埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2138|回复: 9

高水平的驳斥

[复制链接]
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
发表于 2012-8-4 09:48 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
1 u' Q- Y6 u' q* |+ J, M; L% j/ v: z  _# V7 g4 I( c$ }
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
3 Z6 U4 Z# ]; Y1 [* _  w- b& K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。- Z4 I; K0 M! X: S$ u* B
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
5 }! E; K. I4 ^6 v$ f" h8 O7 @3 ]$ R  d, f5 s/ d" m5 k; M8 d
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html! T3 v; m( M  f: [

% K; b% j& `8 W" D% d# t' }8 N致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选! D7 l* t/ j5 L" r1 A% B
2 M; ?$ i. f/ E6 \" o
英文原信附后,大意如下:* ]0 x' W  [1 c% s9 O

$ {1 a8 s9 V& ~6 J! h4 j斐尔,( s" h0 _3 v% d( Z
       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" z. J/ a* r* k" |$ {9 I, I
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。- K0 l* M) s/ s
       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
' a1 I7 \" b0 J7 W$ X# I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! k0 J- D) s/ Q% \; O
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。
: ?, I* F! g, ~+ {       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8 Q6 o2 w* ]" F# Q
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/ V' Z) M: P- E5 |6 j9 Z
见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负
" f5 ^* |% F' Y) E  p) Z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。
% Q+ w) R$ e) o( S3 \( F9 X       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
+ N) h+ x1 a8 k* P/ k, R,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: o. ?& |$ L& e+ ~& j' z
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。: ?: }: ^6 K3 j8 I& b# Y. F8 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
7 M0 |7 h# ^: X* [4 d1 j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  y2 T9 I* _1 W, j; I; s7 {/ T
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
# u% r  l: ]# ?' s5 H7 S. }& O       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& l) Z; ?" E; N6 }7 A6 q+ ^- ]% X9 h
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
4 ^- j) v, K# R- \5 l4 N合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二2 U, k$ \1 s7 p
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+ A0 {; g+ p' z( i" B
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
5 U6 F. b9 H' \4 y位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
5 R$ H, H7 K0 y7 p" v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
$ f- p, M; n* G& D5 p% B) N# M。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
4 z% e  O% K2 ]/ K录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
- |; ^* Z( U; J" t# q% }2 v6 h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' m4 K, h5 P) x8 E
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" p* h, k7 R2 x. M; B1 V2 x
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: D. E3 N4 d% S
同意见的专家。0 I* p, h) E3 i9 a7 G9 V: R& x5 ^
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+ }6 G9 C( Y- y+ k% |
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
, C* a0 T) d6 i( w6 b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5 T5 |2 d0 Y5 ^- t( ]0 |5 |
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
2 }6 W2 O5 J3 p! t) O. Z3 {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)
" Q' o' G+ ~9 L7 ?- h8 F8 R9 ?6 h8 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
7 Y! U6 r/ F+ D: V- X《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 ~7 L0 c3 P: P
这些被Callaway忽略。8 m0 E' U6 N5 r5 m9 z
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. Z, u# k0 G* v, }  F# @# Q: i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+ x. A% Y! @4 u- D$ z
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% z; b5 T2 o- G. {' Y. G
英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书5 n$ }7 }0 Y4 v/ E7 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$ I+ ~6 G5 Y: @) u3 V% X
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. G4 L% S" T  X! K1 x& G4 n
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. H# s! Y6 A5 X  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
9 d, w8 r5 `8 j$ K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, R. a! O% u( v6 i. J
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
( S) }& y, y; {, {$ d$ X% ?”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ }: t7 N- i9 m3 [* h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
" M1 ?/ F! t) N& U9 u  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; |2 I9 c6 F4 Q% `2 r# ~' e+ F
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& ?" b! H' k  A! j
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/ |$ w" ?. i5 g6 Z4 W" H2 V. X8 x2 [# B0 _
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
2 @; U+ Q" w2 u! |1 x而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。, x- L% l) i0 d
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
  C3 s8 ~9 T  c5 C! `
- X8 J1 ]$ t& h2 o1 u
0 C' G; E7 h4 X' r北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅$ Z3 E" |' Q# m1 [% s1 @
1 B- C4 a$ N! L* p$ p
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结0 ]# o3 g- e, ]; u( L4 w
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email  N2 j: j: V5 k) G% X7 k5 C. E2 v
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 P! L# N- u! S# U0 V$ R0 m  n. M% y附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 w+ V0 e+ H8 l0 L0 ]5 P$ B3 E, p1 [6 X! C  Q
* t2 i. h' p* U# V% a: F4 w( e
# i' K; \  v, q1 s
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 f0 q9 F- L9 d9 H- l8 TDear Phil,- v2 F( X/ Z5 i9 |, D% Q
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s. {. F) P* c/ A1 P0 E
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20: U* Z3 ~& O# i* a; l7 X, P0 l
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed' t/ v( N9 I6 c$ U
you.
" E" `0 a# e( J- B/ p$ k. Y       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have5 K! w1 e6 p' f3 B
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
3 }  `3 i9 l. g  treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the, D1 M4 ~; v. G* z0 y
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature  P7 t7 G8 o( B1 O
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. q% i. u3 A/ q8 ?; }seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
7 f5 ^3 o1 ^1 Q. {pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) X5 y- V7 k& Q% r' D' [
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the2 i/ P  `2 r6 a4 j
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a+ v2 H3 u- A$ N* @' ]
