埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1901|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 / y# H" H' X( a4 u
$ G6 j# @& i) i' b6 Y
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。- p6 L0 }' G7 k. G( u, x
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。& M  z7 \6 t* |0 W" P5 T
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。* @2 E5 \4 ?# \- v

$ t, [8 u- t5 f" G/ jhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 V( r) f. w/ E4 h
- D9 n- Z  ^8 t  ]/ u4 }. @
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选- T8 o& z, G* k+ R6 F% N
3 d2 j4 s' G8 d& R1 N! ]; G
英文原信附后,大意如下:
- M* M% i  S) I. X. X3 ?4 a' X  {! ~0 M- F" {, r/ F5 S
斐尔,( {3 o$ i8 P3 e5 G9 ~- \
       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
4 N1 `+ |$ @( A' Z# i; i/ _; \! Remail的人里面小部分也给我来信。, h/ I6 `6 [8 N6 `/ h/ S$ J
       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴1 B" r5 r. r+ b2 v8 a0 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
1 F& }' g0 U! _5 v% V  Y; I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' \' |. G9 i2 N2 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+ X" Y& n( L. ~1 k( @& {% [
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( F5 |3 B) f/ w: B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
/ t6 e) Z0 W1 ~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。
# H# c% X& @+ d7 z( F0 {: E       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
# Y3 H) p' o( s+ p,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! a0 n: t6 L3 x/ M
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 M( c( K- P+ A/ y+ 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/ j! C1 D7 n- k# B9 T  a) w0 v
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
- L! K6 d$ A' o# }8 x6 ^,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
7 Y8 W& G- z4 g6 C4 b: P* v8 x5 L       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于8 V. d' I) V8 y6 Q, O! V9 D+ s4 Q
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
" [& c' _5 t2 x: \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$ j. }: ]1 b5 K4 F4 K
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7 ~  h& a4 S: M6 z. W& C7 T3 N
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
; g1 d7 a% }% e7 U; g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
- J( }: }2 {8 q# o5 B. j- g' z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) `) B, ]& {' N* W9 \- G5 }5 f/ E
。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' C3 k5 @) L7 T4 Z9 v& ]
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。  s7 u4 A7 k" {6 J1 I9 P$ `9 Q
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
1 p. g& `8 L6 c' O1 t: C" `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
- W  Q( J" Z8 w/ j" M- q: IWikipedia。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
; V9 d. F; q1 k. U* d) m同意见的专家。4 }5 b# w) o" n; S$ n% e1 v0 \& K
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. b- ^$ x  D9 b& @- @0 Q
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
$ r6 e0 |9 R+ ^9 ]1 y; ?$ f- W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
% j9 M/ q0 y  S5 O0 y  c) w# h% T《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。/ p# {* }: d' h% l8 {. ?
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)
+ {( G1 B4 Y& I! k/ _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  y, S, l' j4 K# u# g- w$ V8 U
《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3 F8 J# Q0 c/ g6 g$ {5 f% y+ N
这些被Callaway忽略。( p8 Q( s8 d' A: f5 m, v& ]! `
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5 h6 c0 W- x/ o) k3 `% 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% _, K3 ^$ t! J) Z6 ]( |0 d
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
- U: \% Z' N  ?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
+ R9 Z: P  G9 o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0 k4 _2 S4 q4 L  S0 ~; 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8 P* u/ l0 g4 D
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。% y$ c9 A6 y, w: C4 ^
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% q7 [* G4 G( e5 {
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
9 {6 ], O1 r8 P1 s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
" E0 o1 \# ?6 z7 Q" H+ B" {”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。* l7 X- t* i& b( l1 I4 b
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
2 s! J% p) Y9 K( @: ~8 t  ]8 E$ h! j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
9 D: O: f* v* I2 Y! B, 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
3 z/ n  M7 h" r' _) c9 Q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0 o  S( d& J  k/ }' Z( f
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0 z* D8 G- B! _* H4 x! |0 W3 ^
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。7 M; `2 O- T- L  K1 c% p/ R0 I
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。+ D7 N1 r# \8 z' G

