埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2182|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
! p- h- Y1 Y9 k' J3 h5 N
9 m0 u: q- j. N9 s) E饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
: f" ~" h# q) M3 \# e0 x# g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。5 {5 g7 o! G- M% v
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) G1 [# a5 ?- X/ X1 }7 |/ c; o
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
0 A9 N- A1 V5 k" C/ o
$ H0 v2 a; G$ t& `- `5 f0 O致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
& A/ N8 J- j) V! J" @
2 {' [7 c0 K/ T6 d" E英文原信附后,大意如下:
" J3 H) U. ]1 Y4 K% _
) k! u4 J: ~; }( c6 z斐尔,3 o: i1 C6 _1 c7 `$ s
       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; S6 k/ D* v9 q( ?4 W4 X/ H
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。  E1 o* O/ j( [1 D( F% L# L
       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
" y7 {& h/ `9 g; \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9 i- s1 U( r% R$ m, D
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。
1 w* ?1 T3 n/ p7 {1 [5 ]7 R       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$ V' h& U  k0 ^* }- g& \$ d) 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8 L+ g  d& X2 V. P7 K; Q
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 F& W# Q$ b# w  G1 ]+ ?
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。( T# F. ]8 d7 k2 S' k; }$ c
       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
! n9 I, P/ S' ~- Q% 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
& ^' j3 n# E' \: T/ I”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
4 b  L" G' B- Y; 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+ v3 ~; t# U  g
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) m4 c4 |. Z8 @
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
( D2 f' }- ]1 q0 L0 k       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1 P; O# {/ T0 ^) 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
* T# M  D3 M5 m( h/ ~- W: L$ ~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; M, C9 \& N8 Y! h7 Y0 U  Y0 z
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1 f2 \1 W; ]9 k+ a3 l% G
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
/ h$ y! `0 B: u" }' c0 h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 e# x/ L6 v# 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& K, d1 f# ^' K, s$ u7 k# j4 ]* i
。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: \' M) I- e( t4 V
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
4 [  {) O3 D! P$ U2 g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$ J) R- Y4 K9 j
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
/ {9 W) u6 P. x, [! XWikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不
( L" e8 H: A, O同意见的专家。
3 C4 m& }  g+ l5 B2 B) k" N/ @, o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$ H3 J9 T) L, z0 `2 @8 I
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
; Y" s1 ^1 u$ B$ Q4 ]& ~$ [3 [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1 Y4 s: Y+ U( q8 n
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。" m3 x1 I( T2 N* r' O% G
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)
: h4 H/ O' k4 i8 a* ^3 B; W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- S) l7 Q: |7 N( 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
) w6 V3 A, c( Z$ p这些被Callaway忽略。, ~; [6 _8 ^6 S) |1 V4 j. T
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
0 d4 s9 x, W1 g: J  W" n! ?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* A* P& c) P9 Y! f
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。5 I# h' j9 s8 `* [0 H& ~* }6 Z. j
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
. F0 @; h6 [  z, S* V1 d  ?& s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" W. \& C* F* [4 P$ Q
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
- d$ b4 Q: p3 }8 p% s; P5 X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。
1 M) F7 L) s$ G7 W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9 z5 f0 n) B! 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
3 u& D3 t. v9 G' s% 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# F' ~* H9 y, ~; Q+ a5 l3 q. D! r”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。" G  R! p0 p2 K  \" 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8 h8 f, g! j) M
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& ~. Q  L" D# v$ a0 }/ N4 U$ x+ _
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( h1 N% h9 v- _1 E( k. z8 w/ r
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次
! j# H9 Q1 g6 z! V; v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
" X- X" I% Z7 y8 H而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。8 h% K+ s+ R( S0 |$ ^2 i
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
  m0 T  I+ M( \: P/ N, G8 a: S. r  `, h, B2 U* O2 y0 E6 n

