埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1879|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
: |0 T2 k# e" T" _5 F: r& L% W7 G# O
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。. o6 i0 u* N- T  s+ v
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。
, p# A& h4 C7 c5 z3 T, B总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。" Y9 q7 K2 _3 z' c8 D; G8 Z

+ Q+ x& v' x7 Ohttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
1 I: r' O7 [5 B& L  B  t2 h6 a* Q% m& r6 `3 W
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
* \) x: R( f$ m, z% r8 y" z" a
英文原信附后,大意如下:  }# S7 R% T* W* q

  [; V8 k, f: j4 Z  \6 i4 i斐尔,$ }) V( p$ ?% k8 W. A+ a
       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% {5 r8 s: a3 w% u: J
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。4 i: r" y, X# U. p" f. y+ i
       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. U$ p1 G) f, s; X* |& x) Y
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! N1 S, @% g3 }3 }- [
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。
8 t; y; U( I/ X6 q3 c3 P       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
! |  j9 ]. B) t! @1 H6 n% y( e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% J( B( L6 a0 V2 ~! y5 y4 D
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& Z9 l: y& {) O. C% ]
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。
* e  j0 v# e" v' t       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
! a7 |" l4 L5 N/ ^- V* 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. U7 n- A2 o, I" U0 w
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( [+ T) \, [4 e# H+ x3 W  Q4 O0 K       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
" P* `6 C' W, g! ]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. p# K, ^  c! q! B8 s) ]  C
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。& M- G1 T# x" B6 `! }# C: @8 e
       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$ B+ q  k+ t6 L4 n  K
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5 L! D' B+ d! ~' d9 W
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 ]3 o0 t* Z$ \  {% G: R! b; S
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
! m9 C# T! s; G+ _5 I: N300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, ^$ g6 Z6 G' O2 n
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
4 t; a' e( e% ^5 }4 I! d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
' B  S- b! H6 k  z( \6 q- T。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
/ t: v0 u( w$ D7 D* K* Y录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。6 f' n% X$ ], i8 Z( g
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
( K3 y* u3 ?% m: H' B1 ~1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
0 ~1 @& E; Q) w2 {' b! I7 KWikipedia。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# n2 x% Z& ^& w/ r
同意见的专家。# t' e% p5 _2 g; F4 m8 o5 l  W1 Y
你应该收到了"XXX"博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的* R, P& X1 r" x
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大3 z  U4 H( ?7 j& j
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. a+ D& B3 o. w, F! M/ H7 P
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
8 m+ L# Q2 ^6 ?+ C6 NCallaway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)
% S% |2 W0 P5 v9 p, }7 r/ J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
. B/ J$ ]* }4 F& e2 R) S8 Z《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而1 X& k) O. D( l8 `& w$ C7 L0 f
这些被Callaway忽略。
8 N/ ]& h8 L. r9 S7 ^( H" S3 T  s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- p' e4 E* J- Z1 |( S% j% m: L
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
- U0 B0 y/ s) e; Y- u0 E6 s! a教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 M  R6 Y8 E5 n( ], u2 f4 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
4 l6 u) e* D. ]; A; n- b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
7 Y9 T) @* E- z/ B/ f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
6 R8 w% y" R. _; O. k$ S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。3 P( u5 `0 D* Z7 h3 Y2 \; D) Q9 I& W
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
' [: A% M" {  m3 B, L5 G, u0 T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 @+ |) l3 b# O$ ^# u5 k+ T! m
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
4 c  r8 r0 O, l& }; J0 Y”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。1 T# o5 j6 T8 l: F7 w- 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$ K4 c8 l/ I1 d4 d, L
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: s% F8 Q" X  s; J' e+ R/ W: 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
/ n, O  i3 c- O* b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, Q- L5 \; t6 @: I
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
# W& ^0 C) X5 X- Q5 G而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
9 ^/ _/ z4 W( T* u( }我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。9 G6 s' y8 e' E$ x5 A; J# B
. Z) w! L( u- `8 y1 O3 q( I& f
& a7 ~' N6 N, {- |; g4 ], I  t, B
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅! h# W2 A. N1 |2 b
1 i$ @) y! @8 I. l6 h. ], \
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结  Q* |) W# C3 F. x  O% E
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email5 s6 f7 R* p. U
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见/ W2 R, s- j8 t' G8 {+ I
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
7 q5 ?7 N7 }5 Q' n/ g7 v6 t
3 }: |9 s0 {1 e& b# [" l5 {# ~' O- m0 b
) {1 V- G4 @, r2 X4 j, @) h
9 ?3 F1 z8 s# b, w原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)  W( W# F% \5 D9 b' v. {
Dear Phil,3 [* O! w2 I% K( a8 W
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" @8 w) i8 V1 N& F* v' o
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
# z; A- G4 L7 Y0 a0 ~hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed% w8 k, ^- `& e
you.( Q" C+ `2 y  l
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have7 R4 h" R  }6 W  D4 n
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
7 Q) [+ ~! z: J0 ereaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
9 W# e4 Y) u+ O( p  k- a* K! xworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
: S# ~/ ?6 K7 t7 Npublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 N" e1 j  ~$ N& t
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news7 g2 Z( e3 [6 l) ?' c4 U
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) N# w& p1 Z6 W4 ~! i
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the. K7 S) b7 O# ]# g
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
9 w7 D) y! _* s: M) }& a+ L: Bnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 K' P* o! l) A
