埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2152|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 j6 o! d; |, Z* _6 F4 s+ _0 l. k* G" {7 g  A
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
% m+ C1 e1 r* ?( {% J' {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。  Q" ?: W& c: [1 @
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! D0 L, b6 p# Z# E% F0 y1 b5 g
/ }$ \4 g! L7 w; ~6 d. G3 whttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html7 {! K; K3 n6 g; L

8 c, j9 p' d8 p6 K致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
' K& u. j; Z! V4 Z# e# x/ X( f& B) w% D% B' N. W) }' x( y( Z
英文原信附后,大意如下:8 |7 o% ~5 o) _- y! t6 [! W4 j. A

: |, t% u* }' k* T4 v$ \斐尔,6 N5 ], F+ D( `) 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
+ `0 }& O8 l  w; y, Semail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
  o# x/ ?1 P, q( J$ }" q% O0 @* W       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& Q* {5 H% m$ I* W$ p
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
7 I. B( i7 o6 Z3 C% ]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。
+ D& N9 a9 ]* a# v       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( F1 X2 I0 ?$ W+ A2 p
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
; N5 ]4 x" O1 X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- \+ D$ K% @- D; O! `" z9 H
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。) t- q' z' w5 ]/ \
       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
; D+ }6 ^, D, |. T1 d: f" W,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; n5 c+ p- a0 B# G
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
! b9 y1 I# f# G+ ^5 P+ B& C. i       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 {6 E6 w+ \  E/ O, T6 @
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
0 Q& o2 F3 F, s( W6 [4 I* ~9 c5 e,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
5 O, \, ^& K  F9 a       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+ q/ l+ ~# ?# d- O4 E6 I
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! t2 o# v( }' I' V0 r' K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
) O" b# ~7 A/ f% B+ Z, D- v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8 A" v9 d  f7 R! Q- T
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
7 ?7 n! f& f1 R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
9 ?4 X1 \) c- u$ {  m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 W1 S: W4 ?4 P6 v$ b
。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
0 @  G2 j/ F% E( Q+ s. v录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; O6 _: [6 O. W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. r- V# `1 Q, {5 E' k/ h1 C
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% @0 _' j3 }- j4 K  L2 m
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
: i: [& w8 l& E+ B' C同意见的专家。
/ P! w7 Z7 \, y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# t4 X' ~) Y% e* y" d. X
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
, y9 P- N6 |! E+ Z* ?1 \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, z' [5 W( a3 b
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
* ]: l& e: {4 C$ sCallaway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! y7 w. w7 ~" k# |2 B
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6 ?& q, V; L) q. l* e% z
《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% s9 G3 o1 N8 g# l! B) w. b5 O这些被Callaway忽略。
" z: {) |* P% [; }9 w1 k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% Z3 Q, K8 F4 L" y+ u8 l# 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2 w, d* R3 U9 r, w+ ?# g
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。; y: `7 q2 H# g; O2 E8 C( K" ?
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( G9 g7 O" ?$ |& Y1 V/ Y* m7 Z
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
! g- ~' r, p" z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
; }+ o- l8 @! f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。) q3 U! D# ?5 A8 J! F6 K1 N: 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7 p% y; a4 l4 G& r: ~! a* _: 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: y. @: r4 g1 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
" F* r! @. c, X9 ?# B$ S# w”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 I1 M) ]1 [: D- o; E5 F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1 p! U* ^: t$ w1 I( C" n4 `. q7 W" B- B5 ?
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
, _/ r  \2 ~- j8 b% F题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁
" h: g: K4 s- @' e7 R9 ~/ x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
& \$ c' G& w$ 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
* |6 U3 V  @7 W而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* q; }5 K2 K! I. Q& @5 F/ b我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
4 N& D+ `2 T6 ?5 ]# p3 E9 ~
9 e" h  T" T: H7 p0 C7 H
+ n& X3 w- {$ b; N3 `* B北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
, Y. k5 Q5 B/ g: Y2 B8 b& a" ?
