埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2111|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 # S* u4 Q; }4 U

. v* w7 i5 X8 u( Y! Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
3 L9 z  f% Z, J; g. H1 K# v1 S0 H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。2 x$ a  ~5 R0 {! |( q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
' o9 m4 {- Y6 |( J8 l
. V% r. }7 b8 t4 Hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
5 L+ M* |6 g: y: c
: I; |8 W3 i/ |* u+ s" u) V致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
4 {) L! O; a( x& y% c1 {8 _
' J. N- I1 Z; b/ g英文原信附后,大意如下:" y5 [, T3 F5 u: h1 X; l
$ a3 v; \$ \; ]; u
斐尔,
* d% R: D- Y; t# c# C2 |7 D  s# |# w       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
5 |+ ^# I* E: R7 yemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。1 A+ k3 l$ J! |7 k7 W3 q2 p
       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
, ~; ?5 ~& E+ [1 Z) P. r9 P# W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
9 _/ S; O7 u% w# Y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。
; c' e* l2 Z" v3 g* A0 M       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
4 \+ ?- q, L0 V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! b! N4 y" b: O5 q
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
6 m% h  z3 I; {5 L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。5 ]7 i% _" d' |3 S, T
       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
) B! m% x1 Y3 w0 H5 Z: z,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
6 I) H  t" p7 {( A2 ?7 U5 P”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ a2 g9 q! l5 I% J
       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
- [' @- ]# g+ R4 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/ x% x! V, f4 b' H
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。, B1 ^5 V+ Z" 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% V' X6 M$ N: D' t
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
/ Y& s  w# j- k  W8 p+ J  H合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二
7 p' L# n  y- N; [- r4 t4 u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0 O7 U) c+ d+ y8 u/ E
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+ w% w3 F# N/ X' j
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9 q0 J9 H+ Q: u, ?4 Z/ P
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! r* T' k! T% g% L; f, a/ k/ j
。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 d: Y9 k8 X8 M6 F5 N8 x
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
. J+ k' N1 Z; S! `2 i9 m" X9 {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
& q; {" B# \& ^7 C0 O  M6 f% c1》,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' e1 k  e+ h1 T; y6 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6 j+ ^# @1 k, x2 R
同意见的专家。, x' L& _# h+ s: Q# X, T
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! i) [# O% o) W* j# @7 c% J6 T
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
0 C' V' x8 B: k# S1 k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- _1 T* v- u* [) ^0 p7 C
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。# s1 e, J) x/ h7 G, w
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)
/ }( c0 F8 N+ n7 l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 R7 Z( \  S9 w8 e
《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 v# \6 ?* f, Z' V) m# e
这些被Callaway忽略。$ u; U. o1 x) d2 @& @) 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
9 |8 n" G2 h8 F3 \$ U) 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
! G, m* \8 P8 {0 w教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。+ Z9 d; M* W) ~, P' F0 [
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( Y" e2 W0 \& J) M; R
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$ w2 f( q4 g5 c0 I2 }9 u3 F
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6 I# C5 [5 j3 G9 S3 p
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 ^9 @: J) b5 K9 x6 I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# @# v6 q, z$ A" ]4 b4 S
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" l- R' ~( G9 X. y
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  Z+ U5 {$ ]- x& P# S3 u8 y/ d. ~
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。8 W5 G# |% F/ k2 G: S
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
! v: `4 d  g' e# G" y8 W9 V. ?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 {$ U" N4 q( L1 f, S2 v' _2 Z- n/ X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 |& g$ d$ N: B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/ t; Y0 b# M7 f6 y
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
, i5 \9 r5 C" K& p- ~( M而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
! P% ^  s% Q9 g/ w) I1 ~我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
* z. d$ n/ Q7 q$ g! S! I  S3 E- T0 p* x9 _
! ~4 _% K& ]5 G+ [- a  ^- w
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅. r$ r- |. N- A' }  K2 d

/ B6 n& u! ^! G3 Q& d5 n+ y附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结" ^1 X" k0 o- X) J' S# c& i- l% X0 E4 B
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) G; C9 Q9 P# f
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见7 x3 q) V5 G  s% J2 ]0 d* T5 l
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
- ~  w9 L% E7 v/ f) t- b0 o/ F4 s# P; d3 O$ F

& O! T3 C% ]- @4 U5 I) e5 c. i1 A! z- A' S1 [  M
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& ]; w3 T  d1 z& `3 M
Dear Phil,
/ Z# y* o9 F# J       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
- y% p) M: |# _report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20! G7 D( J" X" G; K
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
4 i6 X& I1 ?" [/ h( W# m  Hyou.5 K8 C" I$ H# W
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have4 H: N- Z& m& x4 a! v8 Q
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
  c5 n3 p( ^* u/ m! `readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: {- t) _: {& `6 L- ]world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
, I' M- s$ v9 \0 `) K* J2 dpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
4 k1 Y5 K9 J2 s# V; K: K" s( l, `, Aseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news4 \: w* A, p' [( ^
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
% @: T4 {/ d" t0 w       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
" y9 M9 T5 y0 [, K* zworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a9 Y  I  s% l( c. y) H! `: s
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
* ~8 T  @  \$ j8 ?; o2 Ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway% S/ h  h! S1 c& D$ y) c
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping4 Q% U. c; G8 c& e+ K
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal$ u8 g$ }: z7 g+ d4 ?( F" Z0 x
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,7 F/ i  I6 L$ L9 q% g5 g
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
" J5 A3 M$ ?; t. ~3 Ito cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
( o# p" K) Z3 b" o1 areporting.
