埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1887|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 1 L, u( c4 P0 H
" D) a! D5 V) Q. }& g
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
5 C; D3 k4 o0 T: q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。
2 E8 C  I4 [8 _, e; G总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。& b" c0 B+ s4 g( d) x
: n( _, y+ e) x" k" d+ n& j$ p. d
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html" k! d  Q* _& l

$ `, U; m8 t' H1 g# w) T致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
4 {4 j+ S% `& @4 _
6 }0 |4 F) `9 t0 k4 v英文原信附后,大意如下:" X& E( ~2 a# ]5 u" c0 C

2 K! A/ w$ j# O" V4 r- _) T+ Y斐尔,+ ]; z1 A4 }: @
       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+ h' i, ~$ J0 n: \
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
/ e, l4 i+ D: i/ `# V8 y6 k# g       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
) [, [/ g+ R. p+ A) Q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
0 g: N; H% N5 r& Y' F# 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。
+ V5 ?( I/ ^& ^5 x0 x       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% o6 B9 ]$ G- t2 {" e: W
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5 v$ Q/ h; D- Z
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
0 j( u$ j5 u+ r( F, w4 B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。" M  X9 F% }9 n- g" r
       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
. ~/ g6 }; ?1 }- Y! q* L,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
2 M7 r0 K! A/ G& q; E”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
8 L$ ^9 L9 {) Z/ k' j       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" R; V0 c1 ~* z7 N% X
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
% X. E7 Q1 v; Y1 A  F, q/ h,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
8 u% N% I" ^8 ^: A0 ^$ P       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
# u" u$ n4 x- U2011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
0 U" m- O0 @' T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
3 i$ }' n' J: t! m1 ?9 n0 n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& v7 r) ~" I5 [# J. Y8 q  y  Z8 k0 F
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* C) Z! ~; j: m/ c
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5 p; I$ _! p/ `  ?0 [4 x
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. N# y# D. h$ I- n
。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
* }2 l- i/ J! G录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
( ~/ B6 e5 W: t8 o- s" D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
8 D; w# j- D7 W& p& i# p& x8 H, ^# \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
6 |6 U8 B" s( X; S8 t9 g, |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  e$ ]! I7 B9 O9 T
同意见的专家。; _5 w+ v3 P+ G/ B4 @8 c
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% W0 N. I4 Q6 e- i7 o
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
/ F+ A, W5 W/ L2 U& t; E; _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
8 C3 k  g" y! l" e+ M( M《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
3 M& i4 f- a& S; c4 K( OCallaway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)3 d3 i( W1 C% }3 C  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6 r- L8 E# U( c6 E
《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, k1 ^* I3 ~$ Z. ^
这些被Callaway忽略。
# q, ^( M' c3 d, [$ T8 j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
  b" L4 ]7 i. g9 T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( I6 z. ]- t% y
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 \7 y4 `5 e8 W5 G0 A. G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( z# d( ^& r4 ?1 j) X1 T# G7 X
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
9 w5 N% N: e$ ^8 {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8 ?: X$ n8 H# L' }- ~, y1 D. T
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。
& w# S- n, ~5 m3 M3 H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
0 q, i, a" B$ @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
  }) P' _; D/ I6 F  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
- E$ B: u. P. K7 N: F+ N* V”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。; C' S: Y+ ^+ S  @0 `' O
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7 C1 n$ L6 M. I  e4 N9 f" q! I
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: z, ?4 f" ]9 ?
