埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2304|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 ' G9 ~: `4 @) J: Y
( g: p4 Z) t  B9 I2 @* s
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* u% }: L  |" V. F
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。
1 |5 H+ C- M2 r  P% K0 E% k总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
  B3 t4 ~: i1 h2 f$ K
! P6 I; \* h# F( r( d4 t- M( m9 Q/ Lhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ |& t! Q6 L4 I# c4 G

' N  K$ f% n: v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
, S. ?3 I. P4 p$ d" F9 i8 V, q8 v; m. |+ T
英文原信附后,大意如下:. S9 k' @0 C! u5 d
9 {4 ^7 s# \' e* E: f8 F1 {
斐尔,6 _: A/ c8 W5 S5 I9 M& }- b- Q
       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, G6 I' ?7 `9 I6 A
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。8 a, n" V8 p# q6 R. o
       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
' o9 `4 H5 O- ?* z' O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
$ c' N9 M* q8 u, E$ O: M4 r5 W4 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。- r3 j, a) r; i. M7 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
9 G1 u' S& ?8 L& }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/ T' X% d. B$ D) i
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
; i9 G' f4 s  J; @0 e- y& B$ 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。; R/ Z9 `7 \3 |+ u7 b
       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
& Y5 Z8 g, U9 I1 e2 P0 w,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
" d6 k. U, R+ o0 d2 d7 {”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。: _0 S" n$ d& I, `5 E/ K1 O
       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/ B4 K& T, v& S1 v5 Z" m! C% L$ I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4 K. d4 @' F" ^( q. j6 |% I' w
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。1 l8 G0 P% F2 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
5 e: C: h3 h& J7 G# Y; [( M( l2011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8 i- v; v: a0 t' L* ]" l
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二
* i, I" x0 k, t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" }. `9 I! v7 ]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' `0 _- S% V, Q1 G( ]9 a) f3 T
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
: Q) |' t; r2 @. [: H* r1 @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
: a/ s. w& N' l. j4 Y3 z1 _; R。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  p$ b+ z3 J2 M' ^; x0 T
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ x6 _3 F) @( @1 W3 X
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
7 f' e2 ^& w) E9 y0 ^* C( J% q2 z1》,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 g  K+ v- b9 I, Z- ^& Q
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
# J! i/ S% q5 W7 r8 M  _- g同意见的专家。% Z5 k, G7 r1 \0 k
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
- \1 H+ a3 D) G! A" B1 H% g% H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/ j) H4 X7 B0 D  ^
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$ @* ^% ]! O. @9 O0 T- ~0 {
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
: G% b2 _3 F5 O" B# A! yCallaway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): U* y  s* i0 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
+ y% R( N, b  @0 h《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
! c! M, J7 C& m$ @( R! U# G9 e这些被Callaway忽略。# u# ~4 \" G7 x! D
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& X/ o/ R# R1 P& s8 y
英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
* [8 i* U; e. d$ y! h3 ~教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: n( e" ]# G6 ~+ c. i, U
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( Y7 y5 M# V$ 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3 t2 E( R! V, }6 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; {- m3 b0 o& u" i- ]( d3 b) q; |* s
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。
' g7 T& G( j0 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" N+ \0 n( J# a( x# T' E! c  l
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
/ ~4 B$ @2 v' M6 A, L" o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: a: U: g* _6 U7 e, ~, A' k- l
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
% f" b7 c& l# G! \2 e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
) u5 L. p' E( ^$ a5 C$ K, l! i+ I# f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
' t/ k, ~/ C( F- e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 y7 @2 I& E0 v$ e' O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. q2 [& f3 k: H
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0 M( d' L5 M) T6 f% l6 R2 s
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ u" u+ p; d, s$ \; t
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
8 n5 f. j/ A- s# w$ }1 K$ N( r. ~; R8 t* X) ]

" ?# s2 g( T, b6 a北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅. ^8 t# J0 G# x- z
3 _1 v3 T/ @+ Y
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结# ?$ a; c6 S- B* z
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email3 e5 }2 n. K/ T( \5 R; A( p
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见; [- U! P* V3 e
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
- ^7 L/ q1 D4 A: @) u9 ]# x4 v: a! R% ~

