 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: p) d' X4 a9 D% B) }. V
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
$ k* v3 l! Z3 I6 J! B- Q2 C2 v7 f) C9 k
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html2 ?* T, I0 D* e: w1 j# C
p2 P& W0 d o/ ?FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- W8 ~1 ^- i7 y" k9 ^0 @1 x; H+ }2 {$ N1 i+ }* e( y/ I
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself- R: h5 c' _6 R4 j9 @* Z; j0 r
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 Y: R9 a: X3 C( v5 S- C9 E
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this; k) Y/ c6 e- ^ }* ^$ v
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
$ Y& H' i, D: xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general, W( N# W+ X0 k& X
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 u" p' [1 u! ?8 S% H2 _: Yshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 V, Y9 x9 X- Bwhich they blatantly failed to do.3 C0 o/ \# ^# Z" Z/ }
6 V3 m' W6 k6 W3 f( @
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; b5 C7 b: q6 s* kOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
' k" R( v7 Q( Q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
; F. K- Z2 y4 Q) C5 Vanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 ]) o6 F0 i0 Y1 N9 a
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; B: @1 H# ?% X" o
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the# Q t% f- Z) w y2 m7 y
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 u! J% n/ T+ _- x/ A9 o4 l, a* |3 ]5 ?
be treated as 7 s.
; T2 N& P+ A! y) Z' h8 ]3 K g U0 a0 [0 [. X. m
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is% c e/ {5 p' m6 E2 I S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* b. A, G( ?0 A K+ s5 B; N5 \) ]impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.5 v ]% Y8 p7 a7 `
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
7 s- d% Q6 a6 t: _-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.( p, X# J# x% I/ X
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ Q1 |0 P$ ~+ M2 m C1 c- I6 ~' L
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
2 D1 J( n3 x; ~& i8 ]1 X. P( M% Bpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
6 i. }6 `7 K4 e. }8 Cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
. x( Q5 _7 r* ?
9 C& E3 H! [* l7 i! c# f. S- }' YThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ u u) b2 U2 q9 f8 Y( Y( E6 pexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
$ b( C8 T- w- C) R6 Y- v( |+ Lthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so( a' [( i0 v/ M7 i" M
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; K3 X# ^. A4 z4 t1 zevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" v( y4 U4 X4 {8 V& t% x' nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 U% h) k6 P: k' F/ a J
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% n8 o! [) k, D" P7 A0 l0 ]1 }
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other3 e$ E, I6 Z) ^, b- c, _% W) h
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle# x- S4 [1 }. q9 c2 |" X/ c" {( k, M
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
3 F- O5 V1 z+ b Fstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds }8 P$ e* N# o; Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
& ]- M8 K) e* f9 v- p( f: Kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting p% D" r/ N+ b+ g
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# N1 u. r% t" ^/ c9 x* j
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.0 S1 Q/ }& [* `; c2 s- d9 P8 J3 v& Y
T1 G2 I" H& x6 l9 p2 N$ Q" }Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
$ G a. Z: Z5 ^, a; j. b) |' jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93# o+ M5 l& m8 e* z# L" U3 S
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s4 K+ p, b9 Q$ t- d/ n# z
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- T3 o/ }8 j+ }8 ~, bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) U5 U5 F+ X$ ^* u- H+ t% a. T# ]
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- P) R0 Q2 Y( B) H: W ?$ R: [/ ?2 a
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ L1 z* b; D$ s0 xlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 k M1 |1 L( y* ~; g( U
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science5 Q6 f& ` @5 h2 w
works.
- v$ _. x7 a. f8 P5 v7 q! q6 _% J% N& U" z
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( E% [. P. Y5 @2 M, ~' v9 b. y/ simplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' g; U. V$ i4 {9 _8 m
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
- X. Y8 ~- G6 o4 P/ y0 tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific) ^: [% ]) D" ^ A0 X
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and. A6 Z* j0 |1 w( j9 ~- D1 u b7 K
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One5 n& W% r6 t% P9 a9 K/ L$ V4 T2 f
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& }8 d8 k# W1 {4 T- ?$ [demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
) L, b' V e$ Ato a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample- r6 p6 }( N$ F- `5 y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is% Z0 u2 N9 X' ~8 P; Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 _- y# Q) A! ~: c3 [. F5 Z/ {wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 x8 X' ]5 u& p$ zadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
2 T7 _& b0 D B6 E8 epast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 J, O7 W5 N* T; ?
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, F7 J1 q7 @/ V8 @0 t7 H# A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
. N0 W" D; l. Q( I% r, q3 Rdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 g- c, P( C" b' xbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& M4 s9 {. V* a+ T2 d
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
: y( b9 I# i( c1 N; l; R* l5 B) ghas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# H; s8 Y$ @- [7 f
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
, L3 f! M$ n8 kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect$ [" Z! n4 z- y. F
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& f$ Q8 J1 B n, L
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an$ I2 L( i. Z& P9 l
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 j# N, U8 q0 i8 w, |
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
6 }9 ^1 J2 y8 U0 E3 K( y+ ALet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping7 D( P5 ~3 _0 e8 ?' k4 |: b
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# c6 ?3 T+ w0 a
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! r4 [" P5 R2 C* f" `
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
1 v8 h& D; ]+ `/ W" F
_( g1 H2 @, H) n& xSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
: W5 t/ @, m2 h$ d/ @competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
7 u, M: Z8 ]4 f& j! l* z9 y. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& [ h$ E2 H7 `$ D! g6 ]4 N+ M
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; f5 b5 u3 p: o6 M
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for# \' u( R( P/ A# L$ k
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic) O! I; \- r* }$ c: F
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
: h# S7 r% [1 [6 }have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. b- f+ i+ Z9 E* O# wplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this( D4 ?8 @, }% h2 v" m
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 A- Q0 m9 A- {5 ?
, v! x7 V4 q: u9 [# r4 VOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- g, n2 d1 ~* C9 Jintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
2 t' B8 T7 }/ p7 ^4 J4 Esuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ W# L) s6 Q+ d. n: a. G1 H( M$ O/ xsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide- G v) H! W4 l! H
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) x: y5 y: s& s1 R# ]6 H4 V
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ c2 h. B: e2 B6 ]explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your2 d# ~/ t5 I! s
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! E* w2 h" ~2 _" Psuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' ?+ [' k! y: X9 h+ U
reporting should be done. |
|