埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2276|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 ; }6 @! T1 S, R+ Z

% d0 s: i5 X: _2 J9 h4 t饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
% V) \1 l& n- p& i" N4 }. I6 j, [2 u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。
" v9 Q* T# J# ]( q' _% t总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 Y, K/ U. N. B! z/ w2 Q# K  q# {+ k

& Z: P2 Z; q8 d9 q( {http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ Y. {5 a, T* D
! Q% N) P6 W: Z. s' m* i) n  m( s
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选9 \& |- c/ S5 R9 R4 T# _
4 J2 u7 h  ]$ B/ o+ ?/ D
英文原信附后,大意如下:! W8 n& k6 `+ z6 X3 D7 d% q/ B
# ]3 C- i% K) L( Y% D% f5 H7 B
斐尔,
( c4 p/ O6 T' K' u+ @       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
2 W1 E) |% {/ xemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。  d; Y. t" N: x
       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
1 l% \3 f. F6 X! U3 h; g, g7 f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
% F: B  [7 k0 w7 }5 b- d& _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。6 a0 d  h6 T: h/ J6 p
       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  @1 i, v; m% o& |
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/ Q/ @$ Y2 a2 G) a0 r
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' i& L3 ]8 n# u& R
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。% ?' E. d% j# ?$ ?6 r" q
       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
# M  c# Q7 U: q,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
2 o7 b! L' Q2 h”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
% A2 _: z6 K" ?* R0 A/ U  o$ {       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
2 E! P# V" y# ^, 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/ y4 p' \6 R8 ?# H
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. t  @, p) Z9 K5 y, Z
       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, B+ r0 W6 d- P% i% O+ q
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
7 g+ Q# T+ _( n- E, B1 `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
! [( E6 B4 ^: p$ e+ U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
* N$ K0 k, w$ y; O" B300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
2 ], u4 Y2 e  n, {0 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, \  q7 R- U- M# S. Q9 }5 z) D7 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
# _9 n( `* V* 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$ k7 A2 u7 c  s# g0 n
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。2 I  `3 b& W% C3 ], q7 ~
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
4 Y6 Z+ V. G$ ~' p9 r/ i  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
# h% }: S$ V6 }6 E" ~/ gWikipedia。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2 f5 B: P6 ~* G$ ?
同意见的专家。
  [* B2 g+ u2 Q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, P$ Z5 C  Y7 I- @
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2 A) b$ f. v, H. \, [
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 W. u6 l1 e3 K" Q! _5 A《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
: p7 ^9 O  H: S/ _" G" ~6 {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)
( i- W  o* e2 B2 X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
2 h5 P+ z0 x: \% c. }《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
# |9 I3 r; w# Q, X* h4 S' w这些被Callaway忽略。" ^5 W+ @4 h; ]5 O; m0 c7 H
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" F" e; t- Y: q
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
/ j: {* K9 k5 I) a教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
$ @. q2 H+ I3 k6 k* q2 X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, {# U* I9 J/ ^' {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
/ T8 Z# K. n' Y* t/ q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
! z0 B- m2 F) h$ i8 F3 p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。
* ~- Q2 @8 ^0 e) e  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
1 Q  m# x" B0 L# r) R- ]: x  z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4 m8 d$ _8 C4 r
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
$ E$ U* h/ n7 ?1 y' p3 J5 P( s”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。% g6 b: v* N1 M! |5 z6 \
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
8 L) k0 a0 t( b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. A' w6 A/ L& _: 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
$ q0 z9 u- J  B/ L/ Y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' I8 a) X' v1 \: i. _% e; T9 V
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+ |# `! z$ g, r7 O& C
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: j6 A% }! w0 V6 |" a6 D; P3 g我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 q8 T2 s9 ?% D" x' e6 Z( b

6 T: w3 Q0 s4 e  B+ o
; ]: f) [, r) U北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
0 I9 ]1 a, y* |& \/ v$ g) o" q1 m$ \
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
) C, b9 K1 \7 E' B附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
, D# K" D4 ]* l+ ^2 V附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见5 x4 t7 y6 L  @* W8 l0 i( g# P* K1 O
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) F+ B( G. |3 M& u8 @- G) f: t8 f
+ [0 M& a- V4 n- R) w+ I

