埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2270|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. Z/ N0 C. v5 H; {! z" I

- {. B  l# S7 ^9 S4 l& Z4 h( X饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
5 N9 g5 f' Q6 m) X. G& ?  \# i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。* h- p+ L' i* v2 h! d3 |
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。; D3 Y8 k5 B" k+ c; h

9 B$ U; @9 n/ i' U1 b1 Xhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: [5 e- p6 B9 ^& v% M) u6 k5 ^
% p; x5 i: X0 l" `8 N/ Q& E9 `9 u致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选* E/ y- ^$ d% g2 B1 y+ W

8 c/ C7 D9 ]& O) T- y* |英文原信附后,大意如下:
' y; D0 u- e2 z; V( }$ c+ ^  l7 P
$ U+ U5 r( Z' V3 l) ?) b1 J  K& Z' g6 l斐尔,# `( n( c' |/ t0 d
       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& m% }' `0 b$ u- ?/ R: x: M. x
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
- }1 a! _2 h8 n" ]- ~6 P       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
) }5 V- H5 x. W* S/ ?9 {4 e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
+ P6 E. m% m8 Z9 r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。
6 V! p$ k* n1 c$ C5 H7 X1 `       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! n% g( l  I' |: |
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
& k& n0 K4 N) o) b8 h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. S" S, {$ P0 n5 b- A; Y7 ~
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。! [5 v; Y2 [. H6 Q# W( T" ]9 X
       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; Q2 O  b9 T  z4 j6 O% ?
,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
; i' a3 g8 q( n”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
3 b: h9 W- a% d0 ?. I/ v9 q) q2 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
8 p0 g( c+ G  _; q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/ P3 I3 j( p5 S/ l# J& a
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
9 i" M* W; ^# i6 I- N       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于8 a5 \: d/ @& n
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# m( b6 p1 w2 J( c6 n
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/ t& E& M3 O) \5 }+ u
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
( e. D' P; F- O* M300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
; G3 W- t8 |' b6 [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* _, L& R4 T% ?  A
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& |) A: x/ Q+ u/ e( z1 b& u
。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 a6 [* x4 d% Z/ a+ J' D7 P
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; i* ~) D4 U3 R! |% v, V, U8 ~
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0 i( b/ H  g( Y
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
! L" `  _) o  `2 x2 U6 j6 E* H( `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
/ W7 j* P% X0 i" h+ ?1 Z) L同意见的专家。" w3 q* t" b8 I- i2 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
  f1 C" A" t2 `% ?: X2 c' e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+ t( ]# ?4 |- g* w
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 ^- `$ L' G/ d6 L《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。( M! b: `# Y6 o" r9 ^9 g, f
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)
& K5 [+ u2 }, {8 d3 L7 E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
+ y8 S& X4 [$ m: B《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
$ U8 I9 ]; R4 p这些被Callaway忽略。8 ~) _! N$ L; t$ n! W. B5 h
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+ C# T5 V% p% z; u! R- G2 A
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; S- X2 _9 A4 P" O6 n# @$ n3 y
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。9 T8 F* |* ~4 ?" L& \
英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书: P* p9 c+ m$ u9 g# O
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5 r1 }5 U$ q/ G  l( E4 W% 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# p+ ^4 g# ?0 ]8 Y8 n9 |
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。
- y: S* a* A$ `, 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
; S) ~* g- K+ o+ p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
8 U, K" A, Z2 I3 b$ w/ @7 L9 Q7 Q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
! O: g- {' N& a- {”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。7 F+ z7 P: V/ A8 p
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
) N( D' L" M7 a' z/ b9 j9 s$ S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
1 ~9 n" |3 h6 c1 ?# I: T, 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* M& w* G  q2 r% @9 U# W2 ?! U$ 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
: V2 ?  G. H% X& l& P& s4 \测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染
8 J! N2 x, [0 c9 z' E而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: K3 s: \+ ?7 z9 z我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
* }3 W3 h- z# j1 e8 T: Q0 S! G* j  a* y7 c7 Y( S$ x2 n7 v) ^6 {- ?) R8 J
' j+ ~. K& @( Y2 l- f+ d: N
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
" X; Q0 H, V5 {% g0 ?. r5 O4 y' l6 q( M: {0 u5 j5 l- ^& r" V8 m. a( G: d* Z4 g
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 P1 M  `5 I6 q0 m1 v附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! O5 X$ n8 V+ u; S
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见0 d. G9 }3 D& H# k
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) i2 ]9 @+ Y4 X/ c0 }! C/ x

