 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
% ], ?. d! A, h$ a& J( }# E如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
8 O3 N4 u; M0 j2 ]# r( H7 g& p4 M% E1 j! ?* f9 O% [8 U# r6 {1 }$ C
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 N8 O9 ] s3 S, n7 W/ D
" H- Q. }$ a$ X, O. Y5 O' h) C
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- M9 Z. M% o4 ?. r/ [, ^ @4 Y) I+ {# ^3 n5 K" M! L
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself6 X4 G' S/ ]. K1 q( d
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 k. a7 X7 N' D+ H
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ u) s& f V2 ~- T; n7 S
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the$ A: h8 B. ^) q
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: D$ v- R) _, Y/ _& epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ P V- M- f7 [: V ?0 Z% d
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
! ]9 p& J1 R4 Y. g' Y7 i) u" ?6 zwhich they blatantly failed to do.
7 t; F# N- g4 t3 \4 a2 a+ I
( g' P" @ Y0 I0 w' c9 k/ S' `, j0 B5 bFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
# a2 F' w, @3 E' x* k9 y, _Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" ?9 m- _- ]- {
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 P( H7 t5 g; n- S" M3 q6 i7 Qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& o8 x: A/ h" X8 J6 i
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! j6 }4 z) F# h, R" \
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; q# n6 S8 e s$ W3 V- kdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to; ~# @$ T& o9 D# L
be treated as 7 s.
4 J9 v) z. {9 G+ V9 X" e; X+ Z9 b& ^7 E2 u7 e) W' d
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is* K5 Q! B! g4 T1 t$ [7 q
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem9 J% R `% w) B R i- a
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 O- q1 V& [: ^' N4 N- ?- W& w; H
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 [. K' b$ e: u
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." o& P y: U, a
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
: I: V7 f5 o" ~; P! Ielite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
* b0 R) j3 L' t3 Ipersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous” W8 {8 d5 G9 M/ I
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound." c/ Z6 g) G2 z; J7 w
7 z( n+ z9 }8 Z/ E$ z' ^Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! H( ?" }. n8 n; w) k8 R8 G0 i& {
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
- t% C, V) {/ K# ~+ ~: x" @the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
4 ~5 k$ v+ n, nhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later Q% u1 J# B. Z! \
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 Z5 C9 w. a8 U: U, cbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ c$ z. M2 m6 P' B! b& _Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another( C# Y5 I( S' z3 }% @1 d: H- Y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
) u) L$ G6 D# G% Z; r" k2 Vhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 J* C6 a' t! d! }) K, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) J. v3 m$ K6 f. I0 lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds% v/ j, M7 G% G: U# m. Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 A$ v' {0 G; Dfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) c8 v# \9 K+ t* Baside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 R: x: b+ t) f+ Q& Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 i3 {5 L! `+ B- x, N/ r, _5 [
. u# U! @ c4 \! x! J }
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 K9 }* Q' d8 Q3 W1 N
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
9 K V a0 P) q+ c* Us) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: S4 q1 D' r! a! ]$ w3 b3 U6 u, `), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 Q6 w. O7 P3 P" Y% ]: vout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
$ k2 y$ W6 P0 m% j; W2 bLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& T+ R- E# S+ D% Z+ eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ n+ a% @. U' z/ A9 u* F' G
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
0 V' g, F) g1 V3 T) Revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% H+ Q) h0 G+ dworks.
) e9 j) B! I$ f2 n' @- G
+ Q J% a) H/ L2 G4 a) VFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
T% M$ j9 P+ ?/ Himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 `+ Y! O$ v8 Q a6 _
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
# e. I9 `2 M* g) y( s. X; kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
( {' @! R1 c! v, X8 Q. opapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and" a9 z5 b# i0 K! S& J5 i C
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 S! k8 B7 {. I7 o! _6 pcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
, t& u! A% ^& U2 qdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( p1 R3 a. C# t0 B
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 @2 ?/ }8 K" v' }1 R- Ois found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
! F- U: Z2 D# S! _: kcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
- ?0 |% w! P. C2 z! ]3 Y. ^wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 ~; Y4 A3 T1 _, x; H+ u. C
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
' D b0 |. k; E$ @9 R- O+ kpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not* E/ O! F( T: [# G2 C
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
5 b+ e |2 A& d8 K0 n. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& x+ s4 L% E9 U+ S+ q2 x; m$ p& C- x
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may/ g* d* P7 V, a1 _+ S Q7 m
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% H; h* D: P) H. b' g, Bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% @/ M4 ^0 L8 H, m" @; q; thas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# H' U" f3 d* h+ L
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' g2 y9 Q y( A! s3 Tother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
r9 B: C& V1 k9 U1 f, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
' {* j/ v+ A% U& n- u7 Vprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an/ i9 S+ Z ~) A' I0 z) K/ f# J) h: C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
+ W, o9 J& U1 ?+ ~* O2 R) a0 ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
7 i$ _& @$ y; t ]* XLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 p) r% H; _+ h2 t9 `7 [agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! W" |# Y5 c& B9 qeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., M( e6 p, m+ B j3 H0 e
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" N; R/ i1 e& {5 d: q- \- U
" e, E) H8 N' e5 [ RSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-8 r5 }( W* X& e6 T: k8 c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
6 \1 [* |& K7 J) f6 H+ J' I/ T. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, Q7 y E0 a1 B j! o- F' y8 [- y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% }, |+ F8 t3 ~! dOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for+ e# l/ O) `9 x& u
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
: u# Z) S* g. H) {& agames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope8 X- P& b4 e, ~: j) X$ M% e
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. |. I* ^; r/ Z+ j- @! Xplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this( f; }" E7 J% H- w
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
% z& e! A/ z5 A) k+ d
, G4 {# J/ I% j: POver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 z+ d Q. A2 t- Y6 b
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too7 s! [) N$ y) q$ V: l
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
6 D8 r" R: e0 V6 }5 z: wsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 M# i, f2 y" R# Y2 Y8 J
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 `' j6 S' n% D6 }. Z
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," `' h8 |7 c' V% ^; b* A* N& H3 F
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% o; _9 `# z: \: \1 ~argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
z% U' `# [" f! T) p5 Vsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or- w5 ~6 W9 J; B4 |
reporting should be done. |
|