埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2267|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
/ ~) k0 u3 ^; \9 w# H: s$ U3 O" s0 V0 @
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
" z  r, V, z1 X2 M) z" ]: r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。! k& L- A9 c% G" W% w, v+ x; q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
2 \! @  y) y- n
' c/ ]4 y) N; P8 |% J# Ohttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
4 n2 R9 E- t& J7 C( ~/ H' Q
0 `, w4 i8 w- d2 p: `致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
# U$ ^8 S% z% _! v. S
6 i4 L2 K' ^$ ~" j, N6 U, p英文原信附后,大意如下:% D& B! z# E7 U2 m+ T
+ F4 x) E, n: t8 J+ {) t2 R
斐尔,$ k0 d8 w; \7 Y. 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: q, ~( v9 t5 H* U% T( T
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& e1 _- t5 X* H$ o6 |) D       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; v/ u' T, g7 X& ?% O$ F6 q* r
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- B0 o! S8 Q% f/ W/ Z# F; x
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。
: B; Q+ N8 ]9 f8 }; @       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
' t! O6 {; F' @1 g, P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1 s, v, W: P3 n1 T
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8 O  s$ s, {# i4 A3 _$ K. Q
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。+ w! o  B1 h- p" H, h/ 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3 Q1 P1 a, @) Q
,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2 f6 ~& e6 A1 {: u6 F
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ b9 N( E' U) _: z$ O
       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
! c# u& O" v/ O% X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
/ U4 c4 ]9 \- H6 ^  D+ k,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。: C/ o+ ?/ L3 j1 I1 d0 ]" ^
       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
" t! m: x. O  K, B/ {! ]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% s3 R% H& E! g1 S, P
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二+ o7 J0 {; c* v/ J: N
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
) t4 G" o" O1 T( I  h; N8 s' b300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; f( f; ^; c/ l$ e4 G0 N2 B- @
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
2 d2 F2 W# ?/ Z* |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+ Z/ @# d% m9 p$ z9 L! o' \1 U% N
。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, {, `/ g$ u+ E/ U$ b
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; K% \* @7 ^+ L6 A
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
8 ]' e# D! W9 c( ~. ^8 Y1》,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* u' z* z5 d1 ]+ K% O( a, h+ c- O
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& p. K/ ^; E  c' @- {0 {
同意见的专家。
1 P; e2 F( C" ?( q+ E6 Z$ a" p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# {; D: y: Z; n: z+ C& _
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) ^3 x; ]! ?1 [8 p* ^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% H# i6 N, q' m* s- b《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。, y8 w% Q9 B+ W2 Y( O
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)
9 a" `5 o5 H' G; e+ B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 a& D$ i5 H8 {
《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
# b7 g$ Q7 }% l$ j% U6 l1 l这些被Callaway忽略。. d) g2 w( v( N# Y9 J
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
; [6 A- T' p/ i5 O& Z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( p+ ^' W5 C' V" [
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。9 `# m1 S9 K* Y
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. W6 G& N8 s4 W5 M$ I
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
  S) J  m. M5 z6 y$ k& ~' X1 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3 a% i$ h0 |6 A1 B" ^) I
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。
0 t+ @: V5 R/ A0 }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
. Y4 e; w8 I  E1 \# w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
( S0 c) {8 m; p) @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% |0 I" L# m' e, O" i* K' W
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。% A4 s" O" M* ^2 g- Q9 g& g* A
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
$ I  f# l0 U* ^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# D7 y" ?: ~4 X! p( O0 I5 k  }
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9 J9 }* x. J4 p7 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
- g$ b+ a; o- E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4 G! s0 N  ]  U/ e6 T
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
3 \0 x0 R& W. [6 h* j, Y我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
& A: i: `: X  u8 R7 p" a: T9 Z( R( @3 {2 S2 d
% S* f1 F8 O0 w
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅9 q3 H, P- t% H( O; o: G
& O4 U; O9 X' r' a  q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结& i3 g6 b% y) W4 h+ q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) a  r; l* h" d0 C1 U. Z
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见  |8 b3 f* ?: w% U% M
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) s$ C  V, b* g0 \9 S2 @5 u: T+ T7 ^0 s' M5 \

