埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2251|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 . I) ?3 y7 t3 [& \! p# }& i
# g# [4 G% U2 s3 V. ]8 E4 j
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
7 q4 r& z( Y1 w% l+ W# G1 \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。( b: g6 n3 b0 g# E: z
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。5 `  t/ _. b# }( i( e
$ r4 |7 F" f. I0 v3 s
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
" d0 c. \9 n* Z4 z1 x
: y7 }/ X& E$ B, q) R  J致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
9 Z' S5 \4 c- H+ O1 R3 J4 ~; M9 O6 h- g8 J% h6 h
英文原信附后,大意如下:
4 g" w+ f  y6 h
, V; h. _% \9 L/ _4 x% x1 o/ j" z& u斐尔,# s  y/ S4 h& A4 w  B. f  H
       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
; a# D5 w' {( n. D) temail的人里面小部分也给我来信。2 D$ U! D; n- g; 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 s2 n- i1 c; 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) R3 v2 q2 P5 T$ O; z
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。
+ h' _! F) o4 V9 i       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
( B& }: ^8 k! ]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
; v; A" [1 W9 p) z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* ^2 i3 q& {# Z1 X, x
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。: P, Q, ?3 s, K+ ]  U& r9 N
       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
9 N% R- k- L5 H) r, B,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
$ {$ Y4 X1 F. s3 T3 m! x”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。6 ^2 E$ ^& A1 l" u+ d. b
       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
7 Y% V' A) v7 B* c7 M5 k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% A. W: X- c7 X! @
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 p8 s0 `1 y7 F! t( C       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, r$ ~7 t9 g+ g8 ]# w
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
6 R5 h9 x6 k8 L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 B3 T: w( M" w5 G7 M9 \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
  s; h& \1 o2 A& X; S300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
. T' X6 W2 v6 Y# ~# C1 f) p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$ _0 N, X2 U6 @; `/ j/ n# @6 V- S' 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; U3 X8 z' r8 p
。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, \+ S$ t* M' L
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
2 l5 J& ~1 Y& D! g" }5 b2 b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
% ]: D7 y8 V' o; z0 Y1》,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
/ {, ]- Z$ _( _0 a* i1 sWikipedia。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/ k$ F" r1 H# O) o0 H" u# |" f' \
同意见的专家。
4 q$ n4 `2 E0 W6 b8 ?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6 N2 i) b* Y6 H: _
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! u5 R5 H# d- ~4 `% E5 ?
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* W, y9 ]( R2 @* o
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
1 Z; W2 R4 G5 r: [1 |; rCallaway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)  K, H( X  L) c; ^
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
1 ]! W  E4 j, |2 @3 H《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/ A1 o- T& P  O6 `2 }1 B
这些被Callaway忽略。6 G+ E' _8 Q+ _$ b3 d0 N
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: N* H! r; i" k/ D0 q' W
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
& ?: F# H; D! n$ R6 Z教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。2 M8 @: M; O' c1 q
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+ ~% \2 j: V; A  ?1 I" X9 {
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5 _9 C, \. V9 g
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* R8 o+ n* m3 Z* a: s) F* @( F- ?) t& s
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 _* a, Q. E& _1 ?
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
6 m% e0 |1 i' i! Q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, {7 ^" t6 `7 X. ?5 ~" j( [
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
# r5 [  |4 V5 e0 y0 D" s+ _/ f”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
; |9 F: a1 I% w6 u& |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
6 V4 k$ ]* l+ C* u$ H# H5 a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) L" i( v* ?8 Z+ {
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; J7 ?( v' f5 Q( q) O" R
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1 i# q& B' C) y# t$ `+ N- n" M. p. 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
+ C' T8 d' I8 z, \1 Q  b而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。$ |" R. p/ S) J; N
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
' v- b- U: ^' d6 S$ A" }$ S& g# e; m& I9 v) B4 K
' |! |) H" i/ j- E+ N$ s# R6 o. F
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅! O- ^% O+ w; {, t

$ y# @! Z0 y1 c8 \  p附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结7 p7 c3 s% m5 w2 K+ q3 K* k8 t
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
- N4 \! S7 z3 T, M. r4 T: O附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
) N' _4 K  r. P+ Y$ K( E& P5 Q附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 ?5 q- W4 P% E& |8 H
% d$ y1 |" k. \
- u6 Q9 \* J- q( \) V1 Z+ |# o7 U* l/ M
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
( p' h+ I5 T* }( K8 }Dear Phil,
% @' d/ x6 l1 _7 b% v       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s1 a" R. s2 C( m$ m- Z
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20* q; a, |' C% o$ m2 }
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
( |" y$ o; d5 o& vyou.
