埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2177|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! r/ h6 k, _: ~& N' Z+ }6 D: t- J( o& {0 R: Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
- t/ R3 z8 T( z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。6 M7 e9 M4 v5 c! E/ A* T. u
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。2 O5 j. ]- h2 z3 E

3 ]$ ~8 T2 Y* D$ D4 g* u/ Ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 e9 u( @# \2 I& w) L0 I! c

; h' @6 n! T8 R; V% \$ F7 \+ ^, c  R致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选/ C3 N* k2 w, I
5 Q0 ]; Q* @4 I  A+ `+ b
英文原信附后,大意如下:
3 J( ?, W: ~& a2 n+ e  ~& n; p6 t  H  E0 p% E/ {
斐尔,
; k: e7 ?' T8 F; O) P       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  ?" x$ [# i8 w% Y. r+ q
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。$ U3 d* Z/ n- @
       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) @0 w: G4 S  ]/ M) @: h. G/ z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
5 t! ^2 k9 w/ B7 r! H- I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。( i( G; X3 s9 v8 }7 ]
       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
9 I6 V& h! a: s, {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3 e% U. i' v4 i7 z7 F* V
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; C8 s* \* f" i# B* a
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。
# k6 B- T* B. ~7 H- m$ V- B       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
' c+ y8 W% W% L/ T1 ^% s+ ]" N6 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
+ }: v) c& }* C' H" d”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。2 s: o! f" H1 s
       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
& f) h7 C% O8 }. y6 ~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
/ u! O& \: [+ J8 Q& L,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
1 E0 A; E2 k# K) W5 j( u       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
8 T3 B) u) P& Y0 U0 ]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
# o  _- Y4 {* c6 r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 s4 `3 _2 S' X! C# e5 r, T4 `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) o8 O/ V  N3 N( M3 Y% o
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/ B" y% X/ R! W$ ]$ S
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
# l2 Q# L( ]) r* L4 D5 h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
2 E+ O7 R5 i' X* \! @。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
) B! {/ m3 i5 C录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。% d  a5 R1 D6 u2 {2 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# L( l6 G& h* G2 \
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
% ]  z1 a5 I9 H% I' mWikipedia。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 P0 W6 w. {% H6 O, {同意见的专家。
" ]6 \! t/ Y$ J, [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5 O, L7 _+ g2 i% a& L+ _$ `- ?, 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& F1 x7 \: }2 {. c' R) @  r
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
, m8 C; R6 D) `* D$ R, j. {7 A《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。+ `  ^) S0 v" u% @
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)
- D" a$ o" k$ U0 G" N. f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
, c& R! [1 C& p# _# d4 C5 [《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' @7 C% E# H* Y1 w( P7 z4 c
这些被Callaway忽略。
# h4 B3 ~0 u$ U- i6 a: Z英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给
* D* ^  k: _( ~. J' S2 u英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
# _  @& v' d5 T5 W7 U! Z* D教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。9 Z# i4 z' J, C, m, T0 Z0 L
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. R) K7 T/ l1 Z  k9 ^/ }  h
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
, H# P3 }1 Y9 J4 ]3 l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
! B( Q8 u" l! i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。
0 s8 z5 D& ?2 `2 C4 M2 [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 `6 k( [' `! m7 V" k
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1 A4 e$ R* ^- e+ t
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8 j5 A- I& ~+ M4 N; _  Y
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。8 ?$ Q0 [" l7 u# t0 F$ Q% _* y
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
( J2 [3 ?5 l. y9 `# S' n3 g% _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
0 [% Q$ e& B9 d5 s! t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9 X2 z0 o% s, D2 j
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
) b, E: t! I8 u4 L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
: ?8 ]! D. c8 ^; t0 e9 V! h而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。1 \) b) k4 J  F  ~2 h' ?
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: d! m% m  `$ W$ i6 r) T

6 b' _5 x8 a; |* n3 L  v! J( k2 X9 {) A5 N  U
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
; [" K0 u4 c: l5 t4 y9 k  x. W# B
9 V/ H$ K" V  T2 L6 }3 C附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: T/ {" }3 f2 \3 d( I( U) c  Q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
  ]( O9 ^! i) b0 l6 A附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
) P. N5 C" s/ H- F附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见7 d. @! w: t+ o" N2 C" c. V
0 u  S. M" |5 l+ ?