. P3 P% [( F- ^  b  Y4 g
' B1 I+ Q- w% I- P3 s! y1 e原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)/ ]1 q* u) ]$ t4 G# ~' D3 `
Dear Phil,
# V; I0 n% Y1 Q. d       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
7 Y0 n8 W5 T" D* e! [) ]report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
1 k8 K7 k% S" A! V! ihours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
, e) Q0 v' z$ N4 L1 m2 d, }+ L* O" Q+ lyou.& ?1 f# e( I2 P* O% v; a3 T
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
3 _9 `9 l$ L2 u8 {brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
$ r: M+ f# Z. `% ^* Hreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the" X! P* a# }6 J1 m) p( I7 k
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
' L4 f- T% G& P. O2 j6 Npublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
/ z* W! I$ G9 [, G/ Zseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
  I( ~% \) ?( l" Q0 j8 K3 y" gpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
7 L1 n6 _$ E9 p' f       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the% T9 @4 L. b9 c- c. f3 K
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a6 ]5 q) p3 B$ _% v& o
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish# r- c# r$ t7 s& x8 t9 g* \
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
7 u5 p; O2 I& [8 r; m# ndid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping0 @8 N* o6 L- _$ C; c
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal9 r' _6 F/ _  `1 M
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: h: d6 G! b4 e, v8 r& O7 U. wand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone+ C0 u1 k9 T2 L3 K
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news5 |$ O2 J7 U5 v9 D* {! k, v
reporting.
2 e: i" ?% n# S1 i" h. M       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
- {0 l! O, D2 y; W0 E8 u# y3 p' j' U6 talready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by. H* l8 M  F6 t- A8 \: S! E6 P# E% v
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in7 t% p- h2 ]0 p; }3 g5 ?
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A2 \# A+ a' @# C+ T% M
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  {' @6 R6 O' `3 D2 [       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
% ^: f$ d- Y9 X) imore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
/ @% l8 S( o$ b& M& Q2 Nfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
) l4 |' J6 g# p! ]$ X! A* e( a5 z0 @7 _meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same1 C* ^8 z6 g2 H4 I2 D! e
event for men, with the second fastest record.
  s: I( |' i( r5 n3 V% ^       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye: R- q3 k- `0 d# y( @" |3 L
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16% ?% G9 t) q3 x' c0 q
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- H" n0 I; P# h. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
2 z6 o& R6 }+ M+ g; f( d5 E3 umeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
$ M  P1 {, m1 B9 m4 Afor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than2 `" o) B4 d4 t
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed8 m% ]: }) _" c4 s8 Q. |# P5 N
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 t7 M* Y5 \* n7 p- ~$ \! {individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ I& C8 C/ F9 i7 L5 Pthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than8 }. r" j+ U& Z6 Z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was& c$ p' q& ~$ R7 Q3 J7 J; \
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
9 B: s3 r$ `" Z/ O! H/ Rhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
2 M& x! E- I6 K3 K7 k6 Dproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other  [9 V' D. d" ]7 j5 S. `2 E; s
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, f; F) L6 d/ |# U) Gteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
+ [. X1 _$ O0 p2 z( Y5 }* n7 J; vCallaway report.; R3 z4 p- P+ c& P2 `: g) v
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more6 X2 O/ J& N3 r# ]' d
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
2 R  o  }# ^& x) `' q8 Qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( N6 C4 S3 W6 B. b. |/ ~5 q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 @6 ?8 B% L' Z% x! w$ p* @7 B
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the1 M: V% f  k2 u! N
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
( t; d% c. V* k3 ?publicly voiced different opinions.7 z% G  N2 a/ {" q, |; F; q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD, t9 u8 u: Z+ [5 P: ?* a' e
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' ^# N' I& Z% M1 F+ f0 E
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
4 ~- ?! \, B/ W. ]6 D  Q; Ppostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds& U$ ?& Q0 x& P1 M
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
+ l8 @$ q) w# Pof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.  v0 \* a4 W2 F- }! k- O' k# G
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
/ b$ g) d5 v" C; rthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ {* R5 u7 `9 j) x' T( J' Xhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as$ p6 z9 G4 b# k
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
" c2 i) l; ^* {: R0 othe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
2 n5 g% P7 l; Dsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
0 z/ c9 O4 X9 d3 j1 D4 EOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
' A. ~1 P- M2 I% L4 D/ w' [many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
5 A1 e7 T. T) |; mChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
, d1 @% H- B0 r: R! t8 e(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
6 a( O/ A" h3 `, _and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting./ {! k2 g$ Y- B6 v) G+ S- n
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science. {0 a' h2 k3 x# n7 K$ |+ Y
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 M) M0 Z( G. V$ ~* o* y/ g
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.# K1 @/ A4 A' T, I. P0 x. v  z
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and2 W( O4 g, r3 z: M
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature4 Z8 B+ U- Z: `5 X4 ?
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to/ o. P/ P2 `6 i, P1 n. `
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.* ]  }  T$ l% Z3 U* f( Z9 U
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not" y% X( J$ h; h* P  H, X
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
- E6 C# e& u- @# f$ T( i6 A  p" l( Vus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather- Y- P  B+ X( n$ X* O
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that' n, |, I; ^3 w1 Z5 a: y9 E
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”( ^3 F# x; D4 \, p: U
about British supremacy.
7 c& a% i7 d  tThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many7 Z' n. U# U8 i' _! ~
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
+ l" v+ h: r$ |. ^/ i& @) N; gChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
5 N3 \% v6 B! \; E. V0 four public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London, X, A2 S: d0 L9 Z
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.# ?/ B9 x0 G1 _( V$ Z
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
5 g) \/ {( B1 g3 F9 t: [3 C/ W. R& Wprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ l8 z! }7 n7 Q( g
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
0 S; O% ?: n7 d4 {1 Fit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly# z) E' i; g' s6 h' a
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like- L/ Y& d: v; R1 O# C
Nature.1 ]5 s) Q/ F# q- f
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance7 a7 s/ o+ x. ^, P: K2 R, U; z, k( t
the Callaway report.0 R% n3 X- _6 B7 K' z/ K/ h& O

