埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1998|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
% k3 u- u; }& b0 \8 r: j0 C; D
' X* B, d: }3 M饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( c0 T- F4 P6 o# s$ N8 S
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。! E! F# ~5 _, Q, K, K
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。% E/ r! \8 b, t$ l

& W( D1 g6 w, C. b) Z( }http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
+ {0 O3 d3 D$ ^2 e1 L8 @* ~  Y/ ~2 N1 @1 o
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选  x+ s% w8 S: Y, P

" g1 x4 @  Q) T; ]) j英文原信附后,大意如下:! n3 M1 S1 A3 u) H
; _9 V/ P% ~/ I$ {/ X) G" h
斐尔,
. y. }7 d" }6 O% X- A" C       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* K! Y, A+ g) L3 i
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。+ f  M" L: X" C2 h! N' {9 r, N. F
       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
' q0 j" O; q8 u8 \# b" J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
. z9 k6 I/ _2 I- A3 S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。
6 o5 Z/ L2 H$ [  j. B7 @       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7 C4 w5 V- U) o# V' W8 Y, m) q
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
  K+ [4 P2 M) v( |; X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) V" J# ^8 [; Y
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。
8 e/ l( |, O1 r! T  o4 Z  o' L' w       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 X" z/ i. G# g: a
,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' [( A; q# d+ m! e3 z
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。/ ]; T4 h2 R( N5 e( A/ l
       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
9 e* Y! b- ^7 T& u4 v2 J$ Y7 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/ H- F# r: {. P. H  k. x: w
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
1 Z  R. l) y7 ?/ C& O       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
3 q0 M6 F$ a% a8 E' m0 }, Y9 c2011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
3 h# E  E+ F+ `0 |% _4 F1 x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! i* ]+ N3 U: H  v& V
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 s" x( ?1 U- E
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, v4 _5 k2 K7 ~0 O( S
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
& a. K+ S- U# Z! n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% X# P6 N( s8 R" ]% I- V& ]
。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( |' q* L1 w9 q
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
: ^& Y  r6 z+ |) ]; X5 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0 {% ~: `8 Y! \
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
  ~! v2 [. [% t5 y! p& fWikipedia。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
0 }5 ~# m+ ?* m: F( i3 k, D同意见的专家。4 w  ]0 K) M- ?/ o1 O5 t4 L
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
/ ^' I  e! `* N, h/ O! j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  x0 z) k. S/ a: U3 \
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' ~) R2 o" X- S( U8 u0 z0 x  T# Q
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ i' h  n' m  s% }0 P. y1 n
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)
: Y3 Q- j; E& h) J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 m: k2 Z9 G1 Y  a《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7 m/ |, L; a9 D: [4 B9 ?# Q8 t
这些被Callaway忽略。
6 v$ k, a. ~" M4 A: d0 w7 p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
& [- t! K, T  D. i( _4 |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
8 O  K' y& y. S教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。& a& [+ ^0 Z7 F/ j7 `& m' 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" v! P4 O1 c. i3 C. V
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4 v6 A5 ~; M  j3 b* Y9 i+ ^, P# r
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- E& i7 R# n# {% K: k* f# ?/ y8 _# Q
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。5 o+ b' n- y: u# {
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" J0 P' J" v2 Y, A. Q4 r
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
6 T& W! ~4 B+ p* ?5 S& D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" I" S" ~5 y) s* _: x6 x: q
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- J1 T* H  O2 i
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
- Q1 m$ t& u/ q8 O: V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
! t4 ?+ \! A4 z" A# g4 T) j' o8 P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
" H! z1 {0 L) k, A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: S# N$ V' t6 \# L5 t8 @0 n4 e3 [
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
- G7 }3 T  e' c  A/ H! h8 N3 t8 l而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。% L2 K0 z6 j% E0 {$ Z4 X
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 M. c* Q6 n/ B: Y3 b0 Y& |5 f- m) q3 X/ F
7 l0 U1 @1 I' m' Q) g
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
1 X7 S6 R/ Y& [- B, C9 w- k, L* ?/ w1 _' E" I# }6 |% I; _# ^
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
" j/ v% S5 ^" X% ]" W附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email% i  m6 q7 r" n. ?+ z
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见0 Y6 @/ ]$ [' T; d
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见1 k) G' g/ m- d: G. e  c, u0 K