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
; `7 {- O8 J, o! K, F/ o8 e: ]did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping+ F; a7 {0 ~. N3 K- x  j4 K! N
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal' m" j- H1 W8 T2 s0 I9 S! l
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,9 a5 I: v' S9 t8 h3 h6 }  H6 o# l' C
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
4 U0 _  h- m5 A0 n# b6 b2 Mto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; C2 n- ?7 l5 g3 H" v% C7 @7 |7 Ureporting.
& O. d+ k/ ?5 h9 w1 E6 @       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; P! A2 a* A1 x) Valready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 ?% N& S1 z$ c0 V0 p( C
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 N1 H& Q3 H% _9 |) Q( msports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
! G9 i* y  u- `3 M: Ypresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
& _& M% p( o: H       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
; t6 A2 y" q- g: S0 S0 kmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds9 C% p/ i$ S/ v6 J/ \
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. y' J& K$ q1 q; x  G8 U& r& {) [# L0 P% Y
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
+ i) Q& G- @% R- X6 V) h* p4 qevent for men, with the second fastest record.; L8 i" R$ @3 P3 P5 C
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye6 B2 `. o) f, J" x0 i) u2 C1 T! s/ \. _
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16/ Y/ h4 S4 r/ t0 Z2 c1 o4 F! h2 Q
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) g) U* Q" B: n0 r. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4002 p- G9 b, E! _  F
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
* s0 l! N7 a" ?) @0 l  h0 P: xfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than+ ], e: m& y4 D+ o
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed, B% p' P5 |9 f( e+ S
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the% y, b2 @( q: x( z8 i! R. _3 [
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower; ^" z( K4 x- v- X0 Y, u7 y2 d
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
3 W  W+ r- ~  o1 ~, R7 D% Jthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
& q" A: y; A" E; O( c' Kher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
1 e! y8 W* n5 V. i# w. ^: Qhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
4 s" V) V; J6 C% iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
; @( {% \3 G6 a4 G3 d6 sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
' p. s5 D, a! {. N. steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the- ?! L- ~$ J0 n! Z8 ]9 K
Callaway report.! @# j' d9 }; h
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
. g! l* q' K: ^8 J/ J/ R! Runderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details9 K1 n, N( E* q  q- [. u1 N
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' T: u$ {9 H" Y6 y$ L; }+ Y8 X+ E
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been: c5 Z  T0 {1 G; L' u
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
1 |9 L3 y! I! N3 l6 `Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had+ R& R, h; C. L; Z+ e/ s
publicly voiced different opinions.! [, k. E  w7 {; f: s) n
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD% ^) c3 Q7 i8 ^
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature: S' {; ?8 `+ N; q
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent& A2 l2 a* O% J; i
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ U# I8 A$ G% C' z" R* ?+ uyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 ]# l* n7 D2 ^8 c5 Yof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.6 m5 [. x! \" S7 R  v& V& K  ^' z
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think( x' a7 v/ \0 Y# u
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They3 ?9 I0 q, }& ^. j+ `1 V
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' G! r& r' J2 G/ [' p9 w: _& ~) F1 BAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
* Q* I9 Q" d- _the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
( w& V0 H' ]$ J) q  s7 c0 asupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
6 u8 c% w) v3 l: J; IOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
( Y5 X0 V# T. c, Rmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the- Z/ d2 Z' f2 ?+ `3 R; X8 ]& I
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June5 U" q! e% [) Y# s! d; H
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she: j9 K  |1 F6 s3 Z
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.3 C$ j) A3 L& Z) B) ]
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science4 X1 o6 V. N: ^/ [: E& n  X1 G
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 {6 [9 n- ^& j& a
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
1 V5 `' j4 m! u( X) QNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and) o8 U7 B0 o7 N4 D" x
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature9 d3 k9 ^7 Y; i% u+ G! F1 T5 ]; A5 }0 G
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to' ~5 U; O8 E& Y# k# t- o4 P
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
8 f  l2 {4 h# J( O  aThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
" q$ p. l4 z% ^0 Z7 o4 Tshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced/ Q0 ~* y$ B4 _4 F& U9 z
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
" a" O2 U8 O0 w6 `/ sfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that5 v9 \( E- D- Q1 H0 R
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
" N! I0 K, b* ]" l  U+ Aabout British supremacy.
' @  I, G* Z% p! |# X1 |* b$ P" }/ {The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many2 x2 d0 i0 N0 U7 T, h
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more- _# K, l) P& m3 z# Y# `
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
: m) Y4 U2 r: Uour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
) u, e. Z: L$ s4 e! n# aOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
2 ~$ _! s/ Q+ ^7 Y7 D; RYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
6 e3 \2 q1 a1 K5 R) Oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests- s8 x" s. F: R8 n/ r
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
' S* w9 t3 D( i- m$ y" h# Y& i/ Kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; h% Y, e- r! |4 s6 f5 E+ x
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! G0 x7 b4 a" U6 X! h$ k. ONature.
, z8 B( \  R5 W7 _I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
( S- m. q, T% [the Callaway report.
5 {' I* [# y; G  y
2 `  S) ~8 F. r/ ?Yi% R+ J  F3 T9 c8 h" R  K! o9 u

