埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2099|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 ' x9 F6 X+ B4 i3 r- s
* ^. M0 R. n% G
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
* j, H8 C5 _; S7 r" A4 `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。# K; J8 f2 F9 C6 y6 z
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# Z# w8 I0 Z6 G3 A$ x

- b; k0 @" x! m6 d: P! Dhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
4 `: t* O. J1 s; H9 {' H
! E& `8 U. c* U6 W致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
8 d5 l. F- t2 ?3 l" M* u6 p* P
. w5 A6 L+ Z. R8 O9 Z4 v英文原信附后,大意如下:1 O& q6 d, z# X  ?
' `' ]5 E: O8 @4 s, M
斐尔,
9 X  T) W( w; U: U9 N       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
) B. U& b% a# Q8 Q) {2 eemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
$ @+ {$ X5 ~- E5 l/ Y       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴9 ?2 o9 C5 J% {& G
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+ b6 c* _! U2 V7 _
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。7 _$ \7 _! T$ s
       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
. p) `, e: J- Z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- S; N. B1 C; q
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. \0 r- ?( |+ N0 ]9 \. S: }' Y
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。
. Y9 [# f! W& M! K! i5 z9 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0 G1 n+ t0 ^2 t$ s
,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
. G- x1 q4 X* T. c2 P”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。! g4 W$ d8 L4 I+ w
       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
$ W2 l  }, G& \- Q) E  x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
* J6 E# v: ]1 Q6 ~2 U& X,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- c/ Y5 d2 b; |1 E8 D$ `       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
/ M% H" Z9 m" J2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混6 z) |6 l3 Z% Z/ @6 k0 ?
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# R& a& k2 _1 d$ e3 A4 C
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
- t& y1 f. h8 S1 X( E3 w3 p300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, i2 H2 Q( U. Y; q+ t! `
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
- s( W- ]! u3 N- C2 P9 L, j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
1 B) O+ `0 \. Z! |0 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
9 t0 ~6 [5 V* w3 r录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* R: W+ {9 n7 h4 _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1 G, _% _* {/ {, y" A$ I
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
: ?' Y8 {, J! W3 K( W# 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. T7 u8 f6 x- c, J( V# {
同意见的专家。6 q0 ?6 v, @6 F/ ^( q- k
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
- j$ p7 Q0 a) Y' J# c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 e1 D  }3 H2 L' ^! E% ]6 Q7 F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0 Z! X$ @4 H4 b9 K
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。9 f2 v* d, H/ x7 J) R/ ^7 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 \2 D# k& [  G2 e5 h9 c! _/ b: g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/ z0 ^! a/ O: ^* R: [
《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
8 Q: N2 H* q* }* f: ?这些被Callaway忽略。
6 t/ W# u8 H) 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
: x; z. C! a" W/ u3 D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
  i  I9 k' G" P! |5 ?教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。8 x" S* K# O$ c2 d8 Q: \$ S8 D. S( J
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7 q, `. z, q4 V4 y4 F6 @
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
8 J$ k. _  d* A. k- g( G- 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
8 s/ ?2 D, h' {5 h/ d  C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。
  M, d% |  Z4 g" u8 _  p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
, B# E+ U6 J9 _+ V1 E4 M. o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
; q4 R# w: {* f/ C$ G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
& F7 v) `) _" r  p8 E8 j/ f”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ t. x7 ~& V) c# K4 G: t2 e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/ S8 S4 j: i9 J- o
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- c+ J9 c+ w& c9 J1 j" q: k0 ]
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& {8 @) ^* i$ D. W9 {- L
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9 \9 Q1 r8 E: ^+ 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
5 ]8 w1 X+ Y# a而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
4 ?+ L" B$ n  C我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: x, n! ]5 J4 t
1 {+ l* S" h" Z

" `6 ^/ r2 b/ e- B北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: _8 M9 A$ m6 p& @# k
0 a2 U& Z1 n& l' \4 f8 o
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结  v" e& z" a9 T+ ?9 e$ j" g
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email4 b# C3 n9 \) B! \+ Q
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见  ~5 D1 x3 U! w; v  C, u) ?% w  j
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
% ~+ r+ n6 d  k9 E" K# k# F- z5 C* w/ @' u) a
1 I+ t/ `7 c8 D. c+ X5 N8 y

