 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 k* a# b6 A; a* v! e, X
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# P$ V+ u5 @3 q! T+ Z
: k J6 H0 }: q% G: R$ q( j- D9 Nhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 x8 J4 b. p7 J, r1 O, F$ y7 t
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& k' b8 E/ p h1 i" I
5 f4 q0 i' E8 a: |It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself! T* A. ~; x* H1 i
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
4 S- J1 T- [$ B8 w* Y5 g3 c( _magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ @2 j! w* t$ B5 x" \ {$ e
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the0 N8 p+ e% v# S' \6 K2 a, h$ P
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 P, }8 B: {6 ~' ]3 [populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors- g" C- `9 d2 a3 e$ o6 j
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,1 G0 ?% i A0 Y1 ~& e6 o, }
which they blatantly failed to do.0 V6 \: [4 [: T2 y, b# f% W; i
1 I7 _3 M3 \; a1 x0 y) x
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
4 N( \, s, u9 q( i hOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
) ~" |% V2 L3 {) E0 G' F2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
! A5 t9 i" {. Y9 S) ~5 }+ C- R/ t: ?anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 n N; T4 R$ e7 L' ?( U5 I$ x+ Npersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; K+ j8 L2 M$ E3 Q# E$ S" a B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the5 V1 p3 g" I8 a/ y) }
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* {. G+ h' t6 D1 ]" h7 `- r9 cbe treated as 7 s.
# t2 C, K1 v4 `8 B; `# O! S
% R# t4 J( O+ u# i$ S+ e, L0 oSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
, z b# r4 f8 e' W0 G) W! f1 Xstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
% C0 [9 `1 x: K0 x% }1 U" ?' K4 ximpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ y9 H( h' h7 P6 e5 k, `) J
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: n" h: e" V; g" }- O+ J7 |-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ _8 w: q: z& g3 u4 E) N
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# C: V& U! k; w# g2 k( A; [' I2 Zelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
! [0 Q @2 ^) C8 ?/ s7 i( o; Kpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" O" O) p* U( G6 R& Q! X6 I$ {
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- o |) C/ V7 d. f
& K, \/ ?5 T* Y% ~! a' G4 NThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* ]& g( ^7 g% s3 x/ }$ l2 t3 Z: z' Jexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ M, P! d3 h% j8 E! l
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, \$ ^7 j& I6 j+ M7 o
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- |/ d% T* Z/ b }# j2 n9 n4 C3 {0 U( _
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 u* m) }. c9 z5 r2 v" a
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World' q. M( W3 H& T3 h" H$ q
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- c1 \$ P- I' J1 y0 k9 E
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
( S3 S0 I+ R0 l8 @hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 M6 n) ?- C1 M% w b, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 ^2 Y/ u' i8 B, @& Ystrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
}8 v# x( n4 g) \+ Kfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam' q2 l# K- [; [7 G, S1 ^
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% D3 k5 E( U K1 L! L1 V4 M8 n. Laside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 X+ H4 |- F2 ~- D* \! \implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 P5 m3 ^. N! h4 f) u% x
6 E5 c; r1 b6 \! ^* n
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; Q; U5 p6 C. r3 s' J- m5 ~& K* Cfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 ?/ P- S9 {7 Es) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. M8 ]2 U5 f. q' B
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns' w: n+ n7 W* K" F" L
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
q' |6 h% b: I# E) cLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- C+ U7 C$ M: W0 r9 ]& `
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it z' s. X4 m9 }* o4 `3 z6 A
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in$ k. m+ t, A2 K" v( l
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 h1 F$ ^3 g3 B* L; ]3 _) s& Vworks.
_3 L. N, A/ Z: u& M, m7 o( Y( K$ p& T) L+ |! p/ R
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and$ h5 z* k" T0 T* |$ H
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this: T( N0 K. W! Z( G* U% [' z
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that" L' L- v/ R0 @$ A7 ?. F# k% L5 ]
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
3 Z1 f* Y+ e2 X* Vpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 U- N2 H3 `' F; O. }reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
. z+ N7 }; C. U5 {+ z! |5 _cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 {2 i) u8 L$ ademonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
$ z2 j6 I+ F" k: A9 d8 v7 [0 hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( v/ R' e& t0 M& [$ l6 N& d: U
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
0 T" i0 q9 m" `6 p, }- B8 ~crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
. w3 f3 p4 j& Mwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: `; c# v0 `* m) P( l2 h
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ e' H8 V6 d/ H: Xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
9 b0 Y1 T( g2 I$ suse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 V+ b; ?: E3 v8 T6 D7 I. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are# ~) P: V4 i" j+ l1 i& z1 w; A/ z
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* L, `+ `! i4 |" k) W
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 F6 c! d7 [1 L3 N8 e0 G) R
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye3 L% t5 U. m ~9 @! \2 |0 L
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" ~1 o. N6 Q% a1 e9 t
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* G+ X" C# u, [$ @7 Y8 z7 P
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# n0 i) h8 H! k; n) q! ^ |, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is" _; b0 c, K" h# Z" u; X) U7 b
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% I' O$ d) P$ I. \- V5 k; B0 @1 i
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight1 B% r+ g- m( X/ V: m; F
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* S, @9 `# K' B( c) Z$ R* Y; ]* }Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping# T7 _3 m. U6 Q. i/ b3 m- M
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for, q( V# n$ T! y7 t
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' ~: [- s }5 P: E6 Z; |4 O9 v& F8 \Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
7 w! ?$ |( o7 r9 ?. ]( f
# y; Z& y& w3 `9 a5 PSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-7 v: u) v# { E/ Q! Z& x
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. x1 V: E G6 F2 S. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
0 e' r# }8 {! a) [" j) ~, o# _% XOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* h- c$ d1 `- t* P, U. p7 aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 N/ C( X5 k; pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 o& v8 t4 n* n# p1 c6 rgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” — those who did dope* j5 A; q3 D: o$ c! c
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
$ i# A- j* }: A8 ]$ I, n" iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this L. l# I6 e+ q6 E3 H$ x: {1 D( w
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
3 g5 Y. t* n% }. P& J: V
' D S3 ~3 z% u4 p6 G4 t- H! sOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
6 c, i! L6 z* Sintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too {0 C# P/ o7 Z4 d' R' s1 G2 K
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' q+ {; m ~8 t1 Q3 esuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 a H k# Y: h' qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 G" ~0 B# P( u1 f$ P. T. p) P# X
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ o. B# q# V" {& Q4 J4 ^explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your0 a2 T. N2 m+ F* B0 V$ s% A
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 L4 v5 g" n8 d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or3 {! [) w7 k( K# l8 L
reporting should be done. |
|