埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2062|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
4 u' t9 q, {: u
3 K6 }8 D# k' q0 U5 j5 h$ ^9 a饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
) B3 `) R7 X6 B6 x0 A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。/ x( _2 H+ \2 R5 R. V
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。) ]! F' i* F7 O# B7 `2 D

4 u/ a' d* _  h4 R6 @. Y6 yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
( K  j% U( N+ ?& e1 F4 o" t% s* w. M5 W$ w: _0 ^3 s; j
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选8 n8 f+ M/ M' @; Y  d! h1 P
0 |$ V% Y" X: ~( A# V
英文原信附后,大意如下:% l6 O2 x$ ^* D( z6 g3 A- f& {

1 y. ]1 {" D) a3 w( _斐尔,- U/ D9 E) {$ V# n! B+ K
       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你; b) ?/ F0 Q, k/ T: p2 z. _0 {
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
7 f& i9 r' q3 H2 w+ a       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! s- @1 p$ h- O5 [+ z+ i
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
( w) C" Z1 R0 J% a' v* w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。
9 [" w$ ^8 M  N: ^2 x       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞) p* z" @8 I6 k8 Z- [
弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
  \5 d$ w& r- c1 B( F) }2 K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$ {2 {5 ?7 D) Y: h* D
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。
9 P$ n8 E/ G9 g) q/ s       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
8 O8 w  g* N  Z# c% G$ r) ?,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 K, m, n: s, c) r5 ]4 \
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。8 q# i) p5 ~/ A* w
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她
. D7 ]9 r% P8 U1 ]; a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" C$ ]5 n: {; u2 |5 L) z6 u" Q
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。% [$ x. d4 q% M+ j
       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
$ c3 D: R. [% b! Q9 G* Q5 M2011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' J3 s6 n0 F0 r/ ^! k2 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- s) ?: Q# z) q$ k7 b" X2 p
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/ {# p5 ~8 S3 p6 r, \1 G5 `
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
+ D+ n4 P, |+ Q' m' 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
/ k4 U- H; f) P8 v+ T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
9 V5 M( Q2 h% I7 V。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
; f7 s6 G: m* U0 ~( x- F4 Z* H$ O录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 T, ]# K+ C3 \% @7 |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! W! [5 Q; T! ~1 e8 c3 K
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
& y3 u! E7 M8 K2 {7 F0 j. xWikipedia。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 A4 ?" M: C) ]' `0 X
同意见的专家。* y& q1 L- y0 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
) G6 O+ U$ s5 T+ @$ F8 {7 \! J% 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
; n. N/ s9 S$ S7 ]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! V5 @& x' q2 }# j% I, L2 B. E$ c
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。& v: Z% k& m9 n# R' s
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)/ v: R5 C! F) x* y+ ~' s, R
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6 t# ?+ s9 m/ Y% v
《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 A- E9 j# |: }/ h* \; n4 @
这些被Callaway忽略。
: [" D# P3 l8 v$ a  k2 q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/ ]# m+ U( o3 T
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
2 K* V) c2 W* ?7 |1 k0 M教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 m6 {0 E; Q; h+ b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
( g5 k/ l3 q& {- W+ @- 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
" g9 E7 x% ]% x% |9 q5 m$ t. y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
0 ?( ~+ E" B3 g9 O( C今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。
$ q( j) r2 o3 E; ], D8 z* y  U9 ^) @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
8 d0 n/ y* P' C! a  s# J! ?3 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0 x, W/ t$ z3 [8 |# }3 ^
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
% J" l2 W: Z2 D% i! _7 R”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
# p  a# u4 f: `- J6 q; B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
2 D  k$ U1 T- ]) {% w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# L/ o  S( n3 C
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 {, z3 Z* ?" [( k# z( f
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
+ j) O# P6 n$ u/ R, k- {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! e7 f4 d' o) X9 e
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
2 T* f. w( ^( V. ]  N& _我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。" U: d* J: Y4 T' c- h& Y% n

7 z- d% y" q$ |+ k' i
$ @& H$ L& [) e7 z7 v  j北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
* X- K* C+ `2 M: J/ T' K
- C( v$ E1 E6 F, N/ D/ v7 F# E0 {附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结0 f7 k- v2 L0 F* m& E" G- U
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email  u+ f3 h- {/ R4 u3 U5 D$ B
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见3 y) ~) K+ G" X% ]
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见% p) a. `' F. R! U# q& L$ l$ }0 y1 c

