埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2131|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
# l$ f! P3 l6 N5 {) U) j' h6 V7 B; h+ ^8 M0 n
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。8 g( O3 B0 e% Z# P0 \2 O6 `: {% _
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。, Z$ d- G& i  O" a3 j8 u
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
# }! O9 ]  S  [; E
4 a: b- M; b( q+ e7 V" T# ihttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
0 G- l. F9 q$ a, k! i, l) F' K
# o; L; g" c8 m5 U- \; I致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选" v! W/ t- l4 E) ?+ H& U& {7 U

: I0 p, s+ y4 O$ f( l6 J- H+ A英文原信附后,大意如下:$ y2 ~, b+ {8 [6 [

) |1 K+ H. I) |+ }斐尔,7 C+ f: V0 }2 t% c5 R9 w$ X/ B/ R
       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4 v, O8 R6 i- A" O
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
9 Z" k  r' F6 _4 F7 b/ e* n       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
, d* ?, X  ?# N) }+ J' w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
5 u6 p) C; n) |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。. L* s% A6 m9 v( B4 L
       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( j" @6 E  E' |9 ?: @
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
$ \$ p# _6 L  I: n2 B4 d) H0 I" e见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负
) H' U" j! _2 i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。* u+ ^& }9 J8 h: {& ^2 W3 f
       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6 ^- M. a% J+ d4 {& 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
1 `5 u' X) N/ k! z+ w”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。9 c9 \8 k, M4 d$ `
       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
; _. `8 w6 {% v5 u$ K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
) [8 f* C% I$ D& ~,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 D4 Z0 C" m0 K/ ~9 ~9 i       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
7 v" Y7 G' m6 B- s: @2 x4 |. w2011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/ b) t) Q5 B0 `# u
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
: U- }: X, L5 |' z5 A/ ]快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前
! a7 d) w- Q1 T7 z" L300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. f* f3 y% j  X! @1 f
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' h. W' F% R6 X  I( m# m5 b
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7 A/ x4 R3 d% L9 E$ U
。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- `6 r( |6 x3 G3 a
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 @; O8 c, T1 G1 w9 P* l, }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
2 G8 d7 w0 U3 L1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于6 S$ i& y& S. v
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: _" i, b6 }/ i; u+ m# D1 X) g
同意见的专家。
( z9 m% ~: @. e# d6 a1 l; ?) _3 t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
# l' p" ^" `3 m) Z5 @( z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2 o9 p, n& a# G5 u( z4 Q! C
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
+ g1 H* K  M! j& y5 h: y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
0 A+ }% }7 `0 A4 l8 H, J. x, k0 UCallaway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)$ r' d, \6 b) O0 A# O
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
8 X5 C! [4 S" A, {" s4 }9 ^《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而
5 v- s7 L( ^1 A. n7 |6 C这些被Callaway忽略。( F0 K0 v. m: Y( {7 b0 Y! [6 k
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 {* Z- r. B: _3 s1 u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0 i4 r" Q, A# p- Y" z# H: x# ]) e' o
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
' l# c. ^4 z$ O  {  p. _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
5 C9 b" a+ E# o; 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
: e  Q5 N3 d" t/ Z- ]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& |5 }' ?1 b! m+ {. y
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。
; }( T' h( M- D# `6 f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 K% |9 {* i1 @  v
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
8 |" X! e& n, _5 \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( c- P+ E) \6 ^$ A- i. U
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: ^" U6 w' f* V) Z
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
! K7 _8 P+ b1 [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
  J' U6 [* {6 v; q' Z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& o# D: R+ T, C% a, w* v
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6 i$ L% \. J7 H4 x
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: l! ~/ F" M7 R4 }) J5 h
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
" B; W- y( h! c我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 z3 a6 k2 R2 ?/ X6 l7 N3 G
5 u7 P* r/ G! ]- {
1 A+ C" S0 Z( ]' u( t北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
* |! h. T2 ^- Z: f+ }9 g/ O: \; G& L; j* S+ V
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结8 f* o2 m. |2 h
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; e+ p; @4 O# W! O0 Z" \: p; O
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
: m* E9 i: S. f8 j6 C' }附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 n* K; S( K8 {. B4 L0 S" Z9 p; a
" u  U$ {1 X, A$ A% f" X
+ |0 f$ `$ K+ F7 `/ z, S+ R9 K0 R
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 W+ a% A0 V8 W2 P2 H
Dear Phil,
" A0 Z9 O" G* Y& O8 C# b  D       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" G7 ^! `7 ^% w! P: C' Dreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. u# A$ m; O1 ]/ Z5 ?5 {& g7 @5 O
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed/ Z( E, v+ |& _4 ?# M/ K+ f
you.
4 F3 W) `0 `: V$ U; V7 k% x; u1 A       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 K7 X* M) H/ z0 N0 m4 v! U
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! a. B5 `0 ]5 p. R. ~; S( i+ dreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the! c, l5 Z5 N& Z  U1 f
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature% k9 r# |7 n* O. G
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more6 H4 k$ ]( \+ o  _( k$ X5 K" v
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
' {: ^0 F6 {! O9 Q4 Ipieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 Q+ }3 ~. A2 z) i       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
* |$ C/ }/ e# D7 R. |9 Rworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a; c4 t5 l  z  D! d3 H
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish0 m) m# T, A$ m  J( a3 M, _
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 F: M; t# j% L9 w, Odid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% y$ A1 C3 ?# W5 oexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