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) K1 M( |+ h4 a, _8 ^
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
  H* ?$ ^# z) y9 C# |% P% v( Q- s% U9 E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
6 Z3 D2 x6 m1 }. B- q9 H" U  {而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
4 W+ A% K) J/ U" A! J我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: Q4 L, e" G" V& l0 U4 p
/ @1 |' I4 ]3 L
  c- ?4 ?' y7 a! X& E
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& e3 n  e: Z: d1 V/ O/ O( m& p

$ X, W/ ]( y: F6 }8 F附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
9 @2 l5 t/ J7 c) W9 `. G( J6 a4 n附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ `- Y' Y" J: [2 z6 P附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
, c3 u% ~: P0 |9 Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: t$ B7 J# q; Y/ Z5 m' b) }) K/ F! I% g! ]3 f3 \

( H( L) @! y/ {9 s
; Y' A7 F$ y( D0 p原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)$ H# ]6 @1 a6 J, s" j+ D
Dear Phil,7 y  x+ p" j8 g
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" s0 j& P" D& y, E
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20% o) v0 n* X) L  k8 T
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed& j4 d7 r/ G: U$ p
you.1 A0 n% M. d: t. r1 t, e& N
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, o: c; w* t, B7 b) Wbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese. Y9 I" {' T6 G+ c3 ~# l
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the9 \; _  I. ?& L& \$ e; X
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
, X  C& E9 N, w4 t' u6 W, Xpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more$ D! |' x7 m$ ]8 Q# p! F
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
. z$ _1 z& a4 _- `9 T7 cpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.0 }  z$ F2 g6 E* N1 t2 y" B
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
5 L: K  V5 b9 ^. {- c/ T1 h* iworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
6 h) e+ h  S5 Y- r4 Z- P# N! Y3 |1 g0 enegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish( Q4 _, `! U7 c$ K- L
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway( A* }; z5 P, D6 L
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
5 a. q. D3 d$ G* Q2 b9 Hexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal4 F7 Z. O/ _$ u3 a
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
0 m! `7 h- ]# w5 U% Z# H( qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
. P2 k4 P& z4 I" _- b8 ato cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 z' H& z3 [; @reporting.9 x6 i9 s3 O  Z
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have/ T0 U8 A1 q0 d
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
; f$ b4 \5 N8 Q: A0 i. Ychanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in7 p: B' _7 F  t- A9 W" k+ x6 g
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 p. `1 _8 }; K& p3 mpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.* O' K. F7 v% q6 ]4 |( B
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ M' V/ b2 n& M! z: p+ E4 m+ h! Rmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
! ^9 M* h$ @! T/ Z8 {7 I4 Tfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50- [; y+ v5 r! a7 e# K3 I9 t/ o6 k
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same4 [6 A( S( z1 A9 [' H
event for men, with the second fastest record.& W& E; ]; t5 v8 |" v
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
. ?( W7 p( F% N' wwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
' m+ }, Y/ Y) @year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
& j) Y0 ~3 _3 v5 U8 D. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; V  \3 F. x3 C# Ymeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
8 N# N+ a* P6 A( }$ T6 H9 s) |/ s' Gfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than  W* y% J# p. `0 A. E& D9 H7 z
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed" O1 A  ]( n& R  I. H" r
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
" I  P4 S! W$ U$ G) T  N7 D. uindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
2 ^( i& Q6 Y- K) T3 Y! Ythan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
+ C) q8 t0 n( f3 b( D8 @/ qthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was7 E* Z/ \6 E# }6 J: q0 z
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 ]* _: s* B% l/ |( z* ?8 l! |
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “% r$ _  [) l7 K& |9 C: b
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other$ F1 }( C! r$ Y! q1 n% g
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
% r% ^; ?2 F0 i7 k. E7 E' e+ [/ Iteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the1 w7 A7 K9 U  z$ h
Callaway report.
: C* @. m4 V6 E" s4 @  cThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more; }; |  k; n, z
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details- ^5 I8 G+ S" _) n
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ c: c- i1 M$ |2 V
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been9 z5 V9 k4 F6 z$ P  ?: w# X
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the/ g7 \( M; ]3 z+ ]
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had  ?, s0 f' b# s' ]0 C' v1 Q( {
publicly voiced different opinions.# A- c) r- J! H, Z/ D
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
# z1 R1 s! f' q4 q+ Hfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
: I* {) _/ Q# U/ ]" H- T; lNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent3 ?( X9 ~8 F+ j  \0 L; ]4 y- R
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: P% [- e; T3 T2 e8 c2 `& @
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 b% W' J, Q' C$ V' s7 \6 Z# Bof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.0 Y/ ^& C9 c. c) |
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
4 J7 L/ a( g5 X- P/ z9 A' `" y; ]that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 H8 |# q- W4 u* M" S
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as7 x2 g! \9 m0 O9 L! X, Z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that- W% z# a+ `1 K8 ]9 o
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 H3 z6 V) \: \$ S" d$ D9 F: O
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.' o3 E. z$ v- ~- c
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% y- ^$ j0 f8 {+ @; mmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
* e9 F* d/ p! M6 Q+ [4 S. CChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June$ I% [2 w6 ]1 C) N
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she- ~& F# H* @, k, a9 u7 u* T
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.. \! E) v) f! }5 M; z
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
9 r: T8 H) Q* c( @# S3 `and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and) W5 v" Y5 R  S4 f4 Y  N
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
7 b$ Z: f3 b* Z; bNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
- V# y* O; D0 {2 S( T- fobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
( _2 J/ @: U  a+ @1 ?# H! h3 N) }. Rwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to* ?& o9 f& t; ~: z+ H% @4 w
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.7 f5 F" E( H4 ?6 x8 b- r' ~. X9 o' W
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
" y: B& N, _1 ~) M5 [- `show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 Z/ x0 o) h; o. @us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: j" A* D0 P" v% z
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
0 E: T  o' \( jthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 ?+ g& j' b$ \2 K6 D9 V0 m
about British supremacy.
