埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1885|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
( j9 G" G* ~  x- e( O+ U$ C1 O( Y
4 F$ u4 t+ j0 B% J饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
: K4 Y* ~, T9 d) {8 C: Z. W1 [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。' j1 k" d8 c6 u& K. n6 p5 F% x
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
4 f& ~9 J9 G$ I5 T+ D6 ]5 n2 n
/ X  t+ h" {7 O! h, J. ?( Ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ y* b, f& s9 ]& j. R8 {
9 c1 M( A3 o+ B3 s5 s
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选5 e9 O9 N2 R. a4 M

4 _" t& _% ~- |3 P英文原信附后,大意如下:& {- T% r3 a2 K( K/ t% j+ P

* M/ U9 B& X6 ~- H. P斐尔,4 c8 R  j: ~& C( D3 x7 l) 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, l  |1 {/ J& D3 I' {
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。4 {. t  L1 ]" c' u4 f+ g! `
       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
& h2 k4 R! C6 W6 G# I0 ]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
' j% D  E1 f3 @* u* Y$ v& h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 L7 X5 u& U; M, R, A$ v
       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
+ H- q" M! b3 j; ]1 C$ C9 H弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
$ J% S3 z8 D4 j! [/ M2 h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
9 y9 o! ?6 E. s7 Q9 T. d( ~9 [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。
' c. Y8 v" Z+ ?# m' i) L       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( J6 S& ?. f+ ?6 Q8 P
,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; D; z) {, e" g9 u( @7 A* c
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。' M# G+ D4 F) J, c' T+ T- C' O8 K
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她' i5 e3 P& 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
7 t' X5 f* {+ z$ a,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
! ]3 u2 C  ~- e# Q$ \+ c/ W. V       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
$ P$ `7 j- t1 y" |+ r9 o) l, v2011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: }- ~+ Y2 {; H9 r
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
% V; X8 G5 n. `: n/ r( m; M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
3 i$ U" k, N, I! X300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: ~' a5 i% ]/ V1 q
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6 w- \  d- m: S2 P1 }8 M
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
: ~. j2 o2 i; j/ ]。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
% c4 c0 T& x3 s  U3 k  F录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
5 l3 L% y& l$ S  E5 B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6 X" g4 G9 N# z* o4 O
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
: Y# K1 C1 A% t/ f2 {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
/ a: ?* u: s- F( E% V8 D. {  |7 F# A同意见的专家。1 @7 s7 g5 }6 ~8 d" S4 N
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
0 @) V, H4 R0 u9 |2 q! S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
* A# K0 p: I. Y- E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
6 W* ^# [( R* v$ d( D" h/ \《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。" k5 b& B" ^1 O: r$ X8 D3 z, h
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)
8 F  k" ~+ B2 c, O% T+ I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( [1 x+ m) E8 B8 z% e/ t
《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$ l  e2 u1 O' z  o& L: ?/ I
这些被Callaway忽略。
- }/ T3 I) C; d; T% B4 r: C3 {0 }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 t2 v4 W5 g2 j9 c) |
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
/ D0 L5 f: `& ?教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。0 {! ~  W, A+ D8 P1 n
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7 e/ N# R& t+ f" H- d' Q
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! K0 x7 P$ S4 o5 }/ `; Z$ X
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
" }7 l5 R9 q$ B* C- A) C+ \' G1 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。8 j& L2 {! r# D/ Q/ y
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* h! g5 Q2 h& |" D. J9 x
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4 |2 M0 C2 r1 R$ }$ W" l4 J
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+ G% [* f4 @3 ?0 s2 v4 R- }0 O
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。; S6 A5 x( J% x2 z# M# V9 m
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* f: i0 Q$ ]2 R% S6 o
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% ?: W( c! [- h  I" |
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6 U1 o! e3 U6 `3 `
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
+ i& S- X: ?/ G8 S1 q8 u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
* o) L3 O( |; k+ B5 k$ K2 j/ Z而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
7 E$ l  Q% H: n7 q8 e% F; @我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。, @. M( U( Y0 S
! w, |7 g% M, _: C

8 z8 T" B* ]5 x6 J  x北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
6 j1 C& E1 D4 L# k; J2 h( @  {* d5 ^% _' w4 G/ x) h( k8 H
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
) C* a+ Y  X1 a附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email5 P1 v: M" R. n
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见" Z  G' A4 i' f. k. u( T# E7 K- y0 G
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见% s& ^; ~3 m  O
% X0 I* O0 R. w  m, r# @" |& p

