埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1955|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 3 l& H' ^/ z* [. r" A& x$ Z
' z3 d6 H% |0 P) }7 j$ Y
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
+ F5 |! k* z2 C9 [, B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。6 F! Z7 N4 Y3 p6 I: }
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。3 Q- n/ R' L8 n/ {1 O

( p- K7 d0 B, S2 ]http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 q$ \* g, Q2 n, L
0 W6 {6 l: z) a
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选. l" C, G* h( ~2 q/ U

1 i0 m$ j% d& w0 H2 g# s& c- n3 O英文原信附后,大意如下:
7 C0 D& t4 @# N4 G* t% n* f' L! X2 d2 |' d, ~- }8 h  N
斐尔,
# [* s9 y3 N; [1 `8 Y       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
6 ^! _6 R/ W7 @" {email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
+ Y/ u: }9 H( Y, r       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
- m9 e# ?( b: A+ N5 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/ q9 y" M$ G+ g* V
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。& S- H7 S# _: h" u7 F# q" r1 }. Z' P
       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
( {+ r( d& W2 Q& B# Y, v$ i  c8 P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+ R- O# n8 R' {  g1 F+ W3 r  g
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! r9 `' f/ ^  V: U
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。) S. B, z0 P6 O- Y
       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
8 [2 Z; n) f. F( ?& M$ f,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, g; }% ~0 T+ b' f7 c$ y
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; e1 x0 I: Q1 w( i       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 {1 z1 m+ X/ n; a2 |
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 l+ n, f6 ]( \2 }. S1 Q
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。$ D" P' Z9 m/ o# L! m& R! V
       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 {) O5 ]$ \4 @
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混- O1 ?& b, S* n- f3 L6 H
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 x/ R. F$ R' U; p4 N% _/ B; b) a+ M
快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前
# v! ]' I) C. s2 a300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
- t% }: {7 [7 |2 c. ^' H4 S. p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+ q0 @1 [5 W" Z: j. g' n0 z
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
" H( ~# H, E- w  X4 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
/ i; |6 E+ j( m录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
5 j$ X/ t- h; e5 X6 z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 @$ R  b% W! q  p2 ^( E5 R* u3 x1》,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
3 `  Y0 n" `  n, x$ c: G3 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
5 H1 v& I" `) T% H同意见的专家。! n- o3 C! k! L( t0 V
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
% X" ]  t; N, V6 F/ [* g" e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 N  q6 R) z7 v: M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0 v8 }- b: C4 @$ {" x( {3 e
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
3 i9 s9 O3 H; y% }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)
# w+ h' p6 X. t4 K% v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 r2 q. z/ D( X/ i* S《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而
8 o2 n! G. n% p7 q: f7 V: v这些被Callaway忽略。
( f0 G- R# s: N& e  V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
' H1 i, O1 d- |1 O5 n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
( z/ g( x% w( i. `; B# L教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。; l7 A: V' R% R+ F3 c. i
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4 E" `/ v" Q3 ^4 g. V1 M* Z
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" c; e4 G9 n, T' g
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
$ `) H% y' N' v: b: L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。
$ u# I/ k, ]* h7 e5 \9 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) Z* _$ k. O. a9 H0 _4 G$ h/ W# u
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5 R4 @! C* D- _& w* h
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# J5 q. j; a: n/ l- M
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 z, l# ?/ B& r8 `3 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& ?; Z; ?7 v- ]0 R7 P
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
# U+ q# L! y) J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% a5 Q  U4 F! p2 e, o# Z  H8 m7 r. c
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
0 \5 G+ Z! m% F# N- H8 F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
( F+ Q9 W% R  k9 k2 w9 W( L* L而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
1 K/ g. B4 u% c" A9 g6 E0 ^0 C6 X我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
0 D7 i. n. o! o3 _" G4 ?; X. K2 T) X
9 h. F4 J8 c( O- n  Y; {( b" U( G% Q
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
9 p( K/ i0 c0 N; F9 K% d2 I0 R# ~" b' v' d  i
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
5 W7 S& ]8 {& a8 l% O2 z附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
% u. p+ D8 y5 s) F9 I( a' t附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见! ~9 t) T9 A, h) A  u/ Q' {; J
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见8 w" F6 ~) G6 T" q/ s7 F7 Z- m

, s$ J; d% j6 t3 B- i" a
% Q8 |8 v2 f/ p0 I- `% t$ P% _5 [4 u) O* a7 l
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- s/ y0 i3 r/ q. p
Dear Phil,
- q" @1 K, ^+ v7 T       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s' y1 \' y0 o, A$ @+ c% h1 Q% S
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
3 Y" \, ^& D% Z$ X& _3 ]hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed7 C; \* r) v7 S/ \
you.
