埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2047|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 s( h0 p. z) S& ]- K. d0 a- j9 k; R. m% k/ ~, I
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。, K' J+ j! p, @5 I5 N' ~) h7 c) o  w
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 M  m( v! u9 J! Z* ^6 U
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
/ I8 R" F5 c' v. U( a5 _  U; j- r& |2 j" }( V
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
" G: c( n, E& I% E$ C+ \
4 }8 l% u' L0 {5 d致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
; Q% w& r; S0 k! L5 y0 x3 y, d
, j' U* n! W) t( u" n0 u英文原信附后,大意如下:! u. {+ {% b* G) |  I

  g8 Q; ~( U8 `9 Y1 i斐尔,
1 ~: j: P3 Z7 n0 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* G, n% |8 G) T0 }
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: ]4 _& \6 c3 ]. |       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+ J1 h: p- ?/ d, r
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& [6 K* O  q2 @) y' I* W
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。/ P9 M8 p4 l* L4 B8 _
       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* m- e" M$ a1 T
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& p* ~3 a+ e3 T; F' h. n
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 {. x; F# W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。
; @" l) l. ~: k# v# N       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
/ v2 |/ l( X: H,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: g4 k* a  G) e5 y8 ~& J* M, N. [2 ~
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
- M, w/ A$ H" n& k       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" y' V2 x1 c$ l
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
% ^2 O, L; g1 S# D2 m; K5 Z" s,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。! I% k7 d# g2 e* W
       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- M) k$ I" T, L3 x
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, s! l' n2 [  }3 q& U
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" a+ P) p2 D8 t# D) 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  j3 z* T4 n- i4 S! T
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
8 w7 |" Y/ K: ]( j3 c$ C; ^& Z+ ~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0 c% O% e1 r+ ?8 h' D; {, J% |
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
* G6 ?5 F% z# Q8 D/ w- 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+ D' y/ c$ o0 q& D
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; F8 `& `( n# j. 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- v( r- i1 b8 P5 o7 d5 D* z; K
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
8 T7 O" F3 k" M0 r! rWikipedia。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) k+ b0 p% [2 ?
同意见的专家。
* l+ x8 y0 b5 }! G+ `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4 ?) h) ?2 m, y1 j- m/ `/ b
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  A3 f4 n+ a  Q: D) J' I: P" T) W' h
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* z* f, q0 L4 k3 }6 Z. s. B
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ y, X8 u8 U# Q: z
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)
  k! D6 d- v. M6 q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/ g6 i1 d3 Z6 y
《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
( r: o& P) N8 H  f$ i6 h这些被Callaway忽略。
0 m! n  ~- }' c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
( d; ]$ g( k- K英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院( E- a; Q2 F0 u1 a9 V% G8 t. @
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
7 `- W& i$ R; D: y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, T# C' w! A. K# |) T
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 X7 e! e* U" }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 I! P( e% A2 K3 J5 H9 B7 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。8 n2 ]/ a: N0 S
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
9 j0 t3 q9 Z! ]+ Z" x$ J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. E; L; Q2 b" U4 K
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
- N4 s. o' ]$ F6 U# |”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( k4 m. D4 V) \" y
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
# Y6 c% v0 \3 p: R6 Z' v8 ]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. X6 p( x2 u' Y! u
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
+ a- b( o- v6 u& l" Y( Y% N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8 E# |. t! l& l% T5 N
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% M0 R& P( |: T# [9 S" Q6 T/ a
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
! |% J# A1 s1 p5 S2 X9 W9 ^) u我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& L$ |1 f5 m4 O6 x; j5 ]- N5 ?
  _( \# m' c: `. H5 S0 S
0 i9 x6 @% k* V9 A
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: ^  G4 [: s7 }* a/ ?
2 R# q7 e% w# q! D  F
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结& v1 j' M' V, ~. c6 c( h# v
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email1 _5 P& u! V, b5 o  W
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 s7 U) @3 p2 j1 N: {附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
. v& c5 A& U; a
. r- d7 u3 i+ z& T2 F5 [" Y3 X% s3 X. l+ g3 {+ X) d2 u: T, G
& F; j: ~" w* e
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
+ q0 }6 P/ y8 R* \; [; fDear Phil,
2 ~& Z$ n: O1 z       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( v$ k" j' b4 E1 J7 lreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
$ H( i# n4 h; m- l- ?4 J) Xhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
4 E- y1 r1 [5 ryou.; p# `6 }2 {$ X' L/ b
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have4 D4 |, I2 B+ k" N% @( s
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
" y: ?: l) T, b) greaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
9 E! Y( U8 o0 y& X% i4 u+ Iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature0 v' {- o: D- [* ^& D. ^
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
$ v8 s, {- H; Aseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
; V) Z2 X" T4 U' P1 Tpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
* G* Z8 a5 h; ]+ D+ X       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
) T( o" o! C& R- a: Yworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
7 C( }4 [) Q" M" [% a5 p3 |  Rnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish- S# R; F  o0 W, }6 o/ |
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
