埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1982|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
, M8 a, o2 f, s. L. [. b! @+ T4 T3 L6 U+ o
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
6 Z7 ]6 S( ~5 c4 }2 ]' ?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。/ k* @' }( _" x- z( h4 x# \
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
+ v% f! \' T6 y! h
; {0 a! _# {3 J# l; Jhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
+ J4 O8 O+ |4 a$ G/ i! X" t1 k2 o+ j2 [7 n! r+ E
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% F/ h3 a) y2 v3 f- a" `
6 r1 H* ?6 O/ M( P
英文原信附后,大意如下:" r1 u. I7 T  j" Y. Q1 y6 N

% Q* Z* t! a2 F. k5 k$ O/ n斐尔,1 H5 Y# T3 L4 L& E8 h
       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 F$ {. H$ M  Z4 m. V7 Zemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& \# J; W7 ?2 |* m5 }       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1 R% _6 d/ w, ^# l3 z4 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
7 ~/ j: `3 a( m& }# E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。
. U. u$ H) c6 `" E% k, j2 D       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) S$ q% m: k: ]+ \; 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6 ?, p$ _, ?6 L4 C. h% [
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
; d; ]$ {" c" t* ^( ^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。
( Z8 {% r3 c# o* Z       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
  L# V' p/ N, r$ H* T# V2 k" k,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( s. I5 {% p3 A3 q6 D/ {4 V, ], a6 S. E
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, L4 ], P( [- h! g7 K. n
       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
" ^6 ~) X3 I9 S' ?2 s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 y2 f% P. J" y3 r, W$ I8 {7 S) l3 R; g
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
9 z0 z. [2 R. Z! b4 M! U. f       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
8 F% k$ p; w* b8 N, S2011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
( b5 o/ }5 \* b# z# x1 v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 B/ g' w/ Z5 l2 ?: S5 B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
6 j6 A7 O1 n9 Q+ `6 r* m300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' U* H( W3 c% A  n& s, 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
8 f  A% |# Z* Q6 F1 Y# E9 G0 @0 K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: T$ F6 v4 f# A4 s4 }
。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
" {, `& R* a* }& r3 R4 r5 {录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。, r) x2 t9 @% Y. X- T5 q5 }
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
, F3 M) c- I$ B% P6 E1》,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, h4 F; D! G4 f# N5 I
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8 `# a5 I1 [9 B# B$ u# I! h
同意见的专家。
: B  p' B# f% Y( @: k7 |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
( Z5 m" ~0 W7 G; P9 [' U* [第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大2 ~) u; u) R2 j- L* V
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
( q/ v' `) {: D4 K) Z: w《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
/ b. A6 K2 I& {4 [  e* L% VCallaway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)( m  H% ]7 ]. ^9 Z; }2 O
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为2 M2 B" F6 @( ]: C( m
《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
2 |& r+ r, `1 ^. `0 z; A这些被Callaway忽略。' h9 E5 v5 }8 G1 R) S
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/ x4 ]4 W0 S' |+ q8 V, P6 t/ A( r1 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: T/ _# d' P' w% R
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: J. V6 `  g% [9 u: x
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
  [' I, s2 j, y! R6 `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2 T1 v& h5 O) s; Q& 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
! B  Z+ F0 l& Y! Q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。9 W1 v. f  u' i0 O2 d. X! }4 R
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& J% s( J2 u4 r7 p" {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
$ U' T4 Y7 `1 @. |  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  z5 @% G, H( O) C2 f6 W”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( M4 N2 H2 R0 c( Y9 {6 Z8 Z+ }5 }
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
& q9 \6 h7 t1 s3 C/ a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5 W- {9 Y6 i. o* a& c/ W
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
" v+ t3 L! z% Y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1 i) r# V. Y, N3 j) j1 r  o
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
4 a  T/ _$ Y" U5 H7 `# ?3 d+ R5 j而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
% ?- |  m; ^' A我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。+ @" ]4 c& {; I& d3 B! i% \9 C) b* n

  `5 }: q$ b7 Q2 g  x/ |' B
# X( f. p: p" ]- ]. \$ a3 ~北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
* W8 v- J2 n4 s
/ H0 R' s6 ?/ j! c4 Q$ s# f6 k; x+ ?附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结9 i3 z& B, H" k  |3 m; G( H6 G
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
- R! l% k: ~# r4 T4 y2 k, Y附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
: H; ?: ~7 g) Z0 y% U附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见0 m; U: y6 U" |0 q6 o
9 S8 {' _3 L0 v( f( J+ V! T
8 P, |3 Q1 x  A9 M/ [0 h
7 z/ ^. ^3 h( r  C& M* i5 T) _
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
+ G) \+ ]+ Y' `6 j3 e' G" kDear Phil,
. A: J8 w9 N, z* G3 y       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
, |7 y# H) T, q* K, D' \+ b: e$ treport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20+ \: F% O0 e7 H) J, d
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
  g2 R7 H5 {4 o  A) s5 i* g& Tyou.
