埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1869|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 * s% _1 ]/ y* @* z
' T0 s) e& L, f' ~2 k- Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
( {0 m9 N+ v7 }# u, h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。& R; o9 q  z- I  A% h
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。- u  j6 Y! _: |6 E

# {$ N/ S' ^! e1 Hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
9 Q8 x5 G) x2 [: Y, K$ [8 i7 ]; D0 H: ^! }8 w& K2 w& s
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
: }1 u4 k! h' z- d& S
' X/ Q: r  `% i) _5 }英文原信附后,大意如下:
0 c. W" E$ V2 B& B# w6 P$ Y8 R0 F5 ]4 Q1 ]3 z& \
斐尔,
" v% S3 c  y3 ~1 n, 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" a$ ?. A3 O$ |* G
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
2 t/ a. y  t. ^9 v$ s* t       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  g9 n: z0 k+ _
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
+ r$ |$ H) y) O- \. d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。) m; d* w2 `3 h* ^
       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
: C$ w: b" ]5 n: ?. A* H0 t/ X  @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* d5 s$ ^, u( [8 `$ w
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( m7 W1 \* @$ M/ N
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。' {! j0 N2 V: J2 f% o! s' N
       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
% ~" E4 h! ~# r9 O2 H1 h,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
+ c* t8 Y; N0 f”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ N% n" D! I! E0 @9 z+ A3 v       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
# J' z# c9 [& {5 R) I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4 ]; {* \) J: P: X- X0 k8 W/ O9 u
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
  {+ D. G( n3 S2 x( V3 L6 b4 Z       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
4 S3 {4 H7 Y2 }& f0 R+ I2011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
* c- D; e7 g. ?3 k' R$ p& ^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
, N5 j. `! c& I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9 p0 G. X% m7 z; J$ U& z
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六
/ N( g1 R- d  G7 p# l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3 D# Q1 F# P' y% 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
4 i- s. Q5 @/ L6 {. j# 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
" X8 h; O! F, k/ e) S8 \录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
' m# W# U- B8 l" X! w2 z7 P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
3 H5 U' a+ V8 c, M$ o1》,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- u0 ?; i0 H  }) ~% l
Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不
5 P# n$ r3 [* z; @/ R9 U1 ?5 H% v( U同意见的专家。
. \3 X0 S( c: a& j" x- |$ ^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
+ G: Z1 p) o) Z' O: r6 [* ~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
9 O: E$ Q3 j! v. m- h9 ]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9 G* k" E% [- G9 G  R
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。; n  S0 E( J/ B/ g% K* `& v
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)
  v4 V6 C* q( }+ U: V& ~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
# v( U* o  R! j4 G8 n《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 g( r: y8 X, `# P- y$ }$ Z这些被Callaway忽略。& E5 ]/ S/ s* ^/ S9 M% W
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$ n, K5 e" d  g. a( O1 e
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
. r# Z/ t( \# L- k2 n! m. X+ z; [教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
; d0 j4 ?0 ^5 s9 P英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书
) \. G. C, _! A6 k: U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
- K/ w  L) u2 x. i. U* q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& ]: b3 ^1 R. v
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。/ S6 Y+ i/ \, L6 Z' {
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9 v! @: b, [4 A- v1 A/ q
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
; T# I; p, H5 q! W( k( B! u6 _+ _- ~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
" |! V0 o$ s' m! s+ k: Q”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
1 L/ N# L; `$ Q- S9 D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 v+ s6 N7 d* 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& t4 g; T' z9 E- K) l$ r
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! v8 x  P/ V; T
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3 }7 }: @) l8 n8 o0 m
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
* w3 Z3 Z; d% {而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: v7 o0 k2 f) D" c$ F; b$ a$ I( e
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; Q: X4 x% }8 t; t( {  j
) [6 Q' z7 q& r" D- R) b0 T) i/ M( A( v% q' h6 N
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
6 N6 F: p7 @) X0 Q
9 P- Y6 ^3 ]- I附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: B$ ?! s- `+ b5 C) f  Y
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email8 m% o8 d" P' c
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 |6 x+ i  \# X附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见7 G, n9 `2 }7 s& N$ s. h) v/ l# w
1 B* R0 O: h$ F8 ]0 z
- y& j/ h- q7 W; p+ }7 M" s
; H2 f6 h- J, x" W, s
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
8 }3 i, a" F8 {# V: l1 VDear Phil,
6 K# |& a2 h% @& e5 r       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& W% h* Q2 N- T* V5 a6 m
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20  [: j3 w" {9 e- d4 I: @
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed( m: O& D# y5 P2 M* [, e; ?
