埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1937|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
' I. b1 i# q! Z# A/ C# A
  N, B5 J2 O/ P5 Z" E% ]( F1 R饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
& F. L6 j3 O- b" {- k4 j+ H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 T4 |2 L. k- y+ q总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。* V* E2 j1 a$ V0 ~8 I! n
' {. {" R% T6 T% ^
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
0 x9 ?0 d8 H* m" ?" y/ s: b) S  o. H5 \) L$ k: N# F9 ^
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选, w& t7 t3 i6 r6 K) D7 m

- L5 x* h6 R' [+ c1 L英文原信附后,大意如下:4 ~& R: [2 s/ |! _7 G

6 q6 j- K" @& F斐尔,
  R  W7 u5 o5 l  h2 B7 V1 @9 f       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, z. R4 s$ E' e' \* W
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
3 _8 Y2 j$ x% g/ s0 m       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
+ K: O( ]2 {& _' U, Z5 L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
& x6 e5 Y. j0 G2 T, u7 \* Z+ l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。
4 B$ N# I4 Y. u3 L$ M       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
( l9 z7 H- x) N# s# [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 T* [( a$ i3 U" C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 w4 o3 c5 _* r$ Q2 O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。) ?6 p0 k* x8 d
       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
. ?2 l. e+ \8 e/ x! S8 O" N,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1 k: H8 I" i% l$ t* D, J
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。/ E1 _: q4 ?* Y9 E2 u9 h8 ~# H
       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$ ]4 o& i( N; z+ d3 z0 T" L
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, T' {- e  O9 N
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。( C1 [$ Y, W& n' _7 [
       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( m. K+ ?" x, S& R; D6 r/ z9 i/ i
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. X5 g. u! P8 A1 ~* s  P; V$ 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 r9 V/ w- \" G* s: X1 C3 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" v0 d' J# g% A+ l; V
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
- b& D" A$ \) H- F! I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 I$ }3 d1 w5 O$ i+ ?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% D8 s) I( \. ?, R5 b' N# r
。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
! n/ ]) }! ~  B. e5 Z5 `录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
) e. g0 g: F2 i6 G$ F! z& }) ?7 S( N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( S: P3 E, T5 L  b/ m( e/ H7 f
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
) G1 E8 h7 L5 Z2 Y( nWikipedia。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, @/ Z9 F* [! U1 X+ _
同意见的专家。
* Z' J: x" h+ Z0 w: d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
. U4 A" A: Z% {$ P7 h1 N9 x+ e9 d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
9 J2 d5 d0 S( ]1 q7 x7 U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. K5 Y  V4 H' M4 m, l4 [6 ~
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。5 ^" n$ I$ V( f& q$ d
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)+ Q/ m( h3 u" |% x" f
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
- B0 r! \6 S, `4 g: P& h) j0 n《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/ `8 R+ j3 G! L& X8 v
这些被Callaway忽略。7 {, T; j0 ]3 }9 R/ s) y3 Y. G
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 o$ t: z6 O4 w" l  X0 p2 J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( Y& `8 E1 |( ^% N: ~6 y, Q1 b+ k
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。" T6 s* h; 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) {( M" }+ C. W# y  R
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" Q4 S1 }- p: t. r; F8 \
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  p2 k* N  D, [! O; ^. C8 a
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。
6 k8 H$ A; a/ K+ S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
! R) w7 T# w! {6 h香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年
( d9 ~( Q' k2 U0 t! M7 l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# d: v8 m3 v+ \: C+ S
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。8 a; l) q. z7 p
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
' |/ V: w, ~) i! X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+ n% r8 h1 H1 f4 X0 h1 A( G% V2 b/ 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
( |: `. Q# @6 X5 n7 L% H0 u1 u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) |  b' c. @$ Y( z. Z  n4 `
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, a2 s! B+ X0 Z" ~$ @0 |
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。& N1 |* ^! Q# F9 G; s4 b
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。# {! s$ D: h9 d2 C; v" H6 h, `