  w9 ]" W% A4 ^, M2 ?4 X6 M1 e  Y
" _# j6 R) D% v8 F- X
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)$ ^7 U# F/ d) M5 L1 }* P: n
Dear Phil,
$ |3 \/ y# J3 Q% G. t. K       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s* D' \; [+ c. u0 M" L# c
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
' c5 v9 ]- l4 A: P- a4 Phours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed/ Z3 L) @* G: Z+ V: n7 H# u) b" L2 F1 M
you.
0 z1 O" t% r) s+ m+ I       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have( |/ _8 Q2 T5 Y+ ]) t
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese4 S1 y# ]5 }; h7 T
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
# M- i/ ^% K) r% }  o; Cworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
* }5 y" C: _6 z% Epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
5 [8 V; o2 h) t. r7 Hseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news2 E( q$ Q" \( f# W( d
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
! H% f4 X  |) {9 c       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
! Q6 y+ @% G$ [/ u) K( ^- r: Zworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a( E+ j" e2 p9 h  O  J2 G( J
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 e1 r  M; g: k8 c% _that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway) L6 K6 W- {. F* b7 C: Y( t1 L+ s
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% _+ F' \( f: t( {! h+ V& y6 n. zexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
& {" K$ v- ]0 d( D1 }* `standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
5 U4 e4 G% g0 Z, p: V6 o5 A; Sand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone& B1 t$ O9 p# z, v$ ~& ^9 l0 s
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 G; j6 b2 {  K$ i
reporting.
8 y5 L& w( x7 U) P3 Y( E       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! b0 R" n" Y5 lalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by4 t6 s  m4 J! H
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; |8 [# [7 C# k5 Wsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A+ G2 e* l3 M5 T
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.3 z% I  `5 Q7 b! S" }# g2 a
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
* J5 ^5 Z. }8 umore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
' ?$ `8 P# b& Z+ v. f4 u# |% Dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50; S& V, |2 h0 M  W: n
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* b* K/ N( V' {7 K
event for men, with the second fastest record.
. Q  p" ^0 L4 P. d4 U       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
1 X; x1 X% [( T" I+ c' A$ Fwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16& X  ?. j4 e( S! d: B1 W
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) [$ y1 c9 q, `2 O7 ~. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
4 o0 _0 S7 s+ d5 @) I( e4 e3 j' x" ^meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, N* [+ M! y. M8 ]
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than  W" h! I3 O) I6 p" e
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
. Y7 D, F# a3 V/ F; gbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 E4 T% H0 f6 q
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower) j* v/ ]% a2 J9 m2 c4 \; w
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than* G; o# |7 ~# k5 \; L' M/ `
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was8 j& a' R& z0 e* O0 C
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then4 l; V: \5 r- G- l: Z
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# m* J4 S" l5 O4 @6 V& S) `4 ~0 fproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
3 b  M. }% N6 Q3 R  \swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the/ E" i1 H1 V/ j! v4 v  ]/ Z
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
6 f) s( d; |- `% N' FCallaway report.! m& i9 n! N# _# m$ R; H) s
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more) H$ y7 p7 Q9 U7 I
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
- \4 ]- o: E8 ~- Chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
2 c0 c1 R$ c" m$ Q# R6 Eof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
1 f6 [& A! _5 g" Mbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the* t  m3 j2 p2 i0 s
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ u8 `9 s2 d2 b' Q- T+ upublicly voiced different opinions.
/ _3 t$ q, O0 Y3 r/ _4 BYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD& t7 i6 l0 R# k  W& K4 F
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* f* e$ O; s& E4 Q/ q" RNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; P$ Q8 B  W/ q7 L& Z# f1 }postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds8 Y) i! h1 ]# m+ G6 N4 }
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy! F& B: K: J9 ]) A; h
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
/ S# |3 B6 j  H% w" H  p! Y* {There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think. R, q* ~6 _# _* v3 Q& [3 M& q
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
# x5 k7 b9 S3 x4 e8 Yhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' d! ]5 u( C) I1 l( k3 fAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that: ~4 i2 y- N6 `
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was" z. ~" G, S8 O' W  T$ m; m; z3 J( ~7 q
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
: d4 O- f( ]1 U9 m" U8 ^% |) YOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" w/ ^, |" B. Y( b2 qmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the1 [, L0 k' x; s( H: {2 l/ o
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June. d7 s0 r8 X1 m7 N6 K6 M
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 q9 v. c! d2 g- h+ {; @9 s
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
- Q; B% p3 D! V# C. d- c: fThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
4 ^. P4 }; [2 w; n; {and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 m8 h; X8 S* _+ m! `0 x/ N, X
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
+ ]1 X4 T0 \5 xNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
, S2 t, s: N, e, v5 E2 A" m6 robjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# Z1 D1 o; M, D: o7 lwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to3 ~' g: ]0 l: v$ |9 r! K
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
6 `  j9 |: p- S! _7 QThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
. U; W% v6 z+ G3 J! C2 |5 _3 _show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced7 U; C3 `9 {  G% i! G
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather% l1 \+ H+ Q  ~, z
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that4 K* ]0 h, s, [7 |
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
2 X7 S1 ~8 @+ D/ \8 m4 fabout British supremacy.! [& n" i- _/ Z" x% A- F
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many! y% s5 v/ i1 i* z7 p6 P7 J& E
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
' R6 C% z; w- XChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 P9 ?2 M5 r: p# W' p
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
1 a0 Q/ M- F$ I  D2 @0 xOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases./ g2 `- w# h, M7 S. }
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of9 u6 g& R+ }! G5 X& ?" E; q7 M
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests  S7 ~$ b0 b+ V1 N$ d
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 A' O8 Q7 O  `& ^1 Cit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly7 ~5 L# \' N' @8 i. q
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like* O8 W8 F" \) T$ n( F( x
Nature.$ D& Q% l9 f8 J9 r' k5 V. d
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ ^/ N2 D4 I, |; s8 Jthe Callaway report.
0 S* s% Y3 y; z* Y$ H( v, c, u- u/ r0 m
Yi  L# J- z2 [! Z% j% S& N
& I) u4 {$ v( c6 z2 s2 P+ v
Yi Rao, Ph.D.) P" p+ j, J5 ?/ |. ^3 Y
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences0 K, E. [# ^0 }8 x7 ~
Beijing, China; D% q. ], h! W: ?' u+ o
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·········
大型搬家
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 / j  q6 C9 w. b4 z+ j# r- I) y
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

