埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1857|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
- _$ R( N4 m8 Z" H" u
. q) X1 o& _2 h% {. u8 }2 Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# P# \0 `* o. {$ 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。$ h% Z$ M# J3 x* e/ y6 P/ H
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。0 ]8 s* j( T7 V' `" f

% d5 C/ {+ r: [% phttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html% C9 e( W4 o2 J

6 H6 U: Y0 N! {4 g# u5 J致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ T7 R+ i# j8 k* E" g
! x# v$ X* O. R% u2 ?0 e英文原信附后,大意如下:
( _; D4 F: x4 j6 [- B0 B  G. v+ X( E. t$ ]# S
斐尔,
6 X7 h. b+ N7 R. i& s6 n5 L1 w       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
9 U- d) Z1 l: n5 ~" Vemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 G9 m- H$ m4 c       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. w  K- w4 I: |, R1 v& O$ z
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
$ k1 Z& @% [# h- K4 u1 f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。* r5 K- P- |3 `8 a3 _) ?! s
       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0 z# {5 s3 ?2 x  c6 i
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( {  D8 i- W' T
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7 \* j- v) v/ K5 r
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。* f% N1 b# e: E+ r. ]8 I
       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
0 Z1 m. g+ _" x8 d9 J& T+ [,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
$ L: n! W9 E7 [/ s' D8 o”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
! ?; T/ e) Z6 b6 e: U       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
0 J0 W- }9 {3 M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" Q/ A3 t" V; x( ~/ Y
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 C5 l7 W& l+ D) Z" \
       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
' }/ H4 H2 o# I% k7 h. x2011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
5 t1 M& L5 `% Y) i- m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% G5 |; `9 ^" H  K, N. z) B8 r* U
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
, F( j+ h6 x+ Y% H& ~" a3 O; ]. O300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
- p, y! Q% [  o0 [3 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8 B4 g' U; S( w6 r; G' j2 u) d& [. r
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
5 V; \9 \4 |1 M* {。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9 A( D4 a8 B$ Z& ]4 |+ {
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。  y4 X# A$ ?2 w, l5 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4 h9 l* @4 N) Q) k; ?
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
5 j) E& {, k$ W0 j" Y8 l+ TWikipedia。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: t3 H5 J7 P& ~3 j- ~  z
同意见的专家。
' Z, E" N9 X2 ~4 E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
* s, @  O" {; z8 n  h6 }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4 J9 f; u6 P1 J& z7 a
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5 b" V( m& M5 a% x4 ~% I
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" J$ C5 _( R5 KCallaway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( ?+ w3 c8 I& |的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为6 I) e. P- J+ G+ {  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1 k* O$ `  Z! J5 U' @8 A
这些被Callaway忽略。0 J) c% M2 X3 {7 q
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 O0 \! `9 X% m- @3 k2 ^* K
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& e0 X7 D2 p- r: T8 m- L: N5 S
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。) Z* t* I6 N9 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
  f' A) [, E$ O1 Z% K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
* w7 h7 e0 ]% `; J  K7 o  U# B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: S1 M! N9 ]7 U. T7 U% [" |
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。
+ h6 X) i' {) a! Y英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉,即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而
$ m, _8 V9 c, B6 z: k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 _; D" S( _1 D% J. ]代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问
" o- X, K& N' L7 e* j”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, @( Q! L: N: m% }
中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞
% W( h* M' T5 S. {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2 f2 j1 @; {: ^/ \, G! `& 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3 \2 l8 b1 R5 @* o" f
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
" {4 B* L" ~( E- N0 w8 M% i; {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( K& h* ?; @$ @2 }$ Q
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。! |# C0 k* [! |  ~3 u/ R  m
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 `$ |0 Q3 I% j0 B2 G" ]# H
2 D; O+ l1 ~2 \. @6 D9 n% }0 E