( P6 h5 b9 l+ b# d$ L$ j2 K/ }3 F
5 f; Z& q% g& U! E" ~/ w北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
" p+ |8 p# |7 @
" |) M  h3 k5 Q, O! Z9 H附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结) B$ S2 B: b* A& D4 A* U
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ E% }$ k. U4 B" D, _附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
" N% w- {2 x3 n" B6 t9 U; X附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 F/ d# X/ s- v: O4 p! \- R: |
6 p3 G) [3 m( _+ y' C
  c. O4 m4 K) L5 n7 n2 f) `2 d, F$ w/ n: P6 w5 s2 T; c( B
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
! a* w+ \4 q' q# [, @: VDear Phil,6 R* S0 O0 [5 b; ?
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
$ N$ N* C  _: ~report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& M6 d* W8 p6 ^) _7 G8 e
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed9 C  J) b. T0 _# K% Z
you.
, d& j$ T. O& p8 U2 u       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
. `. m. j/ c; C' t2 o. ?, Z7 y4 ]brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
6 \+ k" c. y: l$ w" K3 a# a$ Y& vreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
4 A+ f: t; `7 a% aworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature1 k. C+ I, u1 A# `) u* n4 u9 U
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more+ X' M, `& @8 Y
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 R1 l2 a) i6 X
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.  u. [$ d7 F7 `) O8 Q. k% m
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
- q) ]2 k: m- q, _worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a" K# v' i! l2 k2 T; J4 \
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 w) H- x1 O+ {
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
1 l- \& b4 X, E% d/ V' S, Edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 j. d: L, x7 }1 a1 _explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
* W. |& a& T( V) d6 |standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 K! m) @# {+ q$ M
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
2 O  X8 d: K8 i( eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; I0 p5 {7 s& O, freporting.
" t* Q" {4 v9 X- t2 g       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; G! c: a/ T$ k% K$ K; w5 Dalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 l4 a& v/ O+ X' e. vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 {  b7 ^7 A, c0 B# M& f) q
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A; }; I5 f! H6 D7 V& t: @& C
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.. s( b4 q- Z0 h  Y- A, p, q2 x" ~9 c
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem% x% J- F( g% v# b. P
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
- l/ m" d# a: O: `# `faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 501 F# i2 K6 `  Y" A9 ?
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
) d8 ?! I6 I8 \0 revent for men, with the second fastest record.+ s5 ^9 K5 i) M  m  V+ `1 x* ~$ ?
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; g  o4 }# B) x7 p) F4 B
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 164 i1 Z* f1 X8 ~- Y2 ]& s
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
+ l) j/ X1 e: Q0 ]( q) X. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
: l5 l/ c' F; L! m: S8 r& v* Cmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,+ Q+ J, m' r# [! ^/ o$ P
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than: t. W' Z. g6 ~+ a3 L& z
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% |, B6 P4 o. f+ Q7 Z0 e  @
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
0 h! Y0 G: |1 j- H2 J6 r3 pindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
- ^7 X7 |6 l$ Q0 @) D( X% bthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' T+ H7 W9 ~, S" a4 T# r
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
" D! Z. Y+ e, c1 X* b1 oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
& f( b; H7 U) ^0 i5 u5 U: s% ]3 zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 i' H7 l9 N  \; X6 R
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other8 f4 }2 \; t7 R2 J" y3 D# ~
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
/ F: o! o- ~# X. ?# f; ?. Rteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
0 w+ T( j! D+ x: V. o: p( T  YCallaway report.& a3 }* u! W; ]' Q1 I
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
7 ]: K' t& ~: R" ounderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details4 x/ w7 A  w5 S$ y. t: Q$ A5 P
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description# K# }6 F4 x* a, O5 Y
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been* f6 P4 p) M  E
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
1 u2 `( S5 Y6 b6 P% q4 hWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
5 Q" u& D5 Y, H! d, J, a8 W' |publicly voiced different opinions.) {7 z" U6 y1 Z& H
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD/ s) j: T5 Q; E7 A) Z
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature! J; i9 b1 \# \
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) g% i2 u# P! C. |9 g& i* E  ]postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 n# L7 S6 @% T, i: Uyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy$ d% b9 l" t1 f5 x' O. a* {7 a
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, f) r: b: Q, r6 CThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
6 J) f9 K# ~3 c% Zthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
9 o$ p% n8 @6 {/ R3 U3 l0 I/ Whave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as5 N1 A& V: _% @1 r% g
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
) Y8 r, \/ E/ @4 i" a6 t6 Dthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
5 s' z% Q* S* u( b4 u; j, Rsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
9 o( X7 i# r# `% ^One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that  M4 X1 ]$ ?' o
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the7 ~5 ?( e' G0 j* ~: N( [) }. k
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June, U7 @! _  ^' `. [6 U
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she2 M3 O1 @: E" c
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
2 `2 x+ N9 s8 |  j" S* i* [3 qThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science& t! _; p! H1 h, C- f
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and: [7 ?6 r5 n' V& S" i
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
2 V1 ~- T: R* V1 m1 \Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and7 y- Y' n- |3 `7 @. n  c/ `* \
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature; f# K0 T/ S9 L0 ?" S# j( W
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to; z9 J- y$ q9 f6 u# J
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
8 N/ V$ f( ?1 M6 c3 c1 ~The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
& [$ M! x! ?" z4 i4 {6 e' y. J! [show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
+ V* {' A: Q) h% R* Jus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
$ h0 w4 z$ \8 g4 t/ yfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
( `) }. x8 L/ |9 f* Jthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”2 i' U3 c( k- m( g  q- l
about British supremacy.
  P( {6 k1 [7 ?* T' g, V4 |! Y; c8 R/ }The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
, E- `& T& }( J, \unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more+ [! Q8 J6 W5 w9 H
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by+ ~' _. c, u/ w, h2 _
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) v# m1 s0 ~7 [: p0 h6 n
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
7 S4 U4 e) A' W: Y* Z5 N/ kYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 D7 o8 Q1 i; y( H8 Y9 _, g) R6 ?
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
* N3 s4 i) V, s7 s: qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
8 t0 o/ ]- q( w/ G6 E  v4 vit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
, b3 T8 y$ B) H  apublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
2 L( g( I" C; H$ V$ L8 ENature.! D$ |7 q" Z' o. I
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; }+ S6 l  }6 v7 H' i4 i. Gthe Callaway report.
& t8 @* o- l; L  ]8 X
+ k2 S2 m; n9 cYi' F! ]9 E' ?" c' ^5 T. g" E
" V5 e1 I, ?1 M6 L$ I/ x
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
, y9 h! A" _- {Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
- E. Z6 Q9 |/ OBeijing, China
3 K' p; z- i+ ]4 n8 R  x
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·········
理袁律师事务所
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!!!
大型搬家
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 4 l* S" o* h8 n( {  X; _
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

