 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
9 g) C4 t8 Y$ W+ s) [如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# u( H8 h ^) |# q+ n* q \- l# J* L) y: Z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: I5 k, L s) U+ G' ?2 g5 |' ^* |2 D0 G4 L0 T- n) y
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& g* T( X9 F+ Y/ T; u2 c6 j7 I b
6 P) g7 S, }$ u+ C: _9 o3 \It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" A7 Y- h# }; `0 p& s
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- w- W5 q7 B9 k p4 E$ ymagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this5 s( X" U% T. M5 `
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
8 _( f/ n7 _) N4 @scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 W4 Z% D# K; c' c' i$ w! _( a
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' U' w/ b3 F! @+ h( nshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# o% {& [" ?* ^which they blatantly failed to do.8 {4 ?7 Y0 a0 q! M5 P
. U j' T9 Q7 O3 C0 @( Y% p
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. k+ U3 G4 t% E/ j+ {6 P
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in( |0 F, |6 Y, w$ t; ?9 [6 w
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 o3 `( m9 z# K# C
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
; l6 n" _3 e! A2 n& i3 ^personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
9 i$ {* ^ E7 S% d+ Timprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ h; L$ _& r( _2 D" r2 L
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 S t9 c" h2 u* B' xbe treated as 7 s.
4 b+ G* b- O8 _# X: S* Y: i0 e9 X& l9 p# q: G% B( @
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is4 o% W& v G9 z' G. |& s, Z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, C# C% Q4 g+ T& k& oimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
/ U* U) e0 i- z' z5 m' UAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
% \1 k3 ~! L; v, ^5 R-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.4 R% b' o0 Y: w! f
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
- f" W& F L* t5 L/ J% lelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; C* K7 q7 E6 ~. O: w& v& E, z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”/ U+ a, U4 ^* G
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 J- R4 [- V, ?" [' e
) ~3 r- r) W8 X/ i7 R5 \Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
6 N+ h& D/ T/ J+ C. [3 M5 Zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ x# q! @( c2 H: H" d9 U+ t4 vthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, y3 o. N h3 E2 l
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) a8 F- e3 D _) g3 ^, F3 s9 g' Z/ Xevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" @: J5 ^3 h# C, \% c5 G# G
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
% f& u' E4 Y) g* h, i" cFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! S- ]- [* _* K* Xtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! [7 `: V$ s! |. b2 ]2 X) F' {hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 t. N8 B6 O4 L- H* Z8 l; S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# L. u3 @$ c0 U3 F& Fstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
+ d( Z$ _$ q2 y8 Y, nfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- J( b: v/ t! Zfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
* {& o( k3 K; K: K# b$ D. a% f& h3 |aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' f0 E2 G a' J" H) E$ j
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
' x/ [8 Y: l& @' X3 y; `: p9 N
; d3 i7 `# k! k) `+ L, t& |% m+ RFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
5 S! `! B( Y) d$ W$ xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 K5 G1 k4 M3 y1 o* ms) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s3 ?& U+ B$ w- K6 h, f( V
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% O$ B1 P# L- B+ x4 x% H/ O2 |out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
( |4 R4 _4 N! a( x% t) c: h% ZLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
# ^" t7 f) c% E& Z- _# c! z x" y/ `of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 z1 E5 P1 U+ G% b* W' q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: B) s$ T; m, ~7 l8 p p9 G5 P5 x
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
1 r; x1 a; a8 b, ] bworks.# D( Y, [+ N( Z& z# r% h9 {5 G
0 ?8 i, K$ `: RFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 X6 n0 o; p n$ {) i! T7 T
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
" p* l+ i, ~8 t+ r( ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
5 C! w) A* I4 d& _: Y& i4 ^standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 w! \% T2 q2 K/ Y+ ]5 s& \4 C( ypapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and: D$ m% V) L- j) n2 f8 s1 p
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; S0 D$ N) W* S0 X7 _
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; _) q/ y' w. l& k) v$ l
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
( ^# V+ ?2 }* X7 _0 k) G+ Tto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample6 F+ }& F: K/ M3 o3 C3 r4 h% G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
8 j3 X! U1 Z0 l7 V8 Kcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 J4 n4 b: a/ m2 K+ j, p8 Hwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 t& n+ ]* t: A* _advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
7 b* ]7 r A$ Hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( c, O q6 D" [+ ~8 ~7 i1 ~use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( ~2 O0 | F8 a+ }! |
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
; t. e6 M# @3 Ndoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ x( c7 W( R- ]6 C0 b( I4 Zbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
" o% y* Y. b `- } k6 ?) s) {hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* n4 W+ v; J! F: @- h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
7 Z/ T# h" ]$ Z# ?0 pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- n% {8 H- \2 k/ O1 j' pother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect) T' \' Y; Z: @ i- _) a2 D ?% |
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& q$ `4 u: w0 b2 n( s
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ o, K. a x, _8 lathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight' m' G* P- T' P: _
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. b: V/ A1 e1 b" p8 [! ^. hLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping8 z0 |3 H- b. k; D7 r0 y
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ e& k9 q* h) R w
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances." ^3 ]; V5 E; _+ Y
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( {" T+ D2 Q0 e6 y3 w+ q7 T
* D3 T0 S" M8 i& ^; H' E) Z
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
, u) R" c |& G$ L( P; zcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
( N; U: y) N4 J& k. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( N) r# @: ?0 I; F) N
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
" L2 U8 g O4 g8 Q) q$ X$ mOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for& e: G* Q, Q5 E5 V8 a* ~2 B0 i
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
: c; s, t( r3 c) w1 [" ^/ Qgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope9 P5 g2 p* ^4 W# W$ r- y: }% X
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 @. Q5 U/ S! ?player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: z8 n" u' O+ K0 m& qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. S+ {3 X, F+ r
3 s2 }; T- Z: N$ i; [Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (6 \3 `/ W" W+ t
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
4 H* s9 O) j7 V* }4 fsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
4 F2 G2 O& w2 d/ _+ Fsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide o1 A8 N& W. P1 ]* p
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
/ o8 i8 a% K. V* d9 J+ k @/ P2 hinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 Z0 A" Y! m6 |1 f
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your' U* w& s6 w3 L$ T( n% G' |2 E
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 X% d4 R& E/ [8 Y( f0 j! H8 k" J
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 a# J* t( K8 breporting should be done. |
|