埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1840|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
( t% {6 l/ \2 x, h# y! o/ @& N' R# J$ I# X, t
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。) P9 P' \% p* a% F
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。1 S6 Y: m1 U5 H( ?
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
3 {0 {; }  r1 u* D$ d+ {0 B  M8 g: Q. J+ C2 o
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 T( W: g$ n. L% T( q( Z3 b9 L) ?
& ]: t. D+ M1 P" Y" X
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选7 Z9 u! M  k8 {$ N. O1 R( k, C" |
% n5 \; W% l" s% C) O
英文原信附后,大意如下:
( Z4 \' f, R7 x3 q& [
# z; O5 D. @& t斐尔,' q% p- Q/ _- z' Y
       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$ W, X/ a5 |+ S& |' D' \  n' o0 W
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。2 ~/ Q# G3 N* ~% q4 t0 R  U* F6 \6 o6 Q
       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴
  U' V& H# ~. J8 m( M, 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
0 @! T( i: P; D# k6 z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。
0 D% P2 }1 x8 _8 A       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
1 H* Z; s  U1 d7 h+ ?0 j4 N弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
2 c/ o9 z8 Y( j( y" v$ G8 V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
, U+ }. j' F' k( t3 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。8 i" J$ m# P+ e8 P' |4 H2 v1 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
7 X* m3 }6 d5 g# L( \2 d8 ~,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& }$ s7 i$ p$ X, z$ O
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
# x' ?$ D, d* ~9 {       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  N0 Q2 l% F" w4 ?4 b7 ?3 d4 M
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1 \  ?1 L0 a* }2 v$ l0 u0 D
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。4 a$ g( L( K( P  k: S. H
       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/ h1 I% o7 E8 w0 k5 u
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 R/ g4 W! |; s6 C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+ V2 h0 V/ Z9 v5 f5 S- O
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 M6 L) h) D0 c/ _# T: l" J300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六6 `  _  }2 E7 |; h4 K
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
/ v1 R+ \2 Q) I7 k) n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1 `& Q$ L; H+ d! o7 m6 p4 V+ K- z" \
。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; r2 S" |5 q) ?9 A/ s
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。8 s5 Z  H  T( o& r0 }
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
* \: y4 h! r1 z, W9 \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
( t8 G* |. l3 r0 E- F2 W7 [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 Z3 C1 y# z! ?2 m
同意见的专家。  S& K( R, Y, `5 r/ S/ z* b9 z
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
+ q( H, ~% x% N3 k( v6 ^( 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3 a# M& O0 t8 B: C) n% i
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( S1 x( s% A* ^0 y$ i) N
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。  M& F. g& |4 n7 H; L- _  ~( x
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)6 {- v! b/ Z7 s0 E6 H
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0 Z% E6 `, z# Y' c9 ?
《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& x/ m9 |! Z6 P+ M7 [4 F6 |
这些被Callaway忽略。
& T9 C7 @# C, X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# ^; e* f2 h: P, V. R# k2 Q( 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" U. n, w, K4 {7 C
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% \5 g! Y* _* R& {6 [. E
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
: D9 I( d4 ^1 T4 C$ Z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
0 P) U# l) X5 ?6 }6 E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
  l1 j: V8 G6 X7 q7 g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。
+ t3 o- r% [1 P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
. {! D% g2 s. y4 H0 k. K& h香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年" {5 _% p) |* h, C
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; ?6 {' B  d8 ?' \  U: i
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。* l8 i6 R, R6 s& M6 |
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
: ^$ r7 G% L7 \9 g5 [2 T$ j" e* 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( T) b3 V' m; \4 U* [# `4 X& }( y
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
! r1 Z4 P- c/ X# ]5 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- D1 z  Y- k! `7 y1 P9 a5 S6 J
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
7 W8 E: ^" ^9 D( z5 G/ r而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
4 ~9 L' S: a4 g9 A我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( t, M7 {* m6 M: f. r# }8 A  G- J* ^

, z6 t3 {! C# Q0 {% \+ i6 |
, \: N8 R/ u2 H北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅. `7 s' @! t/ a( Q2 a! t
+ j6 y4 @8 K9 ]- q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结1 N+ ^2 M4 e" Y2 P4 |( N5 F
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! T( x+ r4 }0 \' |: G
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见& O: S8 d( R2 N9 {; p1 m
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# r; v1 t: M1 U/ \" r! `1 E) \& m