& u+ E, C2 K/ }3 m       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have' g6 L1 \2 Z1 k% L+ z0 m
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' ~/ q+ ~: S/ L, ]readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
4 u5 b: ?- |3 l5 r5 s4 tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature/ g( r( m0 j) o6 I! L
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: w. R4 W0 [  c# {6 V$ ]$ Xseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news3 S% n. ]3 e5 O% k
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.* x: G: E5 S6 g; l- l0 v* n
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the, l" U( g  o6 J" i: `2 X: t: F+ e( H
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
* H2 p. Q( Y& |3 K2 dnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish) q$ N3 G$ N  G4 O
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway3 C( y% a' Z) l$ p9 \
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
: Q& D6 V! j3 D$ ]/ m" Xexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
. E3 k- ?/ ^, d. J4 Tstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. i) b: I& U' m) t7 M2 M
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone* G' Z* N% P4 l( C
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
( n4 G. m) ?( A0 S3 Mreporting.6 @# L, g4 i* U. @0 L+ v/ `
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
- q, w* ~$ G) L( I( Malready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 W. y0 c: A9 `9 u% O! S* L5 L
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in/ n6 J: }, H9 H+ p7 z: Y
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 T! j4 o2 L" W5 `+ N
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
1 v' s* k8 a5 C$ Y% B       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem3 m1 k' e) @4 S! P8 }# h9 R, z
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds5 f9 N5 o  S6 P) v) y5 C
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 508 l# L, b. U% {, U# F- G( t
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same' M. x4 i. W6 z4 J
event for men, with the second fastest record.1 R0 s( b% a' Q9 \2 T
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye& [- V9 s$ p( i: s: s( {
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16. L1 C: g" M8 H4 g1 ?
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 |4 N4 p+ Y5 B8 {$ o
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400/ E+ ]$ x! U& Y- d* O! {
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,# |- c6 H$ E  `
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than/ s9 j" S" O+ O
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) G# @& `9 Y$ W' ~/ ubehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ o8 F7 F% f( |  mindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
  J7 B- Z' q+ I& ~/ }5 ~3 Pthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. @4 H% W1 p4 m. Uthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was2 [' R  z( ~/ l% x5 B
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
( a& ^1 ~- q% N4 N5 ohe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
9 I. \, P5 U6 ^7 t1 H; `problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other* w- D' P8 k3 g! Q; b( K# V2 w
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
  f3 [4 g7 t1 _, }& Nteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the* u" s% z0 n3 w9 i* ~" E- F# M" e
Callaway report.
+ \3 }6 I7 r% m4 T1 f* S& p. AThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more; ~$ C, X+ h1 G& \* \8 U/ I* `
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details, x; }5 _& |5 R2 Z
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ R( n0 N& r. m
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
9 P. L/ B  `) B, T4 Wbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. Q' f* i" o% _+ o
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had3 C3 }/ e! C8 W! c
publicly voiced different opinions.
$ g+ {! [3 s) J4 Z4 {  L/ wYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 \4 y% {6 u9 M+ N+ @4 D8 I2 p/ A2 ^
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
0 z0 \5 |) M5 V, J) YNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ j& ^9 L. `: g- E
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
- u! ^5 ~9 [3 V+ T: r" e- D6 a; d9 e$ h5 qyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
: H( r8 P1 O* V/ n# b$ @6 ~of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.1 F, F9 `; {+ q# @
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
# u! e3 X' ?0 U; |* @+ nthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They/ @# `$ W' b- y
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as' p( G: y* r! e! U
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
5 I2 u1 b6 r$ f. s: \the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
" a/ R5 [  F8 [( S% v& \" L9 ^3 Psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.* X  `0 Y: @* c, n0 E5 i! N3 M2 S" n: T
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
* e/ C( J' n+ U: }& b( ]; r" e' l) xmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the" T/ g  X( ^8 Z" B
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
) Q8 t3 A4 j6 I7 M. J5 |(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* c, T9 d, C9 E3 j0 Xand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ x+ b# K4 p9 l% h1 b$ ?0 _% wThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
% H9 h3 }% F% W% d6 m# Q& fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and: g- `$ e" M& d
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
* ^+ x9 j+ Y; p/ ]& k9 l# GNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and" N' U2 S% x" g4 J: y# H* ~
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature9 S% t/ p6 \: T& T1 z
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to) Q& V" ?( r6 b, p  y' ~
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.) L+ z$ w/ d, N# M
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
' Y0 m: U! a* w. O3 I8 l3 h* w: w3 jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced$ R. Q2 v- F1 t1 d
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
! G0 g9 }7 i4 |fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that$ O2 z0 Y: Q5 H/ Z- {6 W. k
