埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2314|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 $ G% K) [5 ~; Z

1 ~/ f( F9 R7 B$ W+ ^  D3 ^' C饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。$ D+ i2 Q9 `+ p( @9 k
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。. ?1 k- a+ t, V: F  P5 z) w( q! t! h
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) L% m! e; }" `, f
$ ~5 J. t( N+ v' o' \/ G3 Khttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html  |) B- j1 c. {) D( M' f- o' x5 l
8 B$ a; m) F& t7 g# A
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
, ~2 `; C) \+ A) N( a
5 x0 r8 n/ J2 p, g$ V9 N* P英文原信附后,大意如下:
* P9 O: i) k7 s, S% C1 Q4 ?6 d3 N8 L8 j: ?8 L1 R% V# g
斐尔,9 }2 Z/ z4 s! O* 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
7 }6 K/ d/ w/ Wemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。# m( _1 h% n. P$ Q
       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
$ M; b( J% x, Y0 s2 X5 O+ P: D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
3 o# N2 r9 {* ~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。
5 Q9 _: @9 w7 s- _4 q4 t       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
/ X9 d6 n" \0 K* I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
) M& n5 |) |8 H, m& x4 n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
# c$ p$ V5 L1 f" D2 {. _0 k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。
* Z2 [! a2 {: G0 y. t6 t       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+ V, [+ ?) y8 _  u: K
,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
( e0 s& J/ s: t”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ I. p3 w" X# I6 Y) H5 t  K$ |
       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
, D% G: g4 f6 ?$ K$ n) P& V/ l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
& n6 d4 V! Z  U,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
; _2 p6 Y  B2 m' V6 H4 m       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
) \9 f! i+ Q) y5 U2011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
  I$ K  ?0 `% l  ^- E8 \. {% ^7 E合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二1 ]8 W9 F3 U8 u1 e
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: o% L% }) ]  `; Z' ]
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
% P. i8 w- ^7 F$ l( z% X3 v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
# B# g/ m5 S/ L; 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
8 H2 `9 _4 p5 n/ ]。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" k: K! |# l/ j1 x0 ?7 a
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
& }7 U, o6 o* J' U& a  q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
' J- J2 P! [( \9 i* O$ `/ f9 B1》,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; |$ P& a$ g. L5 `( ~
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5 `2 t# L2 G. w1 }7 q/ q) Y: G" N
同意见的专家。
, h  B4 ]6 C" 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* J8 ]. @( [9 m
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5 X2 j! b. s; B7 B9 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1 O% q* u3 J+ o, f
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。+ O. `: t( V( m- r) K) w- {* z7 I
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)8 e' S) I7 V- z
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
! y+ l/ w$ \, O/ j, r3 v《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
( ~/ K. t& Q# F# Y7 y+ P2 q4 `这些被Callaway忽略。
+ ^  O  L/ O2 ?4 ?; W1 c& q3 d* 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
- e* z+ p# s, V2 Y8 r6 K% C+ I' L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
& v! K9 b1 v& q- _- R: _# c5 A8 p教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 E6 g' r1 x' w. ?3 P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; |) a' b& K6 |' `  c  F+ 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
/ o& S" C& G. F, _; M) d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 g% U- J& z; d4 Y. h8 N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。# L- _/ ~- i$ t8 O7 U
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
. ~8 a- `; Z5 x* o: Q1 B/ P+ p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
2 ?: O, c: A+ P+ {# D2 A! }6 }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( b% C7 r9 i& Q0 O0 w  l
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ n% l, j3 u* X- @1 N7 l. t8 Q8 q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( V2 m4 u% h, n. ^7 v
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/ R4 k9 ^) Y  F* s+ S1 i  n# o- H
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
- C& P, V$ j7 D+ K  n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
8 U- A. y+ Z% {. U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! s1 P, Z3 r: V* `* ^
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
% T- H- [8 K8 k, t5 k我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。4 W; A! x$ C! r) y9 D8 b. x
  f0 Q" ~; A5 s3 P6 ?
0 }3 F! h+ k" t# F% f! c* T2 s: b
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅6 e9 ~/ g- e6 U( n

  d5 i$ Q2 r0 y# X. |附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- O& X  }3 G$ }0 j. P! y9 T8 ]
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email( L  K7 d7 G: O; \$ k
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
; Q8 I( f' u8 @9 H6 J附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
; P$ p- m3 Q" R, A% l2 V6 `/ u& ^' u# q5 h/ o2 t