+ ^5 Y! c/ v6 D0 n9 j! y: O4 n$ b  @) \
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
, C* R+ V5 u- D0 E, \Dear Phil,
' s3 c( r/ s* z9 O$ U- u( t( \5 V7 \       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
: p4 P: v) ^3 ]! F% ^, }2 greport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20# j2 R9 E: G2 t
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
5 S% D7 z) |4 ^  ~8 Fyou.5 w; O8 M1 h0 t
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
8 N2 N+ A% x2 x: J3 t" y2 zbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
6 A! k9 P9 s8 T/ @7 ~6 ^7 u% z7 rreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the* H* J$ M! c  g! H2 a. L
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature" ?9 Y& F# d* p3 H2 y: `
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 _  T+ [& c9 h" W
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
) |  X! a9 H' q( O: r6 lpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
& {/ b( M4 k% X: @- {- \. k! G       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the& X4 a& a4 }1 m, F; V! b& o( K' R
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a9 u$ x7 w7 E6 |, G/ f' `5 i1 B
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish* Y* ^* g6 J# X+ |
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 r9 P5 [- u! B8 B/ u/ e
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping2 r  W+ m0 v" r2 ~. F
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- f8 D% x* `  d( F2 P6 q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; Y& F2 x! c; R5 T% u
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
5 h$ D3 k, ^0 P7 N/ D- y% Q6 H7 dto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
9 E% W& D/ H/ ]& b* B. Q' Areporting.
. m! I9 p* f3 Z% D4 ?2 U       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
/ n* X. A. `4 \6 S9 ]: Q" Ealready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
1 |% ]5 q& ]. u6 M) B, K* Bchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
3 y6 P7 m' T3 N0 x! Usports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
, C* Q! _8 \- M( N; O' J/ P& ~  lpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.# q% R' O( R& i2 n
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
0 {1 Z* H  w7 k4 U! bmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds0 |1 A* s3 r+ Y( K
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50- p3 s; t7 @4 K. W
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
. L1 ^- l) s; k( H) ^event for men, with the second fastest record.
3 v/ v( P: t, v. b, z       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
. z! m7 u3 }8 P$ N6 r. v  o5 bwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
. Z) ^" v0 [3 v! G/ ]6 `* `: `year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" ~+ x0 h) O1 [( C. H. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
+ T0 m2 V. C8 m" [6 b* s, p9 {meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
0 d0 q& z# d3 `8 Z) I4 {for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 ~+ r6 q; ~5 j& l. c5 @Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
2 F6 }7 E) T3 m/ v+ n+ b! @/ O( Zbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
1 o# e2 V: @7 U# e0 c7 bindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
& H" y2 {7 l5 K. y" O3 v  ethan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than% e$ V) \4 ~" c# g" I
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 E* o" I* K  L3 J. w9 O
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
, y' D+ A6 v) I# R  ?' T1 `he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “: k5 f1 Z3 X3 F9 [  m+ m
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other% _$ }2 G/ k  R  g1 W9 w( }0 y
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
% D4 _. @) V% Zteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the( a( f! ~4 U1 ~% ^, Z
Callaway report.
' u5 C  d; ]9 k9 oThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
6 v" Z$ j6 _0 x! ^1 @. ]& ?understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
& O6 K3 M) U/ F; h9 H: {0 e- Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description: n- c7 Q6 f& V/ c
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
( v% `' \3 M: t+ X6 q# Kbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the/ y: S3 I5 |# M2 W/ q# ^) u8 q" B
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had- U0 f1 V$ _3 z
publicly voiced different opinions.3 T- F& s* o( @+ I0 C
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
9 h% [8 `2 Z0 g5 V9 `1 w+ n! E+ D$ {from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 I) A( x/ P$ D5 U: U+ lNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent/ {; |3 Z. A3 N2 d4 f1 G2 j1 B
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds3 t2 f5 r5 `+ w8 V3 p) z
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
+ r1 D0 D& \% x7 I$ |: c4 G7 lof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.8 k1 H3 ~9 g* ^+ l9 z6 Y5 t
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think& P5 b) q' a' l$ s0 H) c" y/ i& l
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They1 G6 P0 c8 l# V7 T
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as  S, L6 c+ N$ b8 y; ~5 d* s
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
1 S7 ~0 H. l. G, f  n) o, u9 A2 lthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
( |; {2 c+ a2 ?  H% R' tsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
1 e  y" `: e" p; pOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that! V- C* K& l  g* c
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the$ D/ F( @- f) f: \
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
5 O& X; _# \4 A% Z4 ~& n+ D8 X(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she1 P+ R$ h; [/ X
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.' v2 n; ~* S" T" u6 r# p& Q
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- s1 y& c5 \% T* Xand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
! |6 O3 o5 j6 WDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world." Q. p# ~! L: v: k/ k: g
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
# @/ e9 U- {2 uobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature+ [1 b0 G- M5 }. F$ y
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
* K+ l9 R1 L5 Rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters./ t8 g) r/ _5 l. @4 m3 z. x0 Z
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
$ i5 k$ R( w) ^& }1 \% jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced. c+ }1 d/ H( f, j6 y3 g3 D
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
% A, x' o8 f& c' ]2 ]" i- \fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
2 a# E+ L) i9 A" h% P# _% `this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”. m" \/ `4 c1 X7 e0 D
about British supremacy.
1 y% e% g. ?% ~, U" |( yThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many" m6 R5 ~9 T* a/ Y  |- s
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
. \3 {8 ~) z4 O, p9 q; H/ BChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
  N2 S( q# J8 i6 Four public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London$ c4 S: R  M: }
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.5 g5 y1 |) i( k% d) _
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
. \* ^, h% J' j. ^professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
1 B! p' e$ E( r* H8 [  wbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. Y3 [4 [; \/ i8 g" P% S& U, eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly1 b+ p, k7 m& v$ m( s. X# X
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like9 h9 r& L8 O: h) ~9 f
Nature.
: X6 r& m  Q4 |/ ]5 oI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
: q% [3 P# s- M; Y" othe Callaway report.
. k! \0 U: x5 F  m# t. t7 J; s. B! {- t% h: c
Yi& z! }* p' a. V* f' {% K