1 Z( T, i, {( N4 a+ B9 [北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅! O0 l2 p; X6 c  M( f

# C6 L7 m3 B0 J附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- ^" _/ N$ A- G
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email+ H" ?5 z! i" N% b5 z1 g
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
' l6 Q/ i+ D, q7 x附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) I4 c2 u& E1 a. L
; o$ q. _) l3 E1 I3 R7 I2 g! J2 K
! N; n# e& b: v; m" E1 H5 t) w5 X- o+ U5 w
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
( b+ [1 X. _* HDear Phil,/ F6 R/ z% c( {  R, @
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ S# c; m  a. v/ r8 w! x7 Z* I
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 208 S! F4 {; B7 E- ?1 Y- u# W
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed, F0 G9 [& i# C* O
you.
0 v# i7 I6 s( o9 t- v% P0 t       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
9 A% [1 O5 f: B& I' @. bbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese" u6 P: S$ _( K! H
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; V+ W0 \; v. Z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
0 N& t, {6 H4 L! ^3 Mpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
1 R$ ?- ]  J8 B( H0 ]# F* O* pseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
. \( O; C' M! v& ]. q: f3 Gpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
* I$ R7 U$ Z6 F  M( X       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
# }) Y3 D. O; Z# o- Bworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a. ~. O' t+ c+ Z' W1 G) H
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: `3 o$ W  i! Xthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 M# y5 @, I. C9 @) c5 ]* }# O8 edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping/ c* ^9 x0 [! n- x
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal$ R5 s1 w- M/ U1 |: c/ F
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
' j& v/ O, h& c( x. l+ _, Mand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone( N) A) S3 z% D
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news: I  W$ D8 s5 D! J. Z
reporting.
, O- n8 N, J" e/ U& Z       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
7 E# |8 x; H" I  Z5 ^% Calready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
. p) y1 i% D, xchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in: T2 N& r8 y0 a5 Z* B: G7 Q
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
5 n$ O  }/ Q) O% ^& q, t) ^* jpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
5 s) _5 |1 t0 @- Y4 _1 }. f1 }: _       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem  F7 ^( p8 {3 V/ w& c  e
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ D4 G4 \7 L) g5 X3 t4 O
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 501 o% Y" F6 c0 R4 o# F" h
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same( B2 D4 t, L& X. C2 x7 w1 {+ ?
event for men, with the second fastest record.
+ `, |5 s% M$ I" j: S& V! D       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
; q/ B- ?- |' h% A9 `4 y( _4 @! G; Wwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16: \8 S1 ~/ |0 h3 J
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 i' f, x/ d& m5 b3 q5 y
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400% [8 L: Q! C' R6 ]" Y, y! Y
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
! ^, O" X$ I6 m! ?/ Qfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
$ `& s6 m# x2 v$ N! \Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
- q" `4 Q" b* K& ^+ W: \. J7 vbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
2 Q. H7 D7 }+ Rindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower) @! Z. c) |: c
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
$ \4 i( y* T# w* i' V, C$ gthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was0 _) J' A/ m7 B1 K. S# V
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then- L5 b! W7 w  o# X* _
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “! _/ \  I0 t; J2 O
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other1 s* q' z0 P# Y% H  ]
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
- p) r# K5 h5 Q  iteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the7 ^1 j0 {- d5 |5 r& B$ Q
Callaway report.# _( P6 U$ t6 ~