6 a0 ?6 ?" j  b9 @4 Z  E$ L! E8 Y* I7 m3 Q: l0 U' q
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)* [3 ?  L9 c3 Z+ o5 x& U* z
Dear Phil,
- w5 `$ }4 L( I: C4 Y& r) ?       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ _" g" N4 s1 W2 @) _, J
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20: L8 M, `$ \% B# _+ Q
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed8 Y) l: U5 b/ B2 c9 x3 Y
you.. s& F1 S$ [4 d2 T% a/ o
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have- y! c: }3 i9 l
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' Y7 P4 m1 S& P7 A, s, l2 }8 c- freaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
' d: c5 B" P, g# M) r& J: _world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
8 X4 x8 |3 ?% _' O) G9 @publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
+ P0 C2 E, G0 J- C& J% D7 H3 [* vseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news' j5 @5 l* C9 o1 _3 y0 |. q1 a: D
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.3 U" _( q+ w$ ]( t
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ B1 Q) A5 U. P. Dworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a. T& u- B( [1 l. x
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
$ V! R1 d4 R! a5 O. Nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
. ?% K9 t! x. N( J! G& Ldid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping$ t; J+ L  k7 g( M' a
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal6 _, v% [4 x+ X' W7 r8 S" \0 F
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; I7 X5 m6 U( R/ P! Z
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
- e( V7 s7 Q, k5 `to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news) d/ X* ?# x5 A2 W1 R
reporting.
4 W1 y/ I+ |  p       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have& s% \2 M8 Z( k2 w1 S
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
% G0 ~  r" M2 x" n/ \changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
, B3 W' s4 @3 D1 m4 osports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A9 I2 h8 q4 q$ W6 O- b7 O
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
. R2 G8 _9 I% z. L       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
! m- K0 i& o. k. k2 Smore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
+ c$ B+ v7 M( Kfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
3 w( J" \" h: \# A- l6 n9 Xmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same7 C: R2 U. |' ]* T2 @/ F
event for men, with the second fastest record.* c4 l5 `  ?% k! B& J) o9 d
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
! ]  v* {% X5 p4 _* ~! Twas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 C& V, p- e* B& X2 n  M1 q7 ~year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
0 W* m, o% \9 i: x; u' ]  k. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 ]0 l. G; [5 Y9 Z0 l+ M  p
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
# J: j2 p4 F' l  F+ r7 z$ kfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than9 B7 @1 \# t; n
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
/ g7 h0 Z0 u1 U4 r& r- kbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
2 Q0 A, j# ?3 e' K& Q9 g2 k' n* rindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower% }3 m% k$ x: r9 a5 r/ j$ r4 ^
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' J% K1 F, i# e% Z8 o5 ^: ?
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
, j9 g9 V! E1 h  Lher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- g2 i* L! ~1 z5 f0 the would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
7 V2 b" t# G7 D$ P2 ~problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 H7 L  A( c/ u
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the. e' R4 v$ h& M8 I
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the& d: W% N: A# m# c/ l$ D; X
Callaway report.
! Z* q7 J9 @" m, J+ bThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more2 b. ?& S" G+ e1 W' n
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* E0 g3 p  z- Q3 w! b7 n( R6 Z" u0 ohere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description- r  U. c/ \) A8 Z9 B
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been+ C( A, m3 t) u$ j* b" r/ K& z' V' O8 t
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 U' D) N* C0 I% V0 OWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
# _) _2 V% i$ Z  e: ~) L8 lpublicly voiced different opinions.5 o' V4 m8 E( P- ]  q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 B: C- u  Q7 H- H& s# n( t7 C
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ N# L- }$ j+ e0 D; ANeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent2 P% i  T/ B3 e/ x8 L4 a
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
. H0 v+ K0 w: `; K. m: C1 h  lyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
" i% V/ r. h* c: e+ j" \  ~  Oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
# G  Y1 |  y2 B6 f' _; ]There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
8 o8 _6 J9 o6 g; o! {( ?9 u) E, }that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 l5 z6 d7 s& }! m& r
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
1 }. D% X2 B3 q) I+ z0 h( D' B: JAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
6 ]% H6 O! L' Pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
  y5 i  S! _: ]supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
7 U+ {: Q- o" b/ U7 l1 v" U  qOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
/ k# G- q' e- G; B* Cmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the, Q5 O6 D/ a# D9 _/ I9 l! z( U
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June' ~2 O/ d/ ~% i9 w. E$ J3 o+ |
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
/ J% j" |2 b3 L, M. ^1 C( @and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
7 U. a9 r1 V7 c1 _# l* WThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
) I$ N6 X. m/ e0 k! }! o# r' band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ U) T# m8 a4 n
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
% h& V# U' V# ZNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
# F! a/ }6 [% J1 v4 P1 V* R) tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
2 |6 J$ }8 k9 {9 l+ L# a9 i4 twhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" H/ F7 u0 R6 e8 ~* prepair the damage caused by your news reporters./ J4 L& v/ ~9 f* t" k3 V- {
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not8 b% S& m. N1 Q* ]" N
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
0 Y. g( `# j8 |# Fus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather# u6 Y9 |" Y( A( h  }7 v
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 Z$ G7 v  t  S' T# M; O& X4 Dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
- K3 ^. X6 ~" G; d& g4 _about British supremacy./ U  f. L1 j' N- t6 ?; s6 k
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
! G% K0 \# O" ]unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, e+ ], a. k- J- S# N, cChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, d) I( c6 Z% S# f" I  c, l- lour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) L- s' C2 j- h! b8 Q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
( A' I0 ]1 n% U) j1 g/ R9 R# e/ gYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of1 @5 |& K4 e! z6 v( {, X
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
) Q' ]1 z3 E/ \; Hbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ k  s. U6 u, k' w5 L$ W4 w
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
  C: ?. i! @0 ]# ?$ s/ A* r& L4 Cpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
, w: s! S$ h% Z; KNature.& d4 d+ e( v6 \, j4 s8 M9 F  w9 U* S/ M3 u
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance! X1 x8 x) a3 Y7 R& @0 W
the Callaway report.
/ U% m0 f  s8 |" m9 c6 l/ [
) c/ ^( k3 `: ~' I' bYi
% \0 h2 S0 @; V5 Y
7 ]1 I0 S: Y/ ^2 l4 [) pYi Rao, Ph.D.( K% C/ u1 A' i$ E- X1 }
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 `8 P9 c: H# j& j
Beijing, China
$ J- R2 A& [7 N0 }
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18
. R& ~  {! @& O1 s, S' q; [原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