# Y3 V4 U, b! |9 ?# m       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have5 v1 D" n' t4 a8 m1 R
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese$ Y1 Y+ ~8 c, O# w- U
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; P, f) N4 ^7 i+ z" d( S
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ ^/ y3 Q7 o: Ppublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more$ j" Z8 {+ `6 H( M# z  Q
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news, F& _- W" }. H5 L( f! T
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.' h& x! Y% Z; i! e& B
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
+ H4 s) W$ a# S  Dworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
1 _' \) b% N0 v0 h4 ]1 U2 y0 Xnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 m" h; |& {5 Dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 K- @$ A5 i6 Y) x9 z% N* q( M
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping, g: k2 |. B" Z8 ~! C
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
8 W" n( o: Z, A9 rstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
. I( o' ~$ E7 W6 s+ }! B$ N, band could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
3 E! U5 V8 T. b( Yto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news$ v' ~! Q: l. J( {
reporting.
* g8 d" E7 o. T2 D0 g) n! R% E4 P       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! @0 X, B4 {8 c( Q+ ^( _& kalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
5 i- p$ `/ T  ?9 O3 ?2 tchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
* v  d7 \7 x( u! x; l5 _' l1 qsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
/ L% w3 E* d& ~" t+ y4 R* g. J+ Epresumption of cheating has changed to doubts." ?% U  j; ~' F5 F/ f( k
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem# A6 e4 h2 ]: P, g3 w" Z5 [
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 W# M. I) T, j/ O$ E
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 507 v( h* J. K- `$ l$ v1 x' Q6 E( B+ o9 }* {
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same8 g. M+ O6 _4 g/ K  U
event for men, with the second fastest record.. g5 K+ ?% Z. a
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
' W4 t/ B9 @/ \was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
" J' I/ z( z+ V6 n& m, xyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record7 a; G2 I  v2 b' l: m2 H
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
8 A/ ]2 E4 H$ h6 V4 }1 W7 |  ?+ pmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 ?4 D& L+ h! z4 L; lfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than& F# [# n4 ~( W! E- d. Z
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
2 h* r$ B1 B1 X6 Sbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the( W% N$ {2 j# u8 y
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 j- ]+ K% w" W* }- }4 f
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
( ~3 X3 e  K4 ^' |& }) s. Ethose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was% S5 {2 f- W- m' u3 f
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 l* c' j: G7 _7 Y
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 B& c/ u5 E: D. d# \& |
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other( z+ R! [' k' d1 T" B( W
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: V5 a( l' Y" X. B! yteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
) D" c4 s1 z" i4 M" bCallaway report.
" y9 V9 K* ^4 y- u* nThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more  M% V) a( V6 o- R# @; [
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ o3 d5 l2 T! n! bhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
: l; y! h9 Y9 t0 ?/ r7 p  Q( Iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- B! n7 S7 T9 y. j( _' d3 F! Jbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
" Y: T& R! Y; CWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
+ ]$ ~; E" T9 I5 Q3 M( ]publicly voiced different opinions.
