埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2037|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 % R  P3 p0 I$ ~5 F1 z

( \% r& n# ?+ b5 p% r- W饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# C5 m6 q: f) u9 |3 t' u! L' k$ m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。( P; W! r; N7 E) V
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
8 q& q4 E- x9 ^$ O. l' j( @$ j* Y; ^) ^
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
* O9 a) n5 u) p- X- O
7 m9 Z2 B5 z6 x# t# s) H- v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
7 f8 E1 r: k) |, h
: e( K) `. y! ?. x* W) h英文原信附后,大意如下:: i  w; H3 P9 a4 ]; s

4 L6 O) q( A" o$ B/ r2 Y斐尔,
' Z7 [' ?0 \& x* j3 G1 p7 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
  b7 _) L# N% L' O- ~& _1 z8 V0 wemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。/ z3 O! \! s* {1 s0 O$ h# Y
       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
- ?0 V+ Z' e3 Y& ^7 J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
& w6 o( p  k# I" B6 s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。
- E- o# K: \2 O0 s7 L6 {* k       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
! T* W: P9 P9 `9 j& a- l6 b$ B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
# Q0 h) i4 |& [) G6 L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
+ f4 [7 P+ v0 H& l; U9 \& B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。9 T5 ~, w/ i8 l0 r* }
       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
4 Q' H; T- L) a. A, i/ `,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, `) D% K. Y9 N! ~* {& L0 D
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。  f* H5 j3 h4 W) L" @
       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
: @3 a$ G! a9 [. z' ]7 [' n8 R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
" S& K( u( g- w% x8 n7 N,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
8 S7 O* [2 v; c) R. e- F       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; R0 N  Q" x  E
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
2 `0 r' k, n  U6 a合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二2 b( `' y* u  M' o* i8 R" d
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; Z6 b& Q- m" {9 H9 v
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
( d; a! r$ q8 f) F; i# k' N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& Z/ ?$ P% d: D4 @2 v: ^( l
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
% r9 g: V% L3 R' `。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9 j' l$ G2 X5 X. d+ }% X
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。) x- x6 B0 K! y( g. D9 o
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* D% C# c3 \0 y
1》,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
- F) z7 R8 c6 H6 _. G' NWikipedia。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
9 J$ _4 _/ s$ x1 M$ d; f同意见的专家。4 d5 e! a% @$ I) x& n% i
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$ k1 p( |8 y8 y' \' K: d, o
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1 Z& m+ ], w; b) x: H6 |# t8 ^
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7 C9 [) E1 h2 d. ]" E) ]
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。, [' _. J& x* E* n' D
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)
2 w9 _8 f1 g& Y* u" I  n6 I4 ^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0 \) c! ?, O$ [% s
《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2 h9 [; m  ?/ _5 O
这些被Callaway忽略。" ?, ]& D5 a% R0 Y
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
0 a+ W+ g, \3 u/ t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0 f; e( H+ O8 h# `
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。$ K! N9 c3 M  W
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# w& s+ u! _% Z$ j/ ]0 T0 D! n
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9 Q" P* G) u" ]! P; M0 w# w
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$ `1 Y, P) A" x. U
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。" J; D  X! u* N; `5 B
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  C$ H: z& X; \, M9 q9 ?" S, h' Y, r: ~
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* L7 n: u0 [/ Q: N% ]
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' I1 ^4 }4 T0 l% k* p; b* m1 E
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
7 D8 O# O: n' t4 V% s6 }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  `$ m5 q: H* |* N
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* E! b. H4 X7 f5 l0 t) I
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+ J: w- z7 E7 S' O0 m2 G
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6 [/ c; h! r' m1 x. q9 m! _  W
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! e6 P  {, e( @- @9 Z0 Y6 B2 Y7 T. J
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。1 p* i2 i6 X& U
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
% x1 `. u6 E3 e7 j8 \6 e2 f% o; k2 h9 \2 B, x' d

, s' [, \# ]) w3 H7 Q北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
& M# A* g# \6 a- J, r
* ~7 P! n% k1 a6 e& s2 J" N附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结' {8 i) V$ ^# w3 n: V2 J
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; ]# M# L! D* H  S1 a
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见) b( u' O, f% v: L; u. M% \6 v
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
/ ~  A; o+ w. s& j) U$ o8 F7 H( b9 ?2 A0 H9 Q
6 x0 J1 ]9 [, }# l