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! i! {% Z! z$ J! Y) d0 Nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
/ E0 M2 h% r  @2 ldid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
$ V! o( j) Q" O$ T* f" R7 E9 texplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
. ~& f2 }$ F; w* \  Jstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,# P, T  E5 C8 d. n& I" |! H4 E6 e* r* _
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone: _% T% g. k0 F
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
/ N: L. y0 g8 @: ?. Ereporting.  X1 O5 R2 E. H$ u5 R" y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
' b, x$ T3 F9 b8 Valready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by% N  U  f: h7 x6 E7 ~" s
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in  l$ _9 I, M9 u
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 q: T8 X7 m. u& F2 b- Apresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.6 T8 H$ o1 X* U$ k( e
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 S$ x/ B! a( v- o3 i3 ~3 ^more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
% ]2 N  n$ V9 c. n2 x7 jfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 503 Q8 ^1 B! a6 _) @% f4 z5 i1 K& m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* i% D! H% t  r4 X) H
event for men, with the second fastest record.
8 x" c1 P- \( U0 q" r       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
1 j1 z' X* L0 `% q: ^, Qwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( }& V" a7 b$ a$ p
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
# I4 g) J* U9 g. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400& o  Y; _: t3 U. q$ x4 W! S( e; \
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, m4 f1 A5 v, E9 f1 [5 O
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
6 v$ t( _6 D  p6 L; U, G4 L7 k4 a5 XLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed$ g- C! a/ r$ Z6 F# z
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the- U& N6 P9 C8 N; n
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
2 x4 t4 n5 W1 I9 Othan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than9 q# G) r0 ~$ M- i7 d( D2 z, `( E$ g
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was' {  c, P2 N; \; e+ t
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
& s! L! F0 g  S& O2 ~2 _, E% }% O7 S+ zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
. h+ t" j; C6 F# V9 uproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( r( h- L' |" N  pswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% s1 @( j" z8 y6 T$ u3 g" X
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the! Q& b5 Y) j) |' t
Callaway report.
6 a# K6 u" ~6 v' u! yThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 L$ a& d7 A5 m2 y6 Zunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details3 t8 K. b: I* d$ \2 f+ G  @
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description. ~  j1 P. D( {0 d2 }- ]/ Q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
$ e3 g* @0 b5 ]3 x! A. X" t+ x( D9 cbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the' ]/ C/ [9 O- \3 B
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
# m! J  }4 s  ?2 y& Y! z6 J( xpublicly voiced different opinions.6 b2 V2 s2 U+ ?7 J
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
5 U9 h! ]) i' N$ Ffrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ x# A1 J/ \+ }Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" F" H# m1 C2 a9 i. Bpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds/ y1 s; J; \6 {
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy0 ~0 h( f. y6 A" W4 [' k
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
! Z' U! y. V6 AThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think+ ]7 X% t( F2 G+ y
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 ?  R# z, F8 R; F
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
# [" V8 |% H1 {6 D1 ~4 V! k8 YAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
1 {7 n+ {& O+ g' t4 q; l% _' Athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was& a" A5 s3 e. b2 H& E: R' I
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
9 E& ^$ [3 u9 V1 ~5 P# E3 kOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
0 \  P/ F& v& I: ]many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the! H5 l! e  s- n8 e3 k- B1 _3 @$ N+ J
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
8 Z& \' m! d- ^0 d( b* s(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
8 u; T# K  u+ X2 F" Xand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! \: Q/ B5 Z: f. l% MThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science' N7 w6 I4 [: Q0 L- S
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and% m- ~, _0 F" q. u+ d' \
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
5 d! B" P& C. @" a5 q+ oNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
2 g3 y2 i( @8 a5 Iobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
" `& o6 H2 j% U8 Lwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
# t% ~" a/ R( wrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.$ g( D/ ]6 L8 w' }
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 R! `! }: |# V# Jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 G% x, N# R& [us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. |0 u0 X# W2 t! Afresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
6 a1 ^  e6 P' s6 J+ P! W. [9 Dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 e7 Y' k1 h+ J/ N7 C
about British supremacy.1 m5 N9 U; R- k! {
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many2 a% m+ m' ~& R# ^  V  t. S' K
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
; I( S! M' \$ R, a, x, @' W" v) qChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by% {0 W+ `; f& M* `* z/ V3 T% g
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London: h; v4 o/ `# N9 K8 X) s
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; ~9 j+ ^9 Y- u& g6 B- K/ ~Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of" y+ ~4 }% H9 I4 ~  v
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests  c% o1 \$ o7 ?: l9 ^. p
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
5 e  I  }( ~% O& v, Rit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly* h' a7 \  q5 j, f; \* @
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
1 @5 F! W; q. |3 Z" mNature.+ K0 g$ w5 I2 p: j) b
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
7 J$ }/ _1 I  m( Q7 {" A$ rthe Callaway report.
  V3 v7 C1 c7 p2 s7 K1 {6 k
4 b9 a$ V6 s* O: EYi$ G6 e* u& m+ f. M( Z  e1 o$ H

