 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 O: r- B& ]/ q; ?3 V( ~
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。' Q5 J& p3 {9 s
' |9 w2 N/ K& i; V: ~
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
7 j3 A8 g% }' _' u+ O- q8 `/ L& ]% {( k: U8 L! J. P
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! S, s8 P9 V8 A; n" q+ I# t: ^# j2 S& K/ I. c: [' O6 h, B0 `5 K( f
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
~; q9 ]' r1 m2 E, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 Z5 q* d7 @0 Z; _
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
0 |+ A# D1 u) his not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
! j$ o7 D1 v+ @7 nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
# b# @- d( |; u; Y) I0 P n$ Spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% M6 \3 H/ j" F
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
" ]8 o" C8 z$ Gwhich they blatantly failed to do.
& m& G6 H' z, D& v, ^
- O( Y7 i$ r. a2 V: ^! qFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her5 e, U5 N% ^9 J2 a# X. j/ ^
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; B( ]1 B( E2 P7 z. Q1 m4 Q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
. m* ~7 u3 Q `* n: I6 janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( c4 c$ H! L* b
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* l8 |4 |% D: ^, F+ e) @; yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ [2 T* d) v3 u. O4 E
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to; Q4 F$ Q/ c, O8 v& H* c5 ?4 L0 a4 L
be treated as 7 s., G3 t' U) k0 C+ ]4 K: z6 a
; X) r/ s( s" J9 m/ vSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
8 |0 N8 f$ E/ j9 w% z3 A/ w& dstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% W8 B! K2 x; U5 Q5 a$ O9 B h
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) h5 I2 Y. Y" ~/ _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 }1 E+ U# v6 q7 J-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.' I, E& t4 A# B9 _! T1 X. b
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 }! r, h; s3 d- p4 j4 J
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and9 X5 h+ @. [/ H+ w- S
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; ~" Q9 {- j' t
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ @7 G& o. O. |! U5 H, m; i# \6 r; V$ b
. [4 g7 M; x! xThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
: m8 @! a. q2 b4 Y" [0 Xexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in Y; ]; R% b# s X4 P% r3 M" }
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so& F, a8 f- F6 a8 P% U8 a1 [
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ ^( j5 b0 e5 H" e. o4 t7 S. i
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s1 I+ o% o/ Z S5 y
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* a. |+ N% ~- q, ?
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another; t+ s6 e! P5 _+ g; ]4 p, Y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; n8 v& g6 n0 t' _: R' z
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
/ p: c. ]" o5 a- b+ c, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. A0 E* N1 W E% \% U4 T+ wstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) u$ k4 D1 Z) }faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam& }9 s/ \9 D, A) r9 Y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
6 [& X( B" @3 G6 Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that8 X' c/ e: A( ~' j+ i7 Q4 ^
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.! L6 W0 w/ Q6 U9 X d0 M: j: G
3 r7 ]2 o: W# ~
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; A: k% X6 @: Y: d% u- Jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
/ A& p/ q% F% @9 ~/ ^% Ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s, \- J& d* Y/ u4 y* _0 t$ n" r% ]5 p
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
/ e, _0 C( t+ Z( e* ^; i. E6 n9 Dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,3 |& A9 }2 q( O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; T$ M$ v- J7 d: u h8 _of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ J! z; P5 o3 M& g( P' C
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: ?$ z$ v; u$ \; d( o
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
; x! T2 E; [7 @' \/ E: \. u% Oworks.
7 @. v% J! y( t o/ ]8 B$ b7 m/ }, G/ W" ] Y- `% a7 A
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, T. `, ]' `4 j, y' R; y6 E2 ^7 F: E
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this n p, W, B) M$ y+ z
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, b% l, N) g7 i
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific5 f& \( O. I" J& c6 _# g/ g% Q4 j: j
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 ? n; [: R6 ]0 D* |3 U: ^reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One c: `7 G2 {- [% c4 C3 I8 R
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to8 b+ v F) o* k' y5 K
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- Z1 z8 m1 v5 b. u' ` s
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' x( X* n O+ P% P, D3 e4 Lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ L' o5 W- w* O
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he6 y n {! g- y7 v: y* Q
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly& t4 ^3 ^/ i, a, {0 N. o
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& l3 s4 t: D$ ] G* M2 x! i: e wpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ i3 ]$ A! Y: D. q6 juse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 ]1 ~5 o2 x# U" e+ @+ y. M; ^+ A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
/ ^) h) y- z: Fdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 i4 K$ `! u/ |; E( R8 wbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 y& u+ _% g) Z! O" }5 f
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# H0 R: _" A$ E( i w% mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
3 F, W& X0 Z4 E; _drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% v3 z# g" a4 G7 |
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 c) N( L( [" m# N1 m" J/ _. m
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is7 @) u' o2 A0 e4 Z. g2 Q3 L
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- _9 U+ Y% C3 u/ ?/ Bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
8 L- ~; }! d8 b) O7 e, P9 F- l) Bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: I/ c3 U% _1 {+ f: X: v8 Z0 K" nLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping* Y5 W4 r& Q# {: s' r: m
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 D6 h) }, l" ?5 F' f! d% }; i G! W
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- p5 U5 \; M# K& D, b( M* j, F
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% D. e2 K# a& r) F5 Z2 V4 z ]7 @" g! ~$ A
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
3 L0 r# z. C2 B: ?9 M, f% e/ |% k5 kcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 e" A# B- I: `& A) |
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, G2 v7 e* ~$ J$ MOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
! U' v6 f" C7 j9 L" TOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& l( ] h3 R6 `! j3 sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( b R1 Y6 {7 H( q/ G: o9 k) ?games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
+ T$ h1 I6 Z2 i0 M; ~have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
3 u% p$ C$ U- Y5 F& B/ @' e4 vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 @/ i% L4 x( x, z+ ]' i Mpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.* y( e4 B# v; q1 ^# T: Y9 t0 E
; B0 A6 a# _; t/ a$ T: rOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! z. n$ @7 B% n
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ }' V2 S( S$ g" l
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a ~, b2 g5 v- ]7 u5 X4 b$ @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide U' }# |9 `+ Q* u1 U! y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your' e, ^$ t8 ]6 E
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 f$ o2 T' g) O4 N: ?( L7 A3 Q* V
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your3 j q: T- E1 ^9 o: h9 h
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal- _9 `: y- G4 \* Y5 A9 N7 I4 j
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( K* O7 B: h7 L$ Q. v
reporting should be done. |
|