5 t1 E: {( t2 @" K( C( M6 L, s' \# R( E- f4 n5 p) A& `4 a
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
+ i' x1 g" j$ f3 F+ G7 K5 wDear Phil,# j6 o4 {# j' L. X4 z
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ l) N/ I3 K5 I' d
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20( q. u# J+ X! }" z
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
$ A% y. F9 _" w0 G* Pyou.
9 m* G, D7 I9 l       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have- k9 M% b! ]7 ?6 @
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese: I& N, i. k; b6 a. k' ]5 ^+ |
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the% d$ }; k- F8 z# w! l0 S
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
* {: F1 ^. A) w! V/ N  [) ~6 jpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more6 G4 E* L$ X) P
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
9 }2 H+ ]9 o7 s% ppieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 Y9 o' j& d9 a9 H1 Y/ _4 K       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
+ a6 p( S' A3 Q2 d4 Nworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a- h/ F1 {1 h. b2 X. T1 Q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
$ h, o* V+ H0 o4 G3 Ithat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway9 {* h$ W2 ]2 P& C% |$ a8 j
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping4 [9 J5 Z) `$ P' P) ^  {
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
  M" e8 Y1 R* hstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
  f0 A7 n! w, J2 ~" qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
! _9 D2 d" S$ ?* J$ ?to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
$ k% m6 m3 e5 Qreporting.
( {/ }' H: q0 T! ]3 @+ K) C       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
0 n$ ~" a& i0 @) ^already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
3 ]$ L" ]. q7 Zchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
% ^1 W. L% \7 H' Hsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A: Z" x5 B3 Y; P- W2 q) ~3 A
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
/ g7 m+ I, V! S8 y& Y3 F/ F7 d       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
# \0 u& n# ^7 u1 ]  V; cmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 H' h' W( W. ~+ h1 E6 D( s4 `
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
  x" e% f3 _# y* Umeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same0 m4 a+ u) }/ F6 J, \' S
event for men, with the second fastest record.
* D' V. O- R* D       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye, ~  _5 i; T1 U, A
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
  S: S3 n! w% a6 Lyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
2 R* I! d1 C2 `. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
$ f" s3 y& W* n9 N9 {5 n" zmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,+ R" E6 C0 R8 R  U1 n& S  O& R7 ?
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 ~. t4 W7 G) l% o$ a  sLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed# a6 X" L# `' r& ^- s
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the+ U0 c% R4 `! {% k
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower- O! {& B% e! F5 [: G/ k  q1 O
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
' }! N0 p! a7 r& L- Dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
& @# q9 \! t9 [) ^her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then6 X- Y1 T! X3 U* \6 L" @( j8 F
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “9 g( x( C) U7 n
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
2 c  ?+ h) C+ ?1 uswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the4 Z7 B( ^+ G6 V  D
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) x+ }2 P8 c& V5 f
Callaway report.
9 x$ J5 r* x$ p4 |6 t! ^- l3 j( k; nThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more% O1 L  w; W4 c& L/ i
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
9 M7 t5 M& v& |! P6 [' fhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
, O# F4 s5 i; T* s# O( ?1 t' S/ g) Cof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
8 k7 Y2 T! K( b* f) B5 pbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
) R& C$ `: `- U7 M, d, zWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
1 B; M# }9 a8 D  M$ i" qpublicly voiced different opinions.! K& ^& @( b$ g+ b- [! _$ c
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
- P& d5 ^# E! e* ?& J" Z/ }5 k* dfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature$ s& b4 M' N9 i/ N, R) r. g; z
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent: M4 b& }  F9 ^5 S0 q
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds* e+ x( M" P3 Y0 k4 \2 J
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy4 |4 x+ j7 l/ r1 Y  E
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
! C7 f4 l4 g8 EThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think3 z9 `2 N. i7 p
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
; _) K0 ?8 K+ nhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as$ ?7 [, s1 |- b+ v% |( b
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
7 H- ^( b& j: V7 G) ythe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was1 t; ]$ _+ W. [9 j
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
7 m9 M0 V8 U: u0 \# g, z! dOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. n2 \6 J+ h+ ^7 X* F8 ~' z% Smany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the3 ?1 N  c. n! w& [" K
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
/ |! B' g7 {3 u  @# I2 c( I# P; X(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she9 A. I0 H# z# t- w9 Z. ~# r
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.4 X% d1 {" P6 f9 P4 s
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
  [% N/ v0 o( l1 L# K9 b! T1 band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; h% D5 c' a) `+ o9 W! R
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.4 q6 O: x( M  E0 p8 x) l
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 k. R/ k- r7 j0 }! z) j3 j! b3 l3 u
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
% S) r* `/ b) }4 a8 F7 Mwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
0 P1 D: z8 e* v2 {* N- {repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
+ V" A0 z3 y2 nThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not8 ]  A; {; E& }  I
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
0 R( ]. v5 H- O2 Nus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
/ Z' S9 w. e0 I  L8 ~- }fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 N; y& k. Z8 m; L$ `
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”" b7 n% S- p" e5 ^3 \( u
about British supremacy.
" U, D+ I) r- ~The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many: H2 M4 w# H0 t; b( g4 W
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more8 l9 j! u2 _3 t$ C) r+ Q
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by  ^* F9 o$ E5 j3 {) l; ]9 P7 {
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% k8 X" d9 K0 T3 ~Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.) x" m5 k4 }, W$ `
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of  ^  r/ l1 ]" y8 s/ W1 x
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
+ _. f$ ]* D0 sbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
  ?. P- l0 m$ y% c" Kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly) u# w+ d- p  u! Z, o) z
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
( f2 X+ c% k& b" s! X5 kNature.1 b: X2 f5 P) J& B
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
2 t$ X$ c/ i( c1 K; j. |the Callaway report.
9 G/ y5 n' o5 t! p* t6 l" S' N- i6 a4 V% z( l" q8 m: @  J. \
Yi) \1 X* S' u8 w
) o1 p$ L+ n: p* {
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
- Q# x; u! g. y# eProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
1 c7 Q6 z0 W( h( T# d5 Y' i2 KBeijing, China
2 a6 J4 A- c8 c  M% c: y! @4 w
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!!!
理袁律师事务所
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
! a( D. U) C7 _& z1 t原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