2 {! I( x& O0 S. N& P1 @       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have7 H9 s) z7 I! P* d8 E9 j
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by/ h& x8 k1 o8 S) D8 U
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in  ^" S9 e4 k; E* s, C0 _7 v
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A. x1 w/ Q1 A2 Q/ m
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
3 R3 ]% y% d- p) o6 o       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
( r- |7 ?3 D6 n- e. _1 Imore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
$ m" K- {$ k( u/ Q$ Nfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
, t' e5 p4 ]& Emeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
* D& E( s* K1 F2 c: a4 A% Eevent for men, with the second fastest record.! d8 U: A  K" ^
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; I! g4 g! p% T/ H- C& D
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16, U) X. C( {# G- D
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- ?+ E5 c, V  _* ?0 B+ F5 @: X( t1 p: G" ]. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400# E' z8 j. M: @- A  X
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,; R% d% {: m8 p# N, A1 r9 E
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
3 P) i; R6 _/ r' {Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed; l( b& V  A, t  L0 b
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
- S- x& m! J1 q5 J$ r: Mindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ Y' I: B/ Z2 g" Y" P9 k
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than$ J: [' k+ ?0 L: O$ x
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was+ W; i) ?* p- o1 a, o' \3 q$ W) V
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
1 d6 i- z! y9 i7 z# whe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
: H  d( w0 o' I1 Z  O5 {/ k2 o# Tproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other% [- g$ y& `  J, O; k0 o* C, Y2 y
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the4 f! z. C( y' p$ b
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
1 }& Y' y+ ?9 J  x  c& b  jCallaway report.# v1 J4 m* G7 b5 s+ Q
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
8 C' }2 w4 h0 T1 U9 a' _3 v' p2 Runderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details4 {" @! m- w8 M0 [8 T
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' ?+ `+ t2 H0 L( |! Y
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- `$ i0 i7 t+ N/ N: }/ tbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
! ^5 @! R. R: G* u0 r' D) QWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
  ~  [4 a& B& T- }: F' Tpublicly voiced different opinions.' e2 N0 D8 f4 I: g- b5 t
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 y- o, C; d4 L/ C
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature& k1 r% k# U6 d, [& q- Y
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent4 M/ H3 s! i+ v% l9 S' F2 S/ M
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 H8 X3 l( I7 H1 ^you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 k& f$ T# X8 s7 _  w% U! Z3 Zof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.+ g; U' P2 [. X% z! _3 G
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think8 V( ]' e, o. r( U5 N
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
' `; O( u( i* ^3 rhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
8 O; E( a8 \' w% pAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that; H  K. m: I4 y, t# |9 Z
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
# |) W6 {2 p6 v7 Q  s1 u5 y. ]supported by facts neglected by Callaway.7 m8 Y/ G& A% n; T
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" {/ e" G8 s) n. M6 }many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the7 F& z" [/ A% I
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June6 Y, K2 o, v4 w+ Z8 z/ A
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
/ `: N; u7 C" h$ y4 Cand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.9 ]9 Y6 t: T) D# `5 M6 M
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science  J' q" E; e+ K# y
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