% @# {( D% {; Q5 c5 ?! \6 Gdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
$ e) p1 \3 n6 X# L$ ]% p' ^2 U. Yexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal5 V+ U2 C1 h$ o' N; }; f
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,8 R5 ?0 e8 w: I" f2 S& _7 g* W& `9 o
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone( Q/ _' u/ C# d9 g
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news, ]( b. K7 n! W# u
reporting.
+ S  ~5 m% N7 F6 G, g       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have4 H( O7 u3 j5 I8 q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 Z2 Q3 O2 n! b- W% nchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
* t) I2 h. E( k/ ^8 ?% o5 |sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
9 n2 n4 C$ K+ I: apresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! s$ H* y0 N0 M, d
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 w( K- }- [2 E# j& u: i7 ]more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds% }; u: i( I" z
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50* z( T# |. ~( C- k1 k% n0 W4 K  T
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
0 f/ }, f) R2 m. e& D6 `; c$ devent for men, with the second fastest record.5 l' J: V. b: i! `
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
0 y3 u5 k* L5 t3 Vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
* I+ I. k1 K1 Q- vyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
! r6 [# d# r  _1 S/ W. Z! M! R( {. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! h- V( _0 z5 l, Zmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 }5 r% _3 O. E* y: b5 q( Nfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than& t5 i/ m* u' p, b, [+ [8 N
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
2 \5 o% t! h# J+ W( H- }; u6 P, [behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the& o) B' P8 H$ o8 ^+ q
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
5 }- k, i7 F; u% H5 ~( Hthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
, a$ w/ ^' s1 E1 S* ?$ O( Lthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( U4 ^% y% Y6 K% u8 R7 l3 [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then0 U' n) S4 e5 b9 T9 _% a
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 |. P# m% V  ~& Z" Q# H6 ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other$ N  a' a# k1 e% {$ L3 {4 q
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
9 h9 i$ C. F; G; Dteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& G' k9 a# y! [3 p3 Z  p) OCallaway report.# G* ?. `# _5 F
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more2 W& q# \( q8 M1 N5 O6 M
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details, y& C$ f6 g  I) I) q/ b! W* i4 O
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
  }( k* `  T9 p/ d% x- C8 F9 P5 R0 dof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
4 [4 n' T+ e3 P2 C0 i6 tbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- ?6 B* d. Q7 Z" u2 KWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
+ D9 h( c/ e+ fpublicly voiced different opinions.7 A0 `0 A# m$ a" z  J  K
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
3 p6 V6 _+ j. E& Zfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature* f# q. @8 `5 N" H4 N4 D
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent1 L6 v- l* ?  \9 f& p) `
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds; `; h: Y) h* d. a. ]3 N
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy" o9 h- X5 l0 J/ z" q$ g+ {/ w, G: p- r: X
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
& b: [* a# U; d8 _There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think  J* F7 W* j' b: W, T0 M  I" |
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 l# u1 {% g5 M7 I
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as" y) J2 h) H2 o9 |8 y# [% d
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that8 j  i- z. \" t4 `5 X9 @6 D
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
* A8 [- y# |9 b  l, ]" Q$ dsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
  l3 e) T6 H, B; V) ^: @- u5 }* bOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% r5 M4 i- p. R) rmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the' ]2 o7 J* ^# G% C
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June  @5 ^4 x- n2 R+ u
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
8 `# n; @0 p  `  d' Eand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.4 R6 m' g# f! c( z1 r$ [& k, V4 `9 r
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
7 J, P& t1 s- J1 h# p7 land your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
, Y2 a5 V) u" b" y# g+ _  j* XDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. e7 {! X, y9 [; GNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and4 M: T4 A. o+ a8 Y7 L* |! L
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature, n" o6 W- E- Q$ [1 H7 ^6 h+ R9 F
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! V# q8 W& L2 r8 e/ ?4 ^# hrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
9 ]6 i3 G2 C* S% E. ?3 VThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 _) L3 j8 O* ~show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
# f# `* }7 n* x: E# m& I4 F- Yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather% \  S; c( i" m) F* r: I7 j- k6 q
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
6 f4 o1 s% A% [$ {% d2 Lthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”; d  O- @7 o. m
about British supremacy.
2 \0 H; ?! P# ]1 Q; R: r+ Q- s( EThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many; L6 Z* |! p( x7 @; L* B" V
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more9 ]3 P3 v- i+ \) X# O: Z
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by: K" v* g7 q1 ?
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
9 h0 X) F( b8 N7 q( N3 z( COlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases./ M, a+ ?9 [2 y
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
6 b. G; T# ]0 b. s0 K  oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests/ N  l  c+ S1 Y& n$ D; I9 a5 C
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
5 D/ r8 j, K$ d( eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly/ F0 _& W* [1 B$ I
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
9 s$ {2 ~& E; b' G% M; bNature.
2 p' d5 J+ K; _4 J) }, |& }I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
: `( @* M) I$ m3 o7 Xthe Callaway report.' n9 y' T. `+ m7 F# n

