 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; O) C1 Z7 k( o9 D
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# b0 b( {( {( s: C5 B3 R( X5 X4 J0 ?. U& U
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html8 q. e: v0 H5 c0 o7 _
" z9 q/ b. r3 z& E- }! ~1 NFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania1 u& A4 |/ v1 @
. w5 }" }( B7 d# l) A6 r
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. Z5 h8 @9 a2 m( J* A: d4 }
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
; G9 C7 k( l; c) G6 C$ g& Wmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this1 T$ u5 A; f8 A
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( [2 z9 ?( T% S. s2 \9 e& R p4 Ascrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 \1 i& v z' n" M' o! Apopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors- R2 v: y3 x' `4 Q* B0 v: Q, y# @
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
5 E" y/ q) |) l: wwhich they blatantly failed to do.
% m9 {, O. q3 N P
- g5 n. W) P0 ~2 g( @First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
' {9 f- }1 \/ N1 m) q9 eOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in, G/ G+ y) u2 {7 W: P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ @+ |0 g4 j# c: N
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( w0 K) _$ W1 V; Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
" z) Y9 v1 ~4 r5 y3 U* Oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
2 h1 e; k1 W/ ?, N1 _0 edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to0 b) U) W5 N8 l* O( [ S' i' `
be treated as 7 s.% p4 d0 C, H4 ~9 o0 }: o
& v6 o9 Q" m* f5 O6 H
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
[! {( {3 \& L0 A6 jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
/ m" P7 D% ]) f- J: R7 |impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.0 P* b4 e6 r, D- l$ c( S
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
4 a* K1 t! l1 N( |; ?- s1 ?7 O-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.& m5 X0 e8 w9 n. F) V- q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* ?, e. M- R) ], ]# K
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ f/ Q& e }' V5 z' i4 n1 ]( o1 i3 apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
( w; j+ ]8 t5 H3 ^( r5 Q; G* R M6 Qbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.. G. Y9 e& D1 I2 c1 m7 L
5 ]; s/ Q& J. s! F# T* MThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ n1 v" ]- Q; c; a$ zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 _7 X) O8 c# ^& ^( ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
- t! H2 a5 ~. E2 B& _he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; k- J/ i0 D; g. Z- p" m2 devents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s# b6 T8 s" N5 W/ u6 c8 g" Q
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. D) G9 r* E* o; \
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! _. t1 X! b7 z3 i$ b% h# g
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other8 g* r. p' w% k6 k* Q# }* V+ Q
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle& {3 T8 Q0 l4 d
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% K X) S7 f! z% d! Y& ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds, `, k$ _5 j5 U7 S
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam2 m3 T( I+ [) Y; Y: o& L# S1 L
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 }$ @& a- g) d ^aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' |6 a7 f( P1 [! E8 m1 F4 Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.( K5 h* u9 ^2 O7 a3 t6 V* b# ^( O6 \% j
; X$ u0 o6 A+ A$ vFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are8 g! |, V \- T1 ~, {
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 U5 }4 [& H w, ^8 P0 Bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ E7 D" W, y4 a
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns$ c. B# _9 o* J |! u+ V
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,4 s, y* M0 a: Z) s
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: j5 S$ ?. X3 j; n& W6 H
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
0 V/ f9 K; y& p% \9 M3 V1 B, llogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in' F% Z4 \1 m2 C
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, o% ?" w2 n; f$ H" k1 c8 C3 ?( Vworks.
4 y1 M. A* o) ^) c @7 d" o
; `1 G! h+ G4 _Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, G) y' j- N4 Q4 N+ W) s* [* ^. s
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ ?& |- H' ?, G9 Vkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 w7 O2 P7 S2 s0 Cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific$ b' q; t/ L9 a( V$ ~! c/ T
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 W8 H+ O# K I9 c: \4 Greviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One/ F" W, a% p- B
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. K' L8 Z T, @: T, ^6 }# c! xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% j& k7 l& U( P: n7 r, |9 I8 }3 {
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) a; `* h; U3 ?6 j0 [. W/ V- c
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" i1 R( F7 G8 o, Qcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
3 ^; ~: r, |- J$ ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly2 q _8 r' `; t- K' o w3 A
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
# p4 I2 A+ p4 P# j, rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 z# ]2 C# r W T
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, q1 f- j7 Z U: E1 E3 \
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are9 C) z+ d: I. b( C' m2 g$ Z
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may5 x' {$ k; M0 r( h8 M
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
& D6 y l) ~( N1 F0 l2 Khearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 q2 C7 \) ^+ c2 K1 r) |; chas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 k8 n/ y0 q8 W
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
0 g3 N+ ^5 f; @! d$ ] x4 Q7 qother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect# |7 T$ I+ ?$ K, ?
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
O8 b" Z9 v8 x2 Gprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 r* |7 h7 J0 k1 v
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight y5 `; \ ^& I: c' L& T
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& g+ F9 v; {# K: `. X) rLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping% C+ z! i* {" ]/ D. e7 }
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; X/ @' E: }9 V2 T3 c9 b$ B: Eeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ b% r2 H- u, v: M& E+ x& n5 U3 E
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 J' e5 q3 s# ^8 T0 G
/ x5 d. d. p3 T! V7 g% vSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 w6 T4 O5 t" J8 ]% Z xcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
% d, |! Y6 p! N( @6 C! J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
; p6 ^* |$ Q) ^6 P9 k6 [2 ]Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
) y7 J0 l% n" K* ]Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for, z: @1 V( O+ u0 E8 A. M( J" Z8 T
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic, G# o: q& e4 O; L L) B( }
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
* Q1 D1 U; A& [6 s$ c/ p& ~4 z) Shave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: r$ d" }$ @# w# Y0 n9 w
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
1 g/ p5 n" f: p) ]2 T8 d+ |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ X" o# l( x7 s& F8 }
/ S& M p; _$ H zOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (0 f/ z3 ~# f( F! b2 ~: [! y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too7 V: v- Y7 m; n# T& ~
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a, R Z5 Q8 p, j8 r
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
% _/ r! u: c. P7 O. j Y, oall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your9 Z- l2 u8 a% O5 ` b k' I/ Q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
1 \" |, C4 e6 ], Mexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
8 U) W" `- z9 G) M, E+ Z: Kargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& S$ n! r1 Q7 l' [such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or) s& _. {- K4 W6 B% _, U9 i9 S
reporting should be done. |
|