. t0 T+ ]* o9 b# z4 f' \- S! ]& x原文是公开信。
) I' Z9 u  _& X' E+ O: M
4 I; I! [; F1 C$ o! H4 \小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-6 20:23 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
bigsnail 发表于 2012-8-6 21:16
" A9 c1 r  R! U7 ]8 M原文是公开信。
. y4 Y0 \- U2 B% b8 B
- e% R9 m) X2 w$ }小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

- r, h& ]; ^6 S2 t# R6 f+ `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 JIANG1 Q8 ]# O! c+ ~$ y* A+ f% J
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。4 N' ]+ M7 O8 }& A) q' J

; P* [/ W- T& s" X7 rhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
2 r7 a, y# l7 S) k( P  s9 a9 |  q7 Q" x( I$ `
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# R! \3 Z1 X& e
( U0 }  `) j% c+ C/ ~It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& b  n; v, l4 [- f6 K/ C! r, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 V0 X4 @& G5 r8 ]4 l  W
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this2 b$ b+ V, `6 {1 k- A
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the) ], [: V7 U0 s8 K
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general- _* }5 ~, D0 Y4 o1 _. U6 _4 p
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
7 T: [+ o3 @% b7 X/ D  Sshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. j# {* z3 V$ Y9 ~. {- ^/ E$ ~which they blatantly failed to do.
# F' M0 A3 ^6 u! |8 V( w5 Q8 u  v$ R+ b( a  |1 I$ |' V& s" t
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
6 _, y- u! n) h3 l( T& DOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& T+ Z9 O. x( y- ~4 _3 f
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “, U7 `; y* R+ _5 t' I8 w) W
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
4 H0 s+ h( J/ r5 f- a/ \9 Y8 I+ Dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 f& g, ]: U7 N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
, y, I% ]% c2 \7 Jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
4 u; N8 N+ H' d2 O4 ~* ^7 pbe treated as 7 s.) f. [( e+ _, _" }

& ~" Q4 h; M: o/ \/ t9 Y! DSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is* w1 L# j2 k: X
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, t2 Y: H. z2 _1 E/ M$ ]impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
0 s% h+ |1 {% X: H' HAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
' f; d9 `8 G- m1 ~" C% h; h-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.$ d5 \# X: e* Y& s+ s  ]6 r
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
" a% I$ s6 H0 |) k/ ?0 ^- Z! @8 `elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and8 B! D' m* n$ {- @5 m
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 |( k: P$ K# N! T  wbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: y6 Y5 q& b. T7 T/ |