- N; w; p# y" J1 AYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 a2 {, y* x' |9 h
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature, R" ]+ b# o* O' E. `5 k) H
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent; ?4 M$ W* o8 A
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds! [- v, B7 s+ l* R
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
/ X3 Q+ m6 y9 `; |of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.8 b+ S0 ]1 m9 L4 J* T0 P2 I
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' g$ l4 Y, i$ l) F: V2 l
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
2 r5 `3 d5 ~& s+ j' @; {- |have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
4 D' t/ q% R- g: R0 P- wAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that9 I6 j5 d, a$ Y: s# G5 t) V& c
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
, j- z" B% p4 K/ Bsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
2 j$ Y& m# P. ]. ~! B* O" T% J. i- hOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that- h/ X1 ^" Q% T( }4 m
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
" I% Z. i8 B% u" t. AChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June; m; X2 u9 F# a; \; S
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she, l$ @1 x# L% y2 ]/ I
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.; J$ q9 r$ f' I9 y6 c
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science4 X0 f1 a0 K3 [- V& C3 Q; l/ V) `
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and6 l) i6 `4 b* P( [' ]
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.5 ~  V, _6 p: p& ?6 Z7 W2 y
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and+ v* T# s2 w3 |! q1 J* z  X% G5 h
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
) [/ c4 X- A0 u# G/ Zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
; n8 i) S3 u1 L' Rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
4 L- s* b/ G% ~! wThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
4 V0 Z% W) E+ I3 C1 ^show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
- f6 N% b, i% T6 |9 g  s  Yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. D! o4 S8 l" i; H3 nfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" N* B9 b6 e# i
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
% R' b" [& O9 _" `" Q/ H* e7 ]3 }about British supremacy.6 ]& Z# P# Y# |; k) {, O3 d
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many3 V% U# r1 M6 o) T3 x/ E8 Z8 r
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more. x- D% w6 T! |
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* v7 t; Q, H  o' H+ n" j+ {our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
2 Z6 v, F9 w" w6 }; qOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases." \  [& v3 _0 S0 L2 g% _- h6 m
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
5 o* B% @' v' X4 r3 s0 kprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests4 B1 @; j$ e6 m  h& z
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,& x0 d3 O0 l# M5 ]3 c5 u2 }& `8 K
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
* _* m' O2 L. }9 _publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like& h& F2 I7 y$ r8 S
Nature.6 @  |! p" I3 a
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 H$ b! v/ @! L1 h
the Callaway report.
) [1 C! N+ o9 k3 k* \$ [3 \6 }5 e4 e0 J; `% c* w
Yi
! c: O( O7 s$ Z& F& _) W; \
7 ]* V# s' I' W. GYi Rao, Ph.D.
/ l$ a5 x+ m: @  `( s% dProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
$ ]6 K" K, v1 kBeijing, China* S: J4 w! q6 t0 j5 s9 Z
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·········
大型搬家
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!!!
大型搬家
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 ; W3 n" ?3 q$ o+ h/ B
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
) ]" i, |: [+ B* Z) i9 K
原文是公开信。
( w7 o. ]1 o% o
. d2 u* c+ G! M: T" v1 b, b, p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 0 ^; t0 [% f3 X: a, C
原文是公开信。) R2 G' t! o0 h( l/ F! D+ C+ \
+ v" X# [) r4 F2 ]9 z( [5 `
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
3 W" G: N9 U) t7 x
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
理袁律师事务所
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
; ~9 y+ s& b$ O# Q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
, b# C4 ]7 u2 j8 I- x2 ^: v, Y7 m) A3 M& P6 A2 J
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html' U% S/ I* Y) w' K1 O8 e
/ }/ D( u$ s0 x& I
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 b+ I8 l/ W7 k, P+ J* U
! D8 F( D0 Y4 l" W/ K* U
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 R* t5 J/ E# Q/ {% a) E, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ z/ l: T- S8 b: |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this4 v5 \: R6 S% l* |; `; o: |& F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 d5 r5 [: y' K1 ?, H
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 z. ?4 Y& B9 {' r5 X  Q  B" \( h( m; V
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors# F# j% j" z; k1 T
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% s3 R  a! \8 `2 Zwhich they blatantly failed to do.# K2 }5 r" K4 r2 Q, S

$ u' R9 p: Y, ?; QFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her  a% p5 Q2 l4 u2 j6 V
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
) n( ~% x# A0 N4 W2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
% G: E( M9 w3 {3 nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
- S- k$ V! R& C2 Xpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
  Q) G/ F  Z* [4 uimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
4 A" n0 ]0 s% H$ ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% e7 K7 N4 k( s. y
be treated as 7 s.* O- P1 o! C6 k
7 h! W" D0 p3 l$ L3 G9 b2 v1 Q* N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
: j* C5 @  J1 V2 r7 \8 g, ^/ c2 _+ ystill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
9 e' l$ c. j# W; a, @# Q9 Fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.; n! }. }# c& N, t7 c
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- h$ e2 M# I1 f+ x( b; u-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.. v+ T- z3 E2 S
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ T$ N5 q' V' X' [3 l# A
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and5 R  m9 b% `0 U+ M/ P5 \3 H/ q