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
6 V/ P% S" ?% c3 Q3 T# Nabout British supremacy.5 K0 |* g2 W6 o0 `  C1 G/ W, ?
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
5 x# X  h$ m* ]/ Q! uunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; _7 W' F( u/ e5 h. d$ @1 v
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
) z7 x+ u7 j1 }) M" h6 nour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
2 v( i5 K8 L, ~2 R: QOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
: N1 U% m8 U+ x1 HYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
" U8 m9 V5 o7 K$ l! Fprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
  h$ k0 g+ z" N* E& l+ l, mbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,3 D' x3 d" U0 i
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
8 S8 U5 A, h  epublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like8 ^% J% ~  F- l8 P' f
Nature.
& [' ?- w) M, g* I4 K  P( [6 rI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% G5 J, ]; P  P+ M3 J( }5 b; c( z
the Callaway report.
0 m7 a& z. H0 I1 f0 a! M
' u2 E3 r! D2 s& f+ X1 XYi
" A4 g5 j# r$ u1 r' h9 s, W( k
6 t0 G1 G5 M2 E* ^5 k; q' LYi Rao, Ph.D.5 A4 c" u/ [/ P) i
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
/ f) ~) N# H0 u! F( i# Y$ }2 i1 A6 JBeijing, China
, m& z6 l  d8 Z
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。
大型搬家
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
" g% d% q; p8 U4 ~) {$ g原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
' @- h% J4 A/ H6 m8 W
原文是公开信。
* v% [+ e4 x( V: ]7 ]) Z8 D
( g. E: @2 n, T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 4 Q# H1 r, n7 g$ x
原文是公开信。
8 Q# X' H+ R7 X, z/ m4 N
3 z2 Y) e/ w' ?9 B, a  R2 R0 I小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

# }% v& O& w' }6 ?+ Z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- K; v% }2 K* e" t# \0 Z) }. r
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
& s, B2 E6 K+ H# a# Y- W
4 L* W5 ^0 p6 c# J2 @! Z* s- Lhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
6 Q, P' t) x  `8 t0 s4 |% L- Z) I: n. o
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% Z, h; F, c1 }) f3 t7 E
1 E0 r4 A/ ~; M
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself  M$ u1 m2 j" U; P! d# {) n! V
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
% a8 w8 ~- X8 t* X6 L1 mmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this' U6 L( q% y$ H
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 _- I) B: {" L# o+ K
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 n/ k6 h* ]0 Y) p: rpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
& G2 V4 r/ }# P5 E3 H- Y' Ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,0 K" U0 b5 K) R% h
which they blatantly failed to do.
2 A' l7 G  N1 \, r
- B) l; ^& B5 C/ g2 Z: V/ eFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her3 }4 @0 l( T( b& H  v
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
3 w$ h" u2 A3 R2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) n9 d8 l# W4 N; U, i
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 c9 \3 Y- G' [8 {
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! _- A. x( |( H0 ^improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
: q$ m9 F' o0 |difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to1 l7 z, o$ q$ \5 W0 v, i) f
be treated as 7 s.