: p3 F/ b8 Q  ~+ }& J* z' T
' ^' x7 F3 B) H7 r( Z; w
! l( F# O& W# u8 n0 C& Z' h原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 l. w' z2 |8 b. _: F
Dear Phil,5 K( [% b6 A9 _/ Q5 f/ T% z
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
8 n7 ?8 j- e9 j' A8 O- [, creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 203 U* r* s8 b. D  G. ?) u
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' c) u6 q4 x8 f. z+ myou.: }* i2 }5 v0 d2 h, o, V; P
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
& T: P+ j) v1 s3 l7 m, jbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese7 l4 V0 r) G$ t( Y" u# i
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the. v. o& A# D9 o# {2 Z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature7 j# [% Y; a# s8 ~+ q% [/ a
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more7 p1 C; X3 e& E0 c5 Z6 X6 z' Y
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
) h$ r' \- o6 z$ u- P- zpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
$ p6 D/ _( p1 _       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
7 R& g. ~. W; F4 }( n% G9 Uworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
4 u" f4 w" o) n% v( ~3 H; Wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
8 a8 S* t) S2 {  Uthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 s# ^3 a0 Q* ~+ `4 r" f+ Cdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% v+ K" G0 l3 R: Sexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! ^% _, \6 c2 a9 ~
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
8 w% D1 h$ w: R5 B$ K- S( vand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone* Q4 m: R! b" G; a" C* w& D
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news, l6 a1 W  ?2 m. D) o8 X7 }
reporting.4 n9 }6 x7 r% H2 I: M& p
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
7 h" R, d; q) b% kalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
$ M9 t' K" S/ @; t; L& ~changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in, S1 w/ i$ g- O4 U8 O# c
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A6 g' Q* f6 k$ m# o5 E1 a3 B
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.: ^1 A7 M" |0 b$ s! O% Z# c: y0 b
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem3 ~9 W! c) _2 W( W9 t. c
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds, n4 `$ [3 H  S' V6 g
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
; N' S+ d4 y0 j* nmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
  {( e1 ^7 m, U5 o0 revent for men, with the second fastest record.2 }8 `* y7 j/ A, o5 W- g
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
. R; ~1 F. M5 I8 Q5 r. F: Jwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16& Y; \3 n" n- U1 |
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
& t! G% ^% j) {+ d. b6 m. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
1 H9 z( B. L1 b8 ^meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
8 l8 J. U2 `3 C& g8 f2 Dfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
8 X# R$ s0 ~- [* u% U, ^Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed$ c3 ~8 t8 p$ W  P+ i
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 O" g9 [4 `, l$ w$ ~individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( w7 r! ^6 ]* X7 [- w* z
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. Q$ {# U8 G$ I: H/ Q8 `' vthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
0 x8 q) B. H; _' a/ K% {her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
: o% G+ ?$ K$ b4 rhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “; P! E4 J" B# x) F" O% ?
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other+ E- b1 h4 t! ^% Z5 j6 ?
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the# ^, g6 ?% O. X- b/ i+ O* C% E) H
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
# b! @4 X! a$ N  k# l' f: G# PCallaway report.# j' ~# d8 h$ K% T2 S4 `0 `
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more4 W3 k, H0 ]1 `0 ^
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details1 G: k* j# v+ ?" k
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
, c9 {* G$ _. U9 Iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been! |9 I4 ]) D( Y# u
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
9 G( ~9 O3 h1 z: I" dWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
, [8 X2 J- S, u" npublicly voiced different opinions.
# n! A* m% _" i- R" e+ C- ~% D( d" RYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD* l* g; {* v2 t- z8 w
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature5 J  }( {) n9 h( B5 y
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
/ J. @6 Y. z# t" }/ O; Tpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
3 v9 U; g7 M. \& q$ A8 Y4 ^you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 J$ A- C1 z7 R  i5 d0 @. }
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
/ _2 q' a7 t# p3 @$ NThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! l5 \4 F$ o3 `, w1 ~2 |1 }; u, D) o( ?that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
* N  t* y# N# Shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' N0 U$ }5 k/ P# R1 `- U* U/ c9 hAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
3 @2 h# Q8 B# I( z6 S  C! E( lthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
! \' C  D6 V( U) {supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
6 Z" @5 t5 e) YOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that. R- D" I2 j; A6 A3 I/ S. G
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
+ Z% O% o5 c5 T3 {* Q6 ]Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June# e; W- k; G  a5 j' i$ a8 Y
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ f5 k6 w( Y- X0 t# t6 c9 {and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.2 D+ D9 b% J% ?
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ u( x% ?/ G2 P7 r: M
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and" r, V/ Z. i4 x, v) u9 b
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
- C4 W5 _8 W4 dNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and% }: a3 l1 L( z* U% d# F
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature/ l3 y6 C2 b) W/ i( A
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to% b5 H+ C/ z; ], S/ G' s
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, K" d( W/ A' ]) E* [& c- bThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
5 |7 K! {5 L* h( x5 _show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced1 ~8 ^+ i+ Y; h' w
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 i. i$ Z: t) @. T/ w6 Q# s; h8 T. l% Z
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that# X5 f' I6 g" y) U
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
8 Q% t4 `) x! E* @6 I+ ]3 S8 rabout British supremacy.
8 {( e% i+ t: c8 [# a; o  P) x+ jThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many; I& r) [* _* N3 l5 y- C
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
; l$ J: r. W( yChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by( r& ^$ R/ o7 ]3 K
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 f5 F# f3 C$ \" y0 K9 t& _0 s  g" QOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
9 R) ~( T# Z6 _% W* p# d3 N7 ^Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
0 a0 A# ^& @4 l6 Y8 k) {professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
# |# A, \" E- i! F3 d  \before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
; x& Y2 c1 C1 {3 }) Uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
" E8 `0 {! m" @5 Spublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
- D$ ^3 h1 c6 J8 MNature.6 B8 g8 H8 t2 H& Q% A0 r: }, V8 {( y
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
4 T) Y5 n" X; G! A$ P0 ]: Tthe Callaway report.7 D& s: r9 y) J- F6 J8 O/ }0 P