( ?) N  u6 G. i# KYi Rao, Ph.D.- {6 W# j. @& D- l! [6 t
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
# Z% _0 c8 M' z2 e' mBeijing, China
9 Z2 v! \) w8 X7 u( k( U
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 # d5 r1 @$ z$ j5 C/ K$ X
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
/ e: H8 s: M% w: c$ x  M: w
原文是公开信。
! T- ]  u( r, S- i4 w6 k
4 }! w9 t5 M4 q9 i+ b. S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
1 q3 X. u& A2 D原文是公开信。
/ }" c7 c1 Q8 p0 W/ p$ y  x! b% r
7 C* u% a; v- r. X3 l7 Q9 K7 m小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 Q) d2 v" s- Q/ o% n; ~* b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
理袁律师事务所
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
- `* z2 f* P2 t3 i. K: l. a) q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# W5 P. V$ ]# ~, X6 t3 Q1 d3 h; K
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html+ @6 @# ]; c3 `

0 ~6 ]8 q9 l# |" u9 H1 wFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. X9 B, R8 `5 }! V. z
6 i/ m) i9 P) I* `* b
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 |+ z8 T  q# C8 D0 S, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
$ W3 O9 g5 w8 N9 \7 [# j+ `. ?  xmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" y5 y" N# ~: t6 ]5 Vis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the5 x% G2 w6 h' u7 d$ {; V
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 d; s. i  z! N" m9 e6 hpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors# N- u' X5 g1 A* u- H- {
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, R' O1 u- L$ [& g- w3 jwhich they blatantly failed to do.! p7 L' h! g+ E  M5 c. `0 E
* f% U/ J" G: A& x4 ^: ^" Z
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her3 ]- B* e& K' B( V' k) g
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ ^3 q8 u# F) z; G( Y' o( g2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" B0 C+ `! _) j$ R1 h
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) B) H7 l3 E. I# }" {personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 K4 T! V5 d2 A" X7 l( y7 gimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
& l; D4 s8 T* C5 i5 Ndifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 h/ v, l" @. _2 e3 W0 N
be treated as 7 s.
0 i/ _/ K$ w! J1 o9 s" c9 F% h" ^. G0 w5 x5 s4 g4 L
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ _$ u0 m* F8 M/ E4 Z  _/ Nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& N- y8 u* K9 o! u3 Yimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 I. z4 ?% w" \" H. q
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
# H' N5 x, Z4 `! x+ `- s4 s-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" q1 i1 m, e9 A' LFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* Y% r' A# p# [7 n# f% K0 C
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
# Z- w5 F+ K5 Z# t3 jpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! b( u$ c1 _: \4 `1 w% `4 v
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
8 v8 x' D! g( y- t  V1 {
$ n1 {  k. x+ qThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook" N  h' c9 j1 N6 {2 H0 y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in* K  `" P& M9 Z% P2 t' y/ n
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
  {* T* e# Z- Q" n; U. Ihe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
9 L' B6 `. j0 |& j& z6 D+ D$ [; w2 Cevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( k5 M" ]2 U: |best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
& O" b* h7 f! w, h, @Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another" a' p% ?# k5 \1 u6 c4 X+ E
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other0 E8 T, M: T$ x: S2 K! i- H
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle" t6 T% W' W! p4 F
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this# N" J. T/ n  Y% d
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds" I% z) \1 v0 r& {  U
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- K& X' z2 L: `
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 d! f/ U# b# K& R, _aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
, u0 N% K; q2 e( k* M9 D% uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 t# P7 W# H- H# u7 b- V