- _3 V# A( d  K( g/ j) D3 s' l  L: K
4 {6 P# ~& P& Z/ Z  q7 U- ]原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
4 m" n& `+ ?# d. E5 o! hDear Phil,1 Q( X3 [$ l, X; h8 _" S
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
+ u% U" K" n# u% b% q" qreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
6 {, C' x3 d& D$ vhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed5 ^$ _  k+ E1 ~( A) t' N; D
you.. K; |* ^  j0 [. b1 i! q2 x
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, |0 K0 A: A- x( Z) h; m1 m1 Rbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
/ U  b! X9 O$ ~+ ?+ x' Wreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
' Q+ ]: B  f2 R% V1 s& U- O5 k9 Tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
6 I$ G( @" v( M. n1 {# F. dpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
4 w  u$ g! d5 ~; c$ N( {seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news  p- `. x: a% y" d4 M3 I5 l
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.$ K: o3 T& ^4 L; E4 ]& u, O7 K
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
. N3 C+ _" R+ _1 sworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
; A. k) _4 Q" q" K. N- Cnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
" Q8 p$ i6 a6 e4 q* dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. B% l$ x( i  ^9 g3 ^% D& h
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( ~2 A+ L% v0 a0 b+ ~# g8 g4 {7 ~# n4 pexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
( H2 _+ l  Y+ J5 M/ u/ gstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,3 [; _. P. T6 L
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone" q- L7 P2 |1 O& w+ @- Z$ S" `8 T6 N
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
4 q* O; }( m+ V' J0 i9 c0 k4 e/ Nreporting.1 a' i$ }! Y8 h, y% j* Y; }
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have; u% i$ ?4 w, N$ p" P6 B. Q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
* w# u: C+ S, Qchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in# L' z9 A( b0 D
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A% ~: N: _9 z6 U9 s$ K+ b
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! C3 a) |8 {: w$ J
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem4 e) P4 N* {" y& i; E; w
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds8 o# U( H0 |, k9 K9 [; P
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
! @! d4 D; ]0 F6 G4 jmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
7 l" v( W0 B: |$ jevent for men, with the second fastest record.& g* [9 G" i2 J* S" i3 ?4 n' V
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye" R3 s- O* W  z$ M2 W+ e3 R. K
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
. W( x1 H/ x' J9 f( D/ N+ |year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record8 ~: Q3 ^9 D3 N# b+ R5 }* ?
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ X& ^2 P3 G0 b% T- |meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,5 t: a) e9 V; D6 s" g+ x. j
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
$ Q5 p: n* F% J* P7 MLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed* C/ T/ ]1 }+ S
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the9 z7 G- X5 q) @! I% J+ N
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
% V' |& b1 ^% W( W7 Y$ dthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
; b+ M, l1 N* Z) a; v+ d$ Tthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was4 X! A  H9 Q* D* T( n! V! @" Y
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then" k% `# Q: ?" j& s  l6 [  P% D. ]$ v
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# C& l5 d7 \  k2 q9 yproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
& g# J9 b2 N3 S. t) N# Sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
0 S! B6 S! r. ~& M- t5 @teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
8 }5 a. h3 @/ w! X4 [7 ~- ]Callaway report.( {0 B2 Y7 J; j3 a+ L& p' ?/ M
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more* m, ?0 r! ^6 Y8 D# e
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details& a1 ]  X8 H+ j2 E& ^
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description; H' N  N( e; J: `! d3 \/ r
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been% C+ o2 g/ M! o& ~: X4 E
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
" S" N3 {1 j  S6 nWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
8 C, E) d8 x; \- T# O( b$ Ipublicly voiced different opinions.
6 H2 x( _% \+ f0 k; f) ^: o) ~$ h0 NYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD7 ?3 Z% j+ d& }% V& g( T- |5 z
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ X  \' i4 c1 E% T# R: _Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
, V6 b  N. I, R. @; x. Bpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds8 d" k0 Z( ~% D! u: z
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* z+ V7 ^. M( L$ ?6 k
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ o& z& U* ?6 x& _There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think# e% S( o% y5 r# h
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 d0 J5 e' a5 w* Y+ t) r& v
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as( I& T* V; R- H6 E8 O! o
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
- I; v- R1 u7 p1 L  i# `4 pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
2 {: X6 z! [$ k& R, J! N- F1 Qsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.' X, T" R! G% }: O
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that' ~7 F( w) ?5 ~8 a: m
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
. }: I6 R5 U! H# s8 RChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June, Z: y  f$ b% q' M3 e
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
; w( Q/ G0 ]. q- {6 h1 z2 oand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ L* @# ~5 @* ~' K: M
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- {& g3 E, m" q/ Nand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
7 v2 P( @: u3 S! S0 pDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; K$ @" I& o: ], `. z+ ~# mNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and* |( @  E1 Y7 f
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 \6 P* Q( h( j/ S5 d/ R
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to" K% v- p0 A4 r* B: j# K. F
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.- Q6 p' ~/ P- f( ]' {( M$ M
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
+ u# i2 v& p7 m3 rshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced& b) S  H- U. j1 b0 e
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 p6 V( p! c& ^. Y
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ C* f* ~' `) y* H9 z8 e( M
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
. M6 n- z  @2 w% \, ?* D; Mabout British supremacy.- E: q9 [* B8 K
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
+ d5 }/ }9 m1 D7 V" P8 G3 Bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more+ O' h  v2 `+ g. X% C
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* t0 t; x& a. ]our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London3 V0 m  M, U  {8 Y2 C$ `
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases./ g' f/ @) n9 |
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: |& h! v: g  S5 L) Xprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
! p. @0 g' o% N4 t+ C! }before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,& q. C" I3 Q# M) Q2 N
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly8 Q- N( F* C5 \) X9 h
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
# L7 q3 c. }9 X" eNature.
0 Q' y+ k  F7 f7 OI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance3 C0 _4 G' b/ \  Z3 Q" A
the Callaway report.
) {" B4 m& S" \' x' w. O) e2 [. G% G7 H7 E
Yi* D# \3 |; n" D: q$ `( J' v