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more+ M- [2 j" `* L) d
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
. i2 o& f& a5 q: C  @3 `+ a! y- Fhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description# ~) m1 h- A7 {8 R+ a
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been$ W7 _$ }7 `$ I' r2 ~  G
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 W- [% w  V1 `( b! F" `8 TWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had. n4 a% a# b% I1 y1 U
publicly voiced different opinions.
: d; W4 a5 `4 F. J  LYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! |. |% ?7 a/ `+ B4 B
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* V5 _5 |$ `7 ~" |2 R9 pNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
# i# c: R" ?8 D4 ]+ z+ R2 Rpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ a/ P: X/ E1 ~3 y. h& R- Qyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 H8 W' m: D4 B( {$ Fof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
  [) t' L$ K2 v- N8 F8 ~+ Z$ eThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think0 {6 L1 |7 v8 n, i$ |
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They$ m, X+ ]5 r5 U0 G7 \1 R" p
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as( x0 u" N6 M+ ?3 {. \4 X$ X
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
; W  H. O3 m9 a: T* Kthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
, ?2 V4 n8 _& {& dsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.( m: Q: [, ]$ i" P# p% m
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that3 ?1 M! f" W4 _  k# \0 {. _3 O
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
( e' Y) y* V" ?- K" U; [Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June# Q5 i2 P( T# E7 A! ~5 _+ c
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
& W0 t* V& I# y+ x% i! l3 m5 [and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.5 `* \: q) U# o
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
# M6 V9 G: M) a% m, n/ |8 gand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
3 w8 ^/ B; w# \& eDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.# Q+ W& f, A- l) |. y
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and* N, t8 ]" D- v
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature3 Y* C5 o0 N; G
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to, h& i9 Z" E- D; e; i& T! j1 A) {
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.9 G& W* f" d8 A5 l: |$ q" x
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
7 {8 ?6 b6 {0 ~6 ]* E" y# ashow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
  W( y  s9 y# p: `% F7 G/ P3 dus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 x6 x% Z5 r$ M! X- ?  o
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ E: F8 w" M) q
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
2 `, V$ o, `3 C# E- g5 }! H" vabout British supremacy.8 A$ N4 Z. a/ m. [0 X! x, l1 Y+ ^
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many& {  i, p( [& J7 X
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
" j2 G. G! I/ V4 hChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
: L" y/ Y. V: `" C3 J' sour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London0 \3 }' x$ B; h9 x1 y- ^  g( e
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.- T( Y8 P$ X1 h) F
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of, n# I$ Y2 t2 j
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
% X' y; h5 z% ^before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
: X# f- w. R, A* lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
: ?, I- S& j, Y) Upublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like' l  J: u& `* E# D
Nature.
, a, Y: ^* p% T4 MI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance+ {0 S" G/ S8 G. p/ R- d
the Callaway report.( t% f6 L3 f- z$ K
" _. A  W8 U( F! r0 q' m1 G" H
Yi; N4 \: q, h* H  h
9 `* \- i% q4 G
Yi Rao, Ph.D.+ o; Y5 M+ z2 q
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences/ F: B# W) |+ O. v6 Z
Beijing, China
& s! l' |# e9 A; T, P
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。
理袁律师事务所
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
# [. L! c) R$ J% e原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
2 \3 x; F( s9 j/ W, x0 ^
原文是公开信。0 W+ e6 b; h% o: r0 M. Y