; e. y3 l& t: C原文是公开信。
1 P/ _; _6 A3 T- {
3 s; f  T' _) F; X0 Z, F( J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   K; Y, @# M: d. D
原文是公开信。# a9 `, i% F) t) ^8 R; y) W  ^+ m: h
8 h5 h' M& \9 x( `4 W/ S+ K
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

$ K! B  g0 X# 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
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 JIANG
# {  t$ o7 Q/ x% k) Q, @如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。5 R6 U3 [! b+ K
0 `) h' I: C$ Y4 a
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html2 ]+ `% K' X4 ^

) V# P9 ~8 ~) L& b. c, LFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania6 @9 w- X1 j0 J

0 P$ X' w. ~1 s: X, q! ]It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
# ~& x* L% F. D; s7 B3 ?, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science9 e5 c" m/ M" \# L# z7 r
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this* c: }& m0 k% s3 d
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 v0 k* N$ ?4 H# ]! q1 ]) J
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
5 r) n# t' L2 ~6 e5 f8 Y( epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
; L% U$ f( n/ \3 Xshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 i0 V: }. W( E* k* f
which they blatantly failed to do.8 p/ x6 a4 r, |. e7 ~

/ z, H' h! y4 @5 L: I& lFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her1 e+ R8 x0 J; N. |- ]+ B/ g+ R; M
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
$ ^) Y# Q( k1 ^' l5 a2 X2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
) h8 t! T4 Q- tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& z" m3 v8 \: P( jpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
0 [6 S$ X) d7 s; m5 S# t! r/ mimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ a4 A! Z* |1 b+ M- U1 ?+ M( ^1 zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ \* k, Q  N, sbe treated as 7 s.  p& M* |$ f1 `: \3 H, X
$ W2 l* h( x+ ^- a5 f( o
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
" n/ x. }0 L$ I' B% ]: r/ jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
; z2 v4 H" g! H7 Eimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ e$ v8 ?# v$ P8 P& E1 D/ X0 f$ TAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400. r6 z2 U2 o/ t9 N
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.) N3 g, s" C* H. [% e) w; i( D3 U2 s9 |
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an. _$ w, h3 A  P
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
# M; r; o* U" y5 S0 k1 ]persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' _$ d$ g* B) Y/ w: _
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
4 F' I7 g6 f  r. r, E8 k, V' j
  s# p" @6 C9 L) @# _( X; jThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; C7 T2 V0 n7 Q' G
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
4 K% V0 r+ W8 Z! z* P5 B9 s" ^the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& @' }0 j$ q" p" S# ^he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( x0 H6 b. [9 s3 z, T6 t
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s: o, }1 N! y5 A" C' @/ g! X- ?
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
; }" s" C* w) T- ^! B2 b3 dFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another, Z; Y) I% n6 d( ?. R. H
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 c5 N- ~3 i% a8 l( P$ |
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
6 D- F& O' v$ M& L* l% w, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; w% Q1 s& e, i: R7 g, istrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 _- P1 Q- a( l$ L" f5 Jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 V1 y- C; }0 h2 u
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. E1 P# N0 C9 L, l; Zaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that) K0 n: s. g$ K$ t1 i3 l
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% e; @) i  \6 n; c- x: U+ w

