 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
4 b3 `+ m9 O* r R& k" E# O9 |如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
" }# V4 \- p* n7 P' E7 M3 f5 U) u2 J6 H
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! V( P8 x% }4 P& k9 L
! j# ?8 B5 b" y) w8 a5 }8 M# qFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
% ^3 n2 [4 p Q1 J2 J$ D
! `1 M7 A; K5 Z7 s) fIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" R; V9 r" {" G0 W, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
/ W$ ^' V' H. |2 B) }. ?. @magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
8 d* w% A" T# r2 V5 n7 c9 Wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the( B4 f0 N$ e9 x$ e6 V, i4 a
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. L* L4 M8 b& j8 M
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. r; j9 y% e: J0 s9 V$ D+ m
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- f! R$ a& Z' a4 O
which they blatantly failed to do.
) {0 Z2 h3 i2 }5 E. r2 y6 o
$ A4 p0 l2 c1 \1 L2 HFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 ~- p, w- s: X; }/ H7 m* ~Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
/ F" ^- F! O$ U! m( H2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
& H* R6 T# i( }/ S/ y# z$ Ianomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( o+ c5 ^$ @/ c" H; q# ]$ O2 K0 |
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ R4 V; W c5 U1 h, ?+ c3 Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
: A# g0 L! K6 M- x& `difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 W$ X F7 D6 T+ G. v8 I' `
be treated as 7 s.
9 l# z, m& s2 I. J; l1 N1 n1 Y0 U* Q0 l( I: M
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" `6 \, V. J& ?0 R9 d5 U
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 N3 B( s; J& c* G, ?
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
7 V$ Z3 R* _5 ]- @0 ]An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
. j$ A# O7 G5 F-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
4 K! V' H; l8 W0 yFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# r& a9 s1 S) {% ?' a( O4 z! eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
: N4 G& V( q5 npersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
) {, h5 x: e! N8 S: A7 Ybased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.9 }8 k2 @' ~# g: u; B' B
3 w1 E! o, l V
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
; d+ N* f* w! a: O+ ^example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in) U6 w: \5 l/ Z6 s% ~0 y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, w# `/ i+ [, O$ d6 @
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. w$ A" f1 w* _$ Devents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
3 O& u+ m% D# O% |) E j+ Ybest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World4 B- ], I0 ^' F" _: L
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 d1 ?. z7 G3 ]" l: l% C6 T
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
' t( A' W; i R2 x0 f+ o2 ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, [- W3 j* j! S' h
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
' \& q1 g5 E, L! {) ^ T$ zstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
6 o9 V8 M C8 F, F4 n' t d5 Qfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* X: C r# E0 y8 Rfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting; z! L9 b* `9 }+ w: @
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 c; G& b3 }5 G8 Dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; D% J" n* g' d! u; P" h! S
7 {3 l3 _2 e7 U" T! L2 f1 X, f
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, ^' D" V, V9 t i) \
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ H3 ^/ i5 F# A9 q2 Js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s8 m7 @! _$ O) Y0 l" l' |- |, E5 ?
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
) L3 B& U# g- pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
5 Q0 X; ` o/ y8 s1 e$ ^Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
6 U3 ]4 \' x" i+ y P/ B3 Gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
( k3 ?* n2 I! n1 C: slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in. k' s7 L7 U$ Q5 q' o
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
; y8 B! {9 r O# jworks.
+ [' ]' M6 d4 v" U& Y! A6 u5 Y x) u3 ]6 j! J4 z6 D$ D: P$ ^
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
e, `7 S- b/ Q; e6 h( Yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
t1 g2 L: u8 @kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that! B/ M+ n# F( v8 a' F
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 l3 P7 E" r; ]& k% J* Apapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 v3 i; D, Y: l, |+ Previewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
2 z9 u* g6 W) Pcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to- I2 ?* T' h n& k) X5 a; i L& @
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works0 F/ i4 C4 j; g; T& e, l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
, ^4 t: c* K. E% M: [3 eis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is: Z% x, w; C/ D. u. x
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% f# t$ l& j3 L' F7 Qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly2 j7 n& L1 p) _; g
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) D% J6 N2 e, l; o b6 y( u& Ipast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
9 Y& j) W: Y ?use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
7 M/ T' s0 _# I! z. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 N' w, \! S- p0 h/ M
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
' n. _( e3 P- @) ^be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a, a' }" ^7 u* B( i$ Q
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 U; y( N5 v: D: D5 s) Z5 `
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& S; a$ n1 Y; j
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ t# o: l% X+ t1 O) O" T4 wother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect7 U" V+ L# r/ q
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! \; X) D$ x1 p0 Wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
6 O, [* Y3 j& B# L) dathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 \ \3 R9 [2 w8 u+ U( }4 E
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( T: j7 u/ [$ ~3 f$ J. gLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping% J6 j j& j: f1 A: ]
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for! m- g+ }& Z+ Z2 Y+ j3 @
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
* R3 M. T% i9 S1 l) FInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: b3 j Z0 {- c' l @4 K! h, J" E8 m
- [2 X9 u/ ]$ a, aSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
% J- d- H1 V% Tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 D( }! R4 \. q2 j2 g9 e; A( y" n; W
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 V3 w2 K! w/ V% x# q m- EOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London* U9 U. t/ T0 f0 v# p& w; L. @
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for3 _: d0 a4 U0 r
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
X8 I" U1 Q$ n* q% o' a+ M. ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope* F) y0 F! q3 G2 s
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: Y, |+ H* J. A9 Y$ V
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; O, o, x- k: L K
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: x4 r H0 p" k1 @$ F* e* {
{ }: \0 W$ EOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (+ ~: `; \: Z1 B( a& w+ q# M
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! E) E3 k, B( b" Esuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a4 O/ Y% h% X3 @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. w5 G% X8 }- v7 J* R, g7 r# fall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
7 K1 T5 q, H A z4 Dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," N' W, ], J1 V3 z; J$ k$ P3 }
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your6 B! t6 G* x" b; [+ ~
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
5 v5 ?( b5 r) O G4 P1 H/ l% Dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' F e* L8 j* Q6 c8 J& Mreporting should be done. |
|