4 V+ f; B4 ?& D: s" T: Y5 KYi2 X5 O" p2 o7 z1 Z5 A. |( Z5 L
$ [5 @& |4 ^: N! }7 r1 T0 C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
) _% _/ Y) |+ KProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences9 S1 ]& `8 \0 m6 h8 W/ v
Beijing, China
5 u2 d7 ^. A1 @8 [5 y3 s- N$ s
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?
理袁律师事务所
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
- Z+ o5 V4 m' _3 r原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
* X) d# h- `0 ~% x$ ~8 H, x
原文是公开信。7 ?3 Q" F6 V$ J% i# X

1 I3 E) Q9 s7 y' `1 |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
" V* W8 o1 d; a: y$ O原文是公开信。
, [) q* W1 g7 n" T
6 ?& P* z, h0 }: \) s$ h% \0 p小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

  D4 x7 [2 g6 Q3 y8 @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 JIANG2 p0 _7 `4 ^4 b) `
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。& }$ s1 k9 G! l. a3 ^- y
8 m- E( @* d3 Y# _
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& @7 T; s! U& R7 }5 j4 f

3 ~: N' E5 }' ]2 E# L2 Z+ VFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania5 r9 K. u5 J! i) U1 P  N9 I
2 I% m) P8 T: F' m: I
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
' w. w& ]# h( }: }9 X! G/ U, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
/ ~- B; @8 g/ S, R8 f) jmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this1 Y6 y( g+ o; |& d' N: Z
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( s1 g7 D4 K5 G* f" Gscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 w3 v- b5 ~' x
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
/ @3 O. p! [. x% Zshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# r7 Q- B4 }" P( b! M7 O. owhich they blatantly failed to do.6 R  p3 e& d2 F
& |! ~, h) m' u; O, d9 p6 F
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her, ~2 a; P. Q8 m( V) L& d% d( l
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
/ I3 j1 C4 a) {9 c( e2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 c" ?" {, a  Q. P6 y+ B6 o
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 O& Z9 \- z" L$ J; ppersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 E2 S5 T- \1 N/ A
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
6 A0 r+ Y+ s7 n( J; j% F) M8 s$ E5 Zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ u. u; ~0 [* b' Q+ gbe treated as 7 s.: O" \* i" d4 k  ]4 J
" s3 S7 q- f2 p# z! ^, h
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- D8 M" l! {5 G
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
$ m! {" k* x2 n# h4 d) y/ limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
2 J7 Z6 T+ c5 V7 O! [  ]1 xAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4009 @0 f. m; y* }
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" c# o6 A2 P* c6 A' n' iFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
0 Q) |7 y2 T+ k6 delite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& M' u0 }' z) W6 ]- T* S) d
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 X; o! P; A2 b" u3 E0 w, m4 A5 \based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# l4 j4 H9 p$ U& Y3 y
, I, c9 b* w- p/ P( W
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ T. u! I2 m; S0 D) ~6 R1 Sexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
: |" O0 `! A: z8 n2 Mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so9 e0 |3 `; E, C
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% {2 t& }5 E& `' Q) U$ @; L
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s; k# `3 _( w1 W* n- H% p: w- Q: ^
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
5 s4 {" {# K/ w, X! x4 C: Q* x  s- ZFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another  ^+ n, y) j" l  U4 r: P( x4 a; x& N, F
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
% `8 o1 e& t5 Ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
3 j0 c9 T% `' @$ Q% a4 L, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% b4 {8 F8 R' I/ U/ H+ Astrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 ?0 u, p+ x5 o) j6 ~0 sfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 @' R) R4 ]9 B. |$ `+ o% ~
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ O1 z" K' V+ V. a1 C4 {aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that8 ?) b0 }  S% R) ], G
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! I9 C' R  Y- x3 q
& O% S/ u2 X+ [5 j* l  J5 dFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
: f( a8 }* b: r7 t: I7 Vfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.937 Y( }- g' ]2 Y% B4 B
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 j! h) f0 w: n4 d+ Z
