埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1920|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
' _* H( Y( l/ w/ E8 L: P" ]  l
3 d3 N4 K5 O1 p( M6 X' ]饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。- }4 D: s1 M* n6 @5 R
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。& O7 }# Q6 X1 ]# s9 T, T
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) }! l; _1 b3 d( `
' ^9 M- g. V1 P' |9 |* nhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html" V3 b+ x- p; R7 ~

$ c2 x- w2 P! i4 [致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
' W! x" s/ [5 I+ l8 p5 z3 w
1 b/ Z( Q& b9 u% W4 b) I7 y英文原信附后,大意如下:9 f) c9 ]$ m) y4 J2 H& X
' ^1 V' s; s6 \! J7 B
斐尔,
; W1 x1 a8 q  j2 g( u6 q: }/ D       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" I( M$ V3 V5 R& i+ o& p
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
) G& H. A6 F0 i       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* W2 {8 n9 A- ]' P
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
8 w6 \- _% `* i' }. K' ~9 a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。2 A( x7 s7 @- M9 Y$ I  K. N: _
       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, Q- _" r/ k( v% N) r; w
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0 {# L7 @+ G4 X& L0 z9 a( [3 D
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
4 ?% Z% d2 q: D  A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。, g- I( P$ t1 t7 ?! Q
       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" H" E+ J4 H+ d1 [3 a( }( F
,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) S- H" \" q; i" {”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。  g; p+ i/ B- H
       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$ k- Z! |1 G. \. I- `) x, [  K
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' U% o1 ^1 l7 B& v' _( A
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
/ f) \, l5 A5 u1 d& r) [$ k       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4 ?* C7 T- B% H2 _
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
2 p) r! f( Q1 G! f4 c* W合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二4 p; [6 ]/ G& @) U8 B3 D$ r
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  v4 t6 @8 s; b6 Q- b/ c- O
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
( p: g3 u- W6 y0 K$ \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7 z, ?1 R* F5 C2 U. |
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# p" ~$ u* [! A- Y
。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) W! ~3 Z' @5 H- z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ K# r: O& c: W! ~
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# R: F4 }3 x. x* H) e% b
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
9 o, h$ m1 u$ u! ~$ E  K! h! O1 dWikipedia。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: {# [; ^" Y; L, z7 b( u: f! J9 D
同意见的专家。
, H/ l5 A: V( _6 K8 M2 y/ D. L5 p4 I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
* |% C$ F+ {; n! Z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
9 Y0 S0 w3 s! {- }# {% A# g8 o3 x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; K: m+ M2 Z( J/ ]- s" w" [
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。# n# U1 U* n, h8 D) g# G  X7 ^, \
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)% R; s: d0 b; M8 }
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" Y8 n$ k% U2 R0 X2 Q+ z
《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
4 w8 E3 M! ?1 B% D0 n) ]这些被Callaway忽略。
0 y/ I% u1 R& n  w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
4 Q9 O; m0 [) l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& [7 M* i# b# I  y% X
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
$ m( e0 o" ?) E: C! q- v' `8 ]9 K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
. W3 R/ ~5 H) t( X学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学
* G4 X& }! z$ i* }) A: _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( Q- d- q) ]# f# A+ ^) {( Y3 x
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 m& f! ~6 U# @0 U# q# R, 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
2 ~. S1 r9 \  I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
& b6 S% Y" t# y6 m' c2 x& p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
2 j. E4 m% e3 M”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
$ [* R7 b+ {5 L7 W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
# W) V2 u; g! `- p2 v9 f7 w8 I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
: p  c5 \/ X+ a( d( J8 s6 w' 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
) y8 B" `8 A: n3 }+ U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
  C. m4 y/ s5 U7 K5 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
1 v7 b. h' j3 h  @' k8 x, E4 r. W而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。) r& I0 F: ?% k( ~, B+ {: R
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
2 p9 j# ?3 o( f5 R; h  a3 ^$ f) l( _' x6 B$ x( z; h

* U( g& x: X1 h& l! W, F北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
* O! D6 Q: o" a! K5 S3 ~2 }% n5 z  B. Y) V: _+ N7 t6 k
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结0 a2 T* \% v' N9 d, L0 s
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email: n$ P& x0 R* q  x% n+ Y
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见' T8 t. U" P1 S
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 |+ @. ?: @1 r" R& e, \' ?2 i- B7 C: R# U9 ?( I6 H
+ F! \+ b! T- E

# x0 S4 d8 M) Z; V6 N原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)) t3 i  Q" D! x% l! W' N8 \& p/ ]
Dear Phil,
$ R: e& T, _; M7 z# t$ s$ z4 V( j4 r       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s: w+ q  C3 o% r( I  H9 N/ G
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
$ c# m' c* L5 e0 e+ Q; x: Whours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