you.; X' A7 s# |5 a7 o. ^
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
- M* _. S( j% I' }+ p: @2 hbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
5 v2 r5 ]8 e5 n. jreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
( N; S( v4 ?. j' p  X' s9 {world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
7 Z$ @- ]. Y. @- I8 I- y* B& Dpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more( b' t7 j; z. F# A, }+ ^
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
2 ?0 y# o+ J, p6 |+ jpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
. f7 c6 `+ J# S6 g, j3 X$ ?       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
0 N( E) |6 N2 e' Y: Iworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a" o4 o. j- d% D8 Q/ ~+ ~* q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: `' [, U$ F' |& f7 H4 `9 Cthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
, w4 x/ ~7 O5 t: k8 ldid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 r, P8 z3 |+ j4 Y. ^, J+ k- a' Mexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
" {2 \+ Q, c9 n# {, Vstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,6 ]7 f& Z  T6 t3 G  u4 x5 M' ?
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
% f0 T/ ]. a  h3 qto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news; o- @3 ]. u1 [5 G
reporting.
' p+ t% y; n# k% f       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
% i3 n* v6 a7 calready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by4 {+ Z6 P+ d5 r: m8 D7 ~
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 [9 K, Q0 X' A4 n
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A$ a4 m$ J( F5 ]8 S
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* L8 P3 V' M+ Q* a; I       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
& }' k& d1 `1 X5 Xmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
9 o# z6 ~" Q% B% g% x5 Dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
& q( ?2 G) S) k0 L8 Bmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* Z  Q6 R- Y! _$ y% n1 H& H
event for men, with the second fastest record.- O( U' ~0 m9 ]" e& u( Z
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
% ?4 q  J4 W; P+ w; Z( m( [was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 168 m2 B7 @% L9 \( u$ s3 Z
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record1 P9 l! ^1 m' g# R! H
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
8 N, M0 K  z4 N, D% smeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% }6 Y! y) x$ nfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than' U0 t2 B( c6 e- l1 [
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
: L6 x$ `. z8 ]2 Y) e  bbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
9 D, g7 _5 `$ g' N' ~individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower) c/ j7 z- W, }/ f% v: S% M6 F. W
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. a1 e( s% `  K* e+ pthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was# ~0 C' o# u- J' u
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- K* Y1 ?2 G- s, [" L: Phe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “1 W6 v- S* |) U( q( H$ k- E! Y
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
& H& \1 H" a- Z3 p! g- `" \1 B2 Eswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
2 @, U8 x# }/ {7 e" _* steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
7 f9 P3 }5 s! ?8 b; YCallaway report.
% @: m! K5 K! J* ~6 q0 ]% ~# m) EThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
5 O: u% N) d" K9 Hunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details# D9 }- y: T7 Q" K; w) D& r
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description) W" s) B' L, m$ p
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been5 M6 x; f& I' c2 A! w: k# x8 ?
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the4 G  o& H- G6 Z' d( f7 Z
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
& G$ }6 V0 D7 }publicly voiced different opinions.
# m* |  d5 k0 eYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD; \$ Z8 o  X! [* @# [
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' T- X& e' n% g# f. t( G' d6 MNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent+ G4 o9 d0 ]. z6 k. t
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
9 `. D# K. m  m. V7 Byou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy7 J7 d2 n, K6 Z% [
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
. T1 I  Q2 x* Z! b. z. IThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
$ b4 g8 ?; F% h* xthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They. I/ i! O, e3 O7 n7 O7 W& R5 Z. s
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
" n1 n4 K/ H9 h7 vAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
: P; B. F6 q. rthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
7 E6 v: s: B# `* ~8 msupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& p( d) b5 ?4 |, g/ J1 vOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that  U# X' T( d1 x  H, P# c
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the9 c" l  v5 }8 V- ?
