 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
) ^2 R# h k9 j如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
! @( I+ k( f& W, D! n+ L/ L8 @" W. K; Z7 U6 ^6 Q& d C
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html9 N. E& n. v# M! F" r
( Z) w# d& i0 N2 s9 \+ E9 _
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! E5 g' F+ R& U0 J( N* _2 C1 T9 e" a- ?& t
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 h* p7 H! m+ v% O" ]( M
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
' e m( k8 g/ s* [ _ G" P8 cmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# b& U2 I) R( C- N3 yis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
0 j- L# t1 j! T0 X% t5 V( ascrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 I$ A( B s7 @: e
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
% Q( @6 e# K5 H$ D( Z7 d' kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' N) b" W+ G" p5 X! y, {. z
which they blatantly failed to do.9 O5 S! l% w" a& x1 J3 A
' E+ U$ F) S+ [9 u" r" N4 _* F
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
7 j: Q, q( v+ }. U( E" A7 {Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in i+ ?. d" I; h) Z# i0 x
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 }- C) ]1 A. M. L' x4 t3 vanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 K" z7 t* H4 q9 T7 a# cpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
8 B9 a! A& s/ h- r$ Q6 ]improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
( l' T) z2 `" n B0 Q) ddifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to( z. M& L3 ?2 F3 [
be treated as 7 s.# l( ]- H$ n4 o8 w& C
# x* b% ~% `9 g" T3 t
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 @3 W2 i" ?( g+ P
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% H1 Y/ N6 D, X" X3 A+ J
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
% }0 _ S" q: mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& S' z5 f3 ^3 R1 B4 I/ o7 ]- `; O-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) l9 r/ P! {& P: iFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an8 D; x4 s1 ] J0 b
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 a2 s! L+ ]9 ?# W* dpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
8 p1 \" K8 p6 g2 d* l$ Pbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.2 Z0 M, y6 Y6 G Q i0 ^. l* E3 P
# O( o0 t; {! D! I/ ]5 \9 N( U
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook P' Y$ {8 B+ M4 Y4 L* j; H
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ R `( E3 a" K
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! X/ v( T/ D$ F5 F
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 G! f- y9 L* V7 [
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
$ Z8 x+ g3 Y# p+ h3 O6 l3 V- [best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. M8 o7 A7 w# E& h8 G2 z
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& ^* ?4 n- S/ ]3 _/ ^# z" a' N
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! g& K$ a: M" G$ g8 C. ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle4 [2 J) N2 T5 {1 a& E" e) M$ v
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this8 ]' c. M8 V' h- s
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds* E P* K/ Q) Q4 x5 F
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam! [0 ]( ?1 R% G W# p
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
4 S! K: U& y3 V, j- w9 h3 E$ R7 C ]aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 a+ J- c8 B( g! J, s
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 U( j+ k: N. i* t% f
, _; o2 d" w+ T5 r; ^0 F$ x% _$ WFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' p% s& Y# a W- k/ x
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93' G# L/ N# I, l* n6 C# F7 s6 e
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 x1 j" j% L6 m& r), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns; Q* I, D$ Y$ ~1 n
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
- P7 y' U, p- U0 A8 M. C( PLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: m3 N% I O& A; bof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! t5 a: D, Q8 c g- i0 T4 i
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* G" @* ]# j @* {- Kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science( h E: g T, ^/ v4 g8 C# ]
works.. i& o, m5 V J' e: z' a
( [ C; p* o) R' U9 g3 L" P
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and* h/ l ^8 P) I# t
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 e1 G" j. K) P. O' F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
; K3 S M4 P) X, G2 T1 M) vstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! A( s8 V- M, P: Apapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ ^. w# _# g/ i5 G5 b4 r$ Ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; h' [8 x7 f: B# Z
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to3 @' I' `( C4 u) J- \! w! b
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works! F: q `& }& n F+ s5 P' ^) b3 k) D
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample4 b3 d* f @; x$ i2 |- I2 ?
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is) h. D. d* ?# H8 a% G# V2 N' Z* W2 c
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he2 }( i l9 J) j% G: K0 l
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
! X E& w/ V: k c; vadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the" o2 e' m1 W6 e D( g; `" @
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. M/ T! s6 S+ S( u% Guse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: M. {9 z- m/ r- f6 q5 U6 W
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are) ?0 C# ^8 a+ w
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may0 B5 t' f2 |& P; T X
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: q& _# @4 ^1 _" a1 _# X3 G
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye/ R+ g3 c- ?; i1 ^6 U }
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
5 o9 |9 l8 U+ n1 x& fdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:' p. @* q3 {# j! I
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 y6 y: x5 J7 |$ h O% s" d) B: g, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
/ J, d, ?0 l4 Wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ e8 c# l1 J" Uathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. J0 b) \3 m/ j; H3 R. f3 d d
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?' r( {, ^9 u# O5 h3 i& M7 [2 [4 a1 R
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
. s% v3 b' G# D. p& B7 H3 S+ J ]& c3 Magency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
: e+ ^% E6 z: H( N, Feight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
4 x% T4 T$ G+ u- R5 j9 j$ Z. m+ Y0 mInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?1 D% s W0 V. v9 I3 J/ U
/ w1 \. U( O2 _6 v( L+ pSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
. W; W/ B( C( \: kcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
- _. T, C9 Y+ u1 Q$ E3 S. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for/ j) H0 l" _1 `( k! d* [6 m4 a: P, j
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
/ Z; I7 W& c& R5 P- W" b: F- mOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for1 b6 C# V; ` \& r/ |2 f
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ B4 |! ]' R X1 a) q$ G9 dgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
9 P. \& G2 P5 o- [: zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 y3 B% x/ H3 Z9 D: x& D
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. Z) C8 |+ d) g" N5 Z8 r( F! bpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 b" V. y ?' ?5 U4 x7 T
5 S4 h$ L" U9 p* K+ c" cOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 f3 G; j) Z/ ?intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. X! v: R) C4 B4 H2 @! V; fsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
6 L1 ~$ r$ j4 \3 _5 Wsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
& L/ C" ?* C2 \) N) h/ yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your7 k* u: v* [3 c9 x0 q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
; d- U# `/ F4 i- F5 t- m& H: H" yexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
0 A/ S1 W$ U' \% K3 K' p) largument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
0 n$ T+ \: Q0 a0 e+ fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ r, Z% Z% v6 S; j, Freporting should be done. |
|