1 e9 g9 v9 d) k3 A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- E4 R3 d+ N" X原文是公开信。
; x" t# f8 L! H8 _/ y' b
; N- t! S  o: e1 e% P+ P& X小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

, c! T& s; _' d( X) n4 \, p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
" d" x$ D2 F* |+ \6 r; |" T, \, G如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! _# j9 b1 d8 l3 L3 e/ x

/ {2 X3 a* k5 ~5 l- `http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html* s' l( C9 p, y. P+ G& [

/ u7 }6 y- A, \FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# e" Z) T. u/ t4 ?8 a5 M
; v1 B* w, f) ^5 |It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
1 E* x/ \: ]1 R2 q$ G, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 s: r* [! A1 Z0 G7 P
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
' m7 l9 z7 L- Sis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
  E6 R  |' E7 s" O  Nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
- C# w  ?9 _7 ~7 _$ ipopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 u$ U3 u$ ~" L& L1 B1 Kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: s+ C- g+ M% [* y; G& e; `* N
which they blatantly failed to do.) o4 C1 u# Z7 B5 w9 d. V8 }

* l6 d) F: K) i2 I* y+ k& fFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her7 M5 {- p; W/ m% o$ H
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* [0 C  Y/ |$ i1 `+ L2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
; h+ }6 I' T6 r5 s* Yanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: A) {  H' M0 B+ Y6 M! N2 L1 L- upersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
+ u9 p6 a( d4 ^0 k* L* y+ `3 Cimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
% i5 Y8 f9 [, Y! j, ^5 T# T6 {) Rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
4 F) A8 E# M9 a8 Q% G4 i2 W" ~$ W/ qbe treated as 7 s.- ?) y8 l2 B' F
, z+ j' V- i3 W4 z7 t
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' g" g/ p# a! H: P; A& Nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
6 K& H3 }& h, Z, L- u+ Ximpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) h: j: z, e8 U" l& gAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4004 L9 H+ ~7 A8 T% A
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ X/ d5 ]5 J3 wFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& ?5 @5 b* v, M7 I
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
1 i3 \4 n, R- @; U& }persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# I2 q# C# |% Gbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 K& ?  t0 w6 o- @% U7 J
8 Z+ ]  R) r4 c3 [Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
/ n' G) k; t4 F, rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in* ^5 W. h* e$ n9 A- `/ F1 u$ z* N0 R
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 s8 @/ f/ A* C# e, S1 d
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later" D' a$ m; Z6 o" c! g
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s; D9 u% K2 ~5 t$ t
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! K: a5 ^6 U6 T2 h9 T- K
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' s; I* h. N0 w/ Ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! ~. k0 G. X7 jhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
6 P' E: X. h# A' Y# Q" N9 a, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
4 {( X0 u, h3 [( gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds* z7 o  N( z% i, e& ?7 J5 N3 O
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- b( V9 A  B4 F/ g  Q
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting* M: w4 O# K& d8 p
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- S, T' r& g: i6 p3 u" c
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% F: |( r9 [. q8 F' O+ K; ]
8 T, C3 A$ ]6 o( u) ]; v8 Y3 X" X
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
% w) b, X, Q4 ^four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! T- K  i- d$ n. Ms) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
, d: U+ Z$ P& [* X% Q), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns- C4 ]  m! {( F2 Q, ^
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& q1 S* R: g' ]! v+ Q# Q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 r$ G9 w  ], T$ Y# Yof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; J$ _% M) D( P- i7 b6 F
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in0 Z0 p% N: u" c" k; ~! @5 O
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! H' [6 _5 k- Tworks.
2 A, v0 O" X7 `* u& x' O) ^: D( i0 B/ }/ @3 R7 |2 |2 b% ?' S5 T
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
* b9 d0 F6 S0 j. [* y5 Y' P! A: \! _implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this. N) d- s7 l1 c
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
: `9 |* N$ z! R/ o; Y/ Vstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: m" x9 F# t* Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, G& |/ ~4 D  D' y7 ]  \' Z" Qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One$ ~& H# c' M$ G: Q
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to( L$ j  N$ }  S% I+ s$ w
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works$ \6 Z8 [! _9 F2 d( n7 F
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ G7 l! L* R7 u+ d9 B  ^' P# A
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( k9 @; X6 U0 J4 @% Ecrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 l! M0 F5 R  m9 K, wwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( f  t; T! L7 e' A" B
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the' U$ \; d* F7 m. I6 k) m, M: P
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not2 ], t8 i# C" B  z: J# v, j. a
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 b( A( U$ v  h7 c  {  H
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. [# g  [5 V* T* b/ Y/ T
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
4 @( z* V. J% J$ X2 [be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& S) [7 g! q/ X. `- _9 R7 |, T
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( L5 [% B0 @& G/ Z: R( Lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
* |5 e$ V$ f3 e6 R' \; q* R3 [( adrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 m+ E, W3 z, mother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) e, @  V0 s, |' C- K, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is/ t% P0 {- f8 V: d. x
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an) Y- ?. M5 C7 ^* ?5 b& o
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
  \1 p4 n. T& @6 e6 ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ s+ C9 @9 g) D; _  pLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 \* D% l* n  ]1 }# u5 Kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 F4 p; d/ P& A+ E9 Q7 B3 {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 a3 f( o( m: B% l% C0 {
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. w% i3 X# o( H

; f, I! p# Z( h3 ^* P, VSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-/ L. \+ t% q- S, n8 X
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention% x$ R7 [6 D4 Q' q" H: B" }
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for$ p, B* Q+ {" J* F0 r2 b
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
4 |+ Y* t, k+ [! X8 h: aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& `+ P- D! V* adoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
1 l, z) R! Q3 S7 K( \- Y5 Tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
% a3 z8 _5 l& yhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
8 b) V' D+ ~  c) S+ K- R: \player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
9 t6 t; x, x6 I) t. `possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.0 d; t6 Y1 @+ [2 p0 }

; `) L1 r+ G4 v( v' ], n- H" eOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- `: w% C1 s2 ^- D5 Uintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 [9 c! M7 u5 p8 b
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 J  c( V  y; s8 C; b, v
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide" z1 v6 e, {0 O, ~- s) |
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- g, n1 G+ K/ Z, `  u. P) e$ c
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,6 A$ r, K' I3 Q& b
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
8 A- |  L0 w$ |2 z! C9 d2 hargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
2 g/ M( u( w! l: c  q9 c. N  ksuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or) ~. R8 R( Q  X+ ^" H: q
reporting should be done.
理袁律师事务所
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, 2026-4-6 13:43 , Processed in 0.143047 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