埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1828|回复: 9

高水平的驳斥

[复制链接]
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
发表于 2012-8-4 09:48 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 : e  {) |: \0 r( z+ K) g9 K

0 A8 D2 U* s' f  c0 K饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# H4 A" N6 v/ e6 S; \& A就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。- D- Q$ O; v: f! x; {4 N
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。, c6 Z7 z! ?! u; |8 s1 W
3 f8 A* e7 F6 }
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
5 f+ r5 l+ Z1 u' H* {% [: c0 T! o$ v% H0 v, N8 G& I& B0 C
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
2 ?; C  ~, z% P" _8 i5 C5 N
) s# }- [: X% Z2 u2 B英文原信附后,大意如下:
* u" G7 `) `6 p# ]1 ?3 [  g! z# B8 r! W6 ^( i, X$ P( [
斐尔,
. H( A8 n. t3 X) {9 H2 Q       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
- u8 ?' a2 S; p/ t" r6 gemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
, b/ V( i* w( ^8 B       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴
; ]9 s8 ~" f, h: r5 A4 h中文读者比世界其他读者更看重你们的新闻报道,与科学相关的(即使关系很小)也可
4 b% `4 F6 N6 b% y' E能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
2 Q5 h. c  @  ~       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
2 @( u. y3 {% \/ H弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
! R7 D: u: x& [4 r3 Z9 R2 t见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负" j9 M2 Y/ ?# B! g$ ^* L- Z
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。
' q+ t6 S' T4 N1 y       我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中,《自然》可能意识到了原副标题的偏见
. O& k4 T8 W3 B& [5 w' j,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问( Z+ J) j( P- I& Q, i
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, G0 I. y/ d, Z9 V& A" `( r" y
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她% y: Q4 Y3 s% Q& T
比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快6 v3 ]8 ^) i6 U1 {" |- @. j4 N
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 l6 ^9 ^# D$ Q; t  l
       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于& n4 e7 B! T% W4 E7 [$ E* h# O
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
% s. D+ r' o8 P# ?3 [合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二& k5 X# {% M" ]! M  f
快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前+ {8 ^! `5 p: M# \5 X. o' l& }, t
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六
& x4 L1 Z, A( c. g' s3 \% Z位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
* u1 S+ Q4 t$ d项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目3 T9 ?! v& S* \( }4 O
。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记  w# x! R0 b7 G+ ^2 T9 _' @( E9 t4 B
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
' N6 L8 c+ o, H' ^# a  T还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件
6 a4 P" P. Q# z1 j- I. A& w1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于8 J- _$ W! L' y  K6 ]! C4 ^0 M! q
Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不3 \) ^1 {- ~$ A
同意见的专家。& k, ?7 C' i; s
你应该收到了"XXX"博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的2 u2 w* S' @$ G& a5 P' T- ?$ L
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大+ _% B( C' u5 |
学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为
& Q( \2 c4 v1 U) P  |. u9 A《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。: h- \: y% Q' x- @4 y
Callaway在线报道下面有很多跟帖讨论。有些学生以为有些很有道理(且有实质内容)# E5 E' `* m, Y1 `0 L
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
6 [) g5 i6 l& e, z7 U$ Q2 r2 u《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而
: G9 m* V: u! G( s. a这些被Callaway忽略。& d. o% D5 t$ v: H/ @3 N# l: F7 I  i
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给
& D* w# G' ~+ `. u英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院6 o, P" m8 A2 P8 X
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。2 e7 s5 b# e4 V' f, b: N9 Y6 u
英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书$ n! A5 m; j0 V* ~9 _
学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学6 y, X/ S. D: Z) Y0 S" l8 ]
家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文,才有《自然》的; U* n7 [" m% z
今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。
9 y3 M* v& E" n1 t( h% w5 N- C! Z英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉,即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而
* Z6 e/ Z- b& h, e香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年' |- C+ _( {: D" m& Y0 f
代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问
. ]9 |- y1 ~) P1 _0 }4 |8 g) r) R”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
! A) a# Y8 i6 f) i+ ]9 W$ h中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞2 Y2 h' U( [8 I6 a) T
弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问6 N% j6 k2 b4 k* w4 M9 x
题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁; h' l9 n9 T3 {1 h
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次
$ ^& a- r( f  Z  g测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染" A7 r# K* _9 p  ~0 l; O
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
% o$ }1 M& J9 l2 J; |我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 K8 y7 ?0 T2 Y  T8 U3 c
, p) F7 t- q7 |# F, J- A: f! b3 k4 u0 T& q7 B
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
: L- R: Y& ]2 r9 O+ p. Y# K. z) m* u$ _$ Q0 l- w
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结$ t0 }/ C) M) a/ C! j6 N1 B$ P
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
; G% J# s) `0 ?4 V2 p1 {6 [附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见( g* A  p. l# n6 e
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
! ]: p; F# g, ]7 T) N% W1 |$ {! m  `
6 x& m& W" }( c) f4 l% }
# e( c' J% o+ [9 h( F) y9 r; d) w; ?
( n" @2 y. m1 N! n* g9 u原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)% j+ G8 N! N! r' p
Dear Phil,# |9 L+ U8 W6 K* E7 l
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s) w% V( Q' B5 f" R7 J
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 h: n, w' w. ~1 x, V* c. @
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed! M5 i9 a) [+ E5 ~$ T8 B5 b  B
you.; J& d, ?3 f) i7 y$ l5 O; y
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
2 b5 `. m4 ~* y* k- \brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese# i4 B( q3 `1 |, a
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the7 `2 t% P7 b+ @0 `# ~& D# F+ @
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
: l) {* d0 A. z9 Ipublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more5 w% e' \3 {/ u
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news3 v% {6 M1 [4 H5 u2 G/ C
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.  Y7 C9 H* h% @5 T, h
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
