 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; m4 J2 D; Q4 @- v' X' S) U
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 \" P* I/ C; H/ \6 W0 F! |% E* ?4 L5 z( ]# J: G' Z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html1 w4 d) Q* l \. H1 f" f
! x8 G1 p9 y, w7 n0 `FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
6 m7 \2 a$ @) d! M& M6 i. J7 k' {- Z
1 A' P$ i: _, \* M% v6 S( YIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 X. @' C6 `1 u t4 J, `, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
; a% @4 u5 I6 S, Cmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this4 B7 {0 m" g2 h- |6 s" s, F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the$ e$ m1 Y1 Q' Z) ]" Z6 N
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
9 Q X! h$ T) E5 q3 tpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors* P$ o3 ]8 ]9 ?: ]& g7 C2 L. G5 C
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( F+ V5 [# @: T. M+ H( I) H8 r! V, `6 Z
which they blatantly failed to do.
" ^5 E6 T3 {. H
r, c1 D5 X6 L: j/ ?First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& c" L8 q+ k: ]! F" P5 \. SOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: i3 u, L% z* d0 M5 ]
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ ?6 ]5 ]+ P+ b; [3 v" manomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( w' O4 m: {% @! Q8 J- c& h7 g
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an' D+ W0 X3 Z) K- `7 U1 _
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the$ U7 D# I4 f6 B! I( x+ }& C0 d
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% d4 D9 A$ ^/ T
be treated as 7 s.
4 V' ^! H) C5 M2 q. ]* @, _0 M1 V! i5 x8 n
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is' u( ]3 T! T3 _7 h6 Q6 ^& L) o
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& T7 g8 W: d' z, C, G7 M
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., S$ N! w, c# R \( m2 _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400) [/ b( S% ~! y# \1 p5 Y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.' I( E$ [& }* n
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( Y$ P" ?! T& m
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and5 i. `, Z p9 s2 O- b) @9 F
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
- ?$ ~# J! R; Q, v" K gbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# V2 J0 G; O q. ^3 b
5 \6 ~& T* j7 _( ^! v: \ WThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook" B# w$ a3 I2 e: S1 J
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, r' K& E* Y- l& c3 Q
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 m3 T; \1 A+ dhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
- `( Q4 Q8 N9 }6 P8 e, Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 H1 Q) u) O0 }; {
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- R6 _. j+ ?& p& z! z2 bFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! g# T O# Y# E% @# c7 J
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other$ e+ M- ^7 m& z t& p9 i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
" a, O, m, ~, h8 R/ \- M, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this9 `( S! H' |1 O" ?2 n* V2 U+ o
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 O; k- {% y) b) a+ ^+ _' vfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam6 L3 W8 f( w2 V% y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
" C2 @# n/ [4 q0 c; Q2 Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 O( S. ]3 D* q% ]% s+ C
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 }1 S/ F4 c! _. C, e! a- E; E
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- l& x% D ]+ ` g0 Jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.933 f f9 |6 B: v8 A$ S
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" l2 g1 S" K# e; p" r3 G), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& `# C ?- a4 t& S, X3 d
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
1 B Z! J% ^3 e' y/ m6 m& ]Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind% e3 R" u" f2 y- P! b# k
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
. `4 r, l' l' m( ulogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
2 h4 h( A7 {1 Yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! t2 z7 W6 D/ W# Eworks.' C" X% ?& @+ J, x% d- v, o
6 U+ P$ q ^( y: N4 u' v8 Q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 P" _; m" C6 F6 x+ G/ K
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% r0 d2 ~& D' s) qkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that {2 T; u7 ^. W- Z" t4 a# C3 R
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific) ~, ^& _$ D$ T8 `& V8 y6 O. E
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, x$ S( n- f- }9 E4 y* _- Creviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 {' p5 v/ y' A# b$ U6 o
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
# W m N" ?$ P5 G; t7 z Idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
+ q% `, Y' N, P; dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
( d; M' j) |/ E/ q( C ?& his found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, q) U1 d( z% M9 Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 j: O+ A; k$ j5 X6 q9 kwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
3 _3 D: \4 G$ t. ^8 V& G# s! u: Padvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
9 i* \' J* A z! K, Kpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not) l v3 y4 Y. Z2 z* w6 N4 z
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation9 W) Q- N) [8 W. q, X& j$ n. B$ ~. B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. m$ \+ B, U- T$ X
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
: Z2 I! m: Y6 d% vbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: Q' p9 q! E/ c& n
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
h3 z3 J; o( F) [) K8 Hhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a! n6 [' u% D: e7 J2 J0 x
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% [" x& U' t- x; t' R' C
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& ~* ~, S( D' U u* @, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is. U4 F5 i8 v3 I
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an! V7 l, x" u# g# K/ e U3 _) z
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. n r( L* r0 _6 X
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 H) K& a! V! i4 x0 M
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping. p+ F: e N5 I
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
. u/ V8 {) S# H- keight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.1 E6 B* Y& q' ?& R' |: S8 x1 _5 s
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?# w- |$ p( ]8 X# }1 J, l8 A1 V
; A! C6 n4 b( E& v7 J |: I
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of- m, j6 p, |) Y0 u) q4 D
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
% Y2 q3 Z) P4 p# J% e& q5 E. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for G: R/ w) i* i8 |; m O
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London5 }. B& J! V6 N6 p& {: G
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for! h: v) g( s; {$ d: G
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% I/ a& n$ Q& ?, K& L. b) S+ s' Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope* ?2 l. n6 ]: n' S7 Q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" ^# m5 Y0 q+ ?- q. g! }* B
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& ]' [, I( D$ ?3 Y2 U/ k$ t8 {
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.' p4 d& _" v+ K+ B
8 l0 O0 ~8 G0 w2 DOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: _! G @8 q3 P/ Dintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
% k2 F+ K6 O0 bsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a/ s4 L) N7 y& j
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
/ N, o, V; Z q" Y2 G3 f2 N3 n' | ^all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' u5 Q& @& J9 O$ uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
) k4 ~1 w, N9 H4 r& Uexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
: u, y; y2 W1 D' {' n" o margument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal" t) k( v }/ n0 |* ?; l# h) \ u8 a
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 ^$ a- i/ P3 z% Greporting should be done. |
|