' S7 r4 d9 ]* _; P3 w原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)7 ?- {0 Q8 c. x  s" ~
Dear Phil,/ _( _+ j2 V, H7 t4 t8 U1 q3 l
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
9 ^& a7 k$ e) ~( r% E9 w- creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 206 _4 x# L8 a6 J) W  b: H0 \
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed" ~9 |: H' i% k+ U) [
you.
" |: y! L- t0 p       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have: U% A$ K/ R! t' W; l" K6 c: ~
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' w7 [; O8 t. p7 p3 dreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
. q4 s* }6 i& k1 g' Zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
! m' B, F% k- w" w& y+ Ppublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more) x- G/ T% g& j
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news4 p' i% s/ F% e6 X/ x
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: ]8 d  r5 {) O) Z% g- q
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
  t" X8 r( q0 E6 N8 B# hworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
9 C& i# _1 W5 h. H1 e. Ynegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish& b/ r: W  {+ z5 t( ~
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 k8 z# ?4 k9 K# x) Z
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping7 l* @) {3 e( h6 j
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
- @& A: n% Y. @; H2 [; F9 Zstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,- O. |$ |- J" y- r' g' z" ^
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
. k- d& v9 v5 m0 Dto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news  X. O" M4 F6 [/ u: n
reporting.
4 {' R3 G: R5 u7 `1 {" y$ R' g       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have) }6 b3 G' H$ D) Y
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 y7 Q5 A) J# |, {changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in: {; ]5 x4 w' c# x' t
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
9 e  L, q1 m0 q9 Wpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
, m; _5 J) g, S3 u: V  u, Y       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. u' w! _& M7 W, m( `
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
" I+ u' W" R* B; d) kfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
3 y2 d$ b. }: M$ y& |( rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same! P; A# C5 _! M3 ]
event for men, with the second fastest record.* s* M! g6 L" n6 ]& M/ u
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
& R* q, J# R  z0 u( Twas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
, \: L; N+ H' i3 D( [year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record; |3 u/ v8 @( N$ V$ u
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
# W- i8 G' ^/ kmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,  y8 Y( W. Q! H& H  h' x6 A
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than, y9 B5 O* d: ?7 Q
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
$ e6 F1 R$ h, c- H4 Ebehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
" U$ l& Z/ \% {5 o8 L2 gindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower/ W/ S3 v4 h) b/ e8 J: ~$ k
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than% C- `; e; }0 j: N0 [5 g
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was  m8 m/ v! M' w/ l; S1 a6 }
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
8 D9 f( j7 K1 S$ g0 n6 p: N9 Bhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “4 y' y' E" e) }& s) G
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other2 b* F5 ]% {/ v
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 L. f- j2 |1 s* d
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the( u& n1 y  f! i/ w* J( P3 u
Callaway report.
) g- Z! Z2 {. N6 AThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 C/ Y4 y; v- {" |$ T+ C1 Eunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details+ s9 q$ \5 j& l/ S: ]
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description& C  o# @6 e1 L- a9 P  l
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
2 V0 t* k% a8 H3 I8 ubetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) M+ p. J/ Z" S1 o0 E
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; d1 ?, z4 J! x4 w
publicly voiced different opinions.
0 L8 P6 ^* ?' {. x! x; T, n) ~You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
% k& F. G/ q: P  Jfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature, ^6 W3 D9 y+ o) C6 |
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
+ T' v$ N# E7 w% a# ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 G' P; u6 t, w! Xyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
  |) F# D" Q) Y2 h0 Eof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.. q) [3 }8 b9 O0 `' U4 Z0 N. l2 u+ f
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think  J' c- z& R) z& ~8 r; i
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
6 I5 _) s, N5 N1 Chave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 a' a0 r) q1 p( j) _Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
: w0 p6 ]7 X: }' W9 Hthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
( g) ~) O% t3 g6 g2 C+ Vsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.* W2 B! T$ ^' J; m. V6 v4 M, U
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that' d; _7 t. K, @: k) m
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
  x+ u9 a# T$ T8 k, r- FChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June- _8 `# z6 w- u# g
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she/ B9 D4 G; c# m. I
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.$ G* n0 M# e! x) `/ z9 Q) X2 A
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
/ g0 w, w: V( a/ ?3 v2 Qand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and. ?0 K8 ^* l* d2 d
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
* P, w6 N/ v/ D$ ^Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and7 z! E( e1 r; `& f$ u9 `
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
1 h7 W: ?) E1 |) y% q, ?what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 A: s- k& @/ E) U( drepair the damage caused by your news reporters.) g4 q' ?$ S9 X0 ~
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
/ [, {- K$ f  Z  Y: S% i: yshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
. c8 I( X; }! j. b* L' Mus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
" W/ x. ~9 Q9 D, W6 U* ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
- E" ~7 s, y# b& J# ?3 }# Ithis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
# \7 g% y$ t! Y( K. d5 [. R* Aabout British supremacy.: H; M. C& A' f( j! z( R
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 R. W2 N6 H0 s: Lunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
+ C; _9 a7 B% A5 L) d9 N0 L2 vChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
( C' t+ {$ G4 _7 Kour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
* v2 M) u$ x2 r, B: AOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.% D' o+ |+ U( `) v
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
+ ^- C: q" |) l, N- t7 ]professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
/ m% f, P; m2 H& b# B, `% U( ubefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 R% z, E) l5 k5 A. I: ?. Zit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
8 i0 j* W2 `" ]. e2 t' _% gpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ M) F5 z3 |2 ]) w$ L  L  f* s, M
Nature.. N/ j9 |0 I& M0 M( b
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
6 N3 v. }0 w9 _1 {' ^the Callaway report.  ~* O2 u$ S% w( l4 y2 L
! V4 |/ p2 Z6 e- A. m
Yi8 v& Y# @. D' d' M& `( l- w7 p/ |
% v5 ]# X( e6 ^" \) L9 t1 X
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
" W2 g$ t+ T6 N* _: Y* y8 R  G3 n$ wProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 j7 q6 V1 |% X
Beijing, China
4 N# P) a1 B: q! G4 r4 S9 i
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
9 X2 b& P, @" G原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
3 i6 [+ x$ d( k5 Y* T
原文是公开信。$ R" H5 I6 L: o1 _

