 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
! ~0 \8 w6 V! _5 V5 G如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。& |0 w8 p ~0 ]& a* Z& D6 @
4 o% h+ A# j: w: m' yhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( q# Y5 z# _ N# Y" k/ i. C
9 }+ N( b/ c5 i! H5 M( SFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania6 k/ _) b5 ]) S+ @; V1 Z
, t6 V2 r1 E' H5 ?; w2 p* j
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% V. f* `6 I. }1 i+ \% M, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. E G2 R. r" p% t! z+ g* w
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this. F2 @. @6 O( |* Z; u
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ Y* F5 K# w; r8 n0 R5 {4 v6 ?& e
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 g* g. C" \! U- spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 q1 X7 q9 ?0 K3 ?! Ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# `- P$ V p1 b! c
which they blatantly failed to do.- p0 H' S* o* F6 R1 y
0 {/ Y7 D9 A7 B YFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her, @4 L- s' H) L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in( u" H3 U$ }: J& \ o, p
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
t6 E6 ]7 L( L4 H% M& G" e" [3 Danomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous) J( j( N1 v8 B2 S, k( v* L& n7 v
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 N, W" Q" Q y$ `* j Limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
9 Z8 H8 o K, |2 _/ gdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
: `5 n- Y0 M0 @! z- fbe treated as 7 s.+ b0 v4 j0 \# Y* ~$ X& l
! F" C$ o* [5 O+ q
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is. q: S* F6 x4 K! f6 ] B
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem s' U1 ^) C7 q8 ?
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 _* o: I) m# H/ KAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
r1 \" J1 f H _0 G3 t0 k-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.3 ]$ N: V7 _" T! [7 K8 }* ]
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
6 N `5 g4 ?! F- L' t; y7 ~elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and# l& a) ^6 p% M# x0 B" q
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" i/ J5 {, v3 I& f
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound. T$ d( Y! F& y2 _1 i
& Q/ a. E8 P' d% Y2 d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* }+ t1 |# K: Z* H
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* d1 r% G- x: A- l, lthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* S# {8 B- N! N$ ~* s, F1 Xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later# d+ N6 t* _2 _; f1 O: ^) a
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" D3 k4 I( |, y1 Y+ j
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! o: @0 G' Z, ^6 X: E" l7 C
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
5 ?( [/ J' ~4 Ptopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other+ I. C* B. [8 a7 |& f0 ~! \" }% {
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* O1 z3 v0 j- \% K1 V# R
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 B$ c) n! p8 Q2 H8 c) Ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& h; E* D" `1 B9 afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam) S L& k8 ~ T' b1 E; ?
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 X& X* O% C4 r) R; F
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that, j! x/ C! g. Z5 a+ [ d/ Z
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." s7 `" O$ t* f- w; W1 x
8 p, @+ n3 p1 u; \Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 i K2 i$ j* k5 ~" n; J7 t
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
6 E! [1 g: y' h6 @0 E- ]s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s+ a6 `6 [; u4 @$ q2 i) `8 \
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
, T0 o6 Y* J! k. V) z9 _out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
! ^( O7 s* l& y/ `/ HLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
% t8 o# A5 V2 I" eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ T! ], q+ z2 u4 x( ^
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; n R; r, {( ], A, S* v Xevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
?9 n- r( |1 f4 t) Zworks.
) t( C8 p( `; w2 X) C. s2 k2 t* a1 E( ^' g9 F
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- m/ }& g# X4 b: p% |9 Q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 ?$ B6 v6 q9 K, p: ]. ?kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% @* H _) d6 }& n- x7 k( ~standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific7 S# z3 t O: r6 ~
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
( J( E, D9 N6 |reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One$ n/ O8 R8 f+ f9 e: b% `. D6 L% E
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
C/ q! V u3 @# Y) O/ |: Wdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works* J& A8 e+ [6 B& |, C$ r
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& f0 \: E2 x: b1 m: v, C
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is( g& K4 K7 X2 o/ i! r$ a
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% h# O# w' \+ r$ @; X7 Q! Fwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
7 s/ f( {) o; e- Yadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
+ v1 l! b% \2 i/ s: Upast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 {! i8 U s9 d" W9 X8 g6 t) f/ R
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation% T( i' ~2 n/ {* C( L2 t
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: L7 q( W3 A$ }/ ?$ F4 k/ F
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may0 k2 f. v; R# n3 C# N/ s/ R3 e/ N
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
8 h% o; X$ s2 B2 v9 Qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye. |; }3 H' B! P: T
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ t ~! k1 |. S$ G$ e+ t, ]3 K
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) A! e4 | y: z2 x6 `5 _- y
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 E# x/ R* I& c. x' {& n
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
3 j" g- w, Z8 iprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ ^9 b& f8 I& ?athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( T0 z# ]' {4 \9 ^3 n: l& h9 t" ~5 Ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; f- _- N3 Q( S3 u' tLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping% {8 m' [ _" W( T m: f
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
2 t$ R( V! \7 |( O. `* X* _* [eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
( U8 @' T6 q. GInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?4 R0 f. W9 E ]; V, D
8 F$ A9 _5 P& U, g% b6 X3 c& m, @
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
+ ]3 [" A9 K# n+ x. W {- vcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
0 c$ D3 [2 `1 W1 S' U2 Q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for$ p) e7 T1 g2 Z$ o5 C1 s
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ T3 O' F$ Q2 L- a# e8 ?Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
) Z( \) F S* j- a; M8 R# C9 ] fdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic0 V0 q1 g+ ~6 N! P# V1 Q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
& }& c; g& o0 \" R8 G- {6 }have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a/ }; E) n+ E; S( q# C5 i2 a C
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
s: O2 \5 b0 _3 Kpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
* B. l% X& _4 T) T8 e! H8 Q" c* K
7 p9 v- M# h+ b4 T/ P; {" wOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" V: `9 z9 |! T; x* H4 a4 K: Sintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
( C G* Y8 N6 W0 L: m" M; ?0 ]suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a3 [, k: g$ n$ C3 w! @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide. D7 X. x% C7 W+ z8 X) i: L5 A
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
# D; L+ X5 d2 V' Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 K4 S" [( J9 x' u1 c
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- T Q/ l' U d1 J" i+ @' f1 ~1 t
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, f3 G" N, D( a4 A) M* M: E! b8 Isuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 F# j6 m6 I" e9 l2 G- y8 s( m, o
reporting should be done. |
|