( \/ i9 i3 D8 P: x# |Yi Rao, Ph.D.9 H- N; J5 A# X* `
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
  y3 `9 I7 x  M3 I$ m1 l" o$ gBeijing, China
& S) y9 p$ y9 E# F9 A' V  d+ t
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?
大型搬家
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 ( M( n# Q4 g3 s- F
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

7 s1 Z3 ~4 Q. H/ I" }6 G5 D原文是公开信。3 L) u1 {8 s% J* U" q

" n; _. O5 @& c) b" @# g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 b8 Z/ r! ?6 n$ [原文是公开信。
' t( Y' f3 P9 \
; {; _. U3 O4 t" k3 e$ c小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

% u$ }7 U$ L! R5 q, s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
6 w9 x& f" ~2 L) Z$ H% i4 v" v) ?如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! v% _3 m4 I, @* x% y
% t8 p) @: Y; c# I( f
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
; b) q; e0 K; O! Y: i/ t+ d, w) q
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ ]3 W, Y3 |8 u% j; y' s$ X& t+ |8 ]8 R9 Z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
  u/ x/ v3 r; C  f5 t: \4 U, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
% Z1 \1 w, q; i6 v% nmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this! T$ D8 u" H( P+ E" ~- {- k+ v
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; b5 O* W+ Q+ d
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
9 g4 Z2 Q0 g% s" [3 {populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors  ~9 |; q9 k& I* g
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
2 t+ g8 p' l. P, R6 B+ S9 u1 Vwhich they blatantly failed to do.0 k2 |( l5 p. R
4 F% i* K9 L' t
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
6 j9 _9 @+ q# I+ Y% }Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in. f# n6 n& r& _% w8 c
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “7 j) l$ j, O% ~$ \
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous  |! a/ R/ K* G: G; [
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an6 u% p& L* [5 Q! F3 J" m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ d' T1 `* w- @4 Kdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to" s+ l6 I9 m' Y6 C: S$ @
be treated as 7 s.
( K" O; ~$ w8 R; @/ \9 F) C- X( W7 q: Z- S' Z1 p
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 w1 z* w$ R) Z6 estill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem5 W% k5 }. n- s$ h+ u
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.8 C- Q4 l5 H) u# h9 e, T
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4009 A. c* k% v3 |8 \" w9 f! M
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
0 |+ }* F3 y( }. wFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
0 x8 o/ K" O! V. y' delite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
3 E! g, V9 m& C1 j5 ]7 ipersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' O# ^, x# j% ?' h+ K" z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- f* z; j4 W3 C# k1 \9 f4 `9 x8 {" R2 r7 X: I% E, i3 r2 X
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' q0 y8 i. A, L7 u6 n
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 L! O  h7 r# \5 |the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
, n% c* ^0 W. fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ Y3 s1 Q4 F" I: M
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s9 P& {0 E, X$ u% _$ E+ T' l
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 H5 b" W( w( ~) J9 V. bFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! A4 s) j3 K' n! a6 R! Y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' e1 U1 m1 ?7 I3 ?+ a6 W% T
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle" K1 Z; t; x; u9 Z9 F: [
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
( o" J& I" I+ f/ W9 c% ?strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ X! X7 b. F  }! h7 G2 u/ p! }6 f% m
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- @7 S/ r* l" y( l9 t* Z
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
6 `% {+ k" n$ M4 Y. maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 g' g. Y/ m' U' y  Cimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! r' ^( i6 \" a# p& {3 l& D. C& W% i* D8 u8 L$ _
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- y! e. X8 I) b. `! j+ Yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
+ l" J9 G5 l$ s1 Z; M6 Ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s6 @$ ~6 q$ k* \8 h" j) m5 Q
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
' N# q/ p2 N9 zout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) s' L0 B: c" J1 v' l
