 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
6 k. @5 X( a i/ _如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 P' g0 Q+ S0 r6 t* \) m1 v7 ~
1 M5 F8 K: L* c7 ~: E1 Q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html N/ ?* P$ }% p% K' U
- D0 m# f. w! w: u5 |3 FFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 G& g4 X( U# U' i
; P# K4 L$ d# Q( LIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself6 P4 A1 U, w9 a3 K5 d: K5 |" f
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
, \8 G- F# y; q' Mmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, A) g0 d! ?( M' H) y( I9 M
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' [% p! z1 ], G9 b0 W
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
. }3 s$ N+ _, K# [' f$ q! [, L2 [populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors# x; L3 R9 T, J% n0 x6 I$ w
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 F) p1 t( o! _3 Lwhich they blatantly failed to do.9 G) _% s# y3 G/ p
" I% Z* Z9 T, i: X" F1 `* N3 rFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 X7 G: t2 Y$ K; Q3 o q! v+ k r3 gOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 r. U" Q% g( R: X0 p2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “ A: E+ p$ q* u+ N. s/ j" _6 p
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ ~+ \' {0 p1 Q$ F# y
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
0 R& \: `9 P/ M# B5 z( W) Kimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
5 ^5 L8 u6 {; ^3 m. Y. `" c+ idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to; V) y% b& r# \
be treated as 7 s.& Z0 d- H7 a% K
) h3 `0 c. Z" w9 I7 V* mSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is4 V; ?3 K( \7 E& M% X. S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ r5 j, G0 Q- U9 W& \0 T
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
' |' d* ]" l. E0 |! o3 K# mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
$ }7 U" y& X! V2 R" w-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
; N, j9 T' D/ c& FFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an. D* [4 |6 U2 N; ]! M1 E
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 w/ ], C; s/ M' k5 s! |persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
8 p1 }' G$ p* y8 M) gbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.( N: X4 N' V5 X! ~/ }/ M. `
" v0 U6 z J7 ^( N7 M o' qThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
: X' A. z. d9 V6 H% Mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in# M t. m9 Y0 h3 o# Y, b& W
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ @; X8 ^% q- \ y5 a/ J& ^1 Nhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later! ?) F% `5 X- O; y4 `) {
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s9 Y' {. \6 ^- [& @& k
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World' z: J7 }$ m4 s9 x# u4 {" ]. p+ D3 V" {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 Q" Y/ |% V2 `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other! n8 m" I0 Z5 _; m7 i/ k
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 o1 p6 w5 w+ v& t- ` Y7 S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
9 N3 x0 v8 e3 A9 kstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 u, ] l7 ~6 F/ Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. _& q$ M9 }2 k8 q& B! L* M
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting7 }& T! c- U6 x0 g
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
$ {. [ C) t$ d/ m; H1 ]+ Yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ g8 w, [. W& Y' C1 N# y0 L* d" @# O. f* A1 k! D8 z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' M/ E2 [0 E/ p( M; R0 w. A% ?# G
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93# J5 `5 @ `# Y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s% M% E, L2 S3 c/ R' Z" \0 D
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. Y. y! K o) a" v9 a& Jout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ s: a; r/ `0 ?5 Y7 K+ D& [
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
d! H: R- H/ nof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 u6 R% K {/ ~: E$ D$ m4 S d
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& Y/ L3 i3 V. G1 L# f( E, s
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science& U# {4 Q! @5 E: N* J( _0 x
works.
; J1 d1 D2 B# J5 y9 m
" j9 C# ]6 f9 }7 h/ k2 P$ P: }/ ?Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 T/ Q4 K. j+ D' M$ }0 p
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this0 O0 }3 d2 g. y9 N5 _
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. A$ J! w0 ~1 Y$ x9 J( _7 dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 ^3 q, r$ o- \3 [
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ f) f1 {' Y& ~* T. M1 M) Kreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One V! g7 X) f9 y! n: c
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 _! O6 E3 z. w8 ~& Fdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
8 X. ?; ?# d1 n. oto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 ^7 a. g& i q3 }2 [is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
- v1 T& ?% T3 m4 ?- Ocrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
: G6 T( {6 N) Ywrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly# P" S" ^+ ?& i
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 {! H/ R5 f+ ^, xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 ~( {1 |' B! y- d+ |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
5 o9 X! k% @4 g$ u! K. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are5 g$ |7 M5 [) Z) o x2 o* D' C
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
1 F- b' `' R" }be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 V/ s* t' ]% B* Q& t/ K
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
! P7 h+ U. G6 w+ W7 d$ l' H: ehas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ @6 i3 g. y2 e) [% D* m
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:' S6 ]9 s# R, G6 ~ ?
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
" e" w/ L" a4 ?* s2 ?% z" I, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is) m9 X+ G) i6 v. Q
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an' U& S# M7 l) I, Z2 i) P V: \
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 }: r8 W+ M0 }$ n# jchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- T! ?8 b$ v0 b7 w4 _
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
H$ d" k9 K+ B. c" Y" Y. o' b8 Z$ }* p7 Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
- x* H/ Q1 N3 _+ O# w9 F; veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) I$ h7 z5 b2 D1 v) a7 SInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
" B/ e+ b8 [0 @8 L) B6 R1 o4 F$ h
' f+ j5 j* k; Q- @8 `2 pSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of- @$ O- l7 p5 z: U
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
+ Q# R/ E. _' V2 _+ y4 F. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# x; V, x: O8 U# T6 D6 Y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
$ s! I* C j# W1 J" b8 ~Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
/ |- d; T; ]/ k" Q/ tdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic, ?$ L5 {- G @& c
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope( c3 c( d0 C- J! G; a6 H
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' P8 m: |% k! w u) T% b# zplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
1 [8 n) f+ |2 O# z. y; _1 |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ k+ R3 D5 E% p9 W/ ^* L( r8 X6 ~) ~, j' M0 f6 c
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- K7 _6 @+ _2 o O$ X7 ?
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 ^3 `2 X- m+ g- Y P
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 D2 G5 N( j I7 l, `suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' w& N `3 C& N1 hall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 R" x1 ]7 F# I+ ]
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 K6 }0 w7 _2 ?$ R5 ~
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
6 Y- C5 Q% ]/ q/ k! U9 y2 |argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 p, `7 [5 \: K! d3 ]
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
: R/ H3 U+ _( h* V- mreporting should be done. |
|