 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 JIANG3 N& i4 q% `3 L2 z% Y+ M- j
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
4 [! p, j6 G* _9 |4 y1 w1 v6 @4 k* `+ c, `. `' B9 W
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html8 f8 u" d6 }# Y' o2 N
7 l# c3 |7 j. o: _1 Z' Y; q: Q( E
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
" x$ @6 p2 D/ h) d' M
T F# |+ k% U) lIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
+ A, c1 P* N ]# U/ p- H/ u, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 M# d* P* J9 G" ^: j: P
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
4 Q! O, N: z7 V; w1 e. u8 R, Nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
. R1 H$ f2 X# ]scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general$ R" W. m9 A0 g8 v& f2 v
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 k( t/ h1 }. L) b H5 h7 ~. D- i( j
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 p( @1 t, x, Iwhich they blatantly failed to do.
a4 {2 b" m2 V7 x
! Z# O: f$ O! K$ WFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
6 {4 R* Q$ ^/ AOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
0 F0 A# |( U: @& ~# H2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* r, y) K9 d2 r* Y5 fanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous; }9 s) E/ H1 {* o8 ]/ a
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 X4 |1 N4 E% a$ N4 Mimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, ^2 t* I: Y+ N7 L0 p- ^9 W, o
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 z2 I4 j& w! v+ ], ^# j4 D
be treated as 7 s.
0 c f7 ^ {1 k* k
- I! v k4 ^2 B1 e) B7 M/ m% kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
, _) v1 X- N* Q. Zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem' |2 v. {! U g
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.8 i" F& E B& _$ }# n' x
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 S a) t) e1 a% Y3 H-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
4 p' o& H/ I8 u1 m8 ?! qFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' w ]6 I# O' ^8 H8 }2 N$ \ H
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and7 ~8 A9 |% I+ O; e
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" {+ o8 p7 U8 _0 f5 s! }8 t
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% L% T4 F/ H- j' ]/ X4 b/ J
" g; w) }5 ], SThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 l5 `+ A" Z. M# E
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
w2 r2 d- y: J8 V) Zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 g- j: Z. N( C$ D3 h# A; i: V
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
" q; v- C5 M @% Pevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" ^4 b! W5 X/ x4 `! P* Q1 ?7 {
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ Y* B' F% f0 z8 p' {: u0 a
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ O! t# j+ U% {/ g/ ]8 N4 ptopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
* f" B6 d5 V H2 u zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 G0 b8 w+ |! Y- [8 d, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this9 h3 Q- v5 U# d5 `' ]
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 M, i1 {; [" O
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam8 L# ^1 K3 l) r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
m' R. \ [/ h* [3 T+ {aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
- C: Q; c+ h; E5 z( ~implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, T( G+ _0 `& a( E7 h# |4 y* V( P- y' ?( w9 {
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 ?# o& t5 u% M, V; F" m2 G
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( G; t: C5 ?. C* I5 ?s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
7 o$ k Z+ s' {: x2 y5 f6 T), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. k3 A6 P2 i8 s' m2 F _' E3 U' ^7 yout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 d+ V" r2 B) x% V7 v2 w
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind" e/ H3 i B, X& ^! q$ Q! I
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) u8 ?! i. T: ?; A
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! g3 L$ W3 p$ v2 I3 e, o( bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' x+ D. m! R( r: J7 K1 `" vworks.3 \6 q; ~$ t6 ^' t, n4 F
& N7 r, J. R# g2 \' uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; r) N) E: b& k' [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
3 `# O& P- L4 G3 j9 v. g" B/ H1 wkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
& B" ?. P3 \3 S0 i9 ` |standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
0 a e0 Q2 V& `0 o5 x7 qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 E; ~1 w$ a. C. \- Q4 v+ v% U1 L; rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
s L* v3 G) y+ Ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to3 t0 C' ]! F! z
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
B9 A R& s* `to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: o( i" F+ c* k6 v& ^( u3 U
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is. P+ f: S1 C/ d( C v
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ r# S4 o9 J$ ^' f' Iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) a- y7 P& o4 sadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the6 T% _1 F9 N* v i( {/ f" x
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
" G* A9 c0 ?3 Z6 wuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation/ m0 h( x" @- x5 g, \
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
( s' Q4 k3 r7 Udoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may: A$ R" @ B: ~+ f" n& g
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
2 K6 a' _ ~. R+ s1 Chearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 m! [0 J4 u ]: ]+ y8 o- U* fhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. h) {/ j" v& E3 U9 q: t, x+ h9 {drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:# r- T# x3 Z3 r4 `
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( k# ]7 ^ z! z
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
1 S3 V: r# _! P/ b: hprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
0 g2 W1 J: J/ k5 T9 V8 Wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight4 \. Y1 I+ b/ x: f/ s4 H- N
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?* A( K4 ]2 C( X2 \
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping( `( J2 ]5 ~& f: I
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 \8 ^, ~3 H# |' n8 y
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 o' P0 C7 x' V+ @2 @7 | k$ H e3 @
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& u! @0 ^& ~: ^( R
% V9 H! q6 b% k# v9 TSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% L9 E" B! n8 t) a$ y1 _! {+ I, Q
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
: \0 {. j$ E' t% b3 N. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 S' W- w7 B5 [2 K& e3 hOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London( m" d" y! B6 {& k$ k
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# L9 R3 d1 A3 Y9 i, S* kdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ }) L- u. m. m; E/ ~0 |5 W0 Ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
5 L( E4 G) F8 }4 {+ z& N$ ?7 \have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a0 I. j+ G0 j9 D- S9 J7 F0 D3 ]' o5 Q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this6 E, u4 ?6 y0 o
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.. d9 e# x8 a h, X. m! B( [9 q$ f4 f
4 T4 N$ T, f3 ^0 l5 r- C
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- Q% e9 ?. o7 c% q
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 K5 M5 H0 t) I* n- G- A( k tsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
, A$ d, P4 g$ ^, q& rsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
, U4 g. T& c( K: B/ H; T+ Rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' G2 f% ^2 S: j6 R0 m7 u7 P% vinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 p7 l: I4 t* u; lexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
' P' p7 n' F5 F) uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
" Z* J* u& E7 b2 Y6 fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
- p0 X: u1 g+ }9 ^reporting should be done. |
|