3 _, |8 k0 j" ?standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 J1 Z* i) J2 O4 Nand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
  f$ V/ t. b* }+ Uto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news. G0 v6 l  r% A1 O8 b) B3 c' c
reporting.
5 m( L/ r0 s) t       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
2 C5 I; N3 k" D' Z6 ialready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by' \& T4 a, e% P, a* P
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
! T6 B( b" k' N% l% c3 P# M* wsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A! w; u+ Q: u  I. B& z# ~( X) B
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.5 s0 J# h2 x- Y8 J7 N# l3 F( E
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
% p+ v; t; ~7 B* s! I' nmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds3 b3 D7 q5 A& I( P* {
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50  N3 \  a5 [/ m' a- k
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same5 y- `9 k8 q( n! U! V9 [7 h
event for men, with the second fastest record.
6 ?5 ~6 V% S7 U) B8 y3 ~       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye3 v1 T3 B- J" \+ N9 D3 X
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
6 [" |3 Q! O; e2 d% h/ d1 k" E, \' @year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
7 b: {2 e2 P! d  @- s4 u" d. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
1 B0 F5 P# O9 Xmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,5 N( o0 Y8 `3 D  ^7 c
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
  e" R( B1 i( c2 w  g& {( NLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( Q2 d0 v1 t' w9 V+ e* T" V
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
6 P9 D) H/ u* X( x& e  |1 zindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower# T! M: a, u& l  m: Y: P
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. O2 f( e2 s. K9 O$ I& tthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
  `; L! o* i# W) zher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( B7 d9 E$ z4 x' z3 `
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
% a. k+ G( w& L2 Hproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
7 a6 l* c9 }5 S4 o4 ]" w) j6 bswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the  y$ X  A2 N9 W: Y
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
2 a& t; J6 J8 A2 G& }! lCallaway report.2 C/ q. g( M1 p* |& s
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
5 v$ [; p( E7 B7 z& L6 B% X+ K# Uunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
% b+ N/ p  m( q% P$ v8 g# Dhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
/ Q2 S: E5 a/ X# U5 G# d" R' xof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
  h4 u4 H  v4 u- i, x/ Rbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
  p- Z: C# I$ h. w# i" Y' pWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had, L) J! J9 R3 Z1 L( |
publicly voiced different opinions.
7 m2 `& T/ d; a" g* W/ _# Q0 ?5 O+ cYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
# H, g/ L2 M. @# I5 w; C8 dfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' t7 e" ?( _9 Q( }3 j. n0 J' J# U) [Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
9 Z. h6 m: |9 _+ }$ cpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
& \2 ]. G! z* H% M* x% e1 Syou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
/ t- {7 u) H! }( p- Aof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
- ?) [* `, P* k9 f% y* V8 uThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
/ N+ ^) ?9 M- M  \9 A  ~% Pthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They1 _7 p0 \* {, E" J: J; p' t
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
% C  `- o* k/ kAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that, Z5 c0 D3 u( @& ~, B) b
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
6 [2 J$ z: T& N" N3 Isupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
! d. V6 g1 C! `! t' D  v3 I* VOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
; h3 Q$ A) g: Y0 vmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the. _8 r( V4 ^7 l. V  d
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June; i4 l! s0 d, ^* ^# v
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she2 p% W9 }9 H! c9 ^7 n
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ x3 d  W$ I4 ^' ^0 e& h1 UThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* x: S' f2 ^9 z9 wand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 u7 C5 Y% q. E2 p% S4 M
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
/ `5 E: T3 b3 `: O' XNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
% j4 C& {1 d9 w; X, j: vobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
! t# B+ a9 r0 X7 ^$ Fwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! z, o, P7 p# S5 f& k8 S' ]repair the damage caused by your news reporters.9 K. m- L" H+ K1 \
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not  g& g! n$ x0 i; x, ~& i
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced$ D, B+ D' l! Z8 U. y9 P
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather# T' t3 \: x+ E  g8 b' H! P9 V" j
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that7 h0 X9 k- D6 X- b' `: ?
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
1 Z% ]( `, t* A; wabout British supremacy.
* u/ T7 r1 Q4 `2 BThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many! ?9 }) g; u$ X& {( c
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
# i; D9 }1 i* l8 s4 C9 UChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
6 }; m7 t  a; v/ ~4 n0 qour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 e, A3 j& t3 xOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
, {1 P3 p( |; C: Q' V# Z1 VYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
. M$ j$ {; k/ B8 Lprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
7 |: ]+ b" H+ b' y8 a0 ubefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 w$ E5 ]- Q; O0 [1 m3 G1 D7 N: ~it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly9 _) E9 Y) C  O6 `5 ]3 R5 A5 h
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
+ Y! p. V, @7 q' ?' NNature." l, Q5 W3 J( S
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance& z; v4 R7 g2 c
the Callaway report.
6 D$ n4 L, N$ k! f* x
3 c- y4 H9 C$ ]2 i; lYi
% x( K$ y: ^" C" H3 O  v% S  k* `' ^
' {/ N" o( j, P: ~! A+ XYi Rao, Ph.D.6 a, G& O% I3 u
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
1 L* y* f* X1 |, zBeijing, China
% I# i# `; [( Q/ G
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18 3 \1 n$ b, \* {7 Q, T
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
' m, Y& Z# D8 d$ H# ^& ?/ p
原文是公开信。1 P6 Q& s9 ~% }9 u: P: A9 }0 h
4 c- o/ b1 W0 E, e; |4 |
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
8 C8 A5 [- Q# s: R7 G; r: t! \: j原文是公开信。( F8 |3 R5 n5 i# C5 J

