 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- t- P, G7 b9 U( n
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
7 j$ ]9 j& \5 ]! u6 ?5 A8 q, ]: e6 h- y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html9 I0 a3 X* e: X1 ] s# [! `
$ F/ R* p+ Y' xFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 K& i! L4 P1 Y3 N: D" k
O) w* [* B/ H/ `" t0 `7 jIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
' i- P' A: v- ?9 u, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 I+ g. f( `! j7 }! Wmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, ?/ T9 j, f/ `% Z0 k& _
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 `) J1 D5 [. {scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
0 M/ {5 f5 F0 D2 Xpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 l% O% J+ o5 R( w* }should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
' X! }: \' n" M, _which they blatantly failed to do.
+ s/ y& c7 y9 Y
, h: f$ K" ^+ n# Z8 }First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
+ Q5 s9 t& V% l0 @Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
Y/ j. u4 |$ t( U$ u2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& o4 u0 z# v- k* y+ C* X! H4 ]
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous5 l- } b: c* n: S- n- V$ a
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 ]- J+ v2 o9 Rimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 g6 m! o$ s8 K9 S5 H4 \
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
- S4 Q0 K9 D8 D. d" I/ {3 t0 ibe treated as 7 s.0 D6 l& ]4 E' t1 E: M2 j& k
5 I1 x) I% W) ~0 f, Y' x4 ]
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
1 q$ _- ]2 U3 C/ L8 }$ R8 wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% l& M* ^% U' }0 c2 q; U/ q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ U9 C6 ]# y% |/ P6 Z6 E
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 E5 x) M6 _. ?
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 ~' U* c" d6 H2 g8 ?6 v. |% T
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' B& I, x2 l: e+ v$ \) Z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
) f" w: l V; Z$ W' U5 {persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”+ K* ^& u; s: |) q) e7 i6 u4 I
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
! }/ m# | P9 g' P2 D7 v* m+ [2 H+ w8 t6 m
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ k% n! [2 A) f& Q3 S* n
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 c3 L- f h% @' F/ H
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so& `/ \- s1 z9 u2 @: o) ^
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; f7 u, O3 r z1 |0 G8 w$ h( Qevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# A& K/ {9 L& \/ S& kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World5 ?" |$ D |1 I8 a% x9 s
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
3 w9 ~, H5 o7 _8 }- s9 Stopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
) r" y. u+ E, }9 y1 U3 k. Q/ ^; fhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle+ F- |! D' q* _" H+ u; d0 X* x* G Z3 x
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this8 I6 w. {: T4 M0 t+ J2 L
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
3 ]0 i6 J( X& J$ L2 @faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
; a& M, J) o, N f, x0 y" w& ufaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
( @' W6 |: X# n! `aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
0 N8 b: T l' t* D% m* nimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
: v8 N/ p$ c1 m
$ ` S- W( { x9 v' ~5 m4 _Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 R2 G5 @) g, s" U
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 V+ J s' M% f# C/ d3 ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 y/ o/ A) `9 T; T1 |2 q
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 Q0 J9 n, y! G7 H) f& J# P' \' Sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,9 d, D* N# g3 R; H/ F/ Z- _
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
" ^0 t9 g5 ]4 C( uof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! N k4 E/ O7 v( J3 P
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in! k4 r- d. H, q8 `
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 m- Z! N& T3 B; m1 _" |
works.; g0 G/ V1 T$ t7 l: j' d
, P& O: x0 S0 W- n$ ^" Z( {
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) _1 b8 M7 t) L& E% V; `implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 G( n" u- U8 w( M% F9 Tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( ]4 S I ~1 R- k- `8 \standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! k4 p% I: q" k5 \1 Y9 }2 Bpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
- j+ s, i0 L9 @& _) _) e% K6 z! Vreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 }/ m' G* z. ]+ s8 }$ U! g$ Ocannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ m/ r9 L3 T5 n
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
' n) R1 E5 N+ Q6 gto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
6 Y( m- C& G# r! G- U, E" W$ lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
7 F, J: a0 I% kcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 G1 c, u8 l' h4 G/ [7 Z! K
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly/ f4 G" V+ W9 ~& k* `+ |8 N L
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 W$ y, j+ T% E; `
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 [! s9 {/ X) P/ |/ v
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
6 L5 d6 t0 |, a0 W1 o. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, k3 p: d2 L, k/ E9 \8 g
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
& i5 g! s: V. b* g$ Rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a9 p9 p! d7 c( }& _: ]6 J* }. o
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% l# R: Z$ A! f( Z6 Ahas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a! D! p7 v2 D3 t3 ?5 X
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: H" }+ f! ^1 S6 @
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect+ N* d5 J! B1 G! c. {8 e
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) w: j# w* o! H' d$ Bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ u& S# I* T$ y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; P5 l! ]5 s- |5 x0 N0 A# K' C
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: F: H4 x& \1 i/ `! J4 m: @Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! I0 _8 n3 x3 \" t6 o3 v+ ?
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for! j+ y' n% b X9 R9 { s) O c# c
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., I5 N% A# ?" C( G
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% k! @0 j4 v K6 [, Z% g! X% V3 \8 \# K
" N, l1 w4 K* o) U* BSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; ]% Z0 E% T) wcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 M5 D2 q8 Z4 ?# z
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for' ?0 `. u- T( W1 v X! K4 @4 @
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London5 O' u2 n* H1 y% P8 F
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for' J: P/ W+ a: Q% W) h9 c
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# f! U8 l, w7 k! F7 sgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
+ t3 [5 I. d) \0 lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& g6 I7 y% j7 K- X: d$ D* iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
2 f. B+ R' `$ m1 p; Ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
& Q- z @. A: K& O8 V! J3 s& d* X, ?; l9 _7 G* }$ {8 u: [1 U5 h
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (, J9 N- v, Q: q7 [" j! K/ e
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! o9 G5 y" S4 W$ J3 C+ Msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 Q9 q. @$ i( l/ K
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 w, c6 |% O" e8 n, \ eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* S8 }1 l2 G, ~
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% A0 i' b( o7 Y3 B- L
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 |) s1 \0 |6 w$ d, H) ^5 I
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal% N# d. W; A2 h
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
9 s! U2 m; U' Z9 t- d* K2 preporting should be done. |
|