& v1 N4 R- b1 s' b
6 j' x8 K. Y+ n2 G1 m) E" jSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
  e) U9 t9 T. m' P' E0 R# \* W# p9 vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
6 n8 a' b7 s1 \; D4 o- r! {% Cimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! n2 I( \$ j1 Z( LAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- a) U8 D  x; [6 s0 w-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& d3 w+ v0 q! G0 C: C. Z% |For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
  Q1 Q& B# H, H) r$ [elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& ^  Z  T/ F3 a+ \0 y$ lpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
/ l: Z5 b) c3 x& ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 ?2 Z" L6 d  a. k& Z4 ~
8 u" [/ N/ E/ k) U) l  `Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook) D4 R1 o# o1 u& Z
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
# t% w: A# N4 e  d; x6 ~the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
( \- M) R/ S2 q2 w$ hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later& K5 A- _( ?; z5 |
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s  q- o3 O6 G$ |
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
6 a8 W2 X0 j- Q6 [/ Y* p" [Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another; Y* A" X: A5 J1 Z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' r6 f. `3 s7 Y% T5 _3 l
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle4 Y9 X: T8 b2 ?: z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
7 c) ^' Q* t% rstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 `0 {! S# ^$ v  P  S% ?+ G. T
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! @. o9 s& v1 [7 [) b9 }faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting3 T5 j' c0 t: k: |1 @" P& h( }
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 R1 a2 s  I1 M# R/ V2 v+ ]implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 c% b$ ~( }1 T/ G0 N" V! k* c3 o+ _/ p7 G$ U. f( g4 j& y
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
% c# o0 e/ F2 D- l3 [6 Kfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 _: ]! X. p; L! d" f) q$ us) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' k9 f2 K6 h% w2 g# M), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% [+ ], _7 D& Q. s& D  xout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
8 Y, k- V; @2 Z2 j4 p, cLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
( t% W& k. Q% O# c0 }- a9 fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it& F3 U2 H* ~$ s  x: S3 B% w/ }
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" V- [* F, J! @$ k. revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* l3 s  i+ ?5 Q) B  Jworks.  o; Z9 s7 }+ U7 o: B4 o
7 f' y& |8 y% u1 ?0 w4 Z
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and. ^  H  g* v" r# w$ a! L: r
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this, b" ^' ^& Q# `1 e* `
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ Q3 h5 k, Y( |( E& Y" \standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. y3 q2 C9 R% s% j. s( i8 I. vpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and( X, S+ ?% o; I) R: r
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! ]* V- i5 n; hcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( q# h" K$ a* |! H& K- b" Pdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
( P$ x8 ?  S0 [3 r. fto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) d5 u, i4 o0 {& s9 H- S
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is0 W# ~) J# D8 v8 r
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he1 f- J; S) f" m9 m3 C4 |
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
, E! O% p+ N- [) d5 jadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, t# D% p, m. Q- Hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
% o( ?( M* T  U) U! r5 Suse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& E% }3 D; U( y4 }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
% J7 V/ ^1 o6 i' x) B8 {( Bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
6 }+ s& L6 n, n9 ?3 Lbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a7 S* }( d0 h4 y7 p) K# I3 p9 x
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
3 h/ v  m& \$ A& W; D3 whas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% u. o! I8 m5 P" ]
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 i' h3 I- \' y8 C$ ?
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 g( X) a4 R& l4 S% n, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) O# H4 q4 f  M3 Q3 V! [* P) M2 aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% W( S% Y$ |- D9 m( L: H1 I) aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
8 a/ }% |: a1 C+ k. D" E! T* V0 Bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?& [5 y$ n% H9 I; g
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping* |9 p4 Y& s& Z# d
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for1 ?' G3 i+ A! w* z) W# s9 A
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- O, n$ a6 e2 H# wInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
7 I. W" N4 \5 d3 `6 K" X: C0 L& C# w: t/ Y5 \& r5 D. [
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-: ?2 r/ I: ?0 l3 ^- \5 p3 U
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
3 e- {& T5 `$ A3 s. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 X. j3 B# \9 K9 W! kOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 q) O2 Q/ c! P  Z0 ?, dOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for& o* J6 i0 T% E
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
" l, \/ H( |: S" C9 kgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
( W, i% \7 q' Ahave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a; c7 D% A* H6 I& E& n0 @/ c
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: }) \4 s7 P( [. spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.* `: A. n( q3 F6 t  H

9 \4 L& [# V/ k# X8 {& \* D; [4 P1 _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
+ M" V5 I% E! u0 O# Pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ d0 C, f# b7 r+ m7 l5 T: n) [% L
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
  v" J3 ]6 }% p4 L) Csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 }2 v. _; N; K; m; k
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your: M7 a  ?" {5 r6 n2 n: z. m
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
9 @+ D) q, h; l5 A" gexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
. F3 K. }3 {& {! \' j. Rargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* E+ G/ A# }! F0 b
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or; o5 i+ W; Z; b1 d: X
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, 2026-1-22 18:36 , Processed in 0.122760 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