' |4 q# i& F) n8 [$ gYi Rao, Ph.D.: B8 F0 ]' p* B* U+ a, k  K+ X
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
4 _" e8 d! E8 A+ e6 ]Beijing, China; P: {- H* T/ k" U8 ~  v) Q
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
6 g& s: Y6 l5 n4 m2 \' y# H原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' M* I. Q5 u0 n原文是公开信。" T% E. y+ a+ y% e' L
& K9 b$ i, }' n0 K4 R
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
& u* I% `# E+ ?* b" u: u原文是公开信。
9 C1 B1 G+ P+ m0 y+ p* U
8 q/ z& z$ F1 M8 Z4 H" b, N小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

6 t: J9 r; D, O$ P  z6 P6 p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
大型搬家
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$ ^2 x; D' G( {& X7 V+ `
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 ~. u  V/ `; D

* e. {2 E# \1 ahttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
& I% U1 @* C  t, `+ ?7 m: B1 v4 A) }- A) {$ v$ [
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
( w, A4 p2 Q6 c" L+ V6 S9 L! @7 y7 Z  I3 ]4 U& w
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
3 s9 T4 ?5 o, Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- ]" H4 y8 F! U( emagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this* q- C; q9 \, M' J5 q9 P5 T3 `( q+ \
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 a" w- n, b* |$ T1 E9 y* `6 U) fscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: d( @% p: T! j6 ?9 Cpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
# E, p6 W, n2 {) Xshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,4 V  w# u' Q) a% F) L' z: E
which they blatantly failed to do.
5 r+ s1 S# Y5 A9 L1 R
& A0 D+ F- C! c, XFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) C+ D8 d7 G; Z3 F+ E5 q. m8 OOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
( C  l- R' T5 s2 j% H2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 R+ i7 v. Q  i+ |/ A* I) }anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
. J+ E8 D$ a! t" Z3 `personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an& A0 o. ~! g# c. c' y
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the4 U- L- o( I: M. @
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
7 l1 g2 x6 K. O2 Z0 C* w- rbe treated as 7 s.5 A: B/ w. p! u: K# \' p