' |- \. c7 a7 [6 c7 L% I/ n; k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 " x; O. g. u+ S/ E
原文是公开信。
2 }" e$ \# G4 `5 j. d! {- d1 C
, S) c! M( L7 Z8 e) ^小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

. G4 C3 w3 A; D. Y2 \; Y. S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
# m8 x* t, _7 k1 K- H如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
" m3 |! r+ L# z- Y# ], }2 g
$ C9 v. k+ m' E2 D. Y2 T( `http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" |9 I7 K; P8 h+ b# @. K+ }

6 A# L% V" _, JFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
" P- Q  E) ]: T, A" Y
3 M) h( N) P6 b1 \/ h: N' zIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& o; A: o6 G! Y8 u, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# ?4 }, o9 t, xmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# r: v# N+ u# \is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
5 u  ^6 j$ q9 u  m/ i4 s8 jscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general9 a& s/ P3 p$ o' g4 c) M9 ], ~3 L
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
* Q! z7 p$ d* M7 mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
6 j$ i! s/ J+ s) vwhich they blatantly failed to do.: S( D7 H' x' r
6 J5 r8 X3 j+ ]8 ^' N; Q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her7 g7 V, f( f  e  {6 h' l
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in- G! r# X5 \% I5 ]
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “: w" j+ i3 I' x; a
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 H6 q: j  Z& g4 u
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 z  e% l6 ?! X! v& h0 y9 F7 R3 m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
/ q3 ^! K& W. R1 T& d. g3 tdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% U1 e7 }2 J1 h$ s# ybe treated as 7 s.. x: K& G5 [9 l7 L

7 b; v( X: S# FSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; z: }7 }- e/ q( L- i; c
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem0 k& I- a) K! L& D
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.  Y2 L6 {$ }$ ^. H+ J$ \
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
  N5 S7 X4 i9 R9 h6 G; p-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 T. @# c8 ^, u0 w$ g9 dFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 T) L- X( q* f0 R; |! v& A
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
; B6 ]' Q$ O. u3 Gpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" L, H' O. U2 ^  J2 ^3 o$ y  ?5 r. ~
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ A* k2 u3 B: _( w, u2 Z1 Z- I9 E9 J