, {% C! Z" J9 o( M% O! u小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

( _# O) y/ o1 q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
$ B4 c1 ?2 D! ^, C/ I  ^4 m0 N如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: ~+ |8 c* h% k3 ?4 @+ V( {& b# e: Y) C; J- \( z  W- t& C8 N; }
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, C/ _' p# @  t+ ^. @
0 A- L7 L: d; X. XFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' e5 C% h3 q, Y4 N$ l+ g- p
& W" t( x7 l& l0 j: N$ c( lIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
  e* S+ v6 X3 M/ s; }, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 B: B: z, m! X9 }/ {# I! ?0 W8 Z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: ?' y# g7 _+ i+ D: B. k
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) y+ Z: d7 g) S% ^9 k, ~scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
. Q- E% g* A! f- s+ T" Dpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' s* D; Y. x2 \. }) Hshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,$ S$ _" N6 e0 d
which they blatantly failed to do.4 k" s- K9 ?7 g# R3 J3 }& `; k* w

: c9 d9 v& X) _; I4 oFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her6 t) D# B. t6 t- T' @
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in  d' F; Y0 s' i
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ S1 {* o/ x; ]( e4 @anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
4 a! w" L0 }7 c5 Gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
2 g! I1 @7 I5 \- s  qimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, D: e. g% F' O) J2 E' C# T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* T9 f* n$ m4 k8 S( mbe treated as 7 s.; T- S0 O  D+ h- {. g4 |