2 ?9 s& q2 b5 ~8 ]北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅1 i4 {) }2 o( v" I& H. x. {
6 J$ q2 M% b# e
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
: @" O; `3 \3 L附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email3 ^3 l* m1 L/ }8 `/ P2 j* Y1 f* p
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见( s. e! y) ^1 }+ C3 |0 Y% t
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见9 X" Y' R$ D" F4 L( E4 B
: }3 I) ], X! S. W  ~4 g  h4 `
! O( D7 _7 a& S( r
2 E0 v% |% o2 I% h6 m/ y  I
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
% O: K! s4 H* r9 `! @Dear Phil,
7 a0 d; u! V0 @0 u       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
) f; G& i$ `0 Oreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
; @+ t( M) A  q5 j% o6 [hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
, P* Z0 w" M' I/ Cyou.! B  [% K8 F) d8 q
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 b" b9 K) s% b- P5 r
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
3 ]4 J& M$ [* Q4 ~, ^, ]readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the/ i: }) @, l! G% X2 }) d7 Y3 A
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
7 @1 z6 q/ |) ^, spublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 ^4 T$ h* x! e7 b/ o, v5 r0 Z
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
( K% T/ n/ b( [; m! o  upieces much more than the regular Western news media would.' O. G5 U  T3 ~4 T" P7 q2 X
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
2 B! O' Y/ a  q& m7 ~worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ y" W6 B# Z) M% _5 O: q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
' s  @' x& ]% T( T  zthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway  m3 k+ [. `% P) z+ l6 q/ Y$ X* w
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping! s+ [' ]! d2 k  }
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
! _- j. V2 Q# f& m' G4 @standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible," _- W8 b* \+ X
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 a4 J* I: M% u( ~9 s) }
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news( O& z0 d( p$ [4 q1 w; U' j
reporting.% F& u' a' h6 U  X# l# @! c
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
8 M1 k+ @" v3 D  ]% {9 Balready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
. }* ?6 D$ K; G: Z; @, r' Zchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in0 x) E9 e& I. }
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
; h7 C/ _" R- y- @$ m8 [- E) Opresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
; Y: o* k& B5 |6 ]       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem7 x3 m1 m3 f: P, R: @
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
( }' k- l  X0 _. b. u+ d" G& zfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 505 ?: u9 O/ F; D1 e& p0 F
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
: t8 |8 O" k5 i! Bevent for men, with the second fastest record.
6 s) O2 c* `( l       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye  O# Z( N" n  L+ J5 J, v6 {2 `; n
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
2 O- \$ H$ [7 Z, W2 O3 q5 s' jyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record, {9 y! K" H6 E. k2 f# ]8 ]* B2 \
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
" \4 O8 a1 N) M3 T+ X# ^meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,3 T# n5 k& M0 l" R3 I1 B5 d
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than6 ^9 W% C! w  F& x2 C
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed; Q# f+ x6 A1 c& l
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: l& _) U" r9 b! _0 m; }7 Windividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
5 e( k4 j0 e! Fthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than. M4 I! e9 |$ x2 o1 Y0 P
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
: w# F# j- l5 ~/ x+ ]! q) a( ~6 ^, hher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then6 A% y; U8 x( D# q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
, B0 r$ h( Z# i9 ]problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) Q5 G2 _$ g  Z  ^6 U+ v
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
/ ]% j, v) n% G! Mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
4 z! o* }: f+ i: j6 v& |  lCallaway report.
/ x0 n9 J' l, t0 Q9 _  c, h3 p: `There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more4 J6 W( O% J$ ^+ i% ?' S4 k
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details. ]1 y  T: I/ Q9 ?+ `5 j! C3 q
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
, @" L$ G9 l2 @: j$ x) w# b9 ~4 xof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 d) F. {% H3 S% ~1 Z# m  k, ?
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. g' {0 ~& z! N! f% c9 M
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had9 ]# ~3 N( C$ V# i
publicly voiced different opinions.5 X* a. A' ~; L' |
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
6 k! [7 U* G: ^8 i$ L, Kfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
% C$ W8 W; ]& }/ |* aNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) u, G4 d% }/ Y$ [postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
3 ]. ]1 p% r, g" h3 f/ {, f6 cyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* V/ B5 O) }1 `; E" j2 _
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.. R" `# d# {" m1 K; A, b
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
4 ?# ~' l1 V% |# j- M( {that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They, f, N$ y% s; T. @! P! e; W5 r) ?' e, i
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as# F; M7 u1 I5 U' B& R5 a
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
0 \! e: N5 X/ e( o# @- bthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was  S* D* j9 v7 C# Q% x: \7 Q
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
( ]; Y  l: C% i$ ROne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
  H% ?9 d( H& Bmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ ]. _, ~' r- S* p# _/ O  M) S
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June$ p' M8 C* u0 L! r+ V( o
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
. I, N# |$ d) ]9 f# Y2 }+ Oand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
+ q2 I+ g! x+ ^3 D' Y( BThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 j7 O: `7 z- H! M6 ~/ v' x" Y+ {; K
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and7 V. W1 H5 y/ H- r
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
+ \% o' {/ T& M7 [4 GNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and- O7 Q( X# p0 A
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
5 p8 y& z) }6 R9 jwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to7 _% T# O$ h' n! K; d' J
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.% R' K2 }7 w% j4 y! j1 c8 W
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
3 V* a. ?# b& N! J9 t% hshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced, N4 v6 p( |8 M; D7 [) n
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
$ U5 G  t# D; k' s6 t; F4 a6 \fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 D; ]) c- }* z2 W
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”  f9 ?0 b; ^0 \" e, z
about British supremacy.
) d4 F) d7 n" e3 h$ z% \The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many0 J0 r" u5 \5 x! [8 B
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more* N8 W% ?/ E. u/ E
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 ^& U3 F. _0 U3 @! Q$ C
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London& M. j  B( u: X9 g" V3 J
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
! y$ S* X$ F# j9 v0 k. P* S: EYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of' s! n' ?& J1 o. l0 C
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests1 E" F( I- j+ h
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
; I% e. k. _* hit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly8 Y2 T; H$ r' O
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
# i3 L" J0 o5 _: ?* O% t3 j5 cNature." n* T. S1 |! q' n3 g: r
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
# F' ^6 G* B. c: P2 e3 ethe Callaway report.
) C& `# y% h% L' e9 L# U4 n% Y4 [* P2 |/ R( B' e0 J- N
Yi7 h: H- c5 r& m4 n9 V& f+ H: m; G
- r* R& K0 Q$ V$ _9 U3 P9 C( k
Yi Rao, Ph.D.. i2 |( z% C  o2 ]
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ Z+ I+ L; @) W8 z
Beijing, China
% w; P2 {1 ~* V. r+ j! L* ~
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
8 k/ p4 `$ l- \0 Y7 f% V% x原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
1 |7 J! h9 N0 a: K/ X8 A8 v
原文是公开信。3 w, J& X! H) m