, ~) A# k! Y6 {! J5 v原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& F1 u  w1 m& x. a+ i2 ]
Dear Phil,9 W5 o  d6 I( t/ M# j! S% l3 g
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
; e& N6 s9 I  w, |report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 Z7 T% F3 A2 [- K- u  Q  h/ chours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: N! C) W9 Z- E2 nyou.
6 D0 m* r% d; w! d       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
' Z8 F# |, Y3 e) D* mbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese6 h9 N1 w: f. q  N. R* b
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the3 r% x( }9 b6 ?  y4 V$ S
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature7 L  V9 a7 _# p  d7 `2 O
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 b4 [  o5 I2 N' l0 N: J9 p
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news' p8 w* u5 s! d$ k. W+ J
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.( \* @! ]# F. Y
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
& `9 ^: m- f( z' |2 k- _) {* oworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
' q+ A- A, m$ ~/ U4 ~; Y& gnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 Z0 z' Y9 A* z' b# O' m# dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway: C6 K9 P* j! G) C# f
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
; N: l+ t/ c0 e8 uexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal$ q1 v2 I  h0 ~3 [
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,$ t. U0 P: k9 o( k
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
) {! \9 C2 p- T0 B( Sto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) a" |$ ~( e4 o6 Z' K  k5 J( yreporting.
) d# K/ @2 w1 v6 y       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have4 a) K: k3 e! _; S7 F
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
  X! Z' e9 B5 x  [! Wchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in7 x, W, d1 U4 S, d
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A: ]$ Z! i7 z4 k2 l1 n& V
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
6 i2 o9 `: P$ \3 k% F       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem) [* B4 H% b7 R; i, U) e4 ?
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds5 i$ x5 C) |  V6 O- o' c2 Z. e1 I( Y; E7 j
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
) t4 d8 l& @' {" f; w) O+ Q3 ]# cmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
& C( P# Q9 o$ T, n& yevent for men, with the second fastest record.+ p$ e% S$ k1 G- ?* |0 g
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
: g+ |# i! k( _# i  a5 Cwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16! p9 N  i" S8 Y9 M+ Z4 x
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record) V/ R2 F) g# v1 v: [: x- w0 F4 D
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
) d- h8 Q6 ]1 \! \7 A$ e3 L: dmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,3 |+ n* p4 u) ]% T( }  a+ h
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than+ H& ]. O; w+ n
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% P4 u; X3 p+ N4 w- Y0 _
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the8 u& N, c% c8 l, _0 U2 s
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower: @1 _; N. i' v0 F9 [4 B
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than7 o  `% @9 R; T6 b
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
/ r! ]2 J' r, q9 y* o7 oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
! ^4 Y+ Z# H# P9 ]he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
& ^2 \, t& N8 d8 N" c! l. \problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
! n# l5 H# }4 g. q  W# }swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
0 y2 t4 f3 x* m+ f: i3 Vteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
# T% O5 a" P& n4 G5 c$ d4 YCallaway report.6 [9 o$ G$ x0 G) D: M! T9 B
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
) W8 Z) k% q1 _understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
& y$ g/ Q. r& I* I9 Vhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
0 B) p& m: Q2 J8 c8 }% |+ }of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been# }. N) `& t5 Q9 O  L6 P5 V- H
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
( Y, K- J: o+ U9 S3 z- IWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had$ h7 h) c' \( z  w. X( {3 L4 A5 G
publicly voiced different opinions.# w  c+ a8 |9 a
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
: |( h2 c. p1 ^/ A* I+ o3 ^from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
/ f; D6 {9 p1 _$ r  P: Q. `Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) A; u& a  e3 r2 Bpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds4 N0 d. ^+ k/ @) W& b5 o% B
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
' @" Z5 M( }# u2 r/ x( j. xof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
1 z0 |1 R- _2 }, CThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think+ w- Z/ V3 y  A* W& f7 {
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They+ z' f/ k# F) J# U
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' Y7 e* Z7 j' Y! f# R" W: iAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that. U+ y4 N! j/ G, y  E
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 A7 k7 s( C7 n" B" ksupported by facts neglected by Callaway.! p4 e% e1 ]5 D" k. \
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that- K6 L) M+ o5 E8 v* z
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
! Q* z: S' E1 D6 w5 y1 EChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
- h# j9 g. z3 g: G7 M(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
- W4 L: R/ ?0 w9 A3 ~) n+ Eand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.0 f8 I- {" }) Y. L* s- B
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science8 V2 p6 Z' g& _2 c7 I
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
& n8 [# k' Z. H- HDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.5 D, m# D. M) H: e6 d* W
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
/ F$ h1 u: Q4 k9 M& a% Dobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
. x: _7 G9 f- j- Ewhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to  h: |! H( b/ I3 P
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.; ]" {# m7 U# A; f. n0 x3 U- j
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
$ g5 x* V, X( B2 ?4 {show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced# y0 D* R0 a8 _/ ~( _+ r6 [) |% W
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather4 z2 x' g6 W7 ^) F& S* r! l
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
5 u1 }9 a  p  I! u& @7 qthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”! n, Z2 z% C$ L" ~9 r) ^
about British supremacy.
1 h* B$ e3 x. l% TThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
$ o# x: Y7 c2 K# d4 F" n( funsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
  y( O2 m7 Q1 v" O% X* qChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
" ~/ x- t; V  hour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
+ |6 ~. s* q% s4 P  _Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.! E2 T7 Q/ M2 V, @( P4 o
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: x0 u1 u3 i6 `3 Q1 D5 N- t! C) _, Dprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests* O; O7 W  _. G: ]
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,+ B4 F+ R" o- k( U1 `
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly1 X, d1 I; o; @4 J' y  s. s
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
6 B1 J, k/ I7 a( d, Y* n9 k8 [Nature.: S! u( j8 c0 k6 ~: b$ j- {6 v( b
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
: D" d0 \! u- kthe Callaway report.# B  k# y. M% T& d6 {
! \- x, b3 G7 L
Yi4 K, `" O8 _2 E. I4 Y7 K
) g  x& m. O7 b* G3 E1 s2 B5 X" I
Yi Rao, Ph.D.2 [  {: _+ P) y2 h4 C5 s7 ]
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences6 \& e+ S: v0 I: Y* c
Beijing, China, H' g" T. a( j  o$ [2 L
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。
大型搬家
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
6 I0 p, Y2 `$ h; S) L原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