/ h# q/ \: B0 M5 i; H/ C% s附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结( ^7 ^+ h* V9 y+ H1 N: W
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email- F" H* n2 A$ ^' e
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见  e2 {/ m9 j) F$ K# d. w; r( v
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见% Z- W0 F9 a8 ^  W$ i
; c% @$ n3 q* r( A7 w
! t4 }0 H* B' \+ J. Y7 y" U
# [9 u$ b/ V" ~8 Z2 o& ^1 N
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- _, L6 t$ v* I5 k- m( o' @6 `4 P8 H
Dear Phil,
+ A- Z# _6 `" f3 s5 n9 r9 Q       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
  k: C+ n% g+ B6 `. `  ?report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. z! `. B$ l9 R' x  b! f" P+ f# q" H) [
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed1 ~+ Q5 G9 G0 a! H
you.
' |3 A2 l! e& W: `2 Y) r# Z  Q       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have; F1 T9 I8 z( R
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
) A! Z$ R* G8 J3 F9 O5 Vreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ @, r* r0 C9 y7 e# qworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
) O7 `. A; d7 O  G8 mpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ e, }+ w' c' [
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
) ?' N1 [& B3 V3 Vpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
" J9 @7 }# c1 d       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the  Y2 q# o! O8 d1 m
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
$ [9 I, S+ Y5 M( Y( O- E" wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish% s" `' s5 K. H9 O" L$ @
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
; j" Z* [. q. _" O) v3 t) h5 G9 pdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
# n2 J/ l9 B1 i+ d6 V0 w5 Lexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ |9 i' ~6 z2 M1 j6 ^1 I) @) ~; G( T
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,: J; _  k; C6 N$ h
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 k% r! B9 J, ~$ N6 _/ Z
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
( [* m2 M# V1 \reporting.
2 j; p: v& \! I- s! k       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! s) y/ {0 }+ a2 Zalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 L/ O1 |/ [( V; H5 ~changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
9 @9 Z% t- f3 @' N4 r: ysports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A* u) r% ?' l1 _9 z
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
- u# Y. z) F$ A( g! b       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
1 ^5 p- M7 ?8 Fmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds. H% u' l. V: `4 |& z
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 507 m0 M- O; M; N, Y! |
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
, K, ~5 S& f+ |4 q9 M5 X7 m# zevent for men, with the second fastest record.
' @! {& o: p% B" L3 N  E" o       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
# t( G+ o4 P  U, W: ~& Vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
; O5 v; @. r& t$ {2 `" D! wyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record; S3 ?  z  j8 c7 R" p& ^( n
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4002 K7 ~' c7 w* A4 L7 F! f
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,& k7 l: A/ C' C' N) j7 j
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
0 n- r1 F+ a1 o4 PLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% ?! r! e. J' U' p! x5 E
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the' s  q5 \% `$ J
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower2 L* c+ V" e- \4 j8 v: R1 d, I
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
0 S# g$ p. G8 l3 C4 f& v; f+ othose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
0 e: d. v2 u5 Dher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
/ l  q& e2 C+ _1 l* Ahe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “; `/ x2 j6 n$ {3 ~3 ]4 ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
% v! j& U% H2 M; P5 W% bswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
4 j: f, v" p1 Pteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
" ^" F5 Q5 `0 [5 w2 G( D2 CCallaway report.& C& h8 Y) ^3 v
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more) [4 b) x! G* Q2 l
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details( ?* M/ C! t( }+ y
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description  A, Y, T1 U& k9 n1 S6 e
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been* D- b$ \( ], j. R% L
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the4 i1 _! P0 q) z- p" l
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
& t8 a9 \- i, ?6 O  c9 zpublicly voiced different opinions.
* W5 e/ h1 y/ I9 o: K* YYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD: P% l% P; W$ y+ o1 y2 I
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ ~' u) C3 c/ k9 P1 w9 K' M. n# ^1 hNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent0 ~$ _9 e* Z% u
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds! J' ]! O6 L/ z8 @& X
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy8 _7 j4 X* C0 B/ g. ?