% l$ C: `4 J7 B1 D. p# v: D: Y6 ~
0 h- H" x# P( @& [, I7 U. w* X9 {
* d7 A" q9 b5 k! _. P+ J& ^$ }8 a  v& i! m原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
7 T* x: K6 _2 y. Y9 a2 ^  `+ yDear Phil,4 C2 M/ T/ m, c- }5 J+ K- e; k4 N
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s4 j/ r7 r1 A0 C$ {5 ^. v/ Y/ _
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20( H( e+ k: c9 c# e
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: D9 j: V4 j4 gyou.3 J/ g/ _5 j$ @% ?7 f, D/ c- V
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
# X; x+ N+ k0 c, |$ Wbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese- a" [+ s+ V8 o  o) n$ |9 F$ o
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the  `0 y6 ?! T# K/ K; }6 b  p$ w
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature$ O8 x! [- n$ L6 Q+ Z9 I7 U
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
3 ?3 Y. _% ]+ H9 X3 {  xseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
; `, U3 [2 b2 d; G) cpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
- i$ \- }) q& r+ \( H$ K1 }" d       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ ~8 {. e! y- _! E; n5 \6 i$ u' S7 [worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a  w, x5 J  v3 L2 H9 d% K
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish8 B/ |4 T# q$ c  i
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 D* ?3 e% H" |
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping9 Q; @. J- d6 R3 e
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
4 i' k0 T1 S- @* Istandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
1 ^4 i# g# P7 c8 cand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone& W& [* v' o& ~4 @+ ?& o
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news1 c+ [/ W- a- b7 x4 V' @/ x/ i
reporting.
8 Q) d+ S: u' q- M4 U7 N       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
: q- y0 v- X  l0 }  C+ Galready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by# C1 b2 l7 h" c2 `/ G
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in. w, D5 d: l4 K8 C( W3 j" I$ U
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
% P" n$ Y+ |8 N  n: F6 hpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.7 N( U, ?4 ]# W; q
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
3 L8 r& _# n' P6 Z: h. C3 S6 nmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds9 m# M9 y5 E% _: e/ B0 v- \( l! h" |8 S
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
1 j/ m: @5 q* y8 ameters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same' U5 d6 K! T9 t9 X4 ?
event for men, with the second fastest record.
* s9 s$ H) r3 O, W/ R7 Y# l. Y       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
8 }- b5 S0 U9 L# \4 b2 g+ Vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
) T: _  V# [. hyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record1 j* L" E4 K$ f. w$ s& V
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
9 n5 F* N& `: x4 r2 i- n- m3 Ometers. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
6 @- ^* Y' t. g. U) G* s+ {$ V3 vfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than+ n; K* j# k/ R% M
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed# i3 s1 P/ [' |
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ ~& j/ A8 \# c: L/ u5 z  S0 Windividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
6 I2 W; D: e/ g6 ithan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than0 B0 q4 e1 r0 A3 Q, K: K
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was2 u" C+ {. z1 h7 q
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then/ Q3 m6 p' t7 X& v. @, k# l
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
0 K( g0 {( j- qproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other' q. v& }" U/ f  w
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
) F, I* P* ~( w( H1 `" I; Cteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: Z' z9 g, i2 J2 rCallaway report.
: |7 V9 v: q7 s) \' I3 O5 E% d. ]( k9 BThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
/ p; Y- k7 ]! U$ l$ S, }7 ~: W( m4 `' ]understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
3 g3 q) a' \, [5 Nhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description& b& a, Y! ]6 B& S$ n8 a' K! {5 l
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been; \( v% R  I8 }0 i" K' x9 V9 {
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
3 z8 K  W( i3 Y$ TWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
0 D' J/ k  e: X. d* N5 bpublicly voiced different opinions.
. L$ T1 g0 m' P* _You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
2 r% W. I# [+ v4 r9 dfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature# e  o2 e0 ]" J2 x
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
( r3 f( M/ r0 l/ h, H7 h' Epostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
  i: s% u* o4 n4 S  jyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
/ f# Z* U8 u- ?of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
) y7 q7 e$ v+ k0 z- {& j( w7 XThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
* o6 B2 X" d/ B6 `that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They% b  K+ Y6 G. O" P+ ]
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, r/ }( r$ \2 r1 z4 t* O. F+ X* A0 y. l
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
( }. }  d1 z! ^. H* v! S1 a* t8 athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
+ D8 U7 C3 E& C3 P! r+ K4 S: Vsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.- B& b7 Z$ Q4 J$ f7 C
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
3 O  X$ r8 h' D  K8 vmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the1 {. K. H$ a4 g
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 [$ i$ g7 G2 Z  c9 S5 l, r& R% y0 c
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she1 b: y/ d) h! {) O+ ^; S9 v! w5 ~0 l
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
1 j- B( A7 z) e' E- _/ w3 S, vThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science5 W& h2 }/ j" y  Z  G3 T5 |
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and! ?) \$ q9 ]5 M0 H
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
2 d8 F3 o3 G% q3 LNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 [2 i: J, T  G
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
% k2 `, R# n3 g. s: U( w6 Bwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" f, S4 @$ X; P$ ^. x; {% ]repair the damage caused by your news reporters.8 j3 l" Q9 k1 @% \# J
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
3 U* U2 Y; z* r( _0 D5 tshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced0 i/ C! t; N. R
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
" ~9 x7 p) M" x( Vfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
# I3 V% n( D: Sthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”% j2 p# P$ x% G" P: f
about British supremacy.
" }+ o- e7 W( e" C3 O8 k: V% aThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
9 v0 x" [  I. K. q6 J7 D" ^unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
- C6 ~+ f% g8 ~$ Z2 e# OChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
: B2 e' u( O) `- e9 Pour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
1 C& T) _: M7 ^& T+ b. L. m! Z* ]Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
' g7 O8 @5 \$ ?Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of  N8 z, t2 o1 o6 Z! I
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests( r9 V0 ]6 J. R
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
: P1 J5 \% i) U) sit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
' @- `9 y! ~9 n6 p# h/ {+ Ipublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
' f. W/ d) }' Y+ n1 k4 z; jNature., `. l: Y" d5 \4 N$ ]# ^8 ^, N
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
( Q4 N. X  B/ C8 s5 J1 ~the Callaway report.3 b- G$ C: I/ C6 c6 P5 h, z& S- s

