埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2191|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
8 z  ^7 a4 W3 _1 |
6 o) z0 Y. X( E* q  k饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
* D+ N" x+ ^3 }( 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。
7 r% S' u( y9 x% U" i( I7 O" m总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
: C$ s- ~  E' }# X# O9 M% v; Y$ Y, \
& w" Y& `9 W+ v8 y8 ^& Uhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: N5 G' E3 l3 \
2 h9 S' W- }) O; x8 i致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
& g& _0 [4 M! f0 i% i
. P# {$ L) h+ G  a- E/ s: J英文原信附后,大意如下:) z0 L; V8 a+ r

6 J. ]; L2 B1 a# B* @) S* H斐尔,4 h) M, `* p6 e/ H! a% p
       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8 C+ p+ f. u, ?9 k
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。' S( `$ u5 `, _" z6 c5 @) }0 t" |
       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
& r+ t9 M* y+ p; d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
3 g0 M4 F$ s4 {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 W  Y; q! m( F& U' g
       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( [3 i, X) z0 x7 j
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6 e- e+ X! S/ L- }) a
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
& _& H( M6 O& e- Y/ w* E6 T) r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。
: f) o7 n: q9 q& P2 v$ G; \+ z       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
4 d+ w; r' `7 }5 {& j' h,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
, ~! v5 U; h) x' X# N”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
) R; b" c; {0 J' w3 c       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
6 T0 L. ^# c1 d' N% ^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! S9 p% x9 L5 g$ U
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。, n0 g; f! @% l" b* W
       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
; O. {) R7 L" |3 y2 r2011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" L8 H& A0 V4 S. Q! O
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
8 j3 u9 Q. J9 s' s5 w# H( r& T! K' a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5 ~) G, R, `$ k, M( ]* Z
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
: ^! G7 |* T- T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  E( x2 G7 ^% |) J; \; H
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
5 {8 g) Z; T) t: d。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3 U/ z" X9 `" {3 [
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。& x+ S# z3 d0 F) w' K* |3 x
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
3 |2 @1 s; Y! b$ b2 F1》,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6 \% J  v+ b, X  D
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' Q. q5 z; c5 G0 \) ]
同意见的专家。
4 m4 U+ q; d. g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
# k: n5 T9 M6 {' g# 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
  b3 H8 \% L5 |1 }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
- R+ d+ W4 d( s) R《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" d: U# L: l( y' A& JCallaway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)
2 h' U" c. A% ?  Y- Q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, H/ A# ~0 Y( S9 o4 M, p6 L% \8 X" X
《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5 e" l9 A# Z1 [% ]7 ^" a
这些被Callaway忽略。
/ r" v/ \) g* Z/ G" n% I2 C; R7 e- R+ _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 g* o  p" ~7 [
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
5 @/ ^3 a/ B; b3 S3 @教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
: G7 k# M- M, J6 }6 L: n* K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
) c, J- C! g  D! ^5 P+ i$ c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9 q$ t$ R7 u* `3 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
. P  @& T; k( `8 C+ T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。' D$ |# M* v- q* X
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
6 s- {3 a7 v6 e. o6 ?# a* [! J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9 L/ W+ t4 c2 @+ N' S; Q; T
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: p) X0 ]9 ]! b
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 C* I; G4 g2 g2 [6 S% G8 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* K. [) c; v4 o1 H7 e, G
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6 p- c+ p' h6 c3 U
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 V# n7 B1 ]. V, Y1 S1 s
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5 x. y3 Y: X# }/ v! W
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
! z  X  z( i$ }* S而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。! S+ C  K  B9 p- X/ y
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。9 A3 i+ i" r/ Q, C8 L6 e7 x2 _
4 @3 K; c) K% _5 j9 B5 K& h
3 R1 q# L$ {1 A1 H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅# A6 o3 f; x/ |

+ l6 ~1 G3 [* Z附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结7 f* K) p1 H$ I- I4 _5 c) o
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
* r; c! q8 C: c1 T: e附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
/ v; N! ]) q; B* ^附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见" u, _1 J; D* m; u9 H
( W$ V+ b7 E: ~. \2 O, H2 B
9 R, n' [1 a7 T3 W: ~  j
# }  {% o; G9 G# a
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
9 o3 x% i5 d9 Y; ~( W: i* fDear Phil,
- |; f5 W2 _. _! J       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
6 n* w# [7 l5 ]! R5 ~& h) E# greport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
  X! L4 e7 {. r, Hhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
. J9 Z: s4 _5 {& l4 eyou.