6 E4 t# P( N( F& G0 |Yi) P2 v; m% `0 l% F1 H! |/ b7 y) z) O' x

' f2 J% G, D# d1 M3 h% L* |Yi Rao, Ph.D./ M' Y$ H& R" a& H: U7 u4 ]$ j; i
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences4 h  V- j2 F5 @0 L# n7 Q* x
Beijing, China
; l0 p6 m& F) O/ s: M1 x7 H4 U. l' {2 I
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 . B: [0 O4 I  k/ Z7 A/ B
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' S9 ]% ^! ~, m+ E$ D) b( E原文是公开信。
% d7 o. y# Q9 `) X4 M
* O; c# _/ G: r; L8 K7 I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
/ S5 e( B  L4 A8 p原文是公开信。
! B$ Z% S( `! s6 Z" t* k" X2 V7 |; n9 h- V) c5 a
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
9 r. Y! m& p* [: H9 \, l
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 JIANG9 J- U* U6 {5 \5 Y% }! o/ S; _$ Z, _
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- P! g$ p" W7 m% Q2 t+ \1 s" C; q

1 G( k) ^* B7 b0 [8 qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html+ i6 R5 g6 O1 @- @$ g2 R

% n. U0 A( o" Y+ g9 t0 R0 i# NFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania7 k* q9 M: g! ~1 m1 [
% X: `( t: I8 ^* |/ x( e  f
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" w* O! B" d5 U* U, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
4 Z" |; M5 l  J0 Amagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this' t2 R7 ~! @' {' v$ h
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' b/ Y4 Y! w9 M+ M* escrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
0 \* ^- A+ J* \' g8 dpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 r' y2 w* j+ B' V$ Xshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,1 _7 p. ^3 @1 j4 ~6 @- W# V6 W9 W6 l
which they blatantly failed to do.
. S) w. }( g/ C* c; p* i: ?. {) g/ K  b% D1 z
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her% x0 X& a  r- Y3 g& J: \5 Y
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 u  m$ B' t$ F, D2 V$ P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: @5 m) n4 s$ N9 G& U" vanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& M* d$ I9 j2 G; h7 f+ D6 x) P
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an* q% u' G0 J8 y/ p) G: ?
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
6 E, ]- o6 Z  R7 k) P4 }0 V0 q) u$ Y9 Odifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 d" Y& D3 Q- F- X: @
be treated as 7 s.9 u: K' w" g! @
: w2 s4 n& E6 o4 O8 C
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is1 p. V9 o2 H' @* B  Z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem9 W$ H. F7 ^/ I9 b
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' L( ?- j; j2 D
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! z2 k3 k* `  l. }3 H* c) B* |
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.  P3 Y; Z: m2 b8 X2 W5 O! O1 @
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
: F2 O! R- p, f- N, Kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 r+ U5 _3 [$ ?; G* o
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”3 y: B  h5 |2 W* B4 X" Q9 [$ ^
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 L) r" |9 s+ |3 K