' @# ?; b: R! c3 a7 m5 O" MYi& a- ]; n1 d7 v. m* ~

8 z3 O6 t) c- ]: a' GYi Rao, Ph.D.% i: K& n, E/ B# l; Y( Q9 D- k
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 k/ v) \) _( I5 X9 i. q. KBeijing, China: S2 S4 N6 \& @- ~+ A" \% m/ M: n
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!!!
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 ) u3 n6 I3 D. i& Z* f
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

7 Q1 r: v% \9 N  W9 v. \- q原文是公开信。
$ O5 h& ?# c- x. I
6 Q1 g  x- y! q$ D0 _4 J5 a0 M小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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
7 e: m- z$ }! A% [- k6 o# o& n原文是公开信。. Q( w" w* [5 o3 N4 n
1 G8 q$ J4 `- A
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

# z  q4 a. M, J6 s3 k% l谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
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- k4 Z( F6 r+ s
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
" h. l  I% n' X; ]
( P1 F, b' g6 P8 ^/ {, Vhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 L+ [9 p1 z( j9 D
/ W& `5 u  S* W! Y2 s  P
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% o. K3 O# Z$ p6 z4 E  Y* O
$ `* M* U: x" U+ h: j6 G
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& X, \; `( q- y/ B7 B, [& f, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 v( B8 O: z* `' ~* w
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this1 t' x# E7 X# t/ t* R8 @0 Y
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( ?  X5 O! ^8 \, s& Hscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 S% G# x# Z* Epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 S+ u8 x% I) D4 ^; w) fshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
8 e) m& }4 @1 d  w# |9 F! l; Vwhich they blatantly failed to do.; B! R0 H  t4 L& x- q0 r/ F. {

) W( X/ X7 K& ]; ?* m9 z. t0 VFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 M2 B% H7 T8 v. m* IOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ W: x( l2 z% O0 L; u. A2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ F& I6 G( P" w* y  |, G5 C+ janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 g6 L# c6 U0 ]8 v# \9 apersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an2 M$ E1 ]$ [' p( v3 K6 X
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
' R9 c5 l0 w+ @2 zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to: A, I  y& L: t/ }
be treated as 7 s.! A1 B6 z' W9 Z: H8 _