! B! @) ?; @$ t: Y, Z       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
$ [  X: S. B) u4 Y0 d1 fbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese  B! i8 U2 u0 C2 N4 z! _
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
& ~  l) y& B) p. n" M: D9 vworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
6 y  r6 H; r) P. w% Q. j* W% @! bpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
( J/ \! H) C1 n5 Qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news- I( R- ^7 ]% R" I& |- L, F
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
0 i) a8 d# L5 Z8 ]       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the; h, m* r& }2 K$ N# ]4 s+ j/ U3 X) @% ~
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a( b; p( v7 Z8 l# q; f) I6 ^
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish/ j) g4 }  ^4 {6 v) Z1 l
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
2 V& R1 x- v! \5 X/ }0 X9 Edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping. o4 i. \9 x/ [. X7 v3 S9 R
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ h2 @$ `/ H7 L( C: B5 @( dstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,( \( E) V5 m- v, Y8 x* o
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone$ m6 Z7 j7 [# ?4 N( Z4 d3 w: R/ ?' ]
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news, x* c4 w- Q& I3 P3 `
reporting.
/ X7 w# n; S) h7 v) a  F       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
# G- z& {& R' Z/ K8 G1 Q4 ?already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by; y( @+ b7 |- Y4 t' p" L8 Z
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
6 i. r) N- u" a0 O) {# `9 {# xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
  E2 J* x; `/ L8 a1 Kpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.5 M9 K4 B" s# [! n0 z: e: Y
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem) u3 ]: Y% _# k5 @1 ~; V# s' I" |
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
  N2 V7 p9 K7 K: N3 Lfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
( h% w1 F1 _1 D; `/ imeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same$ A8 m& l. z7 u6 T% E
event for men, with the second fastest record.  m. z9 ~: M& E( M8 m
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
, Y4 |  C9 _, c9 s0 y4 kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
% i- f% W/ e& h8 ~% O, z$ \5 J  s# byear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record- G) p; A# {2 b
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4007 h& t" P  B" R& n$ h' R
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
9 R4 @0 u2 {% [7 I% g% v9 Kfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
3 l6 b" R! Q6 u: [& \6 T% GLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed* E! }) _. @* W4 F
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the+ H: a" @& m( W" Q  R) L8 ^
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower5 \, `3 W5 T# c: X% P+ @$ ^# h1 {& B6 C
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than0 ?: k1 o# \7 G4 O+ C
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
4 N. W' S; k- k; r' Zher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then1 I8 _2 J+ r) A( `+ o
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) {# [- c( k/ r; Kproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
9 s' H' Q* u$ k, n. jswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# _0 m: ]3 u8 K, j0 T4 V2 F, ~teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the" `% Q5 M3 @2 y
Callaway report.; ?% R% y+ H0 {* I
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
: w* t# B' o0 W# N' \understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details% M! }1 J. n$ C  Y
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description. T( n2 s" p, c
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been" j0 k  P! k7 W' V9 |
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the8 i8 p7 z3 B5 T% [, j% _
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
- q( u7 v, k( t2 f$ A% C. Z4 \4 bpublicly voiced different opinions.( X: \% f7 Z$ a' T
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD) a2 V3 i9 y7 Q+ t8 U
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature$ x% D6 Y% p/ h0 F$ i. h
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
( d+ C2 w7 v5 k  `  x  opostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
  Y; I# y. i7 Myou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy1 q3 \) W- J- `0 f
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
) {; r. h( {* q' B  y( P* R. D1 S7 YThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think9 }0 t+ ]2 r; Y  D9 i