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 a9 k  F$ f# p, T6 Gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* \0 k& P" q: ?( m# E3 U& Z0 x; f
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 B0 C6 N; D2 C6 H8 r/ Aevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! L, c* J* n' Z6 Y4 m! fworks.
& {9 i" l- n- s: F" V/ `" z% R; G2 s' o2 s3 i! d
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( n  |1 l/ D* Q/ \5 `; {% I. [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this+ Z. _2 u* Y, Y* n
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% Y3 {# n% y8 y- q% ystandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific  h" X6 Y& o9 Z& ]+ o
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, t( X; N6 d! n) L( p" n) breviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ s( n2 H3 r' Acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ f" e  f& p2 Y& e! s8 O2 B
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) ?& H; y; Z9 M7 W
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" B& l. W/ s1 Y8 j: x& u* e  E8 Ris found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
' W, @' O1 p$ H  b( ]' j. t2 icrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he5 I0 {; _7 g. x
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly! M. T% i& K) w1 s, P- v
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ j  X8 S* M6 k+ r* V# y' V
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. P$ t  l5 _  T- l1 c/ J# N4 P) {use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 F, l* C, ]2 r, v1 v. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 @9 f: ?7 \, @' Idoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may; O& Q6 V' r8 ?7 k8 b  F; }; b8 ^. S/ N" V  M
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a  H. D' T  b$ D2 M* E
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye: I0 I( ?$ ?7 o$ h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& S% m: ^- }0 \, X# b; p- I
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% K& n+ \- E9 b  Q. w2 ^
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
0 J. Y: b8 m" V2 b, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is0 M) }" Y9 D5 M+ t9 L! |
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
/ W  X" t: o3 X8 t$ A8 xathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight/ T+ L& q0 n! s8 t* ]2 s& y3 v
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 I8 Y& d& Z& i0 {- I" O  W" \+ y
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ ^; O% C; y6 C- n/ j3 Wagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 S7 h( r0 h2 S! S$ ^
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 d2 N& n( W# [6 L$ Y  W
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: |! P3 ~) p) E* O9 n9 u
% ?( l* K1 T; x+ mSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-; z5 w' @3 ^: \5 ]
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. b& R6 t8 ~1 M
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 v$ F* Z! g5 u4 E. ]5 _( DOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London* [) b5 G. u3 F0 G) R
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
6 O3 ^& [' Y6 U2 ^2 qdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. T. P# R% ]$ X; `
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
# m1 l2 N5 J$ Q, V! |' ]; ^: uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a  f$ g/ r+ X! m2 s9 R
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this' Q' ?7 A& W& z/ n4 J0 W
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 Z- Q! ?* `$ ?" t

! X- m6 ^( U  f4 j+ ZOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- X0 n# E% r7 O4 F6 l
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too# v" {' j+ P" Q( e8 H0 g. k  O
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
4 J' N4 p5 K# u# K1 H" l/ Zsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide1 e! F8 N2 j6 m4 @( @
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 u0 u) ~' |3 J% X
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. t2 D- @% B# f* C  D
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
6 O1 K. d1 t7 V; z& a3 gargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
* q. l6 n: S; t2 f$ m5 zsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
7 F' E3 _) J: Z8 ?" Z( {0 Areporting 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, 2025-12-8 12:23 , Processed in 0.223568 second(s), 21 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