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
7 n$ Y% ~* M* w, p: X2 y0 p6 qbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ k5 h* p* T9 F
; D3 i8 f1 k# @9 i( t1 L- M# c& lThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
; ^! F/ o2 p2 ]/ W& K1 R6 Fexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in. C2 H+ B' }" Q" o$ t$ c! p, y& d
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so7 k- B, ^+ x* _& a5 T
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; u1 _& X% t0 X7 S  L4 }( `events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# w" ?- _6 i9 M  l0 Rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ y" |. V! f9 K+ k0 kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- H8 X# ?  l) j3 `( b( R4 n
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other# C5 i) ]" Y1 E  `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
' B. V; E2 G  ]( F, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 s8 w- W; Y5 ?3 }3 o; dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
$ r8 {0 ~% o) o; o! k) A. [6 wfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 i+ y5 ^# N! T3 S! y! x* Q9 Hfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 K  h1 q* j, B7 X& x0 M. U  j
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
( S: n5 D; c6 n5 J3 V& E3 Simplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
0 g. g) Q: A9 d+ S
  |$ ^# h* Z, ^7 z8 S3 \& _Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, ]2 }! p& U1 a( b* [2 L
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
. O& ?" Y1 |* [$ i! H" }s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
$ y. k; c1 r5 O( Z8 ~), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
' U4 ?+ T8 b) rout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 Z/ x7 v% ?. Z; \! c' ^# m1 s
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind7 \3 t( B: S' v* `3 {7 K
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% m+ g' v1 {6 g. h) hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
% X0 Q. \! d' T3 p* {) E$ \$ E$ jevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science% K+ q$ m, [& q- K$ m* O
works.
6 `! [2 n5 ~- Q# ~* u, y
8 ^' a6 J' L9 c' A4 lFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 b" ], q9 N% D( Z8 Q0 yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this0 p- n( Z4 U; }+ G7 E/ w# V0 J
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( `- I# F* s5 w6 V3 lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific0 A0 L/ J) r7 q9 s. Q; M
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and! j% O* A# Y6 d& b' X9 L: X
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
2 f! _* @+ h' l8 F4 J5 l% D& \cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 Y$ a) ]+ y* zdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works# }. ~( A% t$ p  q5 A+ ~% u
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
) T- {7 B6 Y" \! ]1 {3 wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is' L# r7 {: z' |, D( f
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he* o: d: {/ y. z+ E
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 I) N5 j" h" i3 N8 i; R
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the% h& I3 o( l5 y+ o4 u
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
' i$ f& f" @" N8 Guse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" X8 i' @7 a1 {/ }- Q9 J7 f. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; w$ E$ `4 I5 B' y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may9 S6 @$ W* ?& }* P% n0 O, j
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; w! U" A4 N7 h# c. m0 j# z. ]" B
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# d- c5 n# o1 _7 c
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) \$ @8 Q* w; U
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:. o* [/ X! _& a. s" e
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect- l7 [; e7 A! s" q7 i+ ]/ v
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
9 T5 j) c  ?4 Rprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 |/ Y' _0 z. E8 R5 e3 r2 ]! j
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight/ l4 V; F& c: ]# _( q9 x6 m7 `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 J7 Z( _5 C. [! U# U3 K8 h
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
' I& I$ R, }3 d4 _" J: k! u5 T7 Yagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for& g+ J6 s/ W5 t# }' g
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: i8 i' i) v- ^- q" j9 g6 d! F8 A" y! MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) M' R) U$ |8 A7 e; V0 C4 y
& j/ C: [) Y/ `5 R( E9 \& BSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 y  z& J' f0 F! z  }% U; V# {
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; L, Z  r/ K3 q0 p% H
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for5 N4 y/ Q  `% A
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London8 L, \+ o, V6 X; M* i9 L
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 B9 K) z. d* ~8 {& L: Ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 U1 F* V1 m3 zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope+ L) t$ U4 T6 b! m8 p0 w
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 l6 N/ x; H8 T
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
+ o% V4 g) B. z5 z9 y6 K+ Q: S% spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 h. R+ t9 y4 M' f
8 c- @8 m) l& kOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (5 q: N; p% ]: @* Q
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too% t) J- i* x9 O0 r) ^8 w
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: m4 A! Y, I% vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. W8 V4 J$ T5 t4 iall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 ^3 p$ W' l) L
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 ^8 h' e  H" k
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; q3 w9 x) P9 v" r- [, Z! t; U) ?argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& D( [" n! G- {% n& [such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or! G, v) g- ]0 d+ e1 V6 @, J5 _+ [0 Q
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, 2026-4-20 19:50 , Processed in 0.297630 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