) f' A6 F( u* ?5 gThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many* v% w8 u8 J0 L
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
7 H5 ^! ^. V9 |# cChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 j6 S: \( K" m/ A1 ]
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London  a$ r3 F4 M$ J# ]! f* {
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
8 N. L# w: A. {) C% TYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of% ]8 D' T" w7 x2 }
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
% O* b. m! ?2 ]* _( |before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 A; }+ L  W- v, a; s- [it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
$ x, |' c3 j2 H: ~/ E3 l; `publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like* G# v& z9 b- ]: d5 G9 I( D6 \; q* p
Nature.7 O, n/ s" w: R) z4 R. x; a& s9 i
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance+ V" F; M7 Q# r
the Callaway report.
; |, Z7 W$ U7 z4 I3 G7 ^$ N) ^/ @4 O$ j8 @  M
Yi
* e7 y6 J. R3 G9 Z+ q6 l! q6 j. p7 l2 g6 v; ^2 r- G
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
$ P/ f5 ]- z! h0 UProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
# z. v' H8 B1 m1 n7 mBeijing, China
$ J; J& m: U9 t$ z9 g+ H$ t: x- N& Q* 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·········
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   B3 A/ o) H1 N1 v
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

: s" _) a' k+ w) _8 h原文是公开信。) g5 \1 o6 t, B3 c8 s; M
% I$ J! |: T$ {& ^, k1 p) P2 R+ k4 g: g
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
; I; m( h& ?4 [$ f# x: A  w; M) j3 A$ |原文是公开信。
4 C5 `! M/ R9 R) J( P8 n; E* D1 h: y" Y, D9 B8 q
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
; u; k/ A2 C7 C0 h, U0 q7 _
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
! V7 L% l0 k& ^- _  d6 f如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。2 e2 v8 s1 m% T6 a
1 r, w+ X+ f/ Q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! b* c6 \/ R2 c3 S) ?% D7 X
% F6 F& H( m: G: `FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% \, o0 e! f4 A' M) T# J
/ w& d& M8 k8 e' g- B. D. p
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
9 Y% b: e: H6 B, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# I. J* ?; B  r( J5 _% l- W4 l5 `magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this. ~. L0 L6 J1 m
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the# V& e" [3 b  z1 h
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general0 [2 V# P' @2 d8 ~
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
# L* ?' @- W1 y% n' \should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ v6 V2 o# k/ T' k7 {; _which they blatantly failed to do.
+ ^1 h3 x! Q! h+ i* Y! c8 Q3 i" a) j6 g# S: R5 B
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her: ~. ^: W+ Z' Y/ u3 M+ V% K) [9 Z
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
! c$ L; I$ m  x2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
" q  r1 [6 {" }. kanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( w4 ~/ ~( \, `9 [personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ k4 [, @% w" k7 Z2 ]4 s) T# Iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the2 U! g1 E6 J- c( e* ^# W% g. m6 d0 ^0 D
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to, r( ~1 |! N8 ~* l4 Q. V/ e
be treated as 7 s.
