 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( ~; `4 }$ ?如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 M! e# z ^4 h- i# m$ @
$ s ]/ B% m* Y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( D; W6 x8 o, V0 H
* D; ^# e* y7 }5 IFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 [! z8 C7 f; o. [
; _. n* c# `% S+ a7 gIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself( ?5 u2 p& D% T5 [" h# ]
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 U# P' j1 Q4 w. [# }/ D! O/ Smagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" b" U* I; a- z: d# _8 eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# K3 ^' T8 A' T/ Z, Nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general# `( E: Z2 l4 U0 `/ N2 E9 X! a
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors! t2 d2 L6 {( R& D
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- ~: ]- D* ]+ W; ^ H
which they blatantly failed to do.
1 T Z$ P, [9 X/ o: n5 j7 R9 a3 U8 @- y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
( q$ _" T( H0 ]: Y# e- |Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 _; y1 l W( m
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* f7 o& M- A4 N& {anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: ]& D6 b# g/ n5 m1 L5 w: Apersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an. Y% g: S2 R3 l5 ?* O, C3 z+ D3 v# b
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the* ^% H$ J# R3 v2 Z
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
& _# T. p9 e8 qbe treated as 7 s.
( S/ V1 W2 e) [ ~* u' B0 ^) N$ _; b
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ q4 A+ D' q4 f/ Bstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, c2 x: F# L/ K
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
4 q1 r8 @; a q3 rAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: |% @; ]5 Z7 U5 j2 d/ c+ p; N-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" g* h) x' G' E' ZFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 I/ k! q8 S- {* z W5 helite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
# m5 P) {9 f5 B. A% xpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”9 a* b) @' j8 n# _
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 f: |5 M. S _2 L) |, T( A0 m# y% d5 j' X
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 L3 z' ?& t- b* Q8 uexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 p; ]8 e5 D) O$ v5 b! h
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! @. ~- `; _5 k/ a5 U
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later' J) n, o- u, |; ^
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 g; n& S, Y8 d, |" g% _best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ P3 r4 R v4 b5 P7 ?2 @
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* c' m+ }% N% _: l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other+ F* A" q( M% I. m9 U3 b# F4 v
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle% O% b' ~0 O, K& z9 |5 N% ^2 d
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
4 V* i0 [1 j! L# j$ c* jstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
$ x: z* q2 a3 [5 Zfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam3 T( R* C# t% Y$ V
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) I1 W$ ~& s6 M( vaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- _ n2 ~( {1 M# T* X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 _. ~( D1 o- I4 `6 n9 s; {0 G& l- ?1 ]
1 h% C) g6 Z1 w5 n8 ?8 ?4 r, P1 z) nFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
}6 X0 K( I" A7 k4 j' W% G: A9 xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93- p o, j, \" W- W
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: D. h, F0 w$ L8 m
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
! m; Q- D5 R" Sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
0 M1 v* |* t) E4 O) V2 `) aLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind5 N9 o8 |9 B! T, T, |/ t" i- b
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' l! M# U0 l9 Z4 S: k
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in4 e" y1 F; u; d# h# w/ V: v4 o
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% u9 a& Q! v/ j' S0 t" Jworks.
8 h' x8 n& j4 ~4 O- P
4 d$ g. e/ p# k( |( [6 B. CFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and; I! R& i" l J0 a, F' \- o/ I
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 A8 B# j1 x+ ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 M/ J- S4 X; u2 \# _
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific( F% s9 [6 P/ u7 u9 T* s! q9 Q+ w
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# T' z+ k0 D* P+ M* L- w: ]
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& K1 ?: C2 U7 Y L+ H
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to0 {' T! U" r' l/ B
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) g* K8 E' ~9 @/ C# `9 _; A- g4 X
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
. z; \. S" }; E- o% iis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is$ z( C d0 p7 }& }6 h# m4 j, s
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 R. n( J$ Q( Pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly" e* Y: s8 a' n, [; K5 X; L, w
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the) |- U3 J5 W4 \' I2 D- c: }
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 }/ P I/ \3 r
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# ^! @( O* j8 \! `1 @& |& G0 E
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 v0 ^" r2 u& [: G& P; u7 t
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may8 b( D# C6 f+ k# y( r) ~' s
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a6 W& U3 D' s; h; ^1 P: M7 i
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye9 N$ w1 @1 M! J* t8 K9 M1 {2 y! E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 m# d7 L' K: e e9 M: q" X# l
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
1 |" @ d2 _- _% I" K Tother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
2 p# f6 z6 D4 X) }/ p! w7 J, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) ^- n! J% H3 k; u' a% h- qprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: s% x) g$ B% @9 h0 g- @athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight5 M% \) A' E* o7 L
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 V$ C9 a( V5 i0 O J ~
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
/ l! J0 p; @. V' {agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for/ {- }2 t. }5 d
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances. N& S; M$ p* s
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
+ |1 R) W8 P; P9 I. X, v; g( O8 A& K8 A' q" z+ V0 a3 {- j8 n
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-: ~: ]0 ?, ]6 ~, z6 j1 c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
) D6 w+ j% \0 |) _: _6 q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for0 W! P* n5 g G, q
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
! s+ D% f x9 p" r. FOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; k+ j5 w0 Y1 a9 Hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
+ P# c' m Y( ?5 ~games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
, E6 h& d" i0 c" b/ y; d) bhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- J+ U3 D$ h3 y* d7 @' u
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this8 M5 u2 i& x( F
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
7 x) D% Y+ B3 p6 P s: h; x, C R2 g; d1 z) [. ?5 Q
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ j& k* @( D6 n2 `8 kintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
- Y$ Q9 \# H( P( y9 ysuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a }+ Z- {9 u6 E. a! |8 p' j
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( B2 A( }+ ~2 v3 Y/ |5 Yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ \$ h1 ]$ b0 |7 O% x* x; `+ ]6 W
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
* s0 o. n0 p' u" L0 ~- \$ m. P& a6 nexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, M+ f8 s; [: R3 R% |0 ]( h' Z) a
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal8 r s% \9 Z2 x6 y8 t, D* `
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 y7 e' O: U6 H7 `4 C# y4 c* Ereporting should be done. |
|