埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2284|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
/ s0 q% t# K" ]
8 l" U. {3 {% m$ c5 t& Q: v饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
. S% t+ v. P5 f& T% [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。
2 z1 b) ?9 ^8 f5 ]; Z总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。. |) l/ Z  S9 W5 X" R/ U; J

4 b. V7 _: S+ ?, q* I: R( [; M" t& Ghttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
4 p' O, M4 k: V# p( H" B* R/ T; O
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
3 Q# @; p& _/ c& z
2 ~) I. ?+ S2 F英文原信附后,大意如下:# m" z$ _2 x# M6 q) b, ~

# v7 g, {1 _- `0 W斐尔,/ S7 I8 ^2 K  A8 ^0 B9 ^& V
       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
( [2 j8 M8 l: a. x0 qemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
. ~2 _& C, d: x, i2 e+ 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- t) I3 `  [) r) y% s
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2 A- K2 ?, A2 M5 x3 N1 |$ 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。
+ F" ?9 j& l; P% D  C( V: ^  Z- Z0 g       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
; \- R: v0 X; q, j6 R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2 N: y4 N* U! _5 k$ A- ^
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
. {6 N9 q- K! t- a( w7 }/ 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。+ U+ L3 V. _+ |$ W- z7 y* U! {
       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* i+ {' t% T8 ~0 {
,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/ r9 p# U0 ]' G9 A4 L2 g
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
% T) c% g( P. r8 t5 A) W& P       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
, u  r- ]/ x- 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
% E+ ?# i- v& ^4 M- `" S,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
" ]2 `5 X7 q7 y3 c* 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
% v& }1 P9 w1 ~6 c! p- {6 t  b. c" N2011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
+ d  }  Z- I/ |, G: E5 X  o- F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
* h% T% j3 g% I3 D; n" A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7 R5 w0 B6 p5 D: z9 Q: ^. ]
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
6 z7 W3 b- {; a+ c: P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' i5 ^- ?* z" E
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
# a6 P2 E8 A/ q/ N. S。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  `2 m7 h1 T7 n% K
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。5 w2 K! ~4 [, s* ?- W2 k
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+ P/ `5 x# N' r' E6 h- N
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3 `. Y: j/ O) \" u2 E
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
7 `- R0 S8 Q8 m# f5 n2 M4 B同意见的专家。
, f# c/ l5 [! k' C2 m4 e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7 h, k" d8 M+ G8 E/ R% N+ W0 u
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7 R& s! {' W3 o" u1 K7 W6 d" ]
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6 [( ]; C6 j- p: p7 V( O  L
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。5 A6 t' b0 [$ D1 p7 Q; z
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)
1 {' P$ r' H' [2 p6 m& d% n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; E8 d& {# \* |& _
《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3 W( m6 o4 y+ h1 O9 V( f' j( o
这些被Callaway忽略。$ }" Z4 @3 S8 {  f7 h* O; L6 c
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7 N4 O% v" O+ _
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3 W8 i  a+ k' k& n) f+ w
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。/ y8 j, I; n: F
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
  }5 o" h" d6 t; y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" S( q- }2 H6 b2 C# \
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4 `7 i  [( l* ?" d, }. s5 d+ Q
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。) v, H/ c# ^$ I
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
5 F' X% U# `0 Y( i2 d2 U" a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5 b4 H( u  s% h& u9 Y$ d
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, q# R9 n3 ]3 ]
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。& P3 n4 ?1 b2 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- V  P) 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3 V/ ?; ~" G6 ^0 w  `' n& w# }
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 n  H! F, {$ e) v- K2 |5 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: z" I, J, m: `/ Q; o0 d7 z6 \: |
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
, q$ U. d! c; O5 F7 p而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。0 w  ]0 J; J- |0 ?9 B8 s
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& X/ D7 t  }; Q; Z$ L

$ d# z6 P. L& ~  b5 h. E
7 U9 H: a* R/ V3 u北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& d5 V7 b" C7 u7 l+ f

7 d/ X2 R+ Z: V" _/ W附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 Y# }/ m) A! ]  Y5 a$ ]6 V附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email$ J. i! f/ L# _3 |
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见7 n/ U, d: n# }
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) v9 d8 L9 M: s0 j( ^