6 D: O: q3 s9 h! P, C原文是公开信。
5 k4 d. R7 j5 p( f; z: q3 p
1 A% L+ [+ ~# c, e( ~. n2 J小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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 $ _/ c9 K7 g3 V& R5 Q$ `5 u* v& C5 f
原文是公开信。
+ B  m: G9 {! c0 B: l5 j9 N6 `) g5 [+ @! l4 v% a
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

- b- |4 w3 R, r谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
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
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG4 B4 Z* h3 V6 g+ i( I
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。: [& \3 ?5 T6 Q- g
( r) ~$ v4 }6 f, _
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# E7 o0 k4 W2 `, T& y. ?  D
" n) a( s( R( i# K  KFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' J4 R. s( h7 P5 X0 y3 y! j
8 v9 t9 T2 E$ V# l- z+ CIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. b* @/ ^$ M: E, L3 s) L
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# m* }* z4 h$ B1 L( Z* U& D, V
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, d+ J, h. B+ W9 }3 Iis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the& G2 ~' F5 ?: ?, ^
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 I0 }; A; M7 V# W/ C9 @populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors* q" s8 a; x9 R7 x! {
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ W7 p3 T: g5 l1 n" |( Awhich they blatantly failed to do.# H. I2 u* v, s9 Y$ K
8 p3 C) n; c; m0 N  ~: j
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her" y; H1 ^: x4 H$ v4 G
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in  t! J6 P' H# [3 W
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “: V, A! e1 R+ ]7 {  U
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous' Y3 {" S0 \+ R+ T, ~6 c
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! W8 a0 O  l( q+ `7 O/ ?improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the; b7 W7 f! n% v
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
6 l& G- J% \2 Dbe treated as 7 s.( t) a. C/ B& V, e. m
; J2 h, O0 p, o7 ], X- B
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' _% Q# n3 t3 I; i1 @0 mstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
1 @5 [* i: Y1 B* P% Dimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.9 C; r" H) h1 s5 u$ k
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! y0 c+ p- \3 O! l# y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.# p" o" B# V$ g4 F
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
4 V1 L. a' |: y, telite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and: r! k) W5 x% z/ V1 @; S
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, }/ m& _# J6 }8 ~based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
2 B: U0 v, f& D
1 S7 M! y  C+ ~) D/ i; dThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
  h' J! D& g! M, X5 `example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in. @. Q& W! i# S3 W
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
  j5 g& G$ V) T' {; she chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later' x: L0 k1 [4 j. x3 i) J
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 P* |3 T% v5 U3 M% v, G! Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# E- Z1 B% O$ i% q+ h1 _9 bFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another. o) o' Q# t# C! {3 R3 J
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
* D2 e! Z0 w* ]8 V! e  }+ q) Thand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle+ s  v' \, p# U0 [/ {
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this& m" S+ M  U4 l& {& k$ h- {
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 \; N; }  ]* x/ N9 W/ jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 p& \1 _, r! @9 r$ B1 _faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) C0 {( I" [5 @; A& z' W8 raside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) _/ P1 `4 t/ R  S7 V1 Ximplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& J$ H6 S9 a" T& D: G: V1 [  h$ r+ C4 T
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! a. h  [8 @& o9 c
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ h3 \; N9 l% X3 d$ }s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s6 Q. D8 J9 X9 l( V
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- t4 O2 L2 i9 p& Yout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 u, U3 j# l6 w
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
/ R5 H' X: ^$ s! `6 rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
- D5 I. X* M! r6 Rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 q: C+ L" M! v6 e2 Hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science0 H- F3 H; g9 I, K7 S, x; k4 t
works./ H3 b  \& ~" E