8 e% m5 M( u" `) K& M       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
$ W# }0 I3 R, E; C0 a- Bbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese: w# r. e# Y: _+ [2 G3 L5 e
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the5 N& A) }- a7 D" t' X! ^
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ I2 s& E% V* qpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! r3 e3 N) t1 B* m# qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news+ I* d2 b4 U# O7 |* |+ W* {9 z, e
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.5 q2 g* ^$ \! m
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 O5 e1 @, o; Y/ W" H
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
8 Z- I4 _; n% A+ ?) O3 z* z% x' Onegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
$ A! x* B& `2 |( Y" _$ [8 v6 s1 ithat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 n: \2 l4 ?4 n; s; H/ Y0 u5 ]
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
6 |$ E7 _+ _* K2 nexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal9 Y1 a3 \- {* b8 m6 V4 a; ~
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
9 Z5 d& Y0 B$ ~- R: P& qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
' Y4 N; s2 O  m! ~; D3 `5 ato cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) M# ]6 U) r% jreporting.
( ]3 z5 ?4 }% P7 y* j       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have( S* z; `- D5 H
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by9 O8 U- P& m) J& R
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
7 `6 L; g: C4 t3 @$ y( {5 v7 lsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
  K# X* L. a; zpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
, l; Z- [) U- I       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem$ O" r" d+ o# f% s; d' a: C* v
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
6 i& ?2 w2 Q' E3 n! e+ J# qfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. o0 u0 q4 z* t. w& S. |
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
3 p3 O3 n( B. J8 e" t% Zevent for men, with the second fastest record.
; l: E" z; c) @0 q# B: S% |       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
- \9 Q" K9 z+ s% K. n, _6 k* Pwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
2 v! Z) Z  x- n' b0 L5 L5 x* V. eyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
, E1 z( K; B* \1 E& Y. K' H# P" `. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
$ A! w( Q) L. l5 [8 P2 Emeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
- N- b1 i4 W0 M& k. J4 }for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
8 ~, w# ^( ~7 OLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
7 y5 p( z. p- F& r3 [' d8 W2 G2 Lbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the0 ^5 N- P' c5 d  _2 O4 p
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
" Q0 f' W3 }/ R1 ^) R* Y! |than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 G$ t+ d* x7 @7 J( Rthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was& }2 Q: l% x1 H, f0 h; z: C) e8 H
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 t. L; a$ w* L: g" T/ w5 \- e( Vhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “' @6 Y8 T9 o& z9 S+ u
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
! M* a6 c9 F2 S; ^" mswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
! `  o, O, _2 \: d! F" Bteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
* C2 f, A1 `* D: t2 I* I4 q+ QCallaway report.) f4 Y: C+ _$ y8 W: Q  `3 C0 M6 F+ g
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
% r7 P5 M# C* b' sunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
' ~7 ~& ~6 \% r! L8 `( }$ A, ^% O/ r. Bhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
! x2 F/ U# Q1 h* A, q  f; Kof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
6 E+ `7 a' G% b( j% A9 W" Z. lbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
& b( [: N  P' w- d4 r# VWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& W& I8 f0 p! ]- b- d. l
publicly voiced different opinions./ B& ^0 d. t2 a$ Z3 e4 I2 n
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
  Y8 d: q% q* afrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
- m: V# |3 U' CNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
8 s$ F- Q  m7 }# t# mpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
, l5 ^' h# g% `' J5 `! z( Fyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy# J/ A% g: P& I' Z* F, j
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: A1 `# E- s) d& |
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
) n- {7 x' Q5 ]3 X. a" W# S7 ?that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ E* |+ h$ y# R0 i" e/ R- n& dhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as1 D. i& w& O( O+ L+ }9 m  F
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that5 N/ V1 D. _: G
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
+ m- q# I2 L+ W  `) M  psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
. T& F8 K# ?% ]7 I+ z5 ^! r* BOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
( F  O6 Z/ m( w- `4 Fmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
+ j( a! J6 Q8 V) C, M- N$ i$ U( kChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 g% D, p' s, f
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she7 S2 n. Y- d0 Q- ?& k( _
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.& Q* j3 x$ d! G0 ^: t* d7 _; c1 ]
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science# f8 \" Z* g+ O/ E, |
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
' Y( d" e; e; g. k4 YDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.7 o9 \4 R. `. J$ Z0 g2 |
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
* Y! e' V) G) K' a3 {% C+ R- Qobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
8 z/ d% S: |1 u0 w: zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
  ~" W  r8 l; S) ]repair the damage caused by your news reporters.+ b8 N' y" ]/ }( b4 W; H
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 n) x, ?+ d$ Q+ `  x: lshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced% x( n3 M1 h& ]
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
0 }  i; Q8 I5 ufresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that& G9 ~" D1 X, y
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”$ M8 m0 X2 q6 _( N1 c
about British supremacy.