! j0 B/ S5 p, ^( E& ^$ K6 N5 ]原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)! O: X* ]5 j- l/ z: p
Dear Phil,! e# A- V3 ]8 {3 s; k% D/ u' n  \6 h
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
6 a6 V4 ~' B: I% M$ ?% r' x( [report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
7 D8 Z; a' b% }5 k. I- O6 }- qhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed0 @! F1 y2 R& I" G
you.
+ f6 l. c# b: e9 l4 ^       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
7 o0 V* ~7 y" v  U! {brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
4 r6 g% N- r, T  Greaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
) z& y: y" ?3 c, {3 ]8 g$ Pworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
/ I: N. d6 g9 b( H9 |0 e$ M' ^0 _publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
" V. n! {2 r0 V. kseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
# ]5 ~( }) P8 V( M- z7 ?' ypieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
9 Y. w# J% Z% U2 T" f& p4 w3 \       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
3 N$ x% k: x: E4 c  p: Uworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a1 w7 M5 c: \) @1 A
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish/ r6 ]+ Y! T0 u3 ]/ S
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway/ G8 r' a- C+ h& i# o8 i# F
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
4 ^0 [# ^3 Q0 S2 \$ i% T% Sexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 E# M$ B5 E( R! h( Ostandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,) Y5 E% i$ e0 s/ v1 Z
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
  ?1 V! [4 I: }to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news: c% T; X" A( ?3 l$ r* C7 N
reporting.
; l& N0 ^- y# p6 s, d% F       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, r0 t" \) O0 u- o. d
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
: y" x& _7 Q2 Y5 O% L5 j1 q: Fchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 E; Z7 U3 b, s  k
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A. L/ Z% U, G/ ]$ X6 P
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
1 U5 q4 ~7 {: B$ p# Z% n       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 U& `6 f" O# Wmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds- b% U4 e) I8 z) Y' ^
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50% l' m4 M& @* v2 t+ E
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
+ X, P8 V- V9 [6 C& O! T' _$ Tevent for men, with the second fastest record.
) n) l6 y% r3 A, [       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
6 f, k; m  c0 U. \. w! C% cwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16  o2 ~0 M7 S2 V% {( ^
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record$ c; n7 S  u7 Z' s2 |
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
8 E( r! j( ~9 u+ G6 u6 o- _meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,- z* k, h: U$ m( W- }
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than/ F+ f. @* g/ `. B* X( s
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
3 f; [. L8 g& s8 Rbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# R  R0 i. `6 b+ a0 lindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ l4 ~# D( {- b+ A( l, `than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 ~: G! N3 r) {, u! |- R3 ~% E1 B7 V/ k
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
; _! V( R* T& y. T, R! oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then8 \- F# I* `5 G# r
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
8 A2 V) @: v1 b0 s, Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 P; H' @: i# w7 v* I5 h& W9 f
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the7 u2 U9 u, e& o" x1 G0 r2 u% T' H
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the- c* Y5 w- l9 o4 O0 d9 O5 W
Callaway report.
% n& E; O8 E3 R7 d, C: M) K' ?) ZThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
5 B6 B8 ~# z0 ^' Y1 Z# `8 m# D: lunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
. j" n4 [$ q& zhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description/ r$ p! E8 e& r/ c/ r8 X: E
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 u5 r- w9 t+ f2 [9 z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- q# b8 E  E* ~" a/ a, z+ _Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had7 n/ z4 |4 X& K% u) u! J! i8 B% y5 |  M
publicly voiced different opinions.2 v# E( w, P6 ?0 S1 U  m8 u; c
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
8 g3 J, U/ b1 o" y8 Afrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" J& o; i6 \8 P* _! bNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent4 L* |* ^) Z' {" k% K; z
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
& e* F- X) `9 Dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
2 A! z$ t# d) O0 t# jof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
8 y2 ^0 m& `0 \' T9 DThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think- |4 v5 k$ C6 z7 ^1 R1 X" L
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 l% |5 l+ X0 g6 L% C" @1 j
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as' g1 J- i; D9 Q5 q% d
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
" _5 d7 @/ B' A) O7 e& u/ ythe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
5 X+ m. a5 @. asupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
- \$ Z' w& l5 [One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that& V. T3 Y1 J5 k  _- J- p& X/ _7 k
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the7 ], p. u: ^5 G8 n  E2 Z+ ^
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June* c2 n/ K, \, U5 M6 L
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
  `  |. p8 W" k. j7 {, Jand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ v! V4 u( Q; X+ i* X+ p# q
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
4 I% w, z& N' L! z; J2 T0 c8 m& Iand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
1 n* z1 d' k! ~- T0 B6 k" ~4 pDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
' U4 Q4 k/ b$ ONature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
: J$ q/ _' j: G3 D0 }, |# C9 n7 {6 qobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature/ Y8 r5 W8 t9 f" D$ ?5 Y* [
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
+ a% D- j% V% `) w, U1 l: }repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
$ q7 A4 t( K+ n( Q5 }0 rThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
% v6 y1 Y& |0 s. Cshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
( L/ M2 R; g0 j; D  z$ ius to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 r! i" ]! z4 N- F7 h! z$ h8 Pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that; X3 Z( I/ W) R* p# q- ~; `
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”2 U7 w8 e8 s3 O, F0 _/ `
about British supremacy.
6 R6 `" f, d. J( pThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many1 w* J/ |" a; [" T7 j( F
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more1 K- G* t3 Z4 P; s: E# G2 ?
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by( o' l1 \, _. d
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
4 R: c* j, O$ M, W  c0 COlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 l, j6 {4 H  L, O* t( `9 ?
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of6 m$ i# D& O5 u' n7 ~
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests* {* E5 v8 k) G2 {. ~6 m
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' C  y  d" ?& O2 ^5 Z( \" @6 `
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
* G0 Q9 p" x- F4 S! hpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
# B! _% v& }! Y/ J. U% K# N* YNature./ ^- T3 N  h9 H( m% |4 P: J
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
4 C; ~/ o0 h& L) [) L% |7 ^the Callaway report.( o/ `' P( R, T& {! }# j5 `4 T& y