1 L  `# l( h9 A7 ^; z/ lyou.
1 h9 h3 e& F5 ~4 N) U9 r# ]4 ], v       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have# l- d' `5 A- v& n& K' p1 j
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
7 A2 K* J; K4 I: {) c. [readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the& T/ x0 x; Y, c7 V  m  f5 F8 D
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# u* g5 f; r5 l; r' ]
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
; \, u4 a* u$ s# R( K# lseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
6 F, K% j2 k2 L; L8 \pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.7 {, ?( ]. @5 @& y( z( w; H& e; Q
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the; U6 ]4 y, ~( D" H* w2 S
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
  Y7 @  U& m; ^negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish4 ]  s+ h5 |$ j5 m" E
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
# f- c7 k- N. Adid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping* ~' t# x- T/ ^$ Q
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
$ u+ W2 O8 I2 n8 O7 v( E2 r+ Ystandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: B$ I3 R  s; O* q1 b1 |, tand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
/ o( d& t6 C9 S0 F* rto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
( L+ P# m5 u1 Q! m% D  u# Ereporting.' j% v- _# E* a7 G* @/ `
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
) N0 x, y2 ?, yalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by- X# r1 J3 a/ Z* B8 k1 F
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in9 _8 f6 ^6 V  u# I+ h( P" U7 J# c
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
1 P0 s2 X2 Z+ B" L# o* X$ \presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
; o) _, A& e) s% y# K2 l# K       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; {) k+ ~7 z/ W! E% X2 X" R1 \
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds- z7 Y, [( K4 C1 U/ `
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50! N5 C  v9 b1 Q
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same( ], v; W9 A: U$ n% c6 K6 D$ |
event for men, with the second fastest record.
9 ?& ]1 b" M- p$ [1 U# a' d3 C       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
9 G, q8 D4 L4 _/ c% M( X, vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
: h: O/ s( u! f  H& Myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 |2 f: Z2 I1 F5 \2 d, [. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 o+ v. ]5 M, R6 x) Z: T
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
* z- q( \. R/ d) Q: L4 N8 ~for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than4 n% ]' |; z# E, i
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% x. k  S- t5 l
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the( n6 T7 `! Z8 G9 Z" b& t
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower0 u9 e9 G0 ?* N# E% G4 e
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 @9 [" T2 y  _# U! N1 \3 [0 Dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
. o0 @6 k9 [3 w1 vher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then* H4 q& y8 b7 E! U, m$ |
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “5 \2 B& W  h$ U( \) j% A1 c
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 S6 \3 C" ^( ]  y+ |) G
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
( ~8 K2 a  T/ Pteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
. N: Y8 `3 q# x( _: o/ w# O% H* [0 MCallaway report.4 g# s! a5 ~% q1 D6 Z) q
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more  O% l  P. Y3 f& b8 _: R$ d
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
0 ^  t  Y+ b& U4 qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description! _  H: _0 u  P: c/ d" N+ b4 c3 u
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
9 V* ]; @2 {) r) ~4 B' pbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the1 s# f% g" X) G+ e( B$ c9 Q; Y* C+ [
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
$ e4 w+ f8 K" O! k1 B: t( A, Mpublicly voiced different opinions.6 |  {* `8 V; n+ h( Q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
2 o/ k  L+ D1 k* G5 e0 n8 efrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
4 X0 H& y2 P  w8 @- B: FNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
4 `" U) [3 R7 l" ]4 ^3 Ipostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds5 b# w+ q  o0 d0 K
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
. d$ Q$ @; p% u4 ?  eof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
% j" a. }* F- g( c0 L+ J% zThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think8 b) D- g5 p$ |  j2 n& g7 O
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
( x  O% S$ h  i" uhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, {1 L! m$ p+ g; o2 D/ J$ w! p1 q- x
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
) _1 [* I: F0 `; C) J+ qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ m  R: }8 \3 o7 Z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.+ `' D+ f- U; W2 P: S
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
2 S  ^! @  R% J% ]many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
% e! n1 @2 |/ z, Y2 l4 aChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June% M* _/ ]5 Z) R5 O( a; o
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
/ T4 F6 k6 `! W4 ~and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
# K4 H% I' V+ W- u7 ~0 EThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
0 L) {" F) ]8 b  d7 r3 r* @and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
# z# W) v. E* P) NDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
' U  D8 a. @/ K4 ~% _. S3 BNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