$ k* A' C  r* [1 @/ yYi Rao, Ph.D.# s% K5 v& m8 r. n  ]+ a
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% L6 c; Y6 d% `% f9 s8 k8 N
Beijing, China
7 h3 t9 h' |+ u; K9 ~4 @
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。
理袁律师事务所
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 4 |. ^  M8 t- _* e. G9 {
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
  K! u( {7 D0 P4 O# o# L0 h/ P  y
原文是公开信。- B6 s4 f  L; X

1 }# ]! S+ V# {  r& a  v. D3 T2 G7 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 & B* y1 }# d" T7 g: _0 V) |
原文是公开信。, e" q+ A! X) Q- K/ F! B/ G) k
* c8 ~+ ^, ]9 Z3 {' B. _# H! B
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
6 g: [8 F/ x6 i+ P7 e
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 JIANG5 A  z$ q6 g) w' R5 X- i6 O% g
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。5 E! G9 p" C2 q  k6 E  i
1 c6 `2 a3 d4 y) F
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html6 \' U; m+ X; b% T" V/ g+ R

$ d$ V4 q0 s& g. _6 BFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania* [1 k, O5 O6 j7 [; E- F

3 G3 I; n/ ?8 m2 g3 Y/ A. oIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
! E. ?0 \% S  \  r( \3 V$ k; Z, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science; {: |. [4 p8 [  H1 V
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& D2 m) {( I: t% [1 m# P2 p: J
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the$ ~: }$ o3 M6 R2 ?" p9 P
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general- U! N: n& I  `- F: O5 ~$ k0 ?
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 s$ ~9 E: W; O9 L# ^) X# Lshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
8 {# r6 ~+ x5 V: Kwhich they blatantly failed to do." u* E% Y9 |+ W" ~- T
8 P3 t1 t6 Y" c6 r% n; _
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 k9 @6 }5 Y7 |; D. S6 e& B0 y* YOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in/ y# ^1 T) u: r' j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 Q0 }8 k( A* A/ V. Eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
; e3 u2 m2 Z/ Z9 k$ ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an9 o( W7 U* C- b4 }* h. Y
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ m* K( Z2 U+ G5 Zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. }$ m/ ^. ~7 F; G' k0 hbe treated as 7 s.
1 g2 B1 V: ~, r+ ~' d! @9 j* `! _. R
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 j6 k+ }0 T7 w/ G. M# q7 }! dstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
. p) o3 q* y3 z/ ^impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
7 @( h2 O) Z  u+ Q3 i" ]An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ J% W, i2 v! ^! |8 ~, Y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." f8 M9 m+ w7 P$ B2 m1 Z% q( b
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& G* S6 D5 K3 g8 Y6 ~, y$ K# y
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
2 s: h' R0 B2 Y1 p5 Apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" N/ e7 Y  z% T; p( \
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.. d' j; {- h* x8 n+ k$ l! Y" }