4 W, P2 J3 x; K9 JYi
5 y( X/ {/ k+ C: j6 J0 v$ d$ x. R  U% a" w  T
Yi Rao, Ph.D.# K; U% u+ e/ ]; _5 R
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
  }, Q' Y% t' N+ j( E8 u$ vBeijing, China; w% Y. q; z1 Y+ a. ]8 {3 w
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 ( y2 ~" k/ D7 A' W
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' I& s8 O9 N; {3 @( i) l原文是公开信。
6 Z/ t9 m/ v/ |3 a: I' R( L8 S/ E0 v
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 / n# D( S; Y" a" y" h" Y( O8 i
原文是公开信。) C" R* r/ O8 r

5 w0 c. K5 U/ O, Z/ p. Q3 O& F) i小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

( U. [; K( `; x4 w5 k2 f: p( r8 Y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
/ Z# h, A( O; B! s" {如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ b$ J# `; u! D& @$ b" D- R$ r
0 o' K7 X+ R! s4 Y6 |http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 ]* }3 r/ m  _5 \1 n9 Q

$ |1 n8 Z0 f2 V/ c) LFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 c! e! f  Y3 l- t

# p4 Z& {5 {" _5 q- \; R: EIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& d0 `( x6 y1 w9 F2 P, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 u; S7 c5 V- m( ^
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this( h1 J  M. M1 C, K' k8 S7 t
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 o2 ?9 G8 ]- z8 C
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" A; b$ U/ }$ }# mpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
) J$ |1 @8 d4 x1 s+ _6 gshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,4 Z2 `+ _# S. _3 ~( ~
which they blatantly failed to do.% C2 Q& n( C: v4 v9 k8 L3 M

2 c; p' h. a- p5 F. k5 p) Y1 T6 rFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
2 f6 V' h. G5 L9 fOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; c. }6 v) f0 Q5 [) {8 d" D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" ^! a& M) R% D. }$ x
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
, W  C( ?6 D7 M$ g$ vpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 ~0 i# l: X8 T/ nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) r% r* M- o# ndifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ G& f" E$ ~& j# n! B
be treated as 7 s.
1 m. {1 v4 R9 y8 F' |9 B& o) z9 h: N0 ~! L
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is1 G( b: }/ r% V# G& {3 G; ]" Z: g
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem( z% E4 G* Y7 |
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
. D! [  z; l6 j: aAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 h1 F& s; d. l" o-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
/ q% H9 @/ H, f2 Y, mFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( f  B  Q6 ?; U/ P+ f0 n( relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" |1 l6 I9 B3 z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”  l+ l+ i# I; s
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
1 D7 q0 K! k- D- c/ p- s
- O9 N( @. l! X& dThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook" @; e& j, [& n7 ?0 d/ F! A! t
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, ]' z/ I3 s% O
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so) ?" W9 Z6 z: M3 u5 Z2 T0 m
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later7 V+ E* j9 M; a2 C
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& i% `5 m; p/ i7 E9 f
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 s7 G+ c$ a) t+ V
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
4 e" K8 B) g0 L2 stopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other# X" d1 r0 Y6 F
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
" w7 _) S0 o5 v! Q, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
( |! \# P. H- ^& Nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds# p, o1 k  }% s0 z1 C8 B  r
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ G2 b, _, m; D: }: p/ f
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
7 A( ^( D/ _- g5 M& v4 `. Yaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that. b0 S8 \$ H. _3 _( N% a* \
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.' k8 ^( s2 _$ j1 d