: Y) m- e3 e6 |  |% O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
% s+ b9 e9 M& R6 n4 h原文是公开信。
  x. c, {8 E& D9 J/ K6 v$ z( i/ z. Z2 R) o6 Y, c. [* @
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

2 t4 C8 v( B5 S/ 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
/ B; w* e$ M. R/ P6 I如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
8 k7 s# m. V5 @2 ~" Z8 _
7 X7 G0 K6 h9 ]9 z: A6 Ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html. t6 E1 G1 D! b2 e% C
- c; m, t, [9 ~4 p' m0 L' `
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: I" t6 ?; ?9 t; _1 X
; `6 U& d- t' s: S" E- K
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself( L$ |: E; i. W# m, O$ o2 r
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 m$ R( _1 o: e( j, `3 y% ~1 s% ^
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
8 W$ _  P& F. Q3 n" g1 iis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
, q* E/ q( M' C2 mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 N$ T% ~9 r# Spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' F- Q% f% O4 C( f; Z7 d; T8 Nshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
- h, M' G' K% G  S( Jwhich they blatantly failed to do.
4 P" z* j0 Q- ]" G" j! G' E; A/ U2 Q& P% _. c3 r
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ I- V/ f  ]: Y$ w) DOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 Q- y& x+ s& W4 a
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 J. i- m& u1 Z, \anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous/ h" [' ]1 P6 P* l: N: i8 E2 y# `
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an" f' _- p$ t( G. v( |
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# Q' Z) |# J- m9 h1 M7 udifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 F+ u; L% f% x) R( A! E
be treated as 7 s.
. V: ~5 ?+ _0 m- `
$ U* |0 G5 m# c- `9 U( ]Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 m, l* }; k- G; r" o
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, O% x/ L* h' _5 fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
: k- E; y1 p+ h1 G' UAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( e* f8 a$ s4 [' C-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.' L2 C/ v  P3 c. Z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an1 P+ c" }: }+ B
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and1 q" {, }3 h, S
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
1 m1 F6 b( f5 g- Y9 K( r) H8 Wbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
/ Q$ @1 e) `4 {' ]0 R# g6 J. P" T: h" T; s
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
( ?  o' k8 j, I7 `' t9 L( b" mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 c: N+ r- b# B; @: `, d, s+ F* d
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so/ S( \& o1 J4 B( S6 x
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
8 l- y9 g8 h; ~& D9 j$ n2 ]events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
) b2 L% O# f" J, hbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
& \4 f( c& b# I# s" ~$ c. QFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
; \" O& A! V3 Qtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other8 d8 }0 \5 u9 A) N7 T8 i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle: e% D& R- z  W. F5 O# Y$ R" I
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. y* c, Y( H0 L7 d) r0 r7 bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds% F) ]; x( d( F$ ]1 {2 r, x
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% N! S0 m) k+ v7 b3 S1 f9 i4 jfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
6 S  P4 H! w# I# S( _) d4 Baside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; p1 b5 l1 t1 j+ }2 x$ @" {" I' V1 K
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
2 h/ N$ Y4 v! `- r! O: O) w8 `/ v9 |( q; r9 D& g1 O
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 M$ o. V* \' S$ F
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( d' b6 D8 v) ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# v3 J. n$ N& m% p  ]' a- n( {), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* H; @' [: }- T6 |( K+ i
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
5 [: W0 t7 ?1 q$ t, ~' cLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- t9 T6 e$ I6 E6 @( [5 G
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 }* Q( E2 f/ k5 G
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
9 [3 T& f# F7 O* oevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
& q) ]+ V( e. d% L/ i2 j( ^' N  Zworks.5 s$ ^- h5 q* w" p, h) a! _9 |, k