; C" E% w% C3 z- p# a5 i% a' Z" ^+ I原文是公开信。
7 x3 o5 H3 A9 N  O/ V6 I
# o, {3 _- S! a( d6 N; u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
6 J. S* d) ^, B  z. {" M原文是公开信。6 t8 {  F$ h6 P: Z

5 X* q; _* |- H5 B# ^2 ^+ v3 g小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

4 f  n0 [+ `) y! \) G9 J谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
. f' W' R8 f) o3 |; I9 M如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# K( Z0 E0 R& ~2 H  V; S) M+ n( |. @7 {# ]. B' L  Y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html# L8 d% A# f5 z; _/ }! A5 I5 n
) J0 r1 m5 U( w( f. }3 @2 v
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
) O$ i( T- o+ L+ E) u
" B; N: ^! C; c9 i3 x: f5 H0 YIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 ~# G3 l! x" H) d+ p& Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 A& r  [0 u! ?; ]$ A7 H
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this6 t2 {7 V, E8 y0 d
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 F( M1 [, M# z: c, ?% B. H/ T
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
( s6 R6 b. ^5 B6 xpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 S' A  S6 `  A2 @! n
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
" S0 w1 L. `( i' K; g* Bwhich they blatantly failed to do.0 n, G$ H# T, H/ i& a
5 u2 G- u% {3 N
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ K5 d# g' I& q6 s' f1 k: ~" f3 `Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 M6 U7 q7 B% t/ v. I# b7 p) l
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
% J' U& p- T" T: Manomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous0 o# }" L. ?/ j6 I
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; i  @) B# F  \: f% J
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# X$ y& u7 P" `3 Adifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
4 z8 M  O( k" R' Z# e  vbe treated as 7 s.2 L0 |6 R( R& t. w: m
0 ^  L* t1 a8 I; y2 X+ k
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 Z- T1 o. g0 B, P- x" D( ~6 [still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem: t; E$ b6 A# j; k
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
1 P$ o2 \* l) n& h% _' }) V8 G, EAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400  F/ f2 d" U" {+ r
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
! _2 V2 G: \3 a2 _" \For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 o4 u# ]! k- M+ ^% E
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and5 l: A& O# T$ P2 ~; }5 I
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, z$ Z& I$ t0 m, u+ \3 ^based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 ~! o2 S) {+ h/ Z( z) v. b3 h" y