! h" o" F! e8 H. FThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
& [+ p- T' k6 ^unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more' e: O; Z- D; F$ f) \8 B
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, \/ p7 w) r+ B) y2 z7 Aour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London6 x0 z3 u7 {6 j" O! @  B7 U8 p
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.2 \# |1 N* k5 ^0 p9 W& @/ |' }
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: Z* X( i3 U2 j8 l! g6 l) f- Sprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests* q6 i. @7 ?2 ^1 n
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,0 l' l3 P1 Z4 `, O
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly9 E3 j# M, Q- X! Z' Y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like( x9 a1 _$ u* G/ C# Q* L
Nature.
4 _, e2 W  a- Z& i  ^I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% \$ N% W8 u" E* l' I
the Callaway report.
: E3 I3 \' f% K# O5 x
# `( k: k0 {* K: Q  h6 ZYi
7 C/ Z5 w% N. T+ b( _, F. B, d. L$ a) G4 c4 M% s
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
- M9 i- Q2 O( B* \' fProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' G2 ~- F" h' |+ {4 e4 `2 J! E! OBeijing, China
# G. d* G- J: Z1 }  |! |( g
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
0 {8 T: p1 |6 P1 V% B, p原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
8 F0 [/ I4 T" ?1 L+ Q3 ?0 M* C
原文是公开信。
- F8 a6 k. k  X1 e0 {( d  F+ {! `! i" D) o9 M# X& }
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 ! h, m3 R9 b% N% V( t9 O
原文是公开信。
+ i% o, d8 t- o! L* o7 h4 a2 z$ k- Y# m
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

6 P. `! I8 Y2 R2 S! t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 Z1 c, z* S
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。0 T7 [3 x' W) Z3 F
, q8 s! Q" V, R( y% G7 G
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html/ ]3 I) \1 [" }7 ~$ f, g; `) N/ ?
) {  H/ C" W; C. v: @9 G
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, _- W& d- M3 Q
* V; ~# \  D8 |It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself$ I0 H% C1 d0 M- k6 T
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 E5 ^+ C# |8 ?. ]. d
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this* ]! f+ A6 U4 X
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 a8 m$ c2 Z9 z9 k  B" H$ [
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( \4 {* `7 S8 n9 {! z6 }3 B
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
0 c* `. S% w7 ~; W" y3 D8 {" Q9 Ushould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,+ @8 b: [* |8 m' s
which they blatantly failed to do.
! o' z6 n( F- z8 A
0 F0 r  G* ]  D9 ?# y% SFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
' }& D  h: u$ r. ^Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in2 o  X; g- y- K7 K$ j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
, {. t; s2 H6 b! v. F; `anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
- ~! {) h, u' L$ h- I* g, J  ppersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
1 r5 {( M5 W) l' Pimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the. Y. O  C; u. H! l* m& V
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to; T" M7 H+ b7 O, Q
be treated as 7 s.
, E2 K( q/ l# t$ h. x0 H! b' d+ m3 g  [/ O
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is3 j; a# B: A. K1 L4 v
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 g8 ]) z8 ~3 q/ {( ]. E' E
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
. R- K8 N  {! U3 z6 L0 O* gAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# b$ _7 b1 r, @7 r9 l3 A" ~& m+ v
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# S$ y' W; l. t1 L1 m6 y5 {& cFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' f9 u1 k) C  I! N8 ^
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ ?& L( c# x- ~& rpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”8 r4 W" N) G  ?' l7 t* |
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
# l+ [" ?8 \7 ?7 U) T8 v
$ E  j# m5 _" V. x  QThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
: V5 \1 g7 Z' k" V+ r9 F) }example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
  A+ m- M' }7 P. X- d( E% Bthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
0 \& V4 L6 p8 p% I7 r# ?8 hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; @- v0 q8 M+ h" T$ ?