. r1 V4 z+ z6 k& i" QYi
' h; n; m8 o; R/ {" z2 o
4 ^( j2 G( l. Z' AYi Rao, Ph.D.# g6 J- F5 i; a' m1 S8 V; s
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences4 w! Y9 R# p9 K9 N) H9 b) Y5 I
Beijing, China) H. d) o  n* j% m& \
理袁律师事务所
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 : j4 y( a" c' D9 h& q2 L
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

9 x( c0 k% m0 W, T原文是公开信。
4 p/ r: t7 {- u6 y& D
# f: {- M2 U3 c3 g/ T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
5 d: ^  g( J/ _* f原文是公开信。; z8 n2 O0 v/ Q
3 Q% |4 {- ]# H( w+ v. @
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

8 R0 k: y5 D1 A. v6 s2 {0 R$ A( u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
3 [* y- r. M  A如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 x  h5 ]% `% Z  ], t. B
* b) z7 y$ ~; w& g5 Z# V" P5 {http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- S3 T/ r5 K, A/ B9 _, |7 n

( _! D. |1 z% EFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- g7 ?4 g- T  a4 m6 m: A8 t- M- J* r# h9 u
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself; |7 z% r4 T' w8 s$ A
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science" b9 S: r3 f: N$ R/ y* u
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this# M3 _# |0 h" j3 T  i4 F: Y
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; p* z- f9 }' u3 M, u
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 r0 |1 }' U6 b# ]9 ]
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors8 Y6 [7 N* V6 P; }
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' Z1 k- x3 r$ H% X6 X% q
which they blatantly failed to do." O  B5 o& n& G1 f, Z
! ]8 v5 K: }9 m2 p7 i6 Q9 k
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 S2 U' ~2 Y7 m* `* a1 t) KOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
& `# g; c6 |$ [' E* w2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
' R$ @& R6 s9 B& ?2 ]anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% `$ A  f3 U, [7 a, r3 ]! Cpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; V7 h* t! L2 D- C7 Q9 A* m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! T7 I' ~/ |: D  Y% k# N7 Edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ n6 m+ V4 n/ S0 }) Mbe treated as 7 s.
. M  P: A' L% o
7 r5 W! j! T( ^$ G. g5 SSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ R" q1 Z# a2 v% i( wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
2 J& Z8 Z" n6 N6 ximpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.  ]# z: n1 A( H1 _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! G! A  @% r. ]' r-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.9 N: p' ^5 G; s9 u
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) w6 C3 x0 w; g
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
4 J  X2 Q/ e2 `& Lpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" Y" D' H' o2 O7 D' q0 D. N# f. a
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 E: M+ R  G* g; ?. _* J% @1 O! M5 z
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
) P; q+ b) X# f. ]' L0 wexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
5 X0 Z' y, n' Ithe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so* d) Y; L* s" Y/ H0 r( v& R
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 ~( l9 O, w  U) ?4 Y& T, v* Q; f
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
  h) P, |( z, ?best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World# l& c3 h. Y, Q, d
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
  h4 H1 b( F: Z7 l4 `( }3 t8 y1 G* @topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other2 H- ]% X# t+ |3 L' x
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
3 n( W, h2 ~- Q8 W  W; T! S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this: |0 C6 q5 l/ `  u
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
, P6 _3 L$ m' p7 Y, s: Wfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 y" A3 U- r- G' U# s. Nfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
! {! V$ e1 h* y3 @& Uaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that7 C% s* c1 n8 Y" [% H7 f$ n: m0 L
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.. F% h, v! l+ n5 E+ c
8 j4 w. A0 f5 b9 Z! q+ j+ x: t( [$ M1 L
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# w" }1 ~' |- r$ B0 Qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93" Q4 k3 |0 {/ b0 t5 _' W0 Y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
1 q' X* |0 f1 q) k3 x; V), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