+ U7 I% w. J1 ~/ O* L0 kThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ |" `- g7 U0 j- Y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 j; }# f9 N9 f: [the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so8 }& l& t3 x3 C/ r; g$ |" l  w6 g+ [( W
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ s! E1 X# o+ X, G# p1 V
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
5 f  T8 h) e% q$ F% u2 u9 Hbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ C' o6 |* z0 ]) v  T, G
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% Z2 `. o) A: y0 N. a, |
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
, @) i  u) K- K/ u$ S7 Hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. h; o0 q1 D* y6 q9 M* r
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this6 F: d% {0 H+ |" \6 j- x5 N
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds6 r# d- A5 V1 t: r! A) X; h
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
4 q& S, V8 S2 p  V. rfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
2 |5 h1 P: z, v$ U  Saside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- x( K' q  ]- N8 W7 {
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.$ G# b  X* `+ ]9 ]
0 \& P, j2 L) r5 k9 i2 ^( S
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( [# {% R; n  y4 g5 g. Vfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! s# o; I( l4 v( U' ~; H" k
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
1 {8 V3 o9 h4 Q4 @8 R), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns- o! h0 X; Q5 M5 g
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,4 v  ]0 @0 ?1 L" i: U
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 X5 N+ l$ I* H" l& C+ uof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 j9 i& k1 g1 \3 S( Glogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: B2 i  @4 h6 Y! ?* ?! `; N( b2 D
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science1 D- V' v) O% N. [, j/ A. e: z  _6 J- k
works.& [+ P  W4 E9 R8 _, u9 [

  e+ o# A& |5 z% L+ v- s$ uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
7 d5 O% M1 n% A0 A. R9 Dimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' n  x: \8 l% V# d
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that" O% i& {+ q! O% g$ o: Z  Y+ U
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: t. x) Q" G) Upapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) t( ~8 m5 u4 g, }3 C0 y. kreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 a9 g! k3 l- `2 Rcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to4 g* B* c0 j% a; p
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 D7 u1 ]8 M. m2 }
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 i% f' I- z# w) L% ]
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is5 k9 p1 W" k: ~# S( }# z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' g9 p% d9 X  j* [- ^0 gwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 }; z, G$ ?; Oadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 [/ ?! A1 B( W" Y3 u2 Y
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not, H0 i8 ~" Z8 n+ V, C. h( i) M
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# [) g+ Q6 F$ P
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are% y' ]! Z0 H" }5 T2 X" V% `
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ U/ o# j( X2 z8 f' }1 m& `be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( @- G4 G2 Y" @  f4 B+ F% J. c
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye: Z% j: L5 ]7 ]  \' Y) w
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a  b7 A6 H) M, s9 t+ p
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 z, G  U  G8 n( H6 Tother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- q. ~" V4 @* g. [, @+ D, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
2 M% j* L" W- w9 ^9 Z" i: w$ bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an, r- T% T) T* \6 R4 q! `3 r
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) `. j+ N- X3 ^7 B+ n& Z# `$ m% T1 ~chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) i& J8 t2 j% B' _/ m* H8 }6 @
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping( g/ F  X, i4 L* I+ p! L
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
5 V) r+ F1 O' e, ]$ U/ Eeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
( \6 p4 Z  ^8 t+ f2 O5 h& I9 vInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& @3 {& Y, i$ e' a" i, I
) \3 t4 R2 S: S& O; r* o2 W
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# u1 z' U! a# u) Rcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! j0 d3 e8 `% j1 A. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ f% r/ }6 M! U% P7 E! P2 P" OOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
5 f& q) c7 c- \Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for' X9 w7 ?7 L5 V9 i" b+ A; T  @
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic/ |4 M- X# B2 K" `8 \) S4 h! m, [
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
- ]# A+ T. O0 g5 [9 dhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
+ ?8 `7 \* {9 Eplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
8 _; v+ l0 z" [+ i2 @+ z. u- ?possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 Z2 P9 n7 q& C7 ]# b. C

% p9 z) t! N8 d' G# W4 W9 G# x% zOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (1 g. b+ x" D% [
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
/ Z1 E) I4 U* Z& Q8 b" K7 D4 |suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" u( e2 X( j( \7 m) p: D, ?; lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide+ v: D3 P4 H+ y8 |
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. Q4 r6 A. F/ A, Q$ ?
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
$ U( _* A* S. T$ B! Y: ~2 c# jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your( p* E( d8 g* Q+ J5 `9 F+ x
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
/ b( c: C( e! D) B  L0 ]such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& z0 ~8 f8 D0 i" m; R3 G2 k" s' Nreporting 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, 2026-1-15 18:57 , Processed in 0.137878 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