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June# X/ b, X% \" V" |- D% y; Z0 w! R
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
8 O1 g5 \2 V; u+ Wand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  _( `( J2 t9 E8 N$ G
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
5 z5 y+ y, h/ nand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and- J$ v$ O+ s9 J; E" b3 `( m. n
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
/ u5 {0 _+ [% w' L3 dNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and3 b% y' c9 O% V' H' U8 P' e
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature8 w) y) ^6 I0 l' g4 b0 x
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
. c3 U. c3 O% u: A# A! ]repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
1 O7 O# \: K/ Z" t9 f/ @The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not9 s" ^5 l, P8 T( e
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced0 }& o! m9 U" v6 @# N/ c0 B: O
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
* m9 o# |6 y4 q% E) Rfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that3 \# y$ t# e' D' f2 b
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”  S( D. c+ m, K
about British supremacy.; ~& b$ j" p7 q; O8 E+ u
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
2 Q4 n# R5 O0 Q) K& u, tunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more8 k2 M8 B6 V2 `3 m
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by' [# G+ [- e( G2 I  \
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London+ Q* B5 v" W% K& E; b0 e
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
: }" g0 g: e' D4 qYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
8 q) O6 Q$ n- v) G' Pprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests, T  I7 m' o# o( k3 c
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,- ?9 ^' T0 R; ~- b
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly! D( W6 b. Y3 c
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like5 v6 ?! \# U8 Y8 a
Nature.
- [" l* \' @+ V0 |- y3 lI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; h. H# _* A* O* i, othe Callaway report.
: `! U' A1 q. d1 i! }: \
0 N3 D# B/ T& u1 ^1 G+ D! D' sYi) V1 Z5 f5 G. C# M
: @+ N/ x2 W' N5 k) H
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
  H- e+ [5 Q$ `. mProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! _$ d2 J2 r6 h3 v- \% Y' h: L3 R
Beijing, China1 d: d; t1 ?+ Z
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。
大型搬家
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!!!
大型搬家
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 ' m  j2 K* Q) N
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

+ h! i$ D+ O! m原文是公开信。
5 {! B; k9 F6 [* \9 s4 c; O$ {/ u" c0 J. j0 ?/ j, E
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 & b& z4 m; R* _- q
原文是公开信。5 z. y, \' }$ s9 ?& K

1 _1 g1 M6 h* J* @+ F& y' K0 S小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 k$ a1 v; m8 W2 ]* t0 L, e6 l7 t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 JIANG4 g3 x- Y$ S5 N$ }/ ^
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。9 D" B9 R* u0 g  M% m$ V

1 d1 y7 Q1 g5 p4 [# b8 r, S# \http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' R5 `, }" z/ K9 l) D" ^$ Z4 {9 F- M4 M- `2 P
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
+ p7 M% \8 c3 k. l0 l! x. G  j4 o5 K0 ?+ D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ J1 z1 F; v6 ~% A, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
) a; \/ T/ b( n6 Zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% p0 j: _! v5 z0 M5 X
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the! _( D" s2 A* g2 u% D5 W
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 d" _8 c- T  L
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' P% d: F4 M$ E% S1 X* xshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
8 b7 h4 n4 l  t. vwhich they blatantly failed to do.
: r" }: u, N1 O# G  h* l8 i/ B' v/ G/ c) ~9 l  v% f" ]4 ^' H2 F
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
+ K6 ]. z$ Y" M5 x6 [) l1 n) QOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in3 Y+ d, l3 ?( e. X3 R! x6 _" B
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' h! f! M) K4 F
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
, e0 N3 V. v9 i& N- D" vpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an) q" L) p5 D! d; t" A0 d
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 M& y3 L1 Y7 y4 j  R( s/ h
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ d- ]/ \3 Z% Y( w7 W3 tbe treated as 7 s.) a. v  |" z# _1 P3 i/ ~$ b. T

. V9 u( \5 ~- ~4 z" g& @- V  w4 NSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
( D5 c, ]* K2 O/ E( e" {still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
+ ~1 q& B4 ^  }, L; x0 qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ \# m. U2 _' L$ v8 c8 iAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: C) S5 c* y" ~9 E-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ |( ?) o/ x0 y2 E; {6 J0 e9 aFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" K8 w& S! ]( n2 i
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
0 F) q$ y3 R" [2 h( S8 D- Opersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
& k8 R! }7 M6 J7 \: G. obased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! Q8 K/ N" X4 j# }0 n) W' u
4 ~, e: P3 G4 M# [3 G& H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook7 Q% _8 p/ B) D5 {5 W5 n" r
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! o- i* ^1 J4 L; W; I5 i+ v3 t
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" n! j7 I4 P- d3 i: F3 ]0 I
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