/ K9 [! w$ K; ]) pSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 l# _$ C3 Z# e! L8 x% i$ T! n/ {
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem9 ?8 o9 h. I( q% P# y" V
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
5 T, D5 y( ~  z  u+ u8 [An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
0 v* r% n% l7 r; }& D# ^1 L$ M6 T) ?# M-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
/ T. T% q  q1 E% X1 A' LFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( @! [7 u# A1 [/ W8 [
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
  @9 i8 M$ V6 b+ g" Apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ `4 l/ n. `3 H4 V6 o" h* Fbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.  y5 t7 W- r& d/ o% d& e4 T1 ~
" D8 l' x; f7 O) H$ b5 J. F3 V, G
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 Z# X% B+ r1 V: s/ F* k
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
# g9 j1 N, f" k% l. Y8 ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) `! \0 ~2 b' }4 Z0 q6 y* Che chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later, m) Y: h* W7 _2 g3 h# B( `
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
, h+ P% E0 S6 c6 Y8 xbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* ?! J. R! d! L, h/ H  xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another0 t0 y& {# @8 }6 M; H$ A* H/ ?7 V
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other2 C& G; q, r0 p1 m: ^: G
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 Q8 U* X9 f' ~4 N" L
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ Q% ~3 p) C: X4 @  E  }! estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
; N$ W; n; `: h  X. [faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam6 B' y# o2 ~" d
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting& a+ u2 h# k8 ?, h& Q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
  z, Q0 g& y; jimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 P" I* |; Z1 f7 s8 [$ F4 }# K2 M  d

3 f% m% }' L$ Z: y! r" g. MFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
7 |2 A4 T9 p4 k& [7 Wfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) _/ D7 J6 h2 P( c1 Z$ G. M5 M
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: A' n1 t2 w, D4 I# l! y7 D2 y9 Q; F( C1 X), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns# J' S) d# g+ |& Z; B
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,  R* j* M9 x2 F6 \: v0 b5 Q# C6 r
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 f5 S4 ~' ?7 H  X  ?; @' iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* S) l" J4 ~$ Q6 H
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
' D+ a2 a, E# S2 B2 Qevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science3 H, Y5 G* C& v; t% |7 t3 S1 c: p
works.
4 ^9 v1 A# s. M; l2 T6 U
: s+ B. A; {) @) d  IFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: J( T* d! y; ?0 k: [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
0 a6 H. `; L7 X  c: N9 nkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ F) M( p7 O9 o5 w2 b# r
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
( e; ^3 b0 w7 \: @1 Upapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; O- O- w( ?* N4 i- P; \& o+ f( H
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
4 z) s1 ^7 b2 y$ r# W/ W  J6 qcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& {5 v# X, w5 J/ a0 a0 ddemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
5 {" P: y. U3 W$ s; @to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 _4 |5 R' ]" z- ais found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
& }. V- o2 z. I( A; X$ [crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
; S% r, B+ U2 E9 Awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
0 D' [# M3 d* \advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* k1 v, J' b3 E" q0 spast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- ?  t! L) e2 Suse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 _+ E1 X9 U$ e/ c& R5 O: `: @8 }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* }7 Z' n0 O/ G
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ G# g# c/ {5 R, I$ R+ N% ]be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
: k/ k7 b, H) [! P0 V5 Ahearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) s* q; I7 v1 k! Y, L( V) H# J8 Jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
7 n! r' T# B1 c$ D% G$ e" Y: zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
6 j5 F7 e* Y0 G! Jother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect" u- {# i2 F1 x! w* I9 U
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 l% b. l  y" o  H* U0 R
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
  |( b$ v2 ^. x9 C9 Yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, t! j: o) Y& X) Ochance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ W+ {4 Z. L( B' v% ]) ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 B8 I" P( b. n: v* J: U+ wagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 Z8 u- a6 L4 m9 }* M' t3 O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 ^- P5 j# b$ aInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 E$ v2 M& V. w6 n+ ]) b) U" [9 M
$ J9 Y0 K3 m, D' R! I4 I7 v
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 A' u! s4 v, L+ Q
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
8 P) p4 ^1 Q$ l3 |. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 z, M* s1 r% T! z2 ^( c8 W' }- d' OOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
! {- g( p" ?: YOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# y5 d7 f" f8 f/ o* tdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
8 A+ [# w+ Q- A+ n$ P: I/ K7 xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope. Z: Y- p1 |5 `0 F* C+ S' v
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a  |/ m7 s# y. r  q: x1 K5 K% M
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
1 F3 p7 b  D. ]) Ppossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.- H1 D  b% y2 ~" Z; t& ^
% [- ]" Q8 e- J( m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 @9 D; [! _$ T" p" Bintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 X& T5 n7 ~  G" @7 Xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
* N% A3 r& z+ e# H+ w& \suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- R: |! F3 p# e+ ^7 J8 mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
. K2 l) [7 c8 J( N$ o, qinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
1 x) b5 g5 a9 ]3 ]; bexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your$ b$ w6 _* Y1 p2 U' w
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 c! H& H+ E# ~& a" W/ Q& l3 wsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 w( c+ o) y# B* E. S& q" ereporting 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, 2026-5-10 11:26 , Processed in 0.232291 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