 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 JIANG3 h8 M" u% K& V) i9 E2 K2 r$ f3 I! d
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 e9 V V. n+ e9 w7 a
7 h) b$ V- v' \& t% c2 j& ], E; t7 ?http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
* {9 u4 ^, {1 v' M$ }+ T; M4 O, _/ j: r5 M
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
6 b: C7 p( n. \2 n0 I+ {
7 Y3 @: o3 N4 S% \4 ^It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
9 {: [1 ^" C- O+ q% m9 g/ d, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
' l) b! I# `( w3 K; V5 n2 h6 s8 Dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this! A: ]2 c/ e1 O* B8 v% x2 b
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
% y( g# D& f' r( b, W: F, Pscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general7 G1 f! K4 o, v' j
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
& q7 H& j7 \5 B4 R7 Eshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
; q) }) K. j" f0 T2 Iwhich they blatantly failed to do.
4 J' p6 E2 `% W5 V8 V/ A9 z* x. K' {# m: v
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% t J+ D7 Z' bOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in d4 U+ u6 d! W) Q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 L( K3 n2 @, R4 `# @4 v6 o' xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
5 z" `/ F- Q# e7 z. c/ \personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
+ s. B# j8 ^! vimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
& g6 o3 q6 Y$ Hdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
/ X4 C. q9 j+ {be treated as 7 s.0 J6 S3 E9 s5 [" {. n- L) k; n# o
6 }6 T) B- q5 ~; O ASecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 D2 P- V7 n6 dstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
S6 v0 N) `# Rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
2 {+ b. n/ U2 c7 ?; q" J' A& MAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# @- ]! A" N* v* c ?+ T# S9 I
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
, l6 P- i) k1 _For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( h% ^" p# H) l9 R) melite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
% g* Z" I9 A5 @+ h* x1 Y: D6 F6 vpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, [) B0 b! r+ D* N4 W. C kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ n5 U. B% r- ~ c
1 a4 \, O. s8 VThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 n" e6 v, r; Mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
& D5 K9 K( k/ |& e% \6 Y( a2 o2 Athe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
# B8 d, [6 @6 W4 z) G. o6 Ahe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: i1 j( @4 }4 _. @4 X
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% k/ d- q9 g& ?) I" }+ d$ y5 B$ x
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World, P! Z9 I; E5 s! R7 s& g
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another+ J* S( `. S9 n. E& `
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. q2 L, }" w' E6 I& j. k3 e# O
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 T6 o* W% _& ^* ?$ G; h) ?
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- f! Z: ~, i3 [' J! V
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
; u- @; k/ ~( n& H9 n8 L6 w) D% zfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam7 e- c6 H+ |- M4 k
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 r: T, A5 |/ d5 ^- l6 p
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
?. X! h4 l0 T) oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
Z. x5 }* @3 A# t5 V7 \" B# M. a9 A3 q. d0 I e
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are7 W% _6 ^( v7 v% |# [' ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
q9 o% g3 i7 u1 M6 f! J, n* Hs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s" c2 A" W" x5 W( C5 x
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
* b4 B5 {, ?' r6 \! g* Qout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
+ \& n2 t# H0 YLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind2 R$ u$ V7 J/ C) x u* A' B
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, n" Z) M8 @' _
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in+ y# n6 j+ y# C! o0 B/ }1 A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, h: [# Z0 r% ^( U# F
works.7 Q) X) `7 d# t7 |1 r6 L; ?$ r0 l; p
. p7 g" {7 x6 JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- W& r. R$ }) z# k; O
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 j0 x2 `8 Y6 j; t" K9 ?kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that1 i* z3 R6 U; {7 ?
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% W7 G5 F& n; X# Y+ Y, X
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% `$ F/ L' ~) g, ^
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
( T5 Y0 u p2 ~4 q- R- Y5 ]cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to0 Z# m0 g( N& v6 T2 M
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
3 l, E* t5 N+ p% }% y: lto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 [" L& N, E5 ~5 o
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 F1 C9 p: M ?- x9 l- ycrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he- K. T1 |6 C: e5 b' W7 a$ R
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly/ z/ ~* y7 L9 n- y2 D9 R/ k
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the' d% a$ U9 l0 V
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not h7 x' r- `: L0 h) _) h. P, n
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
3 J5 [ @( u8 r+ p: w. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" w Y& l) K2 a2 e- f9 idoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 V7 s* J1 P3 G. L2 P- K: rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& b* x: [( l j
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 G7 u J0 @8 B' L
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
* x( c; B1 c. k9 M* o: z: ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 T$ G1 T; \! X( {+ f ?% d( M4 J
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* I g7 f6 Z4 Y! a+ {! Q
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is1 |; X/ D3 X6 ]. d. @: V
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 C% A9 i- E# t/ \5 Y1 K" O2 w5 ]athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
; W4 x. D, ^+ \0 N2 A5 f! y3 i# U- Qchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 T# P0 Y- F6 Q* f3 C# `. }* E
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& F) L1 N+ U; tagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& d7 b7 E4 z* K# ?eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
Y1 X2 j9 q$ P4 Q$ g0 jInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( x9 q1 f9 j6 a& G
. r1 Y3 J4 S) B- q2 r
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% y7 {) l% b. O. m$ w
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 H5 q$ W. o1 J a& \) g2 @. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, q; N# T1 J" {3 X* w
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London$ Q$ F- s1 P0 {! e7 T. W( a
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
$ f! u. U" h+ @9 J' Ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
" I. B7 w; P+ l- u6 Mgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope& I& V9 ~/ @$ ?- L
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ Z: o' r9 t6 A0 j6 a9 h0 nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this% Q+ A/ r$ a4 j) x# s
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 j: @; x) x p4 l9 U7 Y9 d
& o2 e, p2 E- x0 |. g& [3 l( x" c/ FOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ y9 r7 {2 i+ q2 U# ?
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 Y7 ~8 I5 i# q' ^6 {6 e
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
* s! m% E4 k. b* Rsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' q6 E* V& k" P
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, e, G0 M1 x/ Y4 s! b3 uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,# F; T A& E& q7 l# R- Z
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" f( T. j& o5 `. l7 Targument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( d' H& e6 g2 v) e5 P
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ l9 N" x# \, f+ M9 O0 g+ M' rreporting should be done. |
|