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
1 n% {7 ~3 W. T& ~doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ {, M) Q1 S5 n: i" p1 t4 w( [! U O* x5 r& mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, Q B" }+ K% Q; I/ i+ P2 L2 Dhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye2 A+ D. B3 E+ z+ ^2 V4 W! M6 p5 O& E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% z# M( i) ^6 p
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: N/ S1 Y, A/ B
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
' V. S Q8 Z1 M3 \ ], N W. e. A, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 i, z s/ [" ~2 w1 C u2 g
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
, r+ Q8 X" `3 h3 v. uathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- |( a0 X4 N; k5 u
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 q8 [+ X. ~" ~, A
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
1 }8 K. W$ ?6 g# C# lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* n" h' D% R" i8 W7 E, x: I
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ ?& O4 I% a7 P; w s; \
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% d# x& z# f* J; w( h
1 h9 T/ m3 F! k1 `* w9 hSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-- l; H/ y8 J' u
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 B" v, g* R1 N7 N, J4 d& `5 N
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for5 }9 m3 N) R& y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
! f; W5 H$ F3 A; h6 W# l7 D9 Y4 zOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
- T0 Z1 S3 i# ^! _2 Ndoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 m5 m5 T4 y/ ]) z, Q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope+ Z7 O) H Z* S3 ` L5 W! ], B
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% F1 ], {) P. @ e+ ^* r* [
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 N# r6 N Z0 b/ O8 n3 K3 m5 spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.$ R/ _" y2 F9 b; {2 _
% F' z* q3 `( h/ K& i
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, T% V4 [; I) }) u6 G% A Gintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too1 X# {' e& ~1 X: q( H
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a! X7 P- A" q% ]5 _# J' S9 }$ a
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
) ^5 D" G1 q* g7 o; S/ {$ `% hall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 X" d9 W$ v+ F
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 v: ]5 t# K! w2 Z
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
! i/ D8 D2 V0 i3 oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& }2 z2 D& V4 j& x. esuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; `# f7 j% S C- g6 y y8 Y- Greporting should be done. |
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2012-8-4 09:48
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18