2 N9 h! O- U) n  E# G! M- A/ Y  e8 wFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are. s9 [5 Q: a) P7 l: s3 X& `
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93& r' x. Z) t8 z3 l
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s  v" s0 g8 c) z! V. j. D6 s. ~
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns: J: N! e" B) W/ `3 M
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* x& p6 C) B; y# ?& K; g  Z5 KLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
) i& f. ~6 \* E5 {0 xof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it. t- y/ f6 L1 F; \+ ?6 v
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
2 [( W! J. O: N1 j, y4 Z  Zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
0 x+ `, Y: j( G) bworks.; \  t9 Q9 z1 }7 b$ ?
* A  f/ v% ?$ ?4 u, O
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and$ w/ R9 E9 ]# H. [2 z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this5 {5 p$ c+ ^" V4 g5 _; N
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
1 P8 @- U7 e3 G9 f7 k% c$ lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
% m; l2 U" s0 d7 c1 h/ j5 Tpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
2 I; {8 Z7 u6 b: sreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 D7 r$ [. \- v! ocannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
" w, v. o; b2 o. Gdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" [' ^) j6 K8 E# V3 }0 _& T3 M
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample3 p/ I6 q7 a4 U5 m+ b7 ~3 u
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 W' l* V$ |- H- l1 a4 J& U
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he, M1 T# R% I, W  d2 T  Z9 t  ^
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 G5 j, J1 T5 q6 @* l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* K9 I4 j0 }4 |past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not# C2 J. V# O) D2 g& x
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
! v3 P2 z' V; [: M. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
- Q6 ]8 z9 }- I. xdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
2 `# Q) A" `+ b1 m; r  }( mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 V  ^7 q8 ~8 M3 v" A0 j+ D: Rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye( y7 [8 o: j1 U1 ^
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
- O7 d: y% v. d8 Jdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' N! \9 B# Q5 v5 Hother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# ]1 ?: c- A' w3 f) s, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
' g7 O% Y6 {! A  X: ~! Z( e& F4 U2 yprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an5 i2 a2 f& w) M' Y. m! V0 C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
. @1 X' P1 H' _5 G0 cchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
2 @6 t' Z: U3 C3 U  m) T! `Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping/ X: n4 g9 _+ T- o5 Q* Q
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
, H0 Z9 p$ a4 |5 beight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) U% {' M( u8 l4 R' {) {1 ^Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" K  r+ u1 f* p, j$ M9 |: @9 n) u, ?4 g) d

/ T7 p( s3 ?% [  M# [# S' |Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 H9 O; x: M9 A( a$ a5 _* |
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 S3 v1 A8 ]. E( v$ ?! a
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for* h0 ]& s, k' o8 \. p! [$ @
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' {5 N! E; }) Q" `: E% p- Z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for0 c) l: O6 j5 h, A- |9 s  x
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
& }8 H( u: {" B# y2 d, ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
' j( R! M1 A5 Dhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* W6 F! C6 \. aplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
  r$ D3 |; a: D3 V2 q7 opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 d) a; _/ R, J3 i" Q; y
9 V& P2 W0 z9 h2 f0 c! {Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (6 g8 s" X) l& z) a! e* [  F4 g
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
& G! V0 p% j- `/ E0 Jsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 |6 l  x( ^3 wsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 C. m7 s8 H$ W" o3 \: W8 ball the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' {& c+ E( @  q* @# _& {interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* u% `* C' z0 q  ~( J
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& y! W7 @  O4 h" b' O& v9 e
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! ~- G. y& [/ L: Xsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ S* A; }7 B, Qreporting 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, 2025-11-26 03:41 , Processed in 0.149703 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