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.. l7 b7 P3 }+ K: t- ?  N( g4 E
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think, A3 {7 J8 i8 t# m4 L7 u
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ u- ^3 f+ `, B, yhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as$ J" J8 u* U. t5 T
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that$ N' c8 Y1 W; Z& F" Z) _- T( r. ]
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was! c$ `  o/ L5 J" m7 x) ^
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.1 d$ F/ u& U/ j7 J0 y
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that3 n3 d7 u% p, T. x
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the8 a* r5 z2 m7 t2 F
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 `0 C7 c0 V- |- O/ E" X$ Z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* z5 u# Z5 A% U5 ^and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.9 g6 `* A% R4 Y* R* l
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
! p' I4 `' H2 M: s7 wand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
5 W/ |8 ?* e0 y2 aDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.# l# u2 K( J0 S1 r! m. r2 a/ s! G
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
$ R3 U) ]( C, H& J8 J- \3 B$ sobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 s1 l: x" R- g  @$ y  Z
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to* u$ p; s5 V  m+ W
repair the damage caused by your news reporters." O0 n# @2 K/ [
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not* {. \0 \5 l0 I- m# i) X4 q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
$ H2 K" z. v" s0 P8 `* Kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather7 I* a( V( @" P4 r5 \
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
) z/ W$ g/ u& f6 C& X7 ythis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”/ A  w% J% j+ a* n: U
about British supremacy.- w8 s7 s2 I  }5 a
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
5 M5 n! r  S: O5 `  yunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, o! U  W2 f# i# mChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
- |% x$ e8 I% S% |' Mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
3 Z. ~" W1 _* T: jOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
. V  L9 m! Y4 t) T' H4 MYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
* G8 c$ O" B3 h, d; W; jprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 f$ v0 {4 n+ V; f# K+ J" g. cbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
( x8 Y) l! s8 n4 Pit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly3 a. t& b8 q" J( u  E7 {, g  I
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like  e/ ^* [3 S% W3 A
Nature.
) F# q( e8 P0 [5 [I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance' n+ ~; f8 \2 n8 T. i3 O
the Callaway report.
6 Q$ L) q6 }! [; c4 @" u, ~: K9 @, X8 x9 g
Yi. _4 N+ s5 }" L2 v/ g
9 X' T! F- A5 L6 \
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
' r* z& ]/ _6 S4 Y5 U1 Q  A% e- x0 |Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
1 g, f- n' y* G0 }- y$ EBeijing, China% C+ p# N. w* o4 ?: a
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·········
理袁律师事务所
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 ]8 }3 g/ G: }* C原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
  y2 ?, I" r' G0 [, `, Y
原文是公开信。/ f4 ~6 i$ k8 W  L

- s3 k) e  ^" Z4 J. z. Q, d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
3 `3 W2 {3 {8 t4 j7 h  X6 }原文是公开信。' ^+ r. F5 c& a# Z3 C! E0 k+ r

; E; `, n" E. J3 c7 x小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
$ @. G- D* j/ o" ^6 ~$ J) w" ]7 a
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
$ @  @- O! b) s9 r. V如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。/ c* u; U( L" d$ Q

1 I7 @0 k9 {( w  whttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html5 O" J/ }; I7 P$ N
. U( p4 {8 v- j8 ?8 e  _) J
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
2 u, s+ d8 r0 U
- t. I7 }% o  q* l  K. c8 P3 `: q* o  ]It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself* }! O3 F2 d- A1 z0 T+ V5 _; j
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ \* {8 ~0 d" @6 V
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
0 O7 f" X0 j5 T) R; V. G/ Dis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the0 i, N0 U5 T: v7 K7 \$ m! p$ M& l
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 A( X5 ?) V9 s$ t
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
  _! P/ B2 Q. j' u; `# \$ wshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
: X, T+ ^- O" Fwhich they blatantly failed to do.. g. v6 j. s6 X. F

: {  {1 m& G$ M! iFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. Z! m. Q% g7 N3 U
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' R$ `7 M' E1 v/ o. V" J2 m
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “6 p3 d( P1 s8 h0 }" |  L
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
; R4 t& _. `1 Epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an6 d- v/ s+ ~7 k  }
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the# l! I& ^0 x( |
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to( h; l0 ], V5 ^3 J1 n
be treated as 7 s./ c4 n0 C' V- A2 b
# w: O6 E1 k$ c
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
: c/ S4 V+ ~7 Astill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 `$ \3 l3 [( Pimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
" a0 V" h: m2 G( \" A- hAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& C$ Z0 Q, g! Q1 j-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# O9 x. x  P1 M9 J+ ]) R( zFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& D  s# i' j3 r" Q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( Q3 X; j) c* a9 Fpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”2 U: o2 t& t) ]# I
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ H3 P+ G( ^' u- K! H