. e* a' W2 e* `- K5 K* hobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( O6 |3 H9 X# k, K
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to& S  V8 `. x, W& }! j/ M
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) B$ }$ Z# b' b4 J5 v# jThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' l; |4 v2 j' r9 k6 s2 z; n! g
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
. W( f- U) E9 aus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
3 O9 `2 U. V. s  wfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that2 _8 k3 }( S7 D& @, a' `
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' D! _( @! [% i+ L0 W2 u6 p
about British supremacy.2 Q# m4 T8 W/ \9 _! Q
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 C/ Y* A* G7 G8 F& {unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
0 t' m5 v" d9 r- K, b+ @# PChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
/ d/ k6 V$ o% \, c; uour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London+ X/ x4 w) S, W/ A3 U
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; |9 Z2 p$ Z) e0 n4 rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of! l: w% Y4 m. @# N" _* a, w2 T
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ E1 v5 u0 |' ?( t3 v: [
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
% s4 f" l  M2 \, Vit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
3 Q* Q+ G# t- ipublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ ^8 ?$ C- r# `5 {) x. ]
Nature.
* }7 w) R, O, i6 C9 bI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance3 R, S) g. r" F
the Callaway report.
: Z6 X: j# P5 A, j2 H
% b3 r* k$ [9 o7 p+ e4 Z/ vYi
, v; g4 }1 |5 |/ C7 y( \: I$ N8 l# y7 \% ~  D* v, ~
Yi Rao, Ph.D.; t2 w3 q" u3 Q, d
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
2 y6 V  k& m1 qBeijing, China
/ Z; z! w. J4 o* u
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 $ h5 E# D! M% I
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

0 |' D/ {( V0 W; o& T6 B" {原文是公开信。
" ~0 o% r8 j; E+ G4 b+ ?
- V' p, Y( e2 D  W) V# I' j5 h* u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
& q3 w7 R4 c( ^9 ^" p7 ~& `4 d原文是公开信。7 T4 E: K0 Z7 j8 I
! ^9 M/ J0 Q; q8 X( `
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
$ j, _8 z: `% T( U% a; b+ G
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- ^% Y% V, P& W8 R2 y) w
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。& M( U: f8 |- ]8 E0 x, v% f
% B8 {, G! m- ?  h  s
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
4 K6 H# N9 w2 M! J% o( E7 o' C* m, M7 ]
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
" \+ f. p3 v# V
. K9 S+ v' R& q& \It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& P. f. I6 F, E6 E# G, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science' k; X) N0 x' q2 Q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
  V, T  z8 r5 G* P+ I( I( ^& Gis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 _0 |% S0 J- ]3 a6 Iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 d4 C6 w; B6 s: U5 I, h, R& zpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors! k4 q$ d: I/ A
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. m# P  u7 C" s* h5 I' v5 b$ Ywhich they blatantly failed to do.4 \2 M0 [  {* p& k) d( N
$ G0 u+ a; [# e5 |6 k! L+ r8 I6 f
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her7 T2 S" x: A7 O. I
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: y+ v3 y5 h* {. \+ [
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “7 e$ N0 |2 ~# Q( x
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 Z) S8 \8 }" o  m9 |& fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an6 h9 a. V2 |8 X& M
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' [' R+ A# b+ e" u4 @
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% k, a1 A0 g* m, g% L
be treated as 7 s.
$ G" |$ W( ^4 }
7 t2 m5 B( ?/ V0 c& fSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
; q0 E1 s  d7 R) h3 K$ Y5 Y) _still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem6 ]$ u2 e6 v3 [" l
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. z, r( C! u" |6 @# d3 {
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400. X# ^* {7 w$ G+ `9 A- P
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" [" M/ M8 V2 Q1 V) g8 N7 |% }* lFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an  @  g" C# d7 D8 P" |7 @
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& Y/ l3 T4 G' _4 D) Jpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" a) {: z% W. a( y' u4 i
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ G/ c3 G" X& k
& M& B$ B( o0 m& W( D8 @
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook: A5 [5 A' D0 F1 V6 m# V- q) N7 `0 a
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 C2 Q( S$ K3 |7 ^
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
0 c1 {& P% n5 ~0 whe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
1 K% |& z& E/ z' z1 qevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
' I6 p1 o( M  u  D# A7 ^best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World3 w$ `( F. g7 v' L
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
/ Z/ ?! d+ @1 \1 M! Itopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 s; |: w2 \  p9 \7 I6 I. |hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
! T. a/ v$ ?) C  L+ P, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ O+ e) b2 T1 Z
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( k% v& T' q; Dfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam1 K( a( ]3 ?2 Z% ^' |+ z0 `) u
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting! K# O2 ~2 d& T
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that* h# x% q9 A" R- ?