$ E7 x5 O' k2 a6 @+ h( j  ]原文是公开信。
5 @& R$ |8 ~$ d/ u( M8 L* l% X' b9 X/ x( R0 @
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
6 D0 K* X- J/ Z( s! D1 N原文是公开信。
0 j: l' U4 p+ V: z/ [- y, V& R  O/ O$ v. }% e: [3 M" b: b9 [
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

3 {6 @$ s9 P" ~8 Z5 Y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
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG. N3 U) p* f3 C  M, Z% C2 R
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。9 r% m2 y+ N* A, n3 J# x" z

! N; e' E! ]: r& P( X. khttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html9 p# }% j% f( @: R8 \

6 ]( e4 P9 d" V( M$ _; |/ nFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% K  H: m5 R9 v( k7 l4 e4 g5 {. i
( ^0 E4 @0 h% g# L0 w% x
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" I1 H2 o6 S* o, r6 @7 j7 ]
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 Y0 G7 F8 X5 S# |$ V6 i$ F
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
) T- B" T% _9 ?is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: O8 G' c1 F2 a0 S
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general; v  _* {5 B1 Y+ o# K4 m9 i
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
, G; V  O) w+ s/ h: Lshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
- u1 F; |3 P3 Y* d' E! K  X$ bwhich they blatantly failed to do.
$ U" O7 u& J  W$ `+ X9 O- W7 D! h+ K7 ^2 A
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
" W) O* a4 q0 }7 mOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
. @* [3 ?! M8 Y& K2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “5 c# Q5 J3 v# \0 o4 Y2 w4 U
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% M- @, c# f0 c# z$ g/ @
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! Y8 w: _1 l8 K' N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 O7 A- P4 @) x6 C& Sdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' n1 ~. F' V- V- h/ s" I
be treated as 7 s.( _; R* ?/ ^# O& ?8 k5 A* y