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
1 M( G0 ^: P6 d" v2 Abest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! z! a8 N: O# S% b
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
- n6 Z0 N7 ?: H& L; ]: btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
$ r5 u0 M0 f- lhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
" T$ R# F6 n) `, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this# F3 C1 b) Y5 O3 o% Q4 \7 Y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
4 _; W8 g; ?' i) n& ]  h7 ]faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
0 f% Z* L: F0 j7 Tfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% P1 Z7 V% t, O. ^aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
6 c0 z7 m! }/ t$ N: r7 `& B! R  Zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 `- q+ [* e, F% M, Y6 g/ q# b& c/ b1 L6 a
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
0 Z1 V9 b4 W2 I# Kfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
9 Y% X; \. J  K. Y4 C7 _6 A7 h# Ys) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* u" _1 k8 w4 C* y3 w
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 R( O- W/ V2 A" j) Kout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. b6 z4 Q# Z$ G. d) M& i( Y
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 v, Z5 r3 |3 eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ w3 Q6 @/ A) `7 E4 slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) c$ K7 D' C- I4 Q, _: q! l
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( G9 J8 v+ Z) Yworks.
- Z$ n: P+ H( w2 A# U9 ]
  U0 I# A+ N3 _1 k7 _6 I# j$ RFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! J! O# Z) ^& o* k" Q! ^  M; _
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! t8 o( A' P) X- M
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
" ?% d3 \7 F6 Vstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: U+ h8 R* F( l3 o! d* K% I' S
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% c+ ~  T+ y0 S1 h# q
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 |1 h5 ^6 P5 ]/ gcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; o  h- @4 Q" C. v: ]' J
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works0 m* N$ k& o7 Q+ o: n+ J4 a  w5 W
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, ~$ A  B6 [5 w3 G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is8 p& U( Y; y) {, _+ ?
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he7 S' Z! ^0 R! [2 w% _* t  g5 W
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% L* R3 r, C! {+ X8 C) N& Padvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 y0 ?7 m7 K/ w/ y! ]
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
2 v; j! ]2 r# P, W4 t& ~; Luse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ g3 [/ Q4 a/ ^& a& A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" _$ s9 F9 H8 j% f. \doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may3 T9 ~5 P6 S/ c+ R
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 t4 p, Z9 a" h" G% w% p+ Ihearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 W% a4 u8 Q% W( T( }, V# t( t
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a9 Y% N1 [; M  j, I4 j3 I
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
6 G5 F; p) y/ Y8 D1 [3 eother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
; Y, P2 J) o2 s5 g1 I$ `- g7 h, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) `8 w- a7 d( A6 ?/ f: ^5 n  u$ L6 B0 `probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( s# z$ o/ G% X3 ]: b+ l. Uathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- C( ~8 O6 p0 L+ Ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 |5 c8 R: G; e/ f  {. X
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 Q4 r- O- I; D" l
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 `# u. W1 ^3 veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.6 W6 J* a2 {7 k, \- I8 D5 a# m+ Q
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& c+ @5 W3 i/ I0 d

$ R% B3 [/ F# Z3 x9 `7 m8 OSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
: b8 |& D  y% icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
# b( R6 w7 v; Z. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 I) O! p8 C0 }* {7 S( {1 Y2 G7 nOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% C6 b! J3 r9 p& y/ W! @3 L" dOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for+ T  y' P5 B2 V
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; Q7 _- \& w. n, F
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
/ O1 `: @3 R5 x9 hhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
% f- [- R2 T0 dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this6 m8 u& ?% p  d$ v- t! C9 T: b
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.1 N, o8 e$ ?& ^" v3 W5 a0 {
3 E3 Y! A6 V/ z1 f- Q& {. j9 W2 X
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (% V# q' R  W! Z* B3 [
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 }. [4 P8 ^9 f& B; \- d1 Osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: q( t& O/ _( ususpected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide( m" u) Q( q. W0 M7 k  Y' ]
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( z4 ]9 m. l/ w+ I; ginterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
: z1 j* U, v( B/ @explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( x+ |6 B$ Y: |( m  {) Iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal# f# Q  f0 F" i/ x. p4 ?
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; U- a: b# u! k+ _- u4 Creporting 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, 2026-4-9 15:08 , Processed in 0.184452 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