7 k8 I7 ?; `3 e, M  s8 D/ H3 A! |/ G& k2 q, l' R
# s2 Y  |5 ^3 W& X
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
9 d% s% X$ @, f1 {' `5 RDear Phil,
, ~/ F& k2 \- ^       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s6 h! m- }) H4 \  Z5 n
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
: K/ C3 n1 X: V* whours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# o# h$ E/ B! U
you.
- o- Q8 s4 |' q" U0 y6 A       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
9 k. r8 y: a4 |) F8 r- {+ qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese4 I1 k& x8 v0 V3 S3 d
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
1 X) O( F  R' h! h0 Aworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 S# p: S% {( Y/ X7 i
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
, {1 A5 Y& [* P2 q1 Q2 a* w2 E* iseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news4 A1 j7 u) B- v0 f, Y
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 c$ l+ H+ E1 ^+ T% f       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ m3 }: y- d5 \8 T$ d4 S$ uworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a; z/ l& O+ W+ f+ c% r
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
7 |" P! Q  h. I! |that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway2 l* n, w% f# L) p  u' u
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping5 l( j. y* F* C' ~( c
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal% }" j. A5 ?$ x6 Q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
  Q  W6 A' K5 p% ^2 hand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 o/ r0 a, J0 \/ V9 H) }. mto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news+ m/ A9 G. {. \' ]9 [
reporting.
. `/ [9 O4 E0 Y7 Q+ x( I  K       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
4 }, ]/ c$ o6 u8 A. y; k# balready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 x- v) e! D4 A3 g% P; {changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
3 p  K! X( w% ~- w; bsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
) @) N, @+ L- T5 R2 h8 Q8 `presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
0 w4 Z4 X# Z. B5 m       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
$ |% q% S$ ~$ Mmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds# B; c! G0 A/ ^7 t
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
8 ^! `# O, l3 k2 @* Qmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same- O6 x# R9 T! `% V3 o/ u: U1 j
event for men, with the second fastest record.% ]2 n0 ^5 j3 V) Q# d
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye* {2 u0 M( R0 ?/ {$ N5 t: ]
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16) `  x4 ~- P! ?
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record0 M  e: V& D& ?1 D0 T6 t
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! m* F/ F. R) [* U$ |4 o! Y9 lmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
( ^0 |1 y& ^8 I# x0 lfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) z5 C( \6 u) ?" L6 lLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed  W9 n% E( F3 q) ], v3 V' P
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the8 p( |7 T2 C- Z( B7 ]5 g
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower9 g5 p0 o6 J! I4 ~5 X" {
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than7 ~0 e: y0 @; s% D  D
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
* Y# D5 f& P* r4 |) Z" @her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
( Q( q+ k6 T1 hhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “' g3 n: L: [& V- X( l. y
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
+ l: ]/ y& \- @, E: g! ?swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
4 l7 ^' e% y* C. a: a0 eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
2 u) D" Y8 O3 T7 ?  O* C5 zCallaway report.: Y2 j1 @6 H. f5 v% Y' G
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more3 E+ Z7 d: A$ P  x  l; N
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details2 P7 c3 T' @' V1 q; h
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description  L' Z! n5 @4 @. v0 W( a+ c
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
8 V1 \, Z7 ]# sbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- s; [" ], P4 O: @% i/ f9 [9 lWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had' c" z# _# r( g$ M+ L7 x& ]9 o
publicly voiced different opinions., x: R" E& q& \" S& y. N
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ Z/ }$ ^8 v# u( A
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
4 X& U* ~) b5 l, q. }* R% m* q" Z1 JNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent! T2 o- h' T- n" F( u4 N& p. I. v! r
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
" I8 L/ x2 k& A# }) fyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy. d  q- e: `+ ^5 u- I
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
$ U2 U* d! n7 xThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
7 p; @. i1 ]" d& ~that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
* Q; S2 ?9 K1 y/ i1 H* Chave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
" @1 ^8 D9 m" _5 v1 LAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
& G+ b  ?2 A3 D/ V* \the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was, {5 z+ O* |& G0 r0 Y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
) ~4 k( f) I" t, m& R% {8 @9 `One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that; D4 D5 I7 g6 x
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
8 U# s+ j0 ]' P# b8 U9 ~/ m8 U  OChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June: D) p  e1 N3 V: Y+ F) c9 K7 h- }
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
# t- v! O/ a" O3 E/ ]3 Iand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.& Y6 J0 z5 C9 z% u- ~+ `# {
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science9 t+ m; m/ I7 ?, S
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
; x1 p! g4 b! d) U6 N, pDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.: a) s" `( Q3 A: \% q1 H5 c* ?
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and7 W* b( i. a1 W! N0 w. v
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# q* N- C( G* g! ~( Q' I8 @- Pwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to3 h. Q0 z  z' _+ V2 t
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.% E8 M5 r6 ?2 S* j) y
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ }1 A+ p- Q. ?" f
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
" l1 }8 T7 Z3 c) g& u5 tus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
, z9 C/ U/ f% l) E/ c5 s/ ofresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that9 O) r: Q9 H- M  y  E; q& |/ e
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”5 I: f# r9 }) W
about British supremacy.$ U8 U5 _  g) u6 ]  C% p4 y/ `
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
9 I/ u5 b" C2 W0 @4 `& e; M4 hunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more8 @2 w% c8 C. c( ?. q0 d
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by, T  H/ i8 r& I9 G
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London9 c1 X: U  Q; G; `- j8 p
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.& N+ M) A9 z6 K% L9 ~$ `0 V& p
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: V/ E2 _- K5 B! c
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, A) u  [. [7 y  Z/ mbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
' P9 l7 R2 C7 ?6 oit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
. P) z- b$ }) n+ F: apublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
9 x! o: V& s' v1 y4 n4 Z# K- ?Nature.1 b, r1 |' F( G! ~/ E: l' J
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 }6 }) }: \, l+ V0 M) W( u. C8 D- G+ O
the Callaway report.
& L4 A) T) Q' Q7 v" T( h& P: S. S% g/ g' i+ x1 R5 Y
Yi4 i  X. O" k) h- b4 y
8 K7 Y4 S$ i: U$ F: d$ Q
Yi Rao, Ph.D., V1 {- A6 l  H9 s2 U+ I
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences- ^! l/ Z4 _0 v! N; u' R% \6 W
Beijing, China
3 H" `: J. b6 k/ w; x, |1 Q/ j
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18 9 ~. J( C& p- k6 s
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
! p3 ]3 L+ E  }2 L: l, d( a% A
原文是公开信。4 X. c0 G6 }9 U- m; c