1 ?; `; x* ^  D$ x2 f- Jevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 E, G- d8 n4 nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World  n# J, F* _0 P5 w7 S) X* ^
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& F( N  r1 D. _$ ^; X0 L
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# ]: h6 \% X" Whand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
6 l* R6 [( k  g' B. s& X& [4 O( c, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
* i" E5 T) M) Z: M+ Tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds5 F( R$ S5 V# Y! c
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ S0 ~9 E/ i4 w; B; Cfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# X+ T. b5 v, B' w# m4 T) kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that( u# m+ V( C- R* A0 W. ^
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 c0 a$ R, W0 [1 [# w1 B- Y

9 {- ^( ?4 B/ o9 o( rFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are1 E- _5 F  d: e; M* {9 w
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93: p. H" n1 l* \- a7 v0 l8 h
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. D! f1 l* c* D/ |
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns  K- X4 o* S8 K2 u/ F( S4 o8 `" X' E
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,2 K* p6 \. |6 {" Z* p- d
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
, ]1 g+ n1 A2 T+ R. }of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
  O3 Q9 h% c1 ?" [logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
, h8 p8 p9 `* {/ Hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! e6 \$ ^8 H8 H' e% \% r- v( p1 A. Iworks.
# F: r8 ?( V: X' y8 H6 o1 s6 a/ M. L) Z9 \" k
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
4 K) \& k5 U2 G: d$ W; nimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this% Q: f3 v. u. V* \) f7 g
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. b/ q# S! b) i
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% S. h( S5 d! Y
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
2 R3 N7 n! e- ^, I0 x- Ereviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One' Y  S- ]6 Q; w9 D2 m
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to5 F6 @5 P  l- j% S: }4 `4 P9 o5 j
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
, Q! z- d; C7 v4 }; {6 I) nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample2 h. j( `. o, Q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is8 m0 x; `9 `7 G- [" n/ e- i
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he% ~1 _# S0 N. l
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
+ e8 {, J0 y& q: F; E% Nadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
6 y, U; r, Z  r3 _1 j  W# mpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
8 i, d- u+ v6 Z" Huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, M7 Q' {5 O5 ?* b  j- O3 L: N% u+ Q
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
) P- |5 k$ c' W1 U: bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may( i. C% A- s2 N, C/ w; h1 ^
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
  f8 o( y( v7 h3 G0 Dhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 k2 R' ?6 h; C& j; {
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 X' _# T: Q7 R
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' t+ f$ Q+ K. Xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 j  u# c5 a5 ~+ h
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
# ^5 r8 n8 }1 `- Q6 p* H  wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( I, O3 @; ?/ _8 H4 z. Mathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 o- @, t8 M' @" Achance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: z$ {9 G) `# b3 Z0 q; O& ~+ b; s: s& DLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) a' v$ S- S* x0 t( T8 \5 W# y0 Pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for1 k+ z& h/ S3 [- V. h) {' _2 N
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
/ K0 t8 Z. Z1 t! x1 n# C& \- ~0 LInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( M% _' t) A2 H1 a8 F) Y/ E
8 A1 X9 m+ ]+ M
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 D8 l: |% t0 w
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 p- S2 v. L. w5 |+ p" P/ d
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for; V( R" Z6 U1 H4 L! P
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; L6 k6 H7 w. F/ E$ R+ eOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for6 p) f% T! w: j8 a: O* z. W" u/ V
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic# ^2 h9 d- D) \/ w0 Z0 }: s
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope0 m- w4 p8 L8 e" M7 q$ D7 E
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% N8 B/ g+ W5 v
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this* r0 g7 q, f( P- k% C
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.6 p. B4 W: \' Q7 w* w' C
  R% `% r( v/ n  ~7 R+ K
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (  A; J3 Y) R" p- c6 V7 ^! Y5 d
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
* `# v- j7 M" X& a  |! hsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
* e1 b9 x/ E# c1 l" l# isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
* C8 r: Q9 w! L7 n7 a: Dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 U) s- Y1 `8 C. E
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
) C5 O: P& k, eexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your2 ]' f" O) Y9 Z$ T- x
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 b; e- C# v) @5 B/ Fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 M+ h5 _$ w9 [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, 2025-12-5 06:52 , Processed in 0.196010 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