/ X! o. l" q5 e& u) xFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and* `0 r# F; E9 X0 y+ R0 h
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this: [* `  {) E- O! C! q+ T5 s- k7 ^# u
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, z( t% e/ P5 q; p( ^( Tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
( a& U% \% J( }7 Y' f  \# ypapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 T' v8 y, {) I2 \# d: t; ~+ X
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 a; C4 [2 U+ \) E$ g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ B  |' t! X* L" G
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works8 S( A" g: Z, d
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' F( n3 M4 B: M  ^6 d! P2 @( Ois found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
! X- F) k% R# R: q* Rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he1 R0 L) a: I7 A) C. {) W" N
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 [- [: b7 N$ Z8 K% j; iadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the2 ?4 e3 J+ C6 j  x: F
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
8 V! `& R  o7 {  j3 a' Muse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ e) ]9 \' P' Z  @3 ^. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are2 G" O3 x( p9 t( ^/ D0 R, f
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may/ k- Q6 |% \1 q; w
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
7 N  E' U) p: j) rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
/ b4 H. q2 u5 Z) ^/ |1 ~! |1 Hhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" ?" \1 I; x& G- ?" F2 Pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: }( E: g) ?3 e4 Jother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect& D6 h4 G" p( `
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is' S+ e5 a# o. t. p  J+ _8 d: q/ |
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: i) n" H9 N0 Rathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight) M# v* F7 M5 i/ O, f$ _
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
, ]4 n, |: [& R9 n- YLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
  @3 M0 }; W, A8 y2 M3 B5 C/ ?- }agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
" O+ P/ c1 t# X8 m& r/ K% j4 o5 Teight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.+ d5 s# ^  M- _
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?1 q2 O( r  n/ u8 F. x
& t4 ^, u# M# r1 W- n9 J
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-( n7 W1 ^9 ~  h  ~' H
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
2 m- J  B6 v' k* R' f8 \. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- |2 s9 d# }7 N( y/ H% |: ~3 V( m& iOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 \' f0 C9 m/ ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
6 k% @5 B6 @/ {7 z3 k& Cdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
: R8 S$ @# }* m8 {& u. Hgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope. C" Q; b! f* Z- B  o5 I" W
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: H  }& g6 O$ a+ H# s% b
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this6 ^8 r4 H6 p% z1 X+ @5 H# G
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.* D7 C0 Q/ i/ s

$ A" b* o$ e6 x" H4 W2 M) GOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 c/ \4 F! C8 ]6 B: ]3 Iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ _1 I8 W+ }2 V8 _/ gsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a5 D+ M9 N! D% F9 M, d' N
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 v' S) x# m& x# u( `9 J% H
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your' f7 R6 v  B1 u! W2 j* W. I; B# B
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
7 O" x/ K- x6 B9 f1 Z$ I) B  B- hexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your" a$ L% U, V& E0 v# f8 B0 r1 p# S
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
7 }. {/ j$ }# K/ l% R' dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
3 H) v" x; B3 k* C3 z/ r  Jreporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-12-1 01:29 , Processed in 0.114292 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