. B' W) Q5 [( z4 v$ T' x6 {/ D# x
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
# I' o- G) s7 J9 ^$ Q! ^& ustill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem# k' l: J: {) v+ r/ Q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." F; B1 Q; W2 _7 \
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400' }. k* p3 I" N+ f2 ~( [+ H8 W
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& R# h; g8 a3 l& s5 t0 ?% `For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* W" y( g) O/ b# L" S% k
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& \3 m3 [8 x1 f  ]1 ?persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”% L0 g  n# w  }* u* ~, \, _1 c
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
7 u8 z( w( S: `) ]- L" f) q; n: X3 u$ U; u2 R4 l, z) x8 P
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ G. ]0 h3 E8 ^- u# Q. U0 b+ Fexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 i; f% E, P- Y4 K9 T8 ]
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) k2 N+ H! q% `3 w4 nhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later* E+ H+ w" E; |& Q: r8 ]& e
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 W+ M0 G1 P+ |: ~, f5 e" t( \best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ U1 I2 v! X6 y* ?, x
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! R9 |/ B. J- o* R
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other0 P5 b' t4 E$ l0 c; ]) u
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* ?" W6 T& c6 q$ w4 S2 X, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this2 ?% K. i8 F9 D2 l( h3 ~6 L
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 ]% m$ ]0 H& t5 C# X5 |
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam) T) E# {" m  y- U' p; d$ l4 l
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting) T) W9 Q; X# h
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) B. j. w1 i& L& b' Q% uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
% X! Y9 M6 b/ c" b. {8 ]! L) Z5 t' q* i+ j
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
5 O; A& P& X! z. H+ H; E! o. z+ Qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! M( R/ \! a4 D& a% E0 T2 U+ _
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
, ]1 Y# P! P% a, ~  ^+ i0 ~), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns2 y* o8 z0 \& d/ P
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 n4 _% d4 \! p. GLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ s3 W  D$ N+ |+ k" n
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it) z7 h1 r) y- c4 c; D
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, `4 v6 ^5 S; K& U+ {
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science) V2 t+ B1 r6 m7 m# s- W
works." {' |& `& Z) J2 ^3 D/ M

( U: O9 o, A, V4 l, o9 _) Q  iFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
$ L2 X" v1 n7 [% Aimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ i, g6 _$ q. G1 d2 X# ^6 @3 M' l" m3 fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 C/ w3 m/ G9 [; c# @+ |  s
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific1 a$ [1 v  ~- F4 b4 A- s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and7 z. g3 x& j# S- D1 z* C# X7 F' [  T
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
& C7 f; O% ~: H/ h, o( lcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 o5 ^9 X" j; l+ z& I( kdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
/ H5 g; }- _: u, n) kto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" Z6 \7 a/ N' A# X0 i% V9 f# O# v
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( j) |0 L+ Q: l" \' i/ I# Wcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! ]8 O( x/ W/ q6 y3 f! ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ K9 t8 y, t7 U5 ]- kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
- [+ c; d6 y3 s' M# ]: t2 D2 q2 K! ^past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
7 O' {: }2 u. @$ p* ause it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
- p5 f0 x1 D$ z/ F' {( \) P. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# G! H/ j% v# V& `" J$ T3 Fdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- K8 |) k: N, {" |4 X+ F
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 y- j  j8 ]$ _, T. Q
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 A/ J  g+ x7 M% xhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& r& p% O, d. t1 l9 edrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- n2 u# l1 W- m* a
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& i  q: A1 n3 K7 V, h4 s# `7 p, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
  N4 C' D8 x+ V* `' zprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 v6 [1 T$ `6 M- o+ Z3 Vathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- W8 s, I. |' |, d  _
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
2 Y  o4 ~( ], d4 E: I  l4 @Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 W( t7 L- b/ [) }
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
7 H' {6 X+ a6 `, Weight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, u; [# n9 U' G2 d# ?8 B; Y$ eInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ Y! U# E+ {4 t; t* U
" V8 i3 a8 g# A1 r7 H
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
. f) t$ `) w  B- ^competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 i# f" G, X% p. B! k/ O
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 |; S$ v' ~; R- ~' rOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
3 |- m' B/ V, J  L; x' ]Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
* Y# R" u4 G( _2 Xdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
! J+ V5 }: M1 i8 Y; E4 K3 _games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
& O3 s) m1 N/ ~9 p+ |5 ?: W+ Bhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 i% Q( b) W: V1 `/ f1 ]
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this- s7 K+ t/ y' d' j3 ?/ C
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! K* e$ Q; ]; i- |
: k; Q& O+ v: D# fOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# \* ~$ \. s) D/ o, E. P  J7 [intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 r) u# }- X2 f, C" c# dsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
3 D  w& D: B% Xsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
  q. m$ C$ b6 c* b" Q6 nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
; M' y( r8 d  X5 Uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ c  V$ B% v3 R  |+ e  s/ _
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 s& t# A) ?1 P7 Y4 ]
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal4 [: k; k1 y( g# p. Q6 H, h% @) x
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
, L2 l" i/ w/ t8 h$ x5 f1 @' ~9 u6 hreporting 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, 2025-12-12 08:32 , Processed in 0.126151 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