) u# o5 M, U1 m$ j! mout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,( H: k9 o6 j; w, Q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind  t. S3 g- [. n- ]3 N( [
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 t5 R- Q* o4 ?7 }) \7 `/ m- A4 n
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in* ~5 n% [) w2 k' b3 J$ i0 Q+ d7 y4 `5 f
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ W9 n- ]3 F7 y" {! i" N: Y, Cworks.8 f. F6 c+ a1 ^( f$ `" C  x. b
5 B1 s; {2 J) W( n, c1 i+ i) R; s9 [8 P  X2 k
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
. z( e3 e( Y! simplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) S- y/ z5 j9 Y2 E, lkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, P# J3 H, E/ j+ {6 k3 U6 dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- N" @/ V( S$ upapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and8 G, [( o% R, w( P9 g4 l
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 Q/ V$ _: @7 a1 Kcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
/ _. ?4 m. _4 _( U* Z/ Fdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# a: a# a7 w7 Q0 t, h7 Hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
& N7 o& y5 o5 a$ H4 y! H- [  n: ?is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
' B/ N; t% Z* k: h4 pcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
5 d4 j4 T. H/ h* `+ X* pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 ?  C9 l5 D3 V2 J1 Ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
6 @) t0 w# V6 L2 R1 T4 Tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
+ K9 k) }/ i  j+ K2 v, I" [use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
9 b* p7 C6 |) a; |+ L$ U# K7 _. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 u( G, C0 N. W3 Y; \doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may# H& _8 S- v& T# a% F) a+ z
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( E0 l9 G8 \8 R$ f, h
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
  _: V6 W( X) y; C9 e4 j/ v1 ehas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% ~6 C0 t, ^) c8 i, S2 t
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:1 q; s2 u5 f6 ~2 H& {; b* [+ K
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# N+ A7 q7 u/ P- ^/ h( h  H, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! Y" b% ]8 c$ b, M  Eprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. }+ y; _5 o! a9 C& m$ {
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight! U9 G9 _2 K! r* d; w0 o
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, e1 m& C& q" R; Y# R4 l# C3 T; b2 f
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( W" v  z8 q7 b! b, e/ magency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 z7 y! z* _0 ^( oeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
0 O& W5 F* ~% p  B/ i8 zInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?# A8 f7 W( l/ u% f1 n5 K% P
$ b+ ?7 L! \- m; p6 B" C5 @$ y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ S) d2 W1 Q# H: |7 i  C( S: F6 r
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; ]4 s6 ]/ t. |% |0 [1 D. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" A% w- _9 o8 `Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
5 J$ ~) V! K' |% M# {# fOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ t& G  o# ]! i' o
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
$ T; h# Z5 p% ^$ Mgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
( a4 e( u. N7 n; W* m/ Nhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
0 W+ A. I4 n* C! ]7 T! bplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 E# g& J6 H0 o# u9 P# L
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
- q0 c5 O0 V3 l: @) G* Y2 q, S% c  A% S" [7 ^8 J4 ]- ~
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 A$ m3 S. j8 j8 t$ S) B$ n
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too5 B! h# k) I* J2 A6 K% _: q
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" X- v: N. K% Q. _3 {suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ m9 j. w( f3 B5 U! J1 c  \' iall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
# q+ f2 n2 M( N7 e$ M# Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,& d5 T( @. q" Z. K3 W
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your% f7 t: |, E- ?. i6 y/ `
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. C6 N: P: J! l+ S5 Y/ K. m
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or, L: f4 Q) {; C; G
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, 2026-3-4 15:04 , Processed in 0.117191 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