 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 JIANG2 v/ H) u5 U# J) S
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。% e, m1 A) }+ P0 z8 t
. \4 P& x( e* v3 Q4 @3 [
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
$ |; j' @2 X0 e
. F7 p: k, b4 qFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# b: _1 }# Q" o* K+ C1 K) \. Z3 N( J* J ?+ J2 a7 O' @4 V
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself( q: \( A o' S- s
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 B6 X9 v) R% W' s, N$ l1 S
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this( y8 q- D R5 y9 H3 M3 ]" w
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
2 n- T7 z$ q6 q0 L7 {) }scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general; O- f: ?: `7 F
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' v$ J" U$ t) U- j& Y- T, ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
6 M* c: F% r' }6 G, c* y7 D: ]! k, \which they blatantly failed to do.
: W5 v8 S+ f0 ^; i$ f5 w# c8 R& g3 R
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. S5 f, l( N2 U/ Q
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in) O# z& I0 @/ d }: r
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ B8 {+ d4 T. Q+ hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 Q$ ]4 G) \( q( j. M, m0 {' fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ n( o" a/ r+ {+ W) b9 [0 Q, s" oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& z$ }1 o2 ^0 |) p, q7 q
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 V+ H6 N0 H! G; q: t( \- _) P
be treated as 7 s.. |3 v- Q1 ?' t3 h9 e- n+ _
( C- r: ?1 n S8 x5 @
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! H6 Z5 M, B9 n% \/ y* rstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ |! q0 z9 y G* v: v
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.1 [) O: S$ d% J E
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4007 T8 H# Y z2 S9 A
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( C( T' A2 D0 y# y/ G0 s* v# v3 GFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
* F: D; Z7 z* `+ K6 P, p8 y& @elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 P& F, [8 Z1 ]/ f: jpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
. h7 l' R- J( obased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* E" u) i' b! ]: ~
: c! ]0 [2 O, e! }5 [5 l/ s# ^( VThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 ?% \) h0 I. m; O; N$ g. y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in; G1 u. H J& W! s" s
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
1 }3 ` N* Y1 D6 L. t6 vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
7 s/ G% ~1 W: S+ K& R* Eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 I, T% x/ Y# k* D8 G
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World5 \3 A# k0 X" X3 C
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% m8 {" o& a9 ?! otopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other! e0 G3 N: R% C N+ H, k8 d
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle6 \! E) Y5 l: c! {
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- }* y! Q( X( D1 lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 ]7 s! }. m3 G+ R7 e4 ^- @
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 T: Y$ z/ j9 Tfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 ^8 c& L% w2 o) Aaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% v5 t* i; s* W k9 vimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
' H5 ^: Z8 E4 @) i$ L2 m$ F. ^0 o$ N* `
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are- Y1 n! i1 g& w' ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
6 o( x, z* t E/ R% B0 Y9 Ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
; A& D5 v, r( n/ [' r), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ r* u& L" M8 t
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,$ a, M$ p- [ L; u, G- B
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind* g; O- T3 ?+ o2 R) H, b0 i& ^
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 p% A& Y5 W: F
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; n4 i/ [. p3 _$ @4 W* z. R, bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* T8 A' d2 I9 v" M6 i7 a6 E/ rworks.9 ]/ H: x8 |+ h1 I1 U) c
5 U* A6 J/ s6 b. a% t2 _# P4 cFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 ]6 ^+ w+ d x! {% Z: j4 `implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
; _* m7 _- S7 v* Xkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that1 N; T9 p( v. z3 [: n
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! N4 \; }9 R& Opapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
" n+ e/ q6 h' W& ]. J% q8 i6 W2 Vreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- p1 {! x5 L: R6 Q; O. O4 U% A! k( ]
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" v. y" z+ T5 \5 m G
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
: o7 U; k" s* j2 a2 c3 D0 @) Fto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample# z+ h7 s) L" c! R
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
* ]. @4 Q* L- t. x- }: L& bcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ O6 E; g* K# Z- o# M: Y
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly& ]' A5 g9 J6 T6 O1 x7 \3 `
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
; m; k. {5 d1 F. B7 Jpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
) Z% M& O+ n6 U( {2 a# y- ~use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 Z4 q1 I/ j" z+ O0 Z( j. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* D% N {6 D7 w; C
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
4 X5 E1 u i5 Y! r8 _$ K; d* Nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- M2 y9 E0 d; G3 J2 }6 A; E# z$ X
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
; P4 u+ G3 m& v+ p% _/ Ehas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) I+ X! I% {0 [6 ?$ @3 D B% X
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& ` i+ S& W6 K! Q+ G( kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( F( R5 X3 |+ ]- O& H
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
0 c% `+ S* X' Z4 ~; p- Sprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% ]4 _- q, a4 d0 c @
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 D" x9 ?! h0 ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( P- O( H- {: l* k- @5 r( P7 S9 tLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
* t! R' Y. x' q4 g7 Z- O! A# Dagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for! L6 o5 x3 k+ {! k' s
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances. D2 M; E0 D q
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. m: ~2 _) Y4 X6 V
0 Q% d, ~8 W/ M5 VSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
- }$ q$ ~+ z( r8 K, qcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention# ?% r+ ?3 ?! D H. C5 Q \! P) k
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for5 F7 @3 ~. d/ M+ W6 \
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
8 P( c* B9 o+ G, c* B6 ]1 N/ C- q1 ZOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
7 V* e$ x2 R: w0 adoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' u. B& }% u4 D
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope
9 ~2 \+ R* Z5 M6 fhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" Q! O' _2 D& A
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
) w7 s# J0 L" a1 Apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
# ^# U* A9 P4 E: p: g: t6 g8 W- j* L, k* x
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: w- W" E6 n1 _0 }# H
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 c7 V/ L. Y2 i+ ?9 Lsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
+ A$ H# g7 K8 i, `/ T3 ~suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 z; c9 B; {( lall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your$ P) L' n* [, U) R
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 I, X% S- B' Y
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
2 ~, {8 J2 V1 |6 r+ {argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! Z2 z# y: y& G, i" U) q9 jsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or; N; [" A( Z3 o7 v: ?
reporting should be done. |
|