: W7 Q8 y- L% y4 b8 D6 }0 a2 e1 d2 ]+ {) A
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
5 y) b: p( r) N& j7 @( H: b6 F
2 M/ G; k& B+ b附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结) g' T' p& k% ]0 @  h
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email' z) O- i5 S$ x3 x- d( U; T) v
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
( s" |. j4 p: x6 t8 Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 _5 w" J9 X! j$ `1 d, ~; N6 ]. N7 F; |
2 {/ S4 y* g" D4 z' s' y9 K) u' D  r0 a
) n3 p: S2 }* E
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
; E7 t9 t  W+ O* ]7 f5 Z1 ]Dear Phil,
3 X8 M/ y) T/ }6 ^2 T4 l, ?$ N+ c       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( V3 o. S* A* a4 {9 qreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20( s9 q$ r1 }0 ]
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed/ R! A2 b; V( Z
you.% A( p, S4 A8 x9 U! X- o; c/ D
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; E% C# _1 u; q4 ybrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' X, a& E* Q: K/ L4 O
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the. {$ h# r9 c) r6 y
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature% L2 u7 W' ]( P0 {& `! }
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! O+ E! s& L6 \) Z7 l" W$ j) Lseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
* R! n' ^- i, t! x8 P+ |6 C( zpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.5 O/ T8 Y4 {+ ^! s2 q3 w3 O
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the. v$ r- F$ P6 V7 s* n3 k8 c5 h0 D
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a/ n5 L& G" E+ }  n; G; Z
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
$ j; |# e# _3 M/ }" Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
* N8 g; N  p3 t$ H# vdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
! |$ I# @* {9 |2 `1 xexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
- K, l2 h4 j& L9 u6 z" F; p! |standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 L. R! S! F) X
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
& D0 ?+ @% W+ G3 N( K7 ~to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news* U6 N, ?8 t! F  X
reporting.9 ?0 A* j. ^7 A# |- {( {; M2 R
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have4 _; A9 L! u' t. D; i9 T( {0 ^4 s
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 {1 K2 r. O8 V  ochanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 ^: X+ C7 \+ }sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
) j" z0 a* F0 U) T8 j- Vpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.1 k& I1 T1 B( i  v" ]+ W
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 C" s4 C/ e+ i2 p+ ~# |3 nmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
8 g7 K* p) x  e) W" Pfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. U$ }; J5 i% \' ~, u1 h
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same1 r2 x/ u9 V+ N3 a
event for men, with the second fastest record.- w- g7 I% J8 H3 B
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye+ Q; u; p  S  z/ h
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
- Q/ a1 z6 I2 T' pyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
9 G9 K; w9 O6 {/ Q. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. [  B/ E2 |; U" z0 C8 f! ^meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,* u: C5 n5 S; L  r
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; e4 `1 P4 b" l$ k% m* I* @
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( w8 @' g& ?) ^! t
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 T7 S3 h7 ^* Hindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
% q; v5 j# {: g$ }; c4 ithan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' }' O3 z+ z+ V: [+ _% J9 @
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was6 k4 e5 A: x  {5 w# T% D0 }
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
9 `' C1 `+ y9 C) T2 G9 ohe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “( d: U! l9 P2 C
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' R1 ]/ H* i# K9 U3 p/ ]swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 ?3 v6 \8 L) g7 U$ j7 q  I" |1 pteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
/ A  T. N1 q/ K8 |) VCallaway report.$ q6 s4 Y; y1 f9 @& N2 m
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
& V0 e% ?$ P7 n: `5 a) f# munderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
( u3 {- w8 w4 D; Where. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description- A2 ^& ~3 L) B2 G! J# Q# O
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
% D) I$ N8 I; [' v8 A. G/ h5 obetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
/ y* ?/ H% L( t# T( RWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
, D% O9 [2 V2 wpublicly voiced different opinions.
& p* r# v% h/ ]" c" h% A6 m% A6 eYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
2 L/ _2 k- G; I' Z: ~from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* H8 r6 c2 r+ B2 I2 i) vNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent" i- W! ?- O: ^* [
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) r8 d" H4 J. N; s" Q
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
$ E, x6 s! [6 B' X# H/ {of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
9 Y6 n7 @& J# d. Q  P8 W8 t% ]There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 y# M1 [6 ]2 Z& ~( V- Q& e
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They( m  ~& t0 T$ r3 ]( h+ }& H2 f# J
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as% Y0 V4 ]/ |' Z6 J! `1 p
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that5 M* I1 U! M$ H; B3 T
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
: g! W7 _0 p6 m+ k8 F& L5 }1 ~supported by facts neglected by Callaway.& R2 m1 m( ]) \; x
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
1 @! }% S) X5 _2 F- @7 _many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the0 V4 ]$ P" R% m% e2 v8 s
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
: M( j; b* `" {3 o/ |$ r5 ~7 C* L(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
5 W. `0 Z! S, \- t$ f) |3 {; wand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
* Q/ l* D5 E8 Y3 a$ ZThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
4 b" G9 k* `- G! ]) Z1 r; M  c. uand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ Q( B( k/ [9 T( Z
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.- Z/ u0 t* s% v
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and, R, u; g( L/ ], S+ Y& J8 z7 |1 d1 d3 U
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature) b4 N$ m; E. u. T& {2 T) N6 ~
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
# i. C% G: v0 q$ D- w" I* Nrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
% v' H# A! u) Y9 s0 n% ]# YThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not0 V5 F2 }% d4 R3 Y0 l, T
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 i  l6 M* O, v& Y$ p7 G7 zus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather+ o7 A1 _( l2 J: j5 @' u
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that9 Y1 a/ {2 _% J# N2 u
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”  g3 n6 i4 h4 j/ n; z8 |$ s3 B0 P
about British supremacy.6 K1 F0 M; `$ x6 }6 r6 v
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
" B, D( P$ n' u( Junsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
8 k: J+ m5 v/ r& s/ }Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
/ R$ {2 c% C2 a* ], Q* Jour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 M9 f/ P6 D2 D0 U- V4 VOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.( W" p( ?, w& N
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
* I" V+ @. {9 ~* C8 C. j: Oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests8 B2 |& f5 U1 t: w, ^" M( I7 m
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,( G4 ~) j0 `( S* w9 c
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
5 O3 r. d0 k# |! _) i) s, f# Rpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like# V8 W- Z. d6 z) P4 W: x
Nature.9 Q2 M% J6 G# c  a" k
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance& `4 r3 f" `+ r0 `4 }+ W
the Callaway report.! R6 }+ _8 O. z! @3 }$ m
1 v. l; q$ o  f% ?6 z
Yi' V3 ~1 p9 p  j  Y7 ]3 M4 q  t4 S