* ~9 s& Z8 m) y( cworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
9 ?' ?' O+ O( Z; h$ gnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish  q& v1 v6 W' {  U
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
1 D$ H) N$ w' K3 A( V- Ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  u; ^$ T8 Y& A/ c% `! w. Lexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal) m/ u' l# T. H4 ?+ b  Y
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,! `7 @( ^! J' V4 \) }
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone/ A9 X) [: K, H1 U
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' T$ R- I, e/ t4 d7 }- ]0 n2 w) N, hreporting.0 _) S" q% s8 [- N: S$ A+ L9 G9 z
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have3 `* Y% @  W2 Q8 q; e4 F
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
* U) K  N2 @' r) L* tchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
* L: z& W: u9 U2 Wsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A: E+ ?4 U- U6 s# F" f2 r* b
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
0 i. E" [  R+ j1 ]: [       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
. |, h9 E/ M( W0 @" Q7 }more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds7 G- k: e0 d8 r
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50% l. K8 S) g$ y  p! R# y& c6 k
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
8 Q# p9 L4 K: r9 \6 @* f8 l7 L$ g1 xevent for men, with the second fastest record., N& V0 p; e' ]3 _, v5 p* m
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
6 D+ h% a, u9 i" R5 Cwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 166 z6 Z: D$ @$ |+ D& i
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record2 U( @$ M6 _8 k$ R1 k  z0 R
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
8 {5 r! @; A7 C* K# I3 jmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
" W; z: d- p7 g/ V  o8 {8 w/ Q0 Efor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than. x7 r) G& B; O3 w3 p5 O+ L
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed- N' I( A; p7 K. B+ t$ |9 ?1 \
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
' V7 P5 H; Z) X3 {9 X1 k& r9 D/ hindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ p% f. ]3 i" _" U1 n) m& e
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 K. n0 _) h2 d. y( v; Ethose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was5 T1 O! y7 b8 E. ^9 b! v; a5 |
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( N6 _5 u- T6 z7 Q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
5 H3 }) c' D" A8 T' x; h( v& K# rproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 M7 z+ I' {% D: Q4 `# o: Y' e
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
; Z+ N4 p$ z8 N  `( ?teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
- G! G3 Z# Z( j) vCallaway report.
, B) @" M7 S7 f, F3 n9 NThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 K- o  i/ R5 J) y% z- g. Ounderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
( C8 U* U* c. @! O' Nhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description) P7 v+ |- `  C, D( s" M
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
4 O  w. b7 q8 b# ]$ C5 ~( X$ ]better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
* i6 G+ t  x0 p6 o  u  i7 uWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
0 A/ o7 s& d6 X4 H, vpublicly voiced different opinions.- j+ n# x. ~& {- \
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ ^' f5 F" A& `5 `
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature1 G$ N7 y& M0 x! h+ {* n5 O9 y# q
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ U0 u; Z7 S- w; |2 a/ a- g1 w0 |
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds0 C3 y  _- S' `& V2 K' `
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
& L- H. R/ C) g( V0 m5 rof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
% U/ |  c( b! r1 \. R/ XThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
. N8 i/ n2 z' V. S% m3 Uthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 ]7 i0 _3 B3 m4 \, W" o, ]( u: H
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
, `- u0 z. @% Z& JAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
/ b9 M3 a3 s( r. i8 F* b5 Nthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
! ^; M. @- I9 |supported by facts neglected by Callaway.+ m7 G/ b  z! L% S5 b4 v
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" V5 n" G) n; N' I" X. X# mmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ D( g  k- u# W% i* H! [" K
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
8 C! \, a) r2 B- z" p8 ^8 \" Y& [; e& G(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she4 y0 ]6 a& h' Q2 c. A, t/ m6 T1 U* S
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting./ X% t: G+ j& o+ S
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science0 w, r, K) w/ |" K0 Q
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
- [/ N. N2 a$ p& a. z2 sDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.- f* L4 M0 o$ ?6 V/ A/ k
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
4 E2 U, n" n/ lobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# _" ~; K- ~8 {4 ~! m+ Ywhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to( q4 D3 k$ Q1 Y# u% @& @" }
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
. |4 L& o/ {$ @The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
# I8 C3 R8 u! Q* c8 \show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced& h  ^6 B7 k/ p
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
% ]. O4 J/ ?+ T# n: H0 ~! zfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 O1 X8 k5 z' N" m! o7 ]
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”) q; H0 j8 J; R2 M
about British supremacy.# n! g2 q* w' E' z
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
. a  U; u* R3 m' Cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
  X" h  Q) ^, C4 C0 g: D* Z+ O; KChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
0 p( `! g6 N3 Eour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London# U$ D6 \8 I6 t( Q9 ]) ?
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
* ^- ^6 \* Q( b- l! }: J7 @Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of! i2 I4 I+ N  t' e
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests8 m% @$ h9 P/ t9 j$ m
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
1 O8 U/ {" m9 G2 u3 @: }it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly$ H% ]9 p3 ?- c  D
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ u1 S4 X" Y8 f9 F( b
Nature.
; ^2 ?1 z! x9 d: b  B9 HI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
) V, X6 [, O$ t; }5 ^0 @" a4 }. Hthe Callaway report.- |3 f3 ?' e4 z3 `