0 Z8 S, g: M6 I& j; z  `- o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 ) ?7 u( v" R1 Y8 ]& ?
原文是公开信。. W+ V4 i% g0 \$ J1 L- m1 E: a

. b; U3 r9 g" M3 k小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

: l' v7 i5 R; _( w0 g4 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
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
# a9 N1 `# e& c6 F如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
* j2 F. o' f8 U  l6 J* n' i2 Q8 U! P) J" ]7 D  |2 I, z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html6 m/ `& J: p% g
; w/ \% G4 H) R* `) Z5 v, W; D
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
  k0 T+ l& o5 r" @  X8 f1 p" o- f2 f
, r+ |! C6 ?0 g1 B- gIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself9 S, q5 g5 w0 E& H2 r+ ^
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
4 s) x* w0 s! T+ rmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- q* x: S2 Z, A% A% l2 v6 Lis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 |5 h8 X- g8 Y+ C- X
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 O' e9 h- W, xpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors, F6 B5 T6 N* T% n
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
5 r8 a5 `: r- h2 fwhich they blatantly failed to do.
5 |8 N3 w- i2 K
/ t: s1 m! ^" u$ G" P& gFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
7 }/ H8 h+ Z! H2 [) k, }5 kOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& i5 [+ Y/ h+ |0 ^# P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
9 ^. }: Y7 T  Z1 {- [anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 Y2 `9 v' K( o( B, m. O
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* m. o. J1 ?5 z4 \improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' q9 E4 {) l/ S8 T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 S8 |4 {% K2 c9 G& |3 V/ |, [
be treated as 7 s.
. [, ~- n) F" Q2 ^: r5 Q% N) B3 X3 y0 {* }* R
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' s) I0 C  b1 a! n0 b- X( Bstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
! T" a: K% L, Z6 t$ Uimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
: D0 M& n6 I; `% G) q+ |, |An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 ]+ H0 ~& N. Y! t-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
- U; u" d6 Y1 O7 f. ^: XFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an, U1 d  ]! i* F8 y7 s% ?7 Q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& J( g& Z# R1 n  o7 ?
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: C# `4 D+ u! W- d; W$ z- G9 ?* \based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
" R: b# ~, _3 A; H+ x" d' E: a7 q  R# m; q9 W; I. T: d5 G0 u
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook% A: Q" g! S1 B6 @+ E, {; Q/ J) L
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 p5 C. t! R5 }4 ^6 O4 o. H! z4 m- X1 L
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
' G4 q: H; d# D) V6 @he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 I$ U+ J0 N; p3 ?* n% h& k2 r& p6 J9 _events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s( k  s; T1 ?7 m) l7 j0 o
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World; r9 Z! W1 d% h5 \' J( i& V
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another" G/ J4 T) v0 z; u
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 I5 m% |2 I! q% X$ @
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle6 t' K* b- M/ M5 {7 [/ y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) O" B3 b1 f5 R$ B  b& v# Dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 \# C4 E9 @2 \* S
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 i8 e* m2 P6 _" xfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, I% ~; W) M: {aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that" }- h( f  h# ]) J) t0 L
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* Z! ~3 K* `) S* |$ L
; k* ?9 C) ^5 C; W3 X& D" UFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ A: ^! @* A+ ^9 w
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ q. q* O5 Q3 E9 C4 V
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
1 F* g# Q3 ~; Q7 o' \! ~), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ m. b9 C- J( C4 ^$ V& h' i5 D
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 B; u  J2 F% R! `3 R3 T) u2 N; lLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind2 s9 q4 H! S6 ~5 n! \+ D