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
+ g# `8 S3 H2 {; {( phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as: P  U5 E) \' U5 l- l
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
& [3 p' l& r6 I+ r3 k; I0 othe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
8 P4 [6 h5 S6 _- Tsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.. X  ?6 N( C6 Y7 P" a% g7 n
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
# s+ P' e% h% A2 zmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, Q$ j7 h" O( i& q/ G7 {  Z% JChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June! }, z$ s3 [7 U8 t
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
+ \  [% G9 @  u" z( Z3 e* Gand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
* r. a4 p) D' V* hThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, C- u: I. v0 c  s$ p7 G$ y) p) Qand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
5 ]6 z6 Q' l' M2 R  cDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.- n; b' C7 Y. i: e. _
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
/ a/ r( Z9 y+ I; A& U2 Xobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
' y( e% u1 {$ A# Fwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to/ A/ X& o0 s% ]7 A6 \5 v9 `/ C
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.) L. q. I6 U' y
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not, k7 P# }% e/ m  B& Z/ C: F/ a
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
) B8 h' x8 s9 f2 d! Mus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather) c6 x9 o/ o, l* x: I; @0 {
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that2 H6 n3 F9 S/ w% W8 [% D. h6 t
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”7 L! w( r9 c( l. w- {5 a/ G
about British supremacy.5 s  ?& v8 S' M& @( F
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
, G; a/ r( P* y$ ~unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
1 ]; G+ l. v5 X& e9 [Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by/ z0 {% g4 W+ ]; [
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
2 p5 _4 r# F3 L& LOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.1 Z2 X+ Y' j$ d, E( m
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
0 B9 N4 Z" @( o: u- m8 Tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
3 s8 W& K. u4 @before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,4 Z9 v& U6 }2 M' W) b/ Q
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ [% `  C! M0 G$ V: J
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like+ f) r- A- l8 ]( @9 @6 O
Nature.. m# g2 ~$ y4 n+ F8 a/ w
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance3 |1 J& @9 P9 m' p3 V3 r/ k8 y
the Callaway report.
' A9 b# P; `- P3 S
) \7 Q, m2 b' P& yYi
  J! Y% U9 ]' e, G3 l9 }: o0 O3 G+ U# S8 S- d; ]! Q; N
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
' d0 G7 s9 u4 _- S6 B1 ZProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences: E; P7 Q3 d+ k- V. n
Beijing, China
; B) D% j3 g' L0 T! i; v$ n
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 1 E) n, O, D% x0 Y+ f5 A1 d8 Q
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
# E$ e. J0 J! j: ^! A5 _
原文是公开信。
% F5 T! d: a+ Z7 K- S# O
; U. z# w) B5 p1 O: u3 v$ H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
7 }) `, N% u( \; o2 _* ]原文是公开信。
7 j7 x, J! Q" ?7 Q9 s2 A) c2 t; x9 T' ^. ]
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

, J2 h4 I  T9 I$ V' c/ {/ Z) u$ ^$ ^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
( m' f) L9 W& W& R9 \+ W7 q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
. p" ?/ [' s8 r+ H! X
3 r* n) b- l* [7 Phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html) v) P& j& r; y0 E$ w8 D, o$ Z& o7 }! a4 V
9 o& H% s- t* M/ }  \
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! N8 }3 E- s& x: J  h: v$ l3 B! A# m/ H, z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
5 O- w0 I: V! ]  a" s1 a; Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science" W  e  s5 w2 J: l- R/ ^" P* G
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
! Y0 j! b: c; t) ~is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; Q4 W" B0 ^8 L$ |& G( I: y
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" H. n# T" K: d; [% L* P. Q# {populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 r) B4 y% V/ {% G0 L9 a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( H, T1 t. K& \  d( r7 U
which they blatantly failed to do.3 B+ u3 A/ J! a; x- i
6 @& z; B' g) [5 Y& Q" B+ @- `
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her- W  Y8 X3 X. F4 E2 |
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in! _2 R: W( i6 e  ?