3 d1 {* t  T1 }+ WThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
7 T3 y/ U" l( M% X  J- c+ Fexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
& X3 G9 h0 O* x# Mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 i# v2 e7 j/ Ihe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: ?) r0 G4 s5 `events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* K$ R$ a& f! p' |* Q- i: O
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
% o" c6 g2 V- t; lFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: k  ~" a' g3 |) t' p
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other* ?- v5 i0 S5 `+ w# H
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
) J) _2 M3 f! f2 N+ }, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
4 i( ^0 ]/ L: p  tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& p- \) Q# O8 Z8 {2 [3 l
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* p, K7 V1 k  k. Z3 jfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
' P7 \) u( H# m* j7 ?aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ {' M  V1 `* H. O$ p5 n% yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 c0 x- f( X. z; B
  D: g8 G6 T: V$ X* hFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
" b: u0 e& i# N( S/ Y5 Lfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93: |. b1 K1 D0 ^6 t
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 l0 z% B8 h6 o# [* h+ L
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
7 ]! T) {1 Y7 n* jout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' B, P- z/ }" Z5 |Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
# Y3 M6 z9 t" Fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 ~: R) N2 q' U/ r8 k( X8 hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 u, a7 Q$ y, L' D& t, T' O# x
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science; E7 o) B; x- T1 k
works.7 K7 J4 U$ e) W* Q
" l; o" v7 r' y9 ^- r
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 o1 L8 Q; e4 K) X7 E2 b7 f
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
4 o# f- B/ J& k, Lkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that& S6 ]8 M& k' v  c# S
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 K4 U1 z3 m. R8 x1 l) O( \0 [! Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 l- h& o& k* C
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 x7 ^1 R; J3 D6 ~cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 Q' x! B3 y# D. Ademonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
6 G# H% ?( R& [5 X0 X  Nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample- W* Q2 H) k. [5 x
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ v8 T) i) i8 c* ncrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
2 b. q1 ^# ~; e- u. xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 t: ~/ }$ K0 o, H  C/ Z
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the1 q3 F4 a$ c- z" C
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not( ^! \- n# t, v2 B1 `# h. X% @" ~
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ r6 O& _1 p/ W. j6 S% G8 u7 P9 j
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" f$ O( F8 R+ L* k* ^1 X2 {doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may6 F% a0 `4 O4 w7 E3 f
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 g6 a7 ~" A7 ?: E8 ^( V; G* Bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 e7 Q5 C3 O+ z2 s- y0 n% A' h% I: Vhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
! K7 x4 K( Z0 l! r, K2 S5 ~. udrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* D! A1 w! y+ Y( ?; k7 f( b+ L
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( R* r% k3 N% |+ L4 a  c
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is( U0 E' W. H% L3 Z0 |* _* j4 `
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an# b# `* ]/ ~; U& N
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
% C8 G( Z- k5 ]- W6 Cchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
7 }% T; g4 m3 WLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 i5 t( P; T  b: d$ u1 Y. {agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 B0 [% G1 q5 ~1 J* `! K
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
7 J& E& L- h+ W; T+ `) C/ t9 PInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
! ]  A5 W  B* I5 @, {9 Z7 Y  n' ~& A. c: S1 H( x' R
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 r3 g' v2 |/ ~) G5 f
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
, n; [' _: [! b' E7 r. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
* w1 Z; R5 \. z; [$ f6 \Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 u' X' a# F3 [  d- u
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
$ d& `2 Q  ?( A9 t( f" xdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 i, v4 ~7 k. ~8 L
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
& A; f$ m. k, |& C/ m) nhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
  k! [8 S  u' E, D# Kplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this2 n/ I' G- e8 I5 N
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; U8 y4 s+ C- ]  i7 h9 L, S0 Z% j; Q4 h6 i2 R
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, G: l$ U8 A" k. Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( H8 G& k/ v$ K( J0 r  i
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a* n4 f1 J: q9 p7 c# N
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide7 t' Z# Y0 T% k
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ w5 ^# U& I+ I  N* a( }! Y) T
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ _$ ]$ ]* }: Pexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& ~+ I% K+ m" k; S5 J  {
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal& a* i- z4 }$ d0 l1 j8 S" {
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ h/ \& @7 w. {! v- t; w1 Preporting 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, 2026-3-25 19:07 , Processed in 0.097676 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