* }) X& o# f" h& j% t, N' B2 {Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( ?, A+ g/ E4 {1 s( Yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 F: N' i+ ~' W& zs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 P. G  T6 y  t
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: R1 z  B+ ?9 i3 V/ kout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,( x  u8 B& }- H7 N# d
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
6 J$ H0 D( I0 z; P( N1 bof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
2 \4 {* x' }$ D4 Hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in, }; n0 |' p8 |" x5 P
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
0 R; z5 w% u: Q! p( ~2 |  Z' W, I8 Jworks.! g: w' b* G2 O* `0 z* N

& M) y% l8 I$ s" n  g/ uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 _0 m- \; c$ y! O+ j  [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! d7 i* E& k7 F+ M  x+ {, Ckind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
4 B0 v' Y  {2 d( a/ ostandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific5 Y# c9 I. d- w: c6 k& D
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! y: _: b, r& z* Z1 mreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
4 Z8 y. w7 o6 O9 \. ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to, ]: s  I7 \$ a
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
' Y+ ^" o8 j0 Tto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 K9 w, m: J. g& Q0 A# D
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
! v+ a) |/ G7 Mcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he. Y2 a6 n5 V; ^/ {
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly- D+ ]: {5 v+ B  Q+ F( b4 c
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the* z- z% Y; B2 }  C( [3 T
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ i) [! L3 k8 J1 Tuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 {2 K# Y3 L, T8 c" G0 t" Q. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are4 I# Q# e  t! M* g6 B
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
3 f  Q) l( G$ V) M, }: Ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( f5 r" X+ n2 s
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye  n% B6 ^+ w( I: p7 w+ E1 q
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 t7 ~& i9 r  O! V
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
5 ]( S' ^* [3 Mother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) e: I: O' p& `, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is  w% ]& W1 K& q- d' ~7 q, w
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an# N% [+ Z% Y& b+ c
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight0 j- G% i6 z: ]. u0 L5 d8 K' G. b+ x
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* T( ^, B* k& J+ D, ]% ?# V  E7 d1 YLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
, t, G' G# {+ l* a, o. N: i# gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 I" p% M, ?2 M! `* a# Peight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) G- q. l( n, d; r! n) c1 i. V3 K, V. YInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" |+ N' b4 f' w2 v0 ^- t" Q
3 f1 m$ I1 G$ i1 M( h3 U/ Y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-0 b7 B1 Y( E3 f' |
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 e. U0 I# W- P# H! Q6 F6 g
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 T# u2 a1 p! ~* `% G* U. W& Q$ GOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& H; T) ~2 b+ Y6 MOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
  m/ H- l- S2 A+ }7 ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ d, \2 D' d3 u" t7 w: R: [, }1 Hgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope8 b( R* t( x& C! T. R( `( I% F2 h
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a  y- ^1 w, B8 F& ?* S( P
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
' o) B; A6 R; z  ?' d9 }possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
& U/ K$ T1 k$ i% `, F; d2 i& U3 u& A: Q; I
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 A/ \9 ~1 V  ^& A) A6 g8 D2 E! _! h
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 [5 k# I  n+ y2 W) Vsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' G$ a) A/ t( R8 E: l* m9 [suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide1 j" l7 e) }/ g' z+ v6 e
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  {1 g; L6 J7 M6 F2 L# r
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 P3 w# w- ~+ k1 m1 x, p- h( C
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your1 F; a- v7 M8 t: B+ B
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# f5 D, Z) D* R) \3 qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or8 ~' M4 M& T, M  A3 \- v
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, 2026-2-17 04:06 , Processed in 0.167099 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