4 R7 G: a: p1 s' W0 l' \7 ~Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
0 i- X/ F) J/ p( U; _3 PNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and  Y# Y. D0 f( v/ |
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
7 Q1 ^8 C; E% d' s( r$ \4 A& i/ m/ [what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
& j; H( R  t1 s9 ]& vrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.! {( Y" ~# e- E5 W, m. W! I5 W8 \+ ]+ x+ S
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
8 G9 h% f% D- t8 g) w) ]show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
  I5 w' i; L* b6 A6 f. L1 l8 `us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 E9 n: e5 N/ J$ p
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that, m2 Q' g) K( K3 j  e; }
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
' N/ k$ C6 H) U( Pabout British supremacy.0 t$ B" D8 d; f; {/ U* ^
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
: m! \' X9 S8 X. Z1 L1 D- _8 ~unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more0 M0 _5 \2 T; @$ J2 f" D' C
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by- v1 Z3 _4 [1 w' C+ m' @9 D. }
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London5 @5 H  h1 K6 F- Q6 A' y
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 G' s5 S# ]: J4 t# ]6 ^
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of. q7 y# i3 x  k" Q8 a! r9 F: S
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
' x& W$ p7 k* t; ^3 M- |before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,  L, C0 _+ }& Y0 ?2 q  I
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly( R; h, i3 ~' K/ K
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like/ L6 ^7 Z% K. ^' m$ N& A
Nature.1 }$ b: \* J/ A+ Q
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance! a) @: a+ }; l  q8 l
the Callaway report." p6 H; k- Y. a- b. `; x; Z6 s

  [2 b1 I* |* }Yi
7 @/ [0 q% t+ B* U6 N
. l0 C5 B8 V$ p1 x5 N" VYi Rao, Ph.D.
% }" X5 P) m8 F3 nProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences' ~- i- f: ]( J! d1 N/ S
Beijing, China
1 ]3 t( R/ ?3 X- m
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
# w( }4 G3 T5 n原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
8 ?7 `  r. g, A* i/ ]" u, _
原文是公开信。
4 N# Y* S, O; w! W- _4 H" V3 W7 M, L/ v4 G6 ~, R: \* S5 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
  {5 i7 m' }+ H- }. K原文是公开信。5 I/ D# Z% U! W" Q3 h. h, Z
+ A9 [7 d  U7 T+ |" v4 M) J
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
# M. P- B) B( i, i
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 JIANG6 v. {6 T- R3 y# u
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. n% \: G1 p/ Q6 a4 V* }4 d
( F2 U0 D, s: r' o% b5 _9 e& n
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
7 [% ?  N: j4 P4 u0 a5 C, u9 J- a: Z1 I% z, a3 J
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania3 V8 t4 J) w& k6 ?5 }' u
! ], E4 T6 Y4 c' |+ h, Q" s
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself) R2 ]- L3 Q3 g1 j3 `
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
8 U9 z1 m  R8 U% U& h+ smagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
7 N" A2 _5 a1 L5 F; s+ Gis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
2 m* j8 ?: v5 c/ h2 e: l) [2 vscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general; F2 S' @- q3 N/ T" o' b& u! L" l
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 }" b+ R+ S$ I6 K/ y1 Mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- j5 T2 t- R  T2 l
which they blatantly failed to do.
+ ?. t, i. Y: m
# n7 F7 J6 c" kFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her2 |9 Q7 P0 X/ m
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 L' f7 t1 Q( }( t  _" L$ N
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 @9 G" }+ x, K& j: }
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 V9 O7 d" \- l2 Hpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 G6 A# A9 ]& n" z: b  L3 i
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) J  L5 V9 L* E  D9 A$ {
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 A# M# u9 ~% R( c, Z' x, Qbe treated as 7 s.