* N& w6 Y( B( T: XSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& H" S* k: Y3 n4 R8 l. Rstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& ^* d8 B; c8 E6 [
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.  C5 o0 b7 Y& V% r% [6 {1 `+ h; T- S
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ g7 U/ B- \! P2 U% ?' w6 g-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.+ s. L4 w1 h6 [; X+ d; M- _
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ B: U; @: E) s- D: M8 ?
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
. P/ w: |! V6 r% {, ]. `# _persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
" D: _( h& M  Sbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: x3 n/ w3 O' K4 n- s2 V8 a0 T& N$ P7 a% v
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
: B9 g0 c5 [. V* i* }example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in# Q# g. B% a# o  ?9 f& D
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) s7 w+ I9 y5 q% jhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later4 {8 A- \; a; x( p! A" u
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s0 r) J: X9 z3 p, U  t
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 {% W5 d3 a) F' R6 d- ~
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ M; Z7 G- X9 B6 v* |  N6 V$ G
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other$ }6 d1 c+ y2 _% o
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle& x$ Q  F8 m5 d3 U& ?
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
" T" {' O: W- B( `3 rstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 C' ]; g! O6 K7 {+ wfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
$ o4 J1 ^' U4 W! N5 a, cfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
( M/ B5 W" z) C& Y, c: c, \3 naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that1 d# U8 X1 m. h  h+ f+ Y! G3 R& g& X, Q
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& B8 u. t( u( E5 |
9 _9 l/ S" B# {4 {Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ |. j5 U* _" O" @
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93# |( ]9 L! z6 d& {8 A; ^) u- _2 [' l5 A& |" Q
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 u: f# W! U& s  G, _2 r), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
7 ]1 a; \6 L$ f3 ?, g+ Dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 S7 Y- `) W, N, ?
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
0 V# O5 S0 _' t/ R7 B0 ?of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
. f/ W7 R2 s% |  glogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, V. B! o9 ~0 w
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
  E, l, c- V* R7 }3 g4 |$ W/ n, S  Lworks.
2 O# ^8 s% e- d+ z/ V$ [% j# p4 j8 w# M+ c# R- _
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
  }3 B% `( ^6 N+ D  y- [- dimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ g% I6 m% f7 N( O" p  O8 x- @
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. m/ V# m0 O4 L) }
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 l7 s+ `* T5 B, L$ }" I
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* j; M2 h' \/ d6 Sreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 p! C( D- T2 G. p" Dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( a; f, Q+ Q5 ~demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
% n0 @, k) G. f0 n3 ato a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
) i2 N& r) r  d- K' {is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
4 u; u  G# h' D! Ecrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ U$ y. m3 n: [wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 y% W. F2 K: u+ f' `advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
4 h* M) F. H3 ~' h7 zpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 ?& q0 ]. k+ e* j9 e
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# j8 a- ^% V9 A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
8 p* k3 ~  s6 w9 Xdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- n7 ^& S' z( M8 U. S# K) T
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 ]( S, Q$ K' F. Whearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
+ J/ `; v, N# v$ X2 Bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& [& z/ g* F1 F$ H
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:$ V& k& H6 A5 j' E0 F
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
  i9 N+ @7 ^! w. [$ |, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
' b8 a# g# Y/ [# J2 m$ h' i& nprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( {# u) h9 I. M" [( mathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: q5 b! t  i% @. C
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
9 M" t+ k8 N+ l( K. ~Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( k" `$ G4 u$ ?  F. Kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
( |* E. o* |5 U6 b! Jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances." c5 a- L: P7 @9 l" X: }) W3 p' \
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
' J. `9 I; m* c9 e  x
( z5 R+ N: F1 Y  ^' |' |Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-& G' r+ i4 @; c/ x' f4 O
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
3 n. B: _4 E+ J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
0 G* D# D% K9 c7 Y- `$ p: uOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) L& i! v; @8 y4 U3 t
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for3 Q9 f- F, l) F& o5 e% {
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# M9 O, ?0 {1 W+ xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
) A2 a& E! W* u2 F, {; n9 Uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
" j: H" h, i+ b0 g4 g" d/ `* Tplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
/ R! w; F' i4 |9 M* `possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.; U, [4 ?  M) p" F6 S

, D! N0 A, F! E! f+ aOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
7 Z: ~$ C; f9 B! q( R- Cintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
# n# Q2 p* L; z" ^, i1 v+ bsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a+ \" E4 m0 |8 E
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
5 F6 `! G" l# ~, s4 Dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& g! ]3 S4 A) O) y+ V; A- N0 rinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- x' y3 Q/ t0 ]1 {) O: R8 f( C. |
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
+ w8 k( S) l! V+ cargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
* B+ a1 c5 s3 L" H& b1 fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 G4 {! F) H/ m" a& Z' @
reporting 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, 2026-2-14 18:14 , Processed in 0.172368 second(s), 21 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