% R4 Q) ~  `8 h6 x1 r4 y2 H7 ^- \& x* t1 T& W+ G
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)6 t" P9 s! r1 y$ S( x
Dear Phil,, E* T9 i9 g2 i. j- ?
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
- C4 B5 @2 Y; \% p( y. sreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
+ e9 g) i% d+ c# }+ a& c% khours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
5 r  ?5 x1 m& t& dyou.
  W- G# W7 u# L* e       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( V$ h( c1 E+ xbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
1 i& B0 F1 u* r* `) \8 o8 s( H, Vreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the  r2 ~' u& W  ~6 Z& Z: ?* Z- g
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# P# a8 B7 l/ p0 b4 W. q) b8 @
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
  O4 B, D) a) I1 ]4 qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
* Y0 R% {# o) n7 G/ k0 F/ f! rpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
! M! J/ w' L# H# E  U3 E# J  T( n       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 L. x- M) J8 C" W, c
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a0 b$ V; W0 ]5 q2 O: ^* e* v
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
% B! H7 j+ s5 m/ ~4 qthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
& \: w. Q1 ~( l1 ^6 Ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping( b3 ~7 v% \- j& I% L6 @
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) Z7 W. A$ J9 V0 sstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,- z7 s  I2 F* ?9 `3 K2 J$ H
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
4 r" c5 z+ n) \* c  s( ^8 W3 |+ Q: _to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news# s: m; t; |( }$ j
reporting./ |4 k+ W9 }. T% h
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
7 q# W. e8 l- N/ x& c  Z9 }already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 L# X& d: g; S- m
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
3 ?5 w, x7 V2 F, j( J- Hsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A/ D  Q+ z5 E$ Y9 T( _5 J
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 Y0 `: V/ S& i' N  P" }& _- R       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem! m/ R8 S0 M: n3 e0 @# H2 q3 L
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
1 L: A8 C. D0 ~# ^: gfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 504 {+ D" d# F  q% M- I* q
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same6 z' w' u' C  Q! N
event for men, with the second fastest record.$ k5 ~) d7 ?! n
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 V. e7 D( `7 N: e. Xwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
2 \: O6 s$ W: L( C; j8 D* ]* V# myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record( [0 g* \8 j) ]# O2 `
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
5 z$ I9 W6 C1 _2 u/ }meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% e4 C; x, Z' Y4 k, \for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
9 c( C! j+ p7 j! v* ELochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
1 `5 h: w9 e" x$ mbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# x7 w1 o$ h7 N3 s% Qindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
+ J/ e. ?  q3 r' dthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than, B& l' r' U0 F2 N( ?# v& I
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
5 n1 I; u. E4 A% [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then# ]5 `# ?6 C! q8 Q* V
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) n* [4 \5 x& g+ Q. {7 c( Uproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
4 `4 @$ f; s" ^! @! W) `# nswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 ]% w4 k& Y7 v; o8 F
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
* w& C: V+ t& o9 G. @Callaway report.
0 l8 R. E$ [8 @8 R8 M1 ]There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more9 O: W; V* t9 E7 M7 P
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details5 D5 ]( Y+ @- i4 B% J% q2 q8 o
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description, u; g0 \& z0 Q% X1 X0 C6 E8 P: \# W, X
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been- G3 _" ^  A' a; W( E/ K" B
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) c9 c) g% r  c" x% \5 M* r
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: m5 |4 d& T) I* V8 G' C
publicly voiced different opinions.
# @: G  r" ^" L$ \$ {You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
" U4 E5 Z" @7 b2 w# R, A) j  ]from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature# X6 x' s) S4 i' q
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent8 D% W2 [& H5 L% e& J0 f, c' f
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: a: e& n4 W$ b' L
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy, m8 a' E* ?* H# e" C. I
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.9 L& g# @+ }" P) C3 V9 R
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
7 |9 K, {6 ^9 A# p. Z; F( Wthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
" q/ H. n, h5 A  [$ Shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as2 Y# M3 r2 z5 i
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that$ B3 W" S/ q( d4 R/ c9 }% _* Q+ ^
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
$ X$ e1 d& ~* e! W5 O8 psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
5 \. {$ V2 @, r+ G# k1 p8 lOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that7 q6 Q4 B& i; v# ~7 F
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
+ c' r3 K  P. r( V( y3 HChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
' W  c9 m3 U6 z+ t(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she1 r! Q' Y# {5 r8 N
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
- W0 B3 @. V* g7 H# N9 ~The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
% J2 P8 z6 ^3 d% Fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and! ^( t  c' t, o1 a8 X+ z
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.6 V( ]: Y- ^) y. O) s6 y! O- o: s7 y% G
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
1 n+ Z6 O2 m2 m( U2 Wobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# q$ f- A' _9 V; R. Pwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
5 r! L4 F' Z" c- Zrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, g7 T/ _, }, Z- U  ]  C  M1 DThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not, g) _) D$ n& w
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' q( n( M) d  K" P6 }, @) I1 Jus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
4 r4 h7 j1 H) Y$ ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that$ E* w5 S! W. G# P! a
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
  @# R6 w$ d( b* B" E% B+ Wabout British supremacy.2 S) R! Q3 C2 \* n4 e* F1 f
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many/ a" j6 x( |( N
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
& x% T( z" g9 O0 C+ N$ {Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by& i/ z3 _0 R0 m; O
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
9 \4 [4 M+ j) ^/ ~Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
/ b* z) X1 S, D- g0 ?Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of9 d: d. J) C6 p9 f. W! T4 p. @
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests0 d/ z* z8 ~) v9 M" O) n
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- [, w" M3 q1 S9 t/ G' `it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly  ^/ s0 q$ Q: u1 p8 u0 |
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
2 P* E* w/ g! }" p+ c- ZNature.3 a7 R  J7 p  n- }3 U& [
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
6 L# x2 S9 F: ~/ {0 j0 s( ~the Callaway report.
3 M7 e6 c; \; X: p3 O3 a
# P+ M# d5 {6 V) }Yi! F7 ~( q6 X) q+ b7 y