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
: x0 X: u/ k# D  u
% W. O' V0 L& ]' n9 iFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ O8 ?7 a7 g4 ]: Q- F: G" S
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 \% m. z) `( w  I4 P. n- w; {s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 m  m! W; w  n6 t9 C% d, N$ E; W
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 J% C# ?5 Z# ^2 f( b- X3 Iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
2 M! ]" k5 w  W& aLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind' F1 ~) H8 P" x/ s/ c
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
2 ]0 q7 A6 ~+ T0 f3 N- N0 ulogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in2 y- B/ T8 L: G6 ]5 R. P  h- Z
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science# @3 S. c7 L8 h9 s' A- i! `
works.
" q& y2 V. j- r- K
6 q# Q# z, [. g- I% j  d5 {Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
$ {- g6 V& \0 k  q; W7 ]2 g. Nimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this/ ?2 s3 b3 B* S8 B& Y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ A% T6 @1 L7 H3 \
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific2 E2 [. ^0 n( }; F
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and: F8 |- [7 U0 ?9 K+ m- R! |7 A" p0 t
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One/ F$ e' D+ P( E: \1 m8 l
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to5 X) d9 u  m4 b9 r$ A: i
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
" c- @" G/ B& b, p0 pto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' I) G7 b$ L( ^+ Lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ s7 ^. G! u/ N  c2 o7 K4 ?crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he2 ?- V4 L. \5 V2 u* e3 L8 a
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
+ U, t0 N, x) Aadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 m( L* I6 r6 \+ }; a+ g
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ i" d* D1 t/ `6 w: ~" v
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation  G0 [& |" v7 {0 @
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
7 g  Y; {( d8 |0 c+ T& tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! [: x$ A) {& o( n$ qbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
& ?  d. Z# h- Qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 V6 T2 n  T) m  A/ @) Q' T2 r
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a+ A' V# j2 Y  ~3 R5 T0 g( o
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
% L1 z! f' d" L) I2 ]5 yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
9 Q8 L$ V4 u. |: c4 p& S, ~. Q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
5 H8 ?5 ]% m1 ~+ cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
; V/ G/ \  _/ L$ h) ~athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight0 l3 `, ]  a( D/ L# z" Y8 ~& G' `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" }' c# R! U8 V% v( N5 b
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping7 c! X8 l$ P' t' p* s  F$ u+ ^
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for( ^8 B* k" [) ^0 s' g' E* g1 H
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
! F$ ?+ I: E8 C$ J2 ~2 JInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 o0 F1 q! g1 B

0 y0 C0 l' J' h4 P- qSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! w; ?' `( i4 a, q  [
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention8 J8 F* K  f4 a% ~$ E, w
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for6 {" i/ c0 k# M7 V
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London& P0 Q( T3 M, a9 _" s4 Z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
, v) T( s% H; ddoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 d  q! S! p1 x9 B- i* H5 vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope2 J  u- ]1 y" n3 m! z& N1 W
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) t+ |9 z* D$ D: L( L' ?; Hplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this' o) T' m, _3 n8 R" D
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ n0 b9 @1 ?: j# Z( \9 ^7 b3 o
4 e2 R1 }' C1 W  Z. COver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (, w- u4 V% j2 k6 [7 x7 l
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) f% G, `, j& Z" Bsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! b' Z0 E+ d; J" ~5 N+ Osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
4 u- m. h9 Z& S3 G1 e# Zall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 O( Z) v7 i1 c- X  \- l1 y+ y/ {: g
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ b7 E$ J6 r( X" d- \
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
8 ^5 Q0 R. A5 u# h) pargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
* ?. G" F/ A+ T5 U. J  a9 `such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
6 o1 K0 g2 g& G1 R8 Q. oreporting 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, 2026-1-8 17:50 , Processed in 0.106078 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