" ^8 C, V; \% z9 y& }- n; m2 l* RThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; R% L. H' V' ~
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in; Q/ q# x9 A5 N
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so+ Z1 ?0 |' E7 f; y
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
# @1 d4 X6 g! E0 s0 zevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
. c8 h' b& m7 r3 xbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World5 g* w! _3 H0 e3 M0 N' f% R1 C9 ?
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ k7 E5 S) E0 s8 g2 H0 Z" h- Y( Stopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other* R1 W/ q" n; {: v' M  V
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 N* g  d! g: V, _1 m5 x# L$ ~+ ^# A8 u, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; c/ }* s0 F( Z; w/ a+ e8 qstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
. Y" s+ s0 B/ @- G0 }2 j  G* Mfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
6 d: x: s1 ^6 o' pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
4 D" ~* b* G  }% R3 Z, Daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
5 g- J4 ^$ |* v4 h' G5 Qimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
+ O. q/ ?! i  L4 F2 K  c8 K$ b3 o0 ?& l8 d% E% x' A6 ]
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
& N. y; u8 q% B7 \# M/ \! }four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 L( n+ F4 o+ \7 ]4 B1 ?5 ms) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
  D5 s" x9 }& h4 B( u5 b3 A), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 u. P0 W/ |- o$ Q, ^" _
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 |0 s/ h/ R6 B/ V* S
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind2 Y' D9 J: R) A. [* p- g) }7 M( R
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* h& Y; c- ?! j: Q' C8 o9 dlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
0 s. K" Q2 m' H$ wevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) `2 {3 h" C: F0 q  M$ iworks.& T. _+ P) A* j- J2 o6 m# ~. M
% j$ W+ ^, ?1 V
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- e' \5 U" N. w, E9 q0 T
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this6 F8 s- H& I. N$ T" C( ~
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
1 Z$ c( W+ g9 M+ g) V' t+ tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 n/ a8 W& K8 d7 x
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 R: z' {, e* I* ~( ]( ^; {
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; `, ~9 c: v3 J. g, G6 B
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* ]  ]' |/ B3 T7 [* n1 n
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
: q: p" E' y/ q. `$ \to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 v4 _( D# G5 ~/ G2 ris found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
' t4 I( e2 `, Y1 p/ q" H$ Z* pcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; w1 E# l+ |+ C/ _" b
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly  Z- w, Q4 h) [$ A3 g8 F% l8 ?1 ^
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
' a( {  w$ Z, E  k; }1 [+ C9 Tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
" d) n% ^4 j- y5 D, M# iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( N+ V1 d: y6 W& k3 N0 g. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 k' W( y: w( c5 P9 U" l) G& p. \doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ ?3 u$ s/ {- |, J3 T
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 B. K8 x% x! [, ~hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# C% t, ]6 b5 C8 I9 V% Jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a5 Q5 T0 c' O, }# K0 U' r( I& W' c
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:8 G; R' v( Z+ I5 T
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ Y5 v* q* r3 a/ x( {, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
9 D6 ^& {/ [' k  _- C8 V& dprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
' d6 ?0 \# o' ~5 o) Aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 r+ I' W3 ?, o+ N. G2 e, Ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) [* Z9 ~2 t; D" i& W8 G+ e* I
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
  D' t+ `4 T' Xagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
/ f5 j& q: j5 g- {eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! L; N6 ]" \# U( H& m
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
- ^3 c7 o9 }; S/ n- g
9 K' C2 |% e. c0 ?0 k8 hSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ a  k: s9 s+ K1 x4 E, `$ ]
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& u4 k. _, ]( x, `, J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for. q* z: \5 b* Q1 Z+ v/ X& ]. g$ t
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; F: ]; \! |0 G1 v2 W$ x; [Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for8 d' i* I9 |) b& I8 g# S
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
& h' n" `" e4 D& U# B4 ngames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
, y3 y5 F2 X; p$ F1 Ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) Q$ s+ O* L9 c3 q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this- w4 C% X, ?: Z; {% ^
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.0 @9 P* }6 z7 v3 o2 G. J

3 ?2 P; v+ L3 V* sOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
+ [( \& ^. Z# x1 |% [intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too9 V# @: `: M+ L  H5 g
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
; r& k$ O+ P* t  a% Ssuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* u; j  B* o) u# i* i7 E0 P$ j. y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' L* q2 |9 G; w$ N2 Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
- T) s& v: B' \4 {5 iexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; c6 Y* E6 z7 p, r% M6 _5 O
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& G: `& A' K- c" e0 Esuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 h  m& T. E2 @' V2 o  z- O
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-4-25 19:47 , Processed in 0.097739 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