) [! p$ ?' {% dYi
1 v* |' E8 a3 _2 H9 p+ Z; m+ {; K! I2 {; _7 ^
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
+ {9 A$ X$ i2 c% ^Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences, k* O9 U/ o& F* v( S0 C
Beijing, China- X6 m% f& T! i3 j7 I! w8 t
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18 8 F- `' T( G  \; H
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
+ K  s' ?( ^  l8 ~3 e; b; Q
原文是公开信。
2 g; O7 n  }* H
  q! U% c2 X& j9 F小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-6 20:23 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
bigsnail 发表于 2012-8-6 21:16
( l9 ~  g2 |( }9 a0 |& V9 z1 [. x- X原文是公开信。
3 B" c8 m! s8 f* C7 R* W2 w$ E4 `6 J
& p$ ?0 q6 T0 l2 K, o* _小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

  L3 g3 L# x+ R# v2 R谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG" _3 Y: P; P1 |8 a; d" N, O2 m
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 D& {  X* J, f% W" Z, q$ @1 O$ e0 t
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html# s+ D; J2 K) U4 w9 u

1 Y0 N% Z9 C$ [  @FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" ^# k) b1 D" c5 u+ S% d0 n- m

- y, e& O4 i$ a3 u  B8 `It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself0 N7 D. C# Z- K4 e6 Y, d! G
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# i; t" {# Z; H- d5 x4 [
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this0 v9 W1 s. M, D6 {& u% }( e  Y
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' i8 D# ~' f0 ?7 \* V2 T
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
' Z. [3 j- N0 {, ^populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. R2 L2 ?% k- `  X+ q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,+ r) {& o- X9 u. ?' w/ b4 N
which they blatantly failed to do.( i) L/ ~5 _" N5 |0 n6 b! x" Q, A

! ]; A" x" N, MFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her& M2 D6 g, }! @  l6 a
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
6 M  e6 {1 U: F& ^" }& D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 g# B5 R% ]6 ]/ ^# n6 V
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& o3 A2 [2 C1 E$ P) @
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* F8 S* d+ x$ j/ ^$ ^) ]% y/ Zimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
6 J& X& n, `+ I5 `  E- ]  Rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to& H) N- E! y+ \/ F0 [$ S- p
be treated as 7 s.& U9 s& }( W. q. B9 a