- P1 ~$ _6 Q/ Q9 N& B# i/ m; @) KYi Rao, Ph.D.  Z7 y  f) r7 H0 C
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
1 F7 d$ K" T) e; OBeijing, China% c+ k& t0 W) T3 k9 J; O9 A
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 3 S+ g- @; x6 V; H8 R5 L
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

# o! G& I/ v; M0 d; x8 Q, b/ L原文是公开信。0 y% j: R6 f0 _8 i
/ [! [8 Z4 z9 f/ B$ [
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 $ l" A3 j0 ]$ D; t2 P
原文是公开信。
0 E' u9 l- Z4 d( ]/ x& L# a5 {! k6 I, {7 x- N
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

% S3 ~6 E" U! A4 a( t" r4 q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 JIANG0 ^+ A/ e1 U! o* K# W! O9 ?
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。/ C$ K. `/ ]9 ]4 k7 `8 c
# n! ]1 n) O. l- j  ]
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, ~4 h- G' @6 E' P# r+ v& W0 W

4 I8 G/ b" H& R6 cFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania6 ^7 F) O( m( P) {; J/ H# B

! ~$ M/ R* C5 ], |" WIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
! x! Z& y7 s, ], regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 ?# o+ J1 _. x3 s
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
8 ^/ u8 k3 w" c$ O8 Z& pis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 g! d( m2 ~+ y% p6 t  U6 g/ O2 K
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. O' o4 y) d1 V
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors- C2 Q8 }" U9 X# j" ]' C& ?% w
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 Z# ]0 }: [; ?  Lwhich they blatantly failed to do.  p! u3 ]" Y$ z3 I3 ?/ ~
: c! E& |# o/ M  k
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 @4 I) {5 P4 K
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in* q$ h; T) N7 P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 K! b1 e! Z7 L
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( p( X& |% s# V- p
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
  Z6 L7 G0 X- \- q% Q7 T, ~improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
/ k- F& C6 i. }1 y0 w5 l9 g  G) idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
/ m# s3 X6 f1 G; X& ~be treated as 7 s.8 }3 K2 b" f  M0 o7 j  D* g8 k* A$ n/ o