$ m+ O/ c) m4 D. g8 ~  B7 J" m( H# I! b5 p0 w
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is+ ^1 l' m( a6 B, r& E
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem  M4 Z, [3 x! p) g7 z% H
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.& l% i3 r$ M7 P0 P
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
$ X  Z9 z/ |( V6 c2 l; F-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
: M8 n, S3 P  [$ J) g. }* a* C0 u' gFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& i5 }, ~5 o/ i1 C' X3 k
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; q/ o: K6 @; A2 F
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! s# Y8 ~$ a4 S( d" N
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
7 q3 I2 K; m9 J2 e9 \- a3 q
- |7 T9 \+ A; }; @7 rThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook& P. ?# r9 x; ?: U  K
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, `3 ^3 |8 p2 B% X$ E
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 o; j$ P% F  ^' Z, ~he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
5 D& u: M# t) Y( u% P. Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ U# C2 A! i  x2 V* [best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
: R3 H% F0 G8 }; L+ m% f+ ]2 iFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* J' U% }% S, F9 C. [  P! z! S
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' s% z5 W9 g; b' `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
/ n$ g9 y1 i+ L1 f+ r9 l# b, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this+ k& A) \% V$ V6 S; \
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( F. ~: {- }) m! i5 n% p$ `faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! Y: N* f& `( }' U0 b: afaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ Q/ B! ]* H$ ], I) l; ?( y
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 f) `$ M8 x& X& Oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
5 M; [% d: Q$ O' P2 p( T0 `; C, C' l$ e! J3 g9 S
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are: w- a4 ]8 s$ O% h0 g! z% l
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) i7 t6 m/ C* Q0 K4 m
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
; R3 W4 A' m( W" [1 J9 [), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns7 u+ e! B; D4 k; I
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! e# h/ M$ D: R1 T
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ A6 i2 n" F, \* m6 j
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it4 z$ k- Q- {, h; P2 n/ T+ {
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
9 N4 }1 X! G  R$ O2 Gevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
" h. a. K" u- g& }* |  p0 Xworks.
1 }& A: X0 B, a2 ~0 n: {* t: ^
; @0 Y( R/ A* v  w7 [/ R2 R; kFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
1 \6 s* R% v0 v1 f( f( s  T( n: @4 ?implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this+ `' p' F6 m5 T! j0 A
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
3 Y7 e, `. l- m4 n4 Astandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
( q/ J' j. g5 a. p$ ~3 spapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and) Z& r& k/ `* E+ R  j  K/ T
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% l1 Z! h! }, ?' ?
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to9 G( [% d( w' Y, R$ [) B
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
4 U9 K$ P6 J$ U1 O" ~to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 P. L; \6 x, f# Fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is" m  e8 k6 V* P( R
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he2 O# U2 ]" j, v& V5 a! e1 N
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly7 W- N- |4 r4 r  E7 o8 ?
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 M/ F% J* |& z! N( ?  T8 o3 T
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not  n, _2 b1 f  |" X" ^: L4 ]8 `
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 R  G* R4 ?" l' X. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
( ?8 H, T, ^8 l- |, j5 D7 rdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
; G9 u; ?3 y1 r4 Y2 `+ U% c4 {( fbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
7 d$ [$ E9 c' p- N% l! A2 H! y1 i9 zhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
0 {+ i3 w- I  ~/ G( n$ Z2 shas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a4 y8 h% Y, U* o' I, D
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
  a& y3 X6 ]0 c7 ^5 Mother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect" g$ N3 J8 u$ T- y8 J8 y
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 ^$ f" b+ o% Z# H0 q# wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 F1 p! k, J& H# @) Q' ~* J+ j
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight, Y1 d; r" J+ o7 B
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?$ y& f$ A1 y$ ^
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
, A: Z! K" ~( N: x0 jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 K1 n- F7 @9 T* \2 t- ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 f2 m9 [/ N2 l/ U) j2 L* c
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" B' T+ Y9 ^+ Y4 t* B: R* g. }

9 |- W0 E  }, X+ W7 ^. S6 xSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
/ A& h* ?: c- c7 h) |5 b9 ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 R$ K* V! ~: B0 X: s. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for" N* X& R; q" i! s( C
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London3 S% n2 R- E% r. m; R  x) S& E3 x
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ q2 R6 L; ^6 F" J' M1 xdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic& U8 n" c4 w! s8 q  U6 D! B
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope) J! @1 t7 u  X
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a0 |" d( v: ^0 m, I; L# {
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
4 Q- U' v; p! H; R) p5 G( `possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.$ i. z7 s( o9 q/ u" `. Q, q8 j
! R- X7 e7 h( u  q6 A  e
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 d- K( Y4 {) o7 Mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 I) H5 t9 f0 |& O- `7 Z2 s& ?suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 `1 A! {2 Q( G; B% X2 A$ H
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 j7 G5 _  c0 D* \all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your9 {' j3 w/ w  A! s1 @6 |
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
: K, K1 w( W8 ?" Z) |/ Xexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 x& V3 R$ j( r9 ~
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
- h3 ]7 Z- c. csuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
9 a' ]0 P/ Q8 a; R) C0 A7 k! o' A% V/ Vreporting 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, 2026-3-9 19:13 , Processed in 0.484383 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