5 X' `. S3 N" E, qSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- B0 |4 ?; i  V, D0 e" @& e# ^
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) o2 s* j% K$ I  z4 @4 t& cimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.9 {% o: I- k# ]" s8 r
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 q0 S: p, Y* U! `) ?4 K8 r7 r-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 o" t- t. G$ f- _9 [For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
5 e' m- Y5 l- B3 Z+ c3 Jelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 |& s1 N0 g7 i) c$ f# m, G. rpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 N/ t% G' B+ O% _  ]$ m7 v0 l
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ l* ~1 d) w$ \0 _; T0 n$ P# q) x; V1 b( u5 q7 i: E& U
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook% h% y% T& e  Q  C# a  p1 `  Y$ i5 o
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ T! E+ w- _0 ^0 zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ v7 ~# g$ ?6 Y/ R+ ~7 ^he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later7 k% |5 a& Y1 @3 P3 x, F( e2 p
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
* T* Y* @# |" ^best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World: z% b- e6 i5 l' j% t( n
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
  B+ m' L& _" _9 I3 Htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 ^0 D; t& F( g
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
. A: }" q! d( {; V$ G# K1 Q, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this) G; n- S  j, t
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
4 O- b) r. E2 {5 W8 f. l3 U1 ufaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- |6 @5 o3 `% u& T# P9 C" U. @9 F. ]& \faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; L6 w: B9 ?$ ~; e. gaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 W$ l8 @5 K' W: W, q$ ]
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." h! G0 Z3 ]- D) A8 |

6 `/ y) N. s2 L8 V; c. q! iFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
! P; ]; D9 M8 r& |2 ^$ Lfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ c. O' l& }; [s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 N% b7 N( h, d), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 t5 o. _( x, [% u- Vout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* Q- u* B; R0 N/ V/ p6 o- z! b* ]8 tLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. e' Z4 v: y, h- cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 b* X" _4 }7 _' O$ C) T  T
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& J( z* C8 U* S# o: f
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science; [; I/ s+ o. M
works.8 O/ S/ \, z' t

( I' M# n$ `0 G" N/ JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and" N8 g+ W  r6 ~2 ~, |( Y4 n1 h8 K
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" S. W! X1 B! M* ^' ~- h. ]
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
  I. S' i3 t; [1 _2 Qstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific( R$ W9 ~4 k0 u- i( q' \% F
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ i5 k! l) v  c: U9 ?: K, i3 areviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, p4 T- Q: r9 ]# y( [/ o  x) B
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 o- J% S9 u) A8 Q7 }demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) K2 q9 g# n* @6 p2 @1 w- x
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' v+ i7 J6 q" a( pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
: D5 t# ?5 V5 c! ecrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
  v, R0 h, j/ Q: Uwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ f! [, Q. b: Z7 T. v, i' j4 @advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* L) ?" r0 w% ?& r3 a- Xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 ~+ I8 E8 r- O. @7 g! H1 f5 xuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
* Q/ k* A& U& e  d  n6 q. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 q! J$ W$ `" U' r" Zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may, m9 v* n; y# B. r; Y5 c4 r
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 k; g0 U( G. y  L/ c8 M- a$ f9 H
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# ~  J+ p& o, S5 m2 j9 i! }% mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a0 y5 j$ Q* ^) \% K3 l) m% O
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; V& a- n  `5 e9 k+ r: b: J2 l
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. r$ p# S3 ~0 `& U5 H/ M0 j  o# L
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ _' M6 m' [+ S0 T" _5 Hprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 D1 F# \+ ~# ?6 h0 ^athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# V& J# U) J. x0 f: s' Ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# K* x) @4 A/ d; Z2 u$ aLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) H$ F! o; e, G3 ~, k4 M7 Jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
1 {6 z$ p) r2 I2 B/ \( _5 Ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% V/ C! g( [% I$ a% _
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, R$ _0 p) E" [; |) [! E3 }" l/ @" k5 ?( K6 j: r' l3 U1 i
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 R5 y2 z0 N1 r- X1 ^competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention6 N( J! X' l6 p
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
* T. K1 r. Z  m/ p  j( vOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 [9 |0 c2 n5 N1 ^: ?
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 g0 R8 p/ p7 y8 i# r4 h1 Hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic% j# E3 J% R" u4 E0 D
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
6 g8 ^9 _, s3 X* o, |' vhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a4 ^+ s& F; E6 W3 A3 d2 c. Y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. d+ ?' q& [6 b; M& `5 d) [possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ H8 h7 ?& W& V, r4 j& ?' t7 p* q! h- n
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
2 q1 w& p! ?  h. Vintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! p" I2 i( a' b- O1 msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
) g  D7 D2 {: E2 ], o+ ~/ s. o' ususpected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 i0 E; O% H) Y7 R) Y8 Sall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, m& L. \6 F% kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 k# E6 O3 u) R+ ?explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
7 L& {3 _) _5 W( `1 P5 iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal, j& J% G6 h3 x) s
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
* S2 v9 w+ e3 A2 G. yreporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-11-23 04:15 , Processed in 0.155230 second(s), 22 queries , Gzip On, APC On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表