& q) f, E( @  Y; [: O; s  HSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- g6 a! z0 n$ y" c& E  q3 H6 G
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem; }. `& F& o- f0 ^0 T) [
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ E. m5 m+ l3 K; M; `5 l) r0 _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# Z& q' Q; }( i* M1 ^1 c+ V
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: b: _0 ~$ t, A4 e) r3 l8 N+ ^6 f+ F
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( x1 T7 q% ]6 o& r0 @6 a% e: Nelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
, ~! X2 k0 w2 e+ |persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 i9 ~( _0 o3 C4 W( Kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.8 h: H" ^3 ]1 b8 c6 c; m( l, G
9 D. s( q5 g0 k( j
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 E, q1 k. q: O' a* J, w! Vexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; V; s5 w2 f. t/ D: F0 r& Y/ Bthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
- e' `/ e1 W# k9 s: Ohe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
7 J5 r9 \! M4 V% v' }, cevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
) t1 b- d: M& e" Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
0 l+ c. X. o5 ]& aFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another4 b& A$ N) {2 _4 D4 Y7 t; p( u
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. H5 w& |& t: |/ {( |% i7 ^4 whand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 a: H! }" T4 L7 j$ `  M
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this) u' m8 _4 E5 v! F
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ O3 ~- d0 e; h; s3 t* C
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam6 V# |3 w+ K# j6 t& q
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ o& k8 |+ e$ T3 P* o6 p
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. [( A! D1 S* J1 n& cimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 C' f3 \8 a5 i" b) W

: ^5 `6 s: E) f/ D- U  C. KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are  q! ~. Z+ j$ Y5 c! T3 w3 {9 _
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
, |/ }7 u( o3 ~( W' C& w2 Ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
& v8 S6 L. h9 v" S), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
! v2 T" r$ q0 \' X  D5 bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 m- {7 n4 ~7 q) v  U1 n
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind& M7 S; \: @6 f/ l4 V/ d7 u  y
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 n$ L( k& Z# [. rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 m/ I) l3 x" C$ \  t; N
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
7 \' K1 x; h* `# ]8 f/ W. Iworks.+ `8 P/ t+ @$ O5 V
( j. c5 H" b% q3 b' D2 ?- h: X+ h
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
, E2 _5 V2 V7 j6 H! l, X9 pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
/ h: T6 I+ C) r$ `1 }/ Tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( }, z  g( @8 _& n! u: @+ \standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific1 O+ W# ^$ u; u$ T
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* m0 ^& g; R8 i2 ~" i! jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, f: ?5 g6 {0 D! X8 Wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to, V/ L; k- P" E3 `' O- L  v- P/ L
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
, M$ u' G# i3 k; c4 g( ^to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 [/ J: t  r8 \6 X6 h
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; W1 v/ u! c( x/ i
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 d1 v6 M2 X$ i. J
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
7 \8 `3 D3 }0 M( Iadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: h" x( w# I* rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
9 A# k+ ?9 Q, L) [use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# ^5 n' Q9 d$ j5 |/ N4 ^9 V
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
( W& V. ?7 K9 O+ J9 Adoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 q+ c1 E  Y. W6 i  W! t: nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% Y7 u) O% _/ d# C7 A* g( G2 ?hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
+ o* I8 n& T1 _/ M4 Phas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 q$ D9 m1 U9 x. @  Y+ K) Pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; V: \+ k2 U1 J0 u* x$ _
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect7 d) V+ f3 A; F4 j# b
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is: c. F4 F8 K+ g) `" i
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% a2 l, V9 d- Nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) e; z0 ]2 ^; o) C/ R" [chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- X6 i5 I: @- _# G- g
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) J0 R% K3 J0 d% r: R+ }0 Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for  Y0 V$ s& {8 G8 E7 i% z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.9 r* p- @0 n* d6 R3 z9 P) V
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?4 ?6 f+ I+ O1 q4 K1 f5 C! X
* b* y4 v% y1 W$ N/ ?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 x* v( {2 s( @* j8 S* `- S
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
3 t8 w9 P. q* i. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 F+ B/ Z' p4 d0 rOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London. |# O5 k" G0 A
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for( ]0 e% V4 F/ O9 ~3 s. A
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic2 Z) V/ k0 B; w* N0 z
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope& r( N# P0 S% g) j/ {# N
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a* [0 n' I6 F/ b* I% r2 c" k
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
& i8 n* o" y1 V# C' zpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.0 T' T* i3 L) q
# N- E+ K0 p/ s% N/ ?
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' s, m2 M0 o7 c+ s8 h: x8 ]7 Sintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
' ~& H  a. j( X4 B2 Jsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: ^6 u- U2 V, msuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
! I- L: e2 P( n5 H- D  t0 L# xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
; V2 d- D4 Y" s# Q( x7 D0 dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 \' O! k! B- k( E/ \
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your0 h  _$ }# S! }
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
9 e6 N- ^# r$ W. e5 m3 c9 ~. |' |such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
: b) V6 ~2 G' q  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, 2026-3-15 14:21 , Processed in 0.130502 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