3 D9 k7 c5 @5 |8 pFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ L' J; B- ~3 O/ W$ P! Z8 M6 s
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93" u0 d7 o$ w1 c+ I) P* [. e' u7 t2 W
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ j2 w$ Q4 B0 ^2 U- z; ^
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
& l( o, i/ B4 B5 e6 Xout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
  B( X( h" h' S* X1 ZLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- |- q& Z9 n  D  p3 q$ C
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, F% a0 e- `# ^" U
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) ]1 b* y2 i$ {. |3 u( [
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science4 F: o  s. @9 c# ~2 S+ F. C
works.3 |0 m3 F' Q5 Y' I9 K1 H% g
7 T) g6 l6 a. K8 `1 E
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 ~2 A% V9 t; Bimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: n$ a( w" `) U  _/ m8 }kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 K) [, b5 n1 n, Dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. d% y2 U! P6 M5 O, W$ Y+ m  f1 Lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and  [7 Y' P( W* {" W
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, y& w" H- X. K) R7 g; Mcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
2 |8 j# d4 a6 k+ O; _9 u9 R) `" Hdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
+ R9 |) n, f1 w: v3 n- c( eto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' z- F6 a# g% d) E3 L- N: wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 b( d6 D0 V5 [. G' z6 ?% M5 Jcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% P8 ^7 v# [+ w4 m4 Lwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ R6 h5 \  O# f+ s" A4 a' l. oadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 ?1 f  K4 A# h' j, xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( j' u2 {* c, b% n0 S( H" Z; Cuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation6 \1 t- D  y, G, ^9 j5 ~
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# V% G8 A4 K% `/ a* cdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 ^8 g4 h; W# _3 i* _& ^be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) l+ A5 S4 k* h. g4 c$ r! F
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# M1 y- O, _  z! H: l6 d
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
) Y  k4 f8 t6 [9 p8 l6 i& x6 P) Qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- K; j# {/ L% H5 dother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect" x+ a2 C1 }. r- K
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
  R  q1 I" Q% f; A, {6 Lprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 o/ A$ e5 b. W" T* Cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
/ B; i- P+ q* m6 W8 ^' Fchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
" B3 t- c; [! W$ ZLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping, b# Q, ~" v0 ^& S5 b
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for" ~0 Q7 J. a9 ^
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
2 K$ y6 n5 k/ c0 i* OInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
' f% L1 ?+ `, o. P
# ?8 y; j3 r$ m; b* N$ vSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 D% L1 o5 ]" G6 L3 t* j4 q; u
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention# [9 o; d4 f, a/ i
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% h& s0 ^0 X# c8 Q" p( l
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London% K: Z+ _5 i1 d  V+ F+ f" v
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for' x( E; v4 d0 Z- h
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( j! M2 ]* z9 C" K- @games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope5 x, I) X% p  ]" g2 `$ q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
1 h' ]; F1 Z: y! f% N: E8 ~  Cplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
! ?) O; v( e: ~possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
0 M  `0 D. k  q3 G1 O0 S4 q
/ y/ x9 L( ^& c  |Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 G/ p9 p; f# I/ X& Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too8 H, N, p1 \6 }# i, X" ?0 o! Z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a7 `7 `6 T( T' R0 t; h8 s* W7 J
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 M. b) `" T' v! U
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
5 U* W8 W9 q$ h  h) J% Cinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,9 e& f9 {* w' o9 i" F
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
1 r' s) H+ o# N& C9 ]3 {argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& d' n5 v6 d" {" [, u: U  U2 Gsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or6 E) Z8 J9 ]/ ?6 v
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-12-10 14:41 , Processed in 0.170734 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