( I. T1 j9 q0 L( m2 ?* oYi Rao, Ph.D.
1 r0 c0 f5 P' |/ ~6 h" yProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' B% R' i: h6 B, x. CBeijing, China8 H5 U' T4 t, Q: i
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18
( o0 Q/ s1 R. W. p% |原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

1 d- `% ?% D/ Z  D5 _' t& j原文是公开信。# h. G& C( U5 F- Q' m) e) J

% l+ w; a  j. _; t' `8 ~% k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
. k0 n7 x2 Z5 m. C& l8 a原文是公开信。! V8 I  e3 S8 H7 p

9 v. W* S4 h* g3 o. o1 \0 H; m! z小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

6 r+ b2 g3 m! f* j; M* X+ i; G, c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
8 q' ~* H& e# k  _/ ?1 N如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
- N+ j0 W1 r9 M" T0 s
8 e# t& P% N$ N+ S( K& chttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" S  ~* c2 Z- G. W) a0 d) W& c

0 Y+ |! b" P4 W, b# u8 M0 Z: wFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
7 p  o' R; H% q* F- d$ l5 H0 O3 ~/ \) S
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
7 a, o4 l4 X2 c, ?* s, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science) Z: ~% W  J$ b& Y$ G
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this  J8 w8 y6 H2 }- q# c: s6 d* o
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# `6 t' }8 A% [" u) M! Dscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
. j  W, m9 B- e( e. X1 r' Npopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 e$ R4 Y3 M  m5 D
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- s$ i' \0 N  F6 Z% l
which they blatantly failed to do.
) p, ]. g3 }3 w/ n1 ?
" L3 e4 m8 x9 d6 M* t- k, @/ p' MFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
* b& u# y/ H$ {6 y$ }2 I8 G; ?Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
. P4 P- W( ^5 J6 ]2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 ?% N8 f' ~( E) Z; c
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) M! E  X9 N9 Z+ W8 I4 L' w  E' k# Fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an/ E: K& \) m6 I3 F, b1 K
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the! E0 x1 @5 P( I! i7 o6 k% Q
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. x& y8 n0 y& w# _& ~6 ]be treated as 7 s.( @$ a" d' Z$ Z0 c