6 _0 M2 ~3 f* f  B  w. kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is2 k, [9 i  a; i4 i8 }/ H; A1 M
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 _2 {" f; R3 a1 y4 Ximpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
5 O- Y& j6 t! ?; {' H5 _+ ?An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
# f. r; F; g' y8 ?1 i* ^/ N-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.+ \6 e0 _7 X+ |0 }% s
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an% H/ A/ S1 {; b8 U) Y1 @9 X
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and$ ]1 K, f" g& {7 `+ I$ A4 ]# l
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
8 Q. E* `2 X4 Z+ H; x' Sbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; h. s  ]0 P% l2 A
9 E$ f! b! t9 n. xThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 Z6 H  A9 @9 O, {& b4 S
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
  e* L( ^; V1 Q% u# Uthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! g% @, g, w/ |8 G( s& B
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 ^/ ]4 c6 W1 Y% K9 u% r1 U4 c' b
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
- i3 K. z# f( I  Pbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World  ~' k2 T: h; j/ G
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! Y- c4 K; A8 U* J% S( Q3 G2 Jtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other& t1 p3 a+ C* H8 P& Y3 }
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: J9 H" G9 t3 c0 k3 M3 \  D8 c, _, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this$ Q# @* L. p: h4 l0 [6 n
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
5 D, \9 I/ X" w! O' j3 g) ?& |# C' Mfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam" t0 e0 n0 s  X5 K! h
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ J2 _1 d' P! Z5 r5 k+ q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that6 j) _# _4 ~8 o  O4 Z1 _; h
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 A- g9 Q  B, a9 Q6 N
: t" @4 D4 j, v, Z  h+ qFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! i. p$ s! D/ w7 b
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
. P$ J. Z( L  f4 D1 S& ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
. s3 j7 m. S: {), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns  t# n3 I: j. p; o7 X1 Y9 j
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 R3 ?) @7 J1 X. N/ s8 _
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
' X- w2 f* `% {# M' S% ?( ^of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" p$ M7 }3 V7 H! D# C2 S3 F: ^logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 e* X) [" s, T$ v
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science7 i4 I+ @7 @3 K5 A! w
works.
7 `  n: f  c8 N3 X
; {' o3 J- T$ P7 gFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and0 ]0 K3 k/ i. T/ z* I( H5 J; F6 |* l5 M
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' I+ a; p6 j0 Y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
5 j. H& r- Z0 M; }4 Rstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: ?! ?' d8 B# w& P+ W% g- Vpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# t1 H" \/ A# f  y# V. A, r3 T9 a* e
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 Q; T; h7 r8 H; h, Tcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
, F% v0 K  @0 J( h2 e6 K+ y1 sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works8 @& }" v3 n+ W* P( a4 `& \
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" \4 u1 R7 K6 n8 P/ U/ h+ G+ i2 uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is: t9 I. d6 |+ @9 {$ k1 V
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
4 t" W$ W& J$ W* N" Ywrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 |! g9 P1 @* q0 q& ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the* K- V0 @% X& R
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
: F, [2 G. Z4 v) @: H: x! e! Muse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation2 R- Q) U  W9 J0 e5 Y2 D4 V& n
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
- X  v+ R% `, f( p/ Mdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& U0 y- }- [3 E4 ?! Z: r7 o
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a6 ^6 b1 T* u- ^3 G8 D
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# o9 q) x4 G/ Y& B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
: C& C9 v7 m+ X  c3 C* ?drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: h' v8 j+ @# W) U0 qother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 O6 O. K5 `& g/ ^: |0 P9 W- B! S, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, I) m9 r' K( iprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 k4 s/ |$ _! p' T* F+ L
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
6 L5 \7 {9 i8 k5 d8 L# dchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
  O7 U. C' A) U  D( H+ gLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ Z4 p3 L0 N; I' m/ Hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! G! e# V; q  V* D1 e" Deight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- \) }/ a& ?) \) X+ V; [) q. vInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
9 m, H4 @( K8 E; U; G
- ?+ A, x& ]" N$ t$ {0 h# m+ JSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 M( g; P! T" Zcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 ~2 |1 e4 M5 W. A. d4 @/ u9 }7 j" R
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
1 p+ e3 w- U2 Z+ R+ I. C6 COlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London8 v4 g/ ~$ ]) F* P- @) `: ~$ g
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ L( t3 x  Y) ^! r( c
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic0 O7 ]8 w) T5 x; m2 B  e5 y
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
$ M- h& c% N. z7 Chave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) L0 y9 f$ ?. r0 U) I: Oplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
5 v4 W" T) ?7 a% ~! ^: P5 r' kpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
3 C3 ~! j1 r. \7 R% y& `/ X3 ^) |# R' q+ P2 N
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (5 B9 L% {7 H1 b0 L4 v/ i: l
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
  w& Y* z3 J1 g7 {# z3 a7 U2 Ysuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
( W* m5 A, y3 P) m& |suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 O1 A5 h  a% L' \3 mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- u2 O# H$ f9 j0 F$ y& L  Y5 `interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* {( s7 V' v6 e
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your$ O, o! X9 F' a' E+ u, C
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 n% B! _  D! {) i+ ?
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 [6 z: v& R1 [4 p
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, 2025-12-25 18:39 , Processed in 0.131700 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