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns$ y; |* I; h9 p0 H. G
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* }3 w! f& Y9 B/ X2 b" h
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind7 _- Z0 I' `8 j& a' g
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, e6 h* `+ `  B+ Y" B6 R6 X
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
9 `9 B( {% v4 t9 F$ qevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 e2 n$ Y3 V$ e4 Pworks.
  U* Z/ [( R( `( g
4 J/ f( X! p" Z6 R& E6 g' EFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and8 z; x0 J( c  ?. Z% D
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) Z+ y- G( B5 j6 V9 E# rkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that- `# |& d( [" x1 Y& M" x
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 j( S- K1 v; O: A$ Z* p3 q3 Lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% p+ }0 ?6 B3 s! J* j9 M/ N8 f
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One+ e2 Y0 d6 p7 L# _* j; ]" t; Q, C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
$ ?& U  _' ]6 I7 kdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 a$ |. j9 e# k0 m, i* n1 M
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample5 l7 u# n3 ~9 l" ?, a5 }
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is8 l9 R4 O8 W- K$ `/ o: t
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ S: z* q0 u* A% W7 s
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly+ |. K- J6 @2 Y2 l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the" L+ t$ l$ a# H/ ^1 K9 p% F
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
0 ?& B% a' d, z# U$ G( iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* `) r# @+ c# o: V; o; O9 S$ q
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 `+ W! F# Z5 _  _3 L2 Bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 U% Y( O( ]8 ?" A' m6 Ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a, s0 n3 M( E  n7 S1 F8 V' b
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye  H4 G0 p- b5 n; S) M" H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
% |& K5 D# ^! f: Q# T+ F6 Ydrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
5 b5 C" b. R. y0 ~other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect% j2 O, Z! m2 {- w2 B
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 w4 ^, y& B( ?" b( a4 Hprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ A# E# X6 v  k# Nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
3 n& t2 Q0 S# g$ h3 B" zchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?& P. ]+ o  b0 k' v1 v4 h7 J$ K
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) }" t# r# b# y2 h7 h- J: Oagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! h; H4 ]" |; p' p2 @/ d) }eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, }7 c( Z* H8 ?# x* cInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ a+ x7 Y' F9 o; ~7 j

8 a- ]$ c( c1 t% Q* RSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-1 \; R! r: \$ P
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 ^7 C3 L9 A" s" i+ J+ S
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( W/ f, m6 j1 \3 T/ _) B( _" X# s, fOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London/ `. E1 G  L* j- @+ S% @
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for) `# \/ ^: S" d+ d) Y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
& q4 t3 S: G; W, p. ^) k4 xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
/ B4 [- Y; u# ^2 R$ h- D8 q" u- H. q) ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' x' _. I; ]5 t) U  Z3 P: J
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
$ F5 x, P  A+ H- ]  B. |6 ]' apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 H' E  B; p; s, _  y5 N
& m$ L" k8 h) O- ~4 p
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (2 m! W4 d- d* V# g* c0 ]# u
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
  e" [  k- ?) wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: I) Z1 A- A! _9 C9 P4 I
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
* n8 j6 i. t  {- d0 R" R* Lall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
) r9 n9 |% B" B* Iinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
$ S3 s* r( [/ b) d# bexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- L6 Q7 O" k" ?/ t6 y& O$ f
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
% D$ ^( P0 A7 f4 ]1 p/ [8 Xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
/ Q2 ?- C+ v9 O6 t( `3 G) T; e& l) J% kreporting 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, 2026-2-23 05:17 , Processed in 0.221786 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