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 }% N$ O' W! v
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
" W( W. ]- S9 V8 t* Tpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, _  f5 }+ ^/ B. Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% |( U: N2 s# o4 V5 ^8 O$ m8 j
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 T; X: Q. B+ J# y, ?' b$ {; Hbe treated as 7 s.% [$ J' g! a# ^! R" K% s# T

, G: ?4 D; h* d" X& n  D: BSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
9 [; v5 w) }* n/ u( Kstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
0 w1 w5 w& h& ]. m( \impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.$ m  ?& r9 S7 g4 P
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400) i/ t& g1 h' c. P: j
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
1 i1 a$ o- u; O9 d2 CFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
- o% ]2 |# h( T& I2 Kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ t& A# l! t" z: Q; xpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”+ R/ A" s  J, q! ]6 g9 {2 @
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 a' ^# V1 E7 n- v% \; M4 Q& `
, G' o+ o* W) n7 N, i2 VThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 Y4 N$ T  @: Lexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 i" ^! k  ~/ Y$ r
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
/ }- \/ N1 h! ]7 {: A- Mhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
( G2 l1 j2 H) H( kevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# K/ j- |+ i# Y; K) o5 jbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
: J- Z$ L  G( S# [; xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
2 u8 ?- q. E  X4 ?4 R& q6 Ttopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 s; ?8 k+ ^8 A2 B. {2 Y! R. ], P
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
+ g4 B: _: Y  u9 r" C, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& `$ v' U% J. |- ^1 Pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( ~! ]9 s/ O* K( U( W% X' Z) Xfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
' ?  I1 V' U+ Afaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 i  A1 F; V. _( c6 |aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 i+ s) J& U; @4 a8 K( T
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; M. p. x; k% i1 y' y1 J
1 r4 `9 f! f: i
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 D8 v" c9 G1 K8 |) [
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.935 a' T: Z  x  ~
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s. X( L. C( Z0 `; D- L! @. u. M
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns" K" V: a  l0 e8 y4 F
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," }8 C/ Y" j+ g1 e
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind( V6 i/ E1 b! ]0 E6 }
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
; p) g3 b# u  a9 ological that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 w, V/ M6 w1 Cevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science  s* z6 ], k7 p
works.
$ D% ^0 w4 N; Q- J+ H8 y. x
) d  H* Z# S( D- u% q: Q4 ~9 v& t, ?Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
# `# f* B- m9 M4 C7 U0 Y$ o/ himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
  r3 u6 d4 G$ f# t# t, W8 b4 tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
! [" U# ^4 |2 w% Jstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
* T. R6 }) N) c4 E' a, J7 O- Spapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and& P: ~/ B, y4 m+ F
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
2 L4 L+ D8 R/ e' f& x; r7 dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; x3 e- M; @( Y% {8 t( H( C7 x
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 m( w) [" F. f) o$ y
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 H) h' N+ @. W+ t; bis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
) w. y+ T( y5 Q% Icrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he( t: ?& r. s. N/ M7 I% f' A
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: X+ B( W4 d% C0 S/ y
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the3 E$ V: u( d, S; Z4 T4 K! d" T: `
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
+ O* M" N3 I8 f) f, Uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! `# |$ T6 H: o' i+ ]
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are6 B: I/ R" L! j9 {0 L0 R
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
3 O( g" M. [9 J$ a7 Z+ ~$ r' |be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 `$ ~6 `0 P" ?hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 |1 X6 H& d2 rhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
- @  Z- F: v3 Y% i5 C: S& P4 t- rdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:2 _; c& @) ]" m5 v' ~8 l9 A' r! l
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
0 G- \7 C2 P/ ^3 e& C" i3 K$ `2 {5 x& t, T, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 R! L3 I# P/ z$ ~; Z8 O: e5 @probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an' W$ P6 l1 e5 u
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight6 F, m0 U8 i/ x0 Y: T& ?
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ f  k' E+ k1 Y7 r7 hLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 ~8 j8 {5 N4 i4 F9 i1 P" pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
% t7 _3 D4 X" B6 K5 v/ [eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: x( e  A0 n+ a. y3 OInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
& g2 s. ]' Z$ I- {" `! @
7 h. e- R$ M, Y; l% \6 qSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
6 g7 C( V- G* q+ @  j% `5 E$ tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. O5 U0 _! h* i4 R& R
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 z, Y( |- g4 K! s0 _. N5 h3 d8 ~
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
$ z4 o: T7 p+ r  R1 rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
. j! R6 e: B! h$ q1 t9 l8 `doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic, M5 v' [1 G3 c6 M: |
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope" g5 O# V2 n) u: `( }' ?- P; f
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' n! c, J+ a1 _! n) J7 G( P
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
$ @' n' }- b4 T8 g1 Hpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
# T; Z7 u; }, n  M$ a: M. R3 u. G7 q- x% r$ J5 }
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- i  c. ]& `0 O7 P, Aintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too& f/ m  W% Y0 r7 M2 f0 C
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 m# u) P* `; N+ G5 dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ ^4 \( E9 a: X- g. n% o+ Y5 S8 K
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
* ], D3 O/ I( ]interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,9 s/ t0 t+ R6 e; x
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 H+ d# J0 E  e0 J
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
" j) w# h" Y+ W  p6 Msuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ d% r8 L1 G/ C: C7 lreporting 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, 2026-1-31 05:34 , Processed in 0.152020 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