' W5 ]: ]9 p) Q5 _Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& y% ]% [; y1 A$ H  B/ @9 W% v" q8 Qstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
7 x: P! G: q8 Gimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
6 p7 q5 x0 J- b- ]An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
' z0 v3 c. [1 e5 `6 O' P7 B& n-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" M# r" y5 ?" [4 OFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, Y8 ?( `, T) [8 M# V# }elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 a3 x0 x# ~9 @persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
3 Q# W$ d# v$ F" F6 `# |1 wbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
! Z7 A4 J5 g) `
0 z* ]' \" ^8 a( Y; jThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ V( {3 g! C, ?0 ?1 n0 oexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
1 x5 k! S* w' G. z. G2 P! O) P8 ~9 W( qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so% {3 Z; j* @- s- L
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) [6 T1 K$ I! k7 G
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s9 ^. F/ s( k$ H" `. K( f
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
! @) |2 D! f: J; S% X( xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 O6 J9 L  k* p* ~5 Ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other3 t1 B; \7 {) b; \2 b4 `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' n, z& G1 K2 B4 z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this# u/ i; a# V7 K1 B
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
  [  }& l' d1 Q" r$ B- Bfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
/ Z, f; j3 {( t  kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
' G' g- J0 j9 o. Y: h+ Easide the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. ?; {- I" F) v9 E+ c! }% Oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 ~5 K5 ?+ O. l* s) P5 _
; y- `: |0 X) p  V! jFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are1 N9 \' O+ `% a( U5 w
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 }5 m8 m" \+ P8 r
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 ~6 b- O5 T, x6 N
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
5 l. m9 s) O5 p3 g/ o8 P6 I/ N9 {out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* e; u2 c6 V, C9 G
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
# j8 @6 [6 Z2 ?) D( w% J8 Gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ ~8 N$ w  _  W  d  }
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in  W) C' e& w- k0 h( b+ o! [/ F
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
. X8 F$ r* D3 N# o" K7 n/ m. e* Pworks.' t' W! o: v; o- T$ [) g; W2 n7 q

$ g0 d2 S8 |; g2 L0 |' c' o# fFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
  m/ d* t9 z) `. ?1 ^* C$ }7 Zimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! w& \2 n3 e; j
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
; v4 j/ A7 h* P- Y# }standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific0 A, C5 k$ C* C" l& s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 l9 k7 c* t8 L: P: x0 Ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One' ?& V3 x1 \5 j+ D, z- \
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ E4 x1 b1 Z+ V8 B9 Z
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 o& i5 ^- f$ |4 d; z: Mto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 G" a# E% @/ Z0 M; lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is2 o' N8 b) y( X) ]
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he* v7 v. m/ D( w4 U
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly7 j' A% ]; Y$ J5 j
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 k3 a5 j9 @! U0 O: n9 G( K$ |past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not# H7 Y' p7 S5 x) p8 M
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ k; `& W3 ?" X2 e) d6 l& A. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
4 c2 g" \: Y" o, L$ z+ |+ gdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may3 f) X9 Q. J* |9 E
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 N" a; X& G9 @
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 l3 f& \6 @4 ^7 L
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a* |$ _$ B% t, g( x
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) m( G- O6 G5 t& L4 I
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
9 x5 H3 h6 h8 y5 j, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
- J- M8 k' U9 J+ O5 {4 ]9 Nprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ I( {# i' M5 ^. P, l
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight$ m$ J* [; _! [/ A" w# z$ V& Q
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; Y2 B; D4 b& N" vLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! B0 t4 h' I) U' a+ ?agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
6 p) }2 ]9 H4 i! @eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! s% |8 t' L: U' |% B/ h- F: R
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 v  C$ N2 [, i! @. a) A, Q( X

9 Q% G1 ^  X1 X( R$ _Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 P- r: e- v2 j" V" O7 Z2 h1 C- ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 J/ c( d; c# O, E2 E! _
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) T3 F0 ]' z8 w/ s- hOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 }8 |1 ^7 d1 U* j% WOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 U) y4 L3 [' f) a1 i, ldoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 j: _6 I: H8 C" [$ v- |' pgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope, t! j* A+ c1 F
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
; _0 y2 O: r7 R0 oplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# U' O* T# e7 V2 r& Opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 K: G: x6 ^* W1 k& {: j' U8 S% x! i7 r& B
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! m% O5 B2 E! N/ P
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too- z2 D2 p1 C( n$ z5 \% v$ i
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
. Q( J. ^1 g- Y  N3 a3 \' D6 @+ ]2 tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 }% ]4 b$ Y. Eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% l5 m. p0 p- j7 m1 v( ]2 Finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,) N  t5 Y- K. z( n6 ?4 y0 W- u
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your: [4 F! O# M- X, H% ?
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal  p2 a0 m6 `9 Z4 u" d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or+ P4 a0 b. A# n$ O# K% N& I
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, 2026-2-6 14:36 , Processed in 0.150889 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