6 Q, x+ O" q" o$ A7 ySecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is% t; y( ]  I! H
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ C  m2 e2 N7 @+ W1 p1 }; p0 [6 ]: u
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- }" s) r, N+ ~, L- f5 u" Z- f) u
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 H7 c% `, U4 L+ L% }  ?4 L-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.) H2 V6 ^2 _" \' b
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an5 e3 l1 T3 Q5 R8 A1 z( F: ^/ T
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and* ~1 j" J; Z: s, S
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' L4 `2 D/ h: [
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: g2 S6 E6 E" K5 \, `$ g! {$ n" M9 J( d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
" o% L4 r7 A- P; P8 [- j; uexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 B" N* H* q% e8 U
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
3 t" M, |3 s' b( Ahe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later, X7 N' X: l9 p2 k' j' X) \
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
! J  ]9 R* g/ C) H0 k6 {9 gbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World' Y  L+ q) @+ `4 c0 H
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* j9 n) T4 ]* R6 x8 C8 P
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 J3 C- E( M- B, o3 `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: x; M# b0 v0 S0 _: a, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
6 `7 `2 m4 G3 {: c3 z8 gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ y6 X( f# ]6 X. E$ g* x
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
$ ?- @1 V8 K8 P9 @4 M+ M$ Ifaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting, I( T* A9 `1 G# \+ R/ P' D0 G
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
- i9 n% j& m4 \1 P! v! ]( }implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% P* V# H! x1 L) _7 o+ Q. p  E
. d. r( G  s0 e, i. K* ^, S
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 B! u' S4 t8 U5 _$ o4 V
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* P7 [$ [; A+ V5 |) I7 B
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s( k7 g3 g1 I. Z( v/ t6 t
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 g3 |3 |, _! [. z% P* lout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; D/ e/ ~8 P) _2 `7 x
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
6 d: k5 ]( k# hof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it  S) d; _- |8 ?/ R1 a. W( ~
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) q# |8 O0 q' {4 ~3 x3 K& p& revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 K0 q! L5 o# P+ T6 B6 bworks.
* M+ G2 F4 P2 f, P1 v
6 L8 y* p2 G( |: i8 G  S8 V5 R0 |Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
1 E$ A/ `, L1 D( G( U9 A$ Oimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
+ R- K6 ~$ d9 Y- ~9 a* ~kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that' g; D) K; s! [7 q+ t* e7 F  X
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 O+ m. p: v1 n  U1 _5 spapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 k9 ?* @: Q2 {# Yreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 Q( p- [; W4 P0 K. E6 X* Y( wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: ?8 Z- |8 T: Hdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ b9 p- m0 m% o0 r; v
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
! E" A; z& ?6 K& M; `. Xis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# u1 P" ]' p' F  C* y- i. ?
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he8 a  X9 |% n: ]. f+ K- {
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly. L$ B5 k7 a. q& T/ u
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
5 s* r5 y& a; u& J: [1 r/ }& Z8 bpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
% o9 y  G( `$ S- u+ H& Fuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* T8 v+ w5 H6 ?, D: Y. z6 U& n  {
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are" ]& ]" x1 |$ Z6 j1 i
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 b2 |4 Q& _+ \$ L. c3 e4 Rbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) m, @' E# M8 {6 G) V7 J
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye( d% s: @* e2 _* _1 `* y
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a2 j4 C" n% y, K: ^! i& Y
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
# ~5 I+ m3 ~1 H- P; W' H6 t: cother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ W, q  B" y/ a* W) [7 p, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 l; }9 T- z0 X# e0 H+ b
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 C  v$ [, N8 ?6 p
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& i% e6 K: I$ c% ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 p7 f3 {, g7 C$ K9 ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping# }- H% w- S7 j* W" K; u* r) I
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for$ F7 M) p/ l+ e
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, ]6 h7 _3 S) @+ B2 uInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?- J2 M6 O8 s% L  z

6 b5 r4 @2 k8 G  M& P8 [, `' u* T  oSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' A# N- j3 a2 ?3 Z$ u$ V! W9 m/ y! B
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
1 t5 D$ r& J! g; |7 F/ u; \2 P. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 i  S& r  ?; s0 R/ _% OOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London( [1 q; L1 J+ c% @; a; s( ^. i
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# B; z$ F3 [7 \' rdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 Y! Q+ m2 \  n
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
8 P' M! l2 l  e9 qhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
7 K2 c& o( m3 N: rplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this6 Y5 w6 t# s1 d2 n
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ p( R4 x+ ^7 P. g" u: }
3 H+ j/ B; p$ a0 N1 BOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 |5 x! y( g" p( bintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too1 [+ n' T$ C& M; n6 Y; {% t% f
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 q) ^* \1 f/ _
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
* m/ A6 I, ^4 _% j8 V7 I1 fall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your, U3 f/ w5 I3 W1 A& \, \9 ]) l. G1 d
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 H# B2 W$ @, `; i# @7 n' ]explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your/ m5 Y- K4 B8 `; X6 t* l
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! m$ a" j4 J( B. ~5 L- p- m$ Gsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
% B( d. m' }7 e6 c# _; Y8 Creporting 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, 2026-5-7 12:14 , Processed in 0.158094 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