$ R% L: o) h0 i; H% d7 QThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
5 e, t' }4 C7 H3 Texample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! K$ e, E) ^4 ~2 o$ x
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 X/ P% w7 {& B+ `he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
6 `% c. A  F& L. c7 W9 y; Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% f8 f! {, `  V/ o: `
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
6 `. s2 J& P$ K5 aFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 Y# z/ y3 A. Y* L8 u, Ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! a: S) o! a7 u: x( q. ?. W5 g8 Rhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle4 W' c% a6 ~& t
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; ?; t0 f, t3 p, ?0 R5 V. O0 ]% B4 L
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
/ H4 O2 Y$ ~# i, S6 A% vfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! ?6 H% ]8 O/ A! L% pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. ^4 a; h4 r6 t3 W' @  ^aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that6 x" P4 Z( Z% N
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.1 ?; u2 p3 r: B4 B

  ]" m$ v3 a0 J( H+ q& a9 AFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 Y3 v8 _( [% v; Nfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) }2 P& X' ]* A4 t1 \2 P4 O1 o
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# X4 l; t/ ^/ D$ S% f), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
8 q; T, N- L+ \% t% w, Lout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 _. ~0 I, Z2 J. D/ s. u
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* l3 Z7 L& A4 y. Mof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it" V( S  l  z0 J% V1 a6 D; t
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
& \+ H$ F3 E3 w# J- J* T0 Vevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science% Z; O. k+ r1 ]% [5 W
works.
$ |5 h& B9 j: M7 |
5 d8 ~; Z( O) g/ n0 uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
/ i: Y/ c$ R) T" ^" Pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this( S' p9 i+ G; b% e% T$ m
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ Z* g: m) G9 \, h2 v1 n& |
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ Z0 u1 h4 r8 q& G/ C# w: M6 |papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and9 ^/ b0 a; Q% p+ r+ L  U
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One' D  F4 m3 L! j' m
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 w9 j' ]3 M5 i! K- s8 idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
4 x/ c; [' k3 Y$ v" _6 W$ |to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, z- {2 [6 G* E3 k
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; V' c8 D; c, G6 L5 `" w
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he* r7 R9 p( p. U$ e: _" [: V
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 S+ W7 h% m- y8 S+ o+ Tadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the% ?$ O- R" b' @% U7 u
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( Z0 a$ h' w$ T0 e. H1 ^use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation0 U% i8 k/ e: x( Q7 h; t) b. D
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are( g1 N# J$ X! {; L4 I
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 U4 S* Q  B) d1 ?8 |be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# V/ q0 O( K- g0 N2 Y/ k8 yhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% E  t- w+ q' A0 E% H/ h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
$ _1 r: S; \5 h- V  ^) Z( udrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* H0 {: |0 o9 c' s
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: D+ K7 P5 }, h$ b# R# m) w) d0 y
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" g# K( G3 p6 N! v% H3 o% F! Aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
4 c& @$ ~# v: w4 c" p' U% l; U, Yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: s6 a$ u% }7 {1 y* I
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- p) I! B6 L0 u  E$ l
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ ~: T7 k( @% B, c6 m  Cagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 A4 P, y! c5 ?0 s* `/ k; _0 C3 S# C" }
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.* y- h7 v# d/ u: p& T1 S
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
! A& F- }- S/ `& S( Z8 f& ^% U2 m8 o! O
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-: l& I! o5 g+ g- g" H$ l* g
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! K; ~  z  i4 T3 z1 A2 y. X# B. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& z% ?/ i4 N; D0 `5 R& u
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 H. i' N7 W" Y0 E6 E1 H. \0 V; ~3 f
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
/ K( q+ I; _% n( W8 ndoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* U# g' v8 i' E0 S) u6 tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
& v3 V7 `: h% f+ j* u. g+ }' {have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, X. g8 M2 q+ l$ ]' ^4 [player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 C, H# f* D- s: V6 ^8 `possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 _  j+ B5 M, M) P) @1 F+ \2 }3 U
, Y7 P2 S9 x7 [8 W$ E0 q+ N# _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 t1 ~8 L4 ^# g1 q* d; a& H
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too# D" O1 M' d8 c% z4 X5 z2 S+ j
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
+ u5 X+ h! Z& W7 M' q% lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# @6 n% m& t# n! P7 o. y! j# a
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
3 u6 q) W$ ?4 A* b: R5 Minterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
9 d- o! f; {" m3 A' Q8 }9 ~# Eexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your2 o9 m) [2 b; E, `+ z, l, d0 U; B
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
  @. [8 P/ [5 {. [: I- R4 Ysuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
) W# I9 P  l3 D! A# kreporting 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, 2026-3-19 20:27 , Processed in 0.159561 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