4 L3 L! {* m- t2 G2 gFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 i9 v! a  b3 Mimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this7 B3 A3 X5 R8 I2 q9 I
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
1 _" @9 R* M- O4 p+ L  ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
8 b, G2 b0 q* _papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* ]! U  f' L( k, I) }
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One) n" k! @# S/ B
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. g  ?( I+ d- Rdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works8 s, x- e" J! q( g
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
5 j# z0 {. @/ F. Nis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is5 C, i! z2 y3 \: V& R- |
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he" C' T& R) L- Y1 x1 K
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly9 I- N7 z, O+ q: _; c
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ Q) ~9 l  `$ Y& d" Lpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 ~0 C( s6 v( ~/ X0 P3 Luse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
- `0 }, ^6 l* Q; I1 B. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
1 B" y$ d$ X5 h+ mdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may4 _: r$ A. r" I$ h( h
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a3 S4 K2 ?& d- u9 _
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye9 Y# s! s: ?. E& F+ o9 u
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a, @4 w7 F: f$ l1 S: y
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:" B* W# R7 o  M' r- A7 P$ Y
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
0 F, g5 M, i0 Z, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
2 V. M) e- P$ R5 [8 U: tprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 z) m4 L+ I7 }
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight6 N# U7 ~: A* }# a
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
! `. L1 y3 I5 M3 F% ULet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping' Z. h0 a6 t. \, g+ C) H
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for" C- W" K- S$ e1 S3 o( K
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% }# s" u2 n* W7 a# A3 \/ K
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 l- v. D# |  A+ {. V3 \9 s' S# O8 K. |
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 f8 w9 E; o' g; T
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 |& |6 e* Q/ i& r+ ^- \/ a/ V
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. u" ~% A) O% eOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London6 Y. G6 ^* a* r1 n
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 v7 [5 r0 ~, s4 Y' B! Y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
' j' T- m6 B/ Egames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope6 o. |) E: n. L+ p
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 Y7 ^: m# F8 d6 g8 mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this2 s, }& D. T# D- r2 d# M
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" `/ t6 X1 R9 I3 s1 E7 y( I  r& ~$ E) w& f
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 [& v8 d  G% I7 ~1 o7 vintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) {0 b# s9 s/ l1 Y6 q8 v! {suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
$ G+ s' G4 M4 V) X' Y+ bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
4 y: H3 v1 B  l1 D) h) j' @7 G" j6 mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
) Y; H5 J2 u, I8 |, Tinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 |$ I- e5 c0 i- d
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your9 Z- t& z1 A! a; @/ ~0 m6 \
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
2 M: F: R3 U% Q4 Psuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or4 p0 ^: I6 I. ]  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, 2026-4-5 14:06 , Processed in 0.119714 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