; r0 g+ p& R6 c% F" JThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 Y3 A% w% [6 q1 f! Bexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
1 j' ~8 R* B0 R/ ?2 P( R9 Gthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* v$ j7 T( g. ^. {% h+ `6 P- ~/ x. Nhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later4 [; Q/ C6 W8 x. d$ T# W, ~! [; d
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
. s9 N( T. d9 Y- N% _; Nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World- f3 u- c; c. J" s4 s5 I' A
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
# I- T$ o) {: Q* N& G/ P% m  o5 Btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other) q- t6 ?; c( P3 {5 l( h6 N6 e; C
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle  t) U( U' \7 j6 N; X) d* I  g1 }
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 b0 f4 b0 G9 D+ n6 nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds" j5 ~( v, v2 Q2 l+ F9 t* d
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% ^# [2 g- N6 t; |1 O1 L: r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ e% _( m5 b, r. Z5 J
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
4 r8 ~# k2 G7 B5 ?9 c3 Bimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 ]4 \; J4 `0 n- O( W" @4 Y' M- \& J
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ b$ z& f' d( J( o
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 J! O5 ~7 @: N7 h4 j3 I7 Gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' R7 O  n7 B1 m9 `3 K& R( D7 h0 y. n
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 v' V' [( V: Y( ^2 i
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; }& q" z& B: z# y# w  M- @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 h; `( g$ c! D- r; A
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* s7 G, d9 j9 Z# S+ b
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
& O0 f, E$ s& U/ \( f. }! W1 p" F* l$ Jevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science) |! t# E0 v% w1 `) z4 w. h
works.% a. `1 l3 z" t/ Y+ S0 j" ^  N

* |$ U5 C2 o, K/ rFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and; g& J; Z9 F; f
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 h/ |- d" n4 \: wkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 B/ q. D9 w# _! i0 A& Vstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 R  m+ E5 ?7 R( A) ^" U9 L& A
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and4 J1 T  e* _* Y  r9 L& ?9 ^4 M
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
* k. R: i+ @* P# o1 M2 |cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
) J0 {$ B, C: {* ~& ?demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) s: j6 m9 N4 ~  U* w& l4 ?6 k
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 f$ n: W* `+ M- O9 Y+ i3 C* L( r1 h
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; {$ n1 k+ E* W/ i" b& y3 Wcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 S9 |& G" G; r7 p1 \
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly# M, x0 d/ B0 a! j0 y# ^' ^1 o
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 s2 K2 t' Q, d$ g0 N5 `& V1 Spast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 `1 s+ F2 j' p5 H
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
9 Q  C1 Q  M+ k# h" E) _  N" q. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# g+ }. v( t4 W0 w$ Z3 Y5 s. Edoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ E# {5 @! J) J) p( v% n7 Rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. k1 W8 @2 d- V  |& o3 }
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% {( k" J5 ^1 D/ O0 jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' [' n) _  c3 f- [. _drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
1 R; S8 ~6 d; c: p1 q7 Q. Aother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 T7 Z0 |& N5 N8 {9 x8 k
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is6 n9 a8 W5 [6 \6 `; r
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. x4 U; D3 ~) L1 b' ^
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( P& d9 m: c8 h1 y* qchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 ?: G/ V9 l" k$ x' ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
  p% Q% O$ H5 o% Eagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 `& Z4 e# `& a) s+ G) i# L6 \
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.1 ?  F  B; T" n" f1 k
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: Y) H4 Y! v) W' S  J8 G/ K6 e
1 W0 u- A5 d  q; H4 U$ |
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* O$ c4 J# U7 I  o0 I! _5 F% ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 h- j' H& {' J" u' p$ ?: y& Z  g6 X
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
# q: q* V. l3 v) J, f; G7 d+ V& XOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: E0 x1 L2 P' ~. a" h
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- ~3 l( t/ y) Y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
$ D, @9 J& a- ]9 T1 r" J6 K% \games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
0 C: U4 n- ~: Q) V/ [& c* chave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& q$ x2 C5 Y* J6 J
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
+ k, x5 O: @- m# U# Qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' h8 Z8 U4 V& ~. i1 i3 A% E5 X8 l" q5 F% m8 S% ^; J
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" D9 |. y1 M4 N6 q" yintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too- \* E- {, R3 A( I
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a  @. c. {2 l# e9 \: C) }' Y4 M" {
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' ?$ T& |2 R; J
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) F: i# `( w* W* }
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
  e5 _* h! }; _4 ]$ o7 zexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
- w2 k" @2 }5 v  Eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal& D- L% k0 T; X; C
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& l' E$ g# y0 Dreporting 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, 2026-4-24 12:52 , Processed in 0.131291 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