7 U3 v0 J. h- [$ Q6 I- m5 M6 CThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
5 _% ?2 h) L8 G+ s. M7 ]4 [example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
' t8 ~0 A) l  y/ ^) b* h) U' bthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* p$ d& p- f" H: E8 Ohe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
8 ?9 [( x- {% U! s' p$ l" j: L1 s) Uevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
3 l! R2 C8 n* E. V% G, o3 zbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World, u; I: a. h; T1 E0 J- M, l7 m
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 `% i9 Z1 {+ F) k+ ^
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
& X- h' n' M' n) y6 {# ohand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle# P. B+ G3 c; e3 O1 F" |0 t( G) i& l
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
3 {- A5 H' u0 H) d6 Ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 A/ O* J$ K; n+ H9 b  j5 o) i
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
, V1 b! P1 c) f9 O/ a$ Afaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. N" P$ N6 u: J& J
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; D1 u. t( Q& R( I1 m) v
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; U: e/ G& m2 Y* F
) O2 c* K' h1 E
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- |* k. m1 z* d8 k& Qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 X* p. p5 g, a/ l# a  u$ ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 q# |1 w  M7 G& C5 w
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
* t" i) a3 }! G, Y+ Qout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& T3 C3 D# T! |& Q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; j. Q5 w- J# R7 U2 i! }9 V
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 ^4 w+ T- h- C, i4 ?logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in. g2 q* Z" R0 M
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
& o/ x, N- K( R" cworks.* F5 [! z7 j9 h

( u( H0 i  A4 Z3 c% A' aFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! O# u0 p; d+ H% c- `implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this8 z4 V9 m2 H4 Y" h
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 b' k% t) D# s# \" I4 }/ @
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
" K( X: |$ g: Gpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
  `5 Y: l' T  u* r: E: {reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
$ m9 Y2 y, c1 Jcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. M' Q' `# ]! ^' I: S- Fdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. l" B2 h8 G0 u& d8 Dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample0 P0 y6 p5 ~+ e5 k
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is" t) S! z2 m% Z# x3 s* E! x
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
5 s8 F; C1 ]" {! E0 rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly" h8 S6 T. f* W, i
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
# Y" M. J8 \! {5 A0 Q& C' fpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not" t; b' J' A* _! L6 g! |8 E: _6 J2 |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, _" U: h6 v3 [, Z! `% G2 a. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
1 w/ {. v, H, I, |" b) Q" G! odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
6 Q/ Z: m, _. t7 ~; Mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- E& c* h* J& U' _" i( f4 f
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 Z: q9 e" V% d8 d- g: j4 F) x2 lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
0 B. X8 Z/ y0 @: Q& qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:0 M  D( J' [, @( f) o4 P
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' m: l( b: u9 }% v/ v7 k: |
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is5 H7 B7 w4 M/ V0 W7 F* R
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an# O( O7 z* m4 ]- v5 H5 U" [0 c" N
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) B" g8 g9 u$ C( r% Mchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?; g1 P0 s# E3 T7 T
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 p5 o. _' ?, g- Qagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for' p! {3 S' \  d/ B0 S: X
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% ~  \: V; m: W4 C$ I* W$ {/ |
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 [0 @# H+ N3 z8 o" ?$ r2 C6 l1 G/ [  X
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
  |' U3 ]( @3 Mcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention& `! r# a. b# j" O
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 W4 ]. d' N# D# q7 n- XOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
6 G  X1 W9 R  POlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for: @' z0 L0 R2 p* f; E- }
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
" p  z; E7 w9 Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
( F( l" k% a  J* b1 a: I3 @4 h. Dhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ Q& S' Q& R1 p( E8 _
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; I( v# h  c3 O% z5 c6 I
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.- V6 k  U) b6 E1 \

0 ?8 D' F  n: z$ yOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
8 h$ i' @* J- }0 y5 jintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
" V1 T; u/ i/ h- c3 Zsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 n; j4 B6 }& |" Y+ g
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
4 ^9 Y  e4 W% L- i+ Jall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& P9 a) t2 O8 e6 }0 j7 Xinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,, i: v( `% W$ b/ x
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- E1 E  @' t' J/ b* @
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
% ]+ E$ j1 ?2 N4 W, `such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. e' x1 p6 Z7 |$ I+ g5 ]
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, 2026-4-27 11:28 , Processed in 0.104453 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