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" @3 T1 Q% k+ r6 G4 _$ xlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
9 l# [, F. H. Q) \/ N. q9 nevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science: S( ?( k" _$ l  V+ `) ?
works.
; Q' o8 a6 |; |- v6 H7 p( v  \8 V* _2 J1 G  b- X# [
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
  q+ U' k, I1 A- f# q! c: Z) c" q; yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
& {" y9 b0 B1 U2 Fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
  @8 [1 V5 B. ?standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific5 v9 {6 `) A7 Z& R0 B. a: X- d$ P
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# d7 D& W6 j' x  M) M- p$ F, W
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; t: Z2 u; A& {1 ^cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to) n" q/ n, G/ P- J4 P
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. o9 d# @: g: _0 j# G( I# ]
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample' e& y6 V' P4 q3 H
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( P- W: w  M& f0 @* Bcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; W" P: h" X! _6 A
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( E# u, m+ j& r# n
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
. H. Z3 \" l+ R3 |) h% Lpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 b6 u7 `& m$ r3 T! M
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! b( w" I$ w( X: p" W9 d$ Y
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are4 J2 N1 i6 V/ R# _9 u" P% N- L
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
6 |; a: {9 L" {) G$ q+ K4 H4 t1 Sbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 Y' B- W( _! N  N6 E
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 q! p9 {+ o1 G3 k3 A2 ohas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' \5 {0 D; v  vdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
0 E$ X8 h6 @  F9 aother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect$ O0 O& I1 Q/ D; O2 G+ J+ Z% h
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
' l( @! g5 R) c- L' z6 M# fprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
4 k; t2 y: |" @& t/ ~1 iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight1 N8 @" V5 \1 k( `8 K( g3 Q1 n: c4 n
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
' c+ a- p$ @$ q# @3 [- d) `$ e1 LLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
9 H! E) D4 E; lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 R( B$ R( T( X& T9 r7 `6 B6 |
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.  m% F2 |7 Q. Q) [3 c% ]0 c
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
" J, J7 u+ a7 L" t7 K) {! B$ Z
/ d3 h; u% o& N! J: SSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 D' b1 l, {3 |: G8 Zcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 ~' A3 J# S0 i; V
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for4 P+ I2 K3 t$ x. l
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' j9 h( r, K- e* L# `- I
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for1 {- I0 W* ^: b3 v  b/ B
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic4 v" L! _. f1 y. U6 f0 T6 l- @
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
/ h2 f0 _8 }6 [3 x! X. |have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 E- w* y0 }" B9 A1 g" lplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
! k6 t% Y0 I# _& ~* @possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ |. h! N. ]! ~+ @! g
+ x3 s4 `* ^0 F& eOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
9 y9 a4 O# v1 w8 }  y" K. Yintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too& Y: u# p. I4 Z" D
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a& l1 S1 I7 G8 o* [* l# c6 @7 V! U+ @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide" o9 Q  r1 }4 \! J4 q: \) Y7 W
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 l% [% {5 A3 |( @
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. D+ i8 O) u/ P& e; [explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your  U9 }7 d' q  e  X
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
( e: @4 Z4 x5 F& M8 W" `0 osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 H) m2 s$ L% k9 [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!
理袁律师事务所
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, 2026-4-30 16:29 , Processed in 0.225784 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