埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2299|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
# d+ P, n( e1 a# e& w' J# r: {7 }5 g+ o6 ~* i
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
* H' E1 g4 \3 O' d5 `3 ~5 P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。$ w8 [" W& }& M: j; J4 \
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
* c- E/ {0 C* e7 K' @1 e" q. T3 N' W
- ~& c+ D/ ?/ d$ W$ ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html. ?2 b- M: F! f, @8 x
+ _% U. v5 N# K. H3 Q
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
5 n. ?! Z$ R" K9 h
* t0 t. p% `5 N( w2 C2 d% l英文原信附后,大意如下:
+ e2 F0 t6 b, b5 h! h6 E2 C; I0 T3 L
斐尔,5 |, u# j( h: 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
* h2 `% U2 N# R: Pemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。, L* [2 b3 C$ A4 {
       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
) n) L/ N( z5 x; q. O7 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# Y- |* {$ ?. c1 N& V- L* V" n
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。
% ~4 u% h0 Q% K! Z+ `9 E8 v       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 ^; r5 J# S* f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9 s9 z8 X1 ^- G, Y8 F( `
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
) K  C: j& G) T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。) d8 w+ C; R: x# P, s3 v( y, |
       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
3 n( u/ `1 P: m,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
& I  E) W0 [* D. v4 V3 F”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。2 s# w: w5 G, Q
       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
; ^, I' ^# Z/ C4 u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9 P. X2 h. e2 _' o5 v
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; ^. X1 K& }+ h  a) c* `
       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3 s3 O, d3 S5 T! U" 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+ b  p/ J% {5 }. y% n- G5 l8 I5 z
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" w* R$ U6 A. i+ Q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
* e! v) S. ^. e. H/ c300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、六2 ?, J; ]$ y/ o, W9 A' S
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
% M3 k( O( A7 K7 E$ D0 I! s: M' E2 G$ x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8 Z+ ]6 K& X. ^- c+ n' y3 b
。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
1 C3 ?  f6 Q: g, w4 k. E( r& F录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。7 }# _1 N8 a) C/ ^/ G
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
  G% Q5 M* L; Z* y2 H( L1》,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
6 l& ~: n! P# |. G+ ^6 I  rWikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不; R; W/ ~' v6 x: t6 ~
同意见的专家。- a" U* Z1 O! a+ E: Y0 v
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
/ T$ a( \0 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/ @' E( o" M9 f
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
$ h7 C4 {  e5 w3 X0 H  @《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 l4 F/ \6 h6 a" D# \3 R: l
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)
: u, X* [% z% M' t- o& Z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) Q% Z& p! ~& ], \
《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
6 M* {. `( x' m7 s. ]5 i这些被Callaway忽略。/ Y3 y$ v$ ^9 S+ H, U, ^
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
' Z6 ?1 ]5 S& ]( 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$ Q( R# f( w9 M教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  n" V) T( |2 `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
0 y4 ?' S4 c. {( H+ y7 d. I! N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' g: P9 Q% w1 r; e3 G
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
- y( m0 x9 u" [8 m% p( h& |* b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。5 \0 r0 ~* k* @! B8 n) J* O
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* H! M8 W. G, Y; M
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
2 d$ y9 b- q0 X  d2 T9 N1 d( ?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
! o7 ]8 L% E" j, ?( E”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
+ x1 t  [' [, O2 }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
1 z4 L; Y7 q) G6 k8 `" V2 r  {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
: m+ l4 |0 t- A8 s) T) T: w/ c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
6 v8 o8 ~& p' t6 [$ m的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次8 K' j% {2 ^' K# c. t- ^' S6 z- w; X
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
& f. A; _& ~& {) \! p. ?而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
4 U7 D3 o' J1 @7 q2 d我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 b8 c$ Q; Z4 O( U& X' s+ l8 I% v0 r; B& n( p

$ E" M3 }4 z  G1 j( k1 l2 y北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
1 T6 o$ M) R. ~; Y8 N& }% A
8 v5 h; g1 `. M8 o/ E附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结8 Y! C# e& b7 U; _/ {4 W6 ~
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
) H) K! N! V- x" `' h) p附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 B4 Q8 x7 p! J4 S7 r- k  g附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 O- O7 B8 U$ f5 ^8 O3 o1 c
/ j0 J1 q$ z6 {% O+ |3 u
0 P7 Z7 O+ C/ H  O+ N6 Z* f- Q# r" u' P) q8 Z: G
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ P( k1 ]. K& G
Dear Phil,$ X6 d; u5 G- _3 j) L5 V- |
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ _0 Z  H) _4 R+ V% V/ d
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 202 Q% X: R6 h  i: M5 s2 y
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
, q3 s8 q1 ^6 z9 Xyou.# U3 P. c. {# V! m
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
0 f* w# S! H; @' n. _brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
) m9 n% k  n% \' G0 j) Xreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
3 [. y: Z& A3 x1 Dworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature& H4 }& B! N, w
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
% @/ c# _8 ]  J9 _6 Q5 M6 Pseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
( C( g8 a' s2 @9 [) d4 Npieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
0 u% d/ i/ F* w       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the$ D6 s: B- j& T1 c/ ]6 q
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
+ S8 a" Q0 W: r" G" ?negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
6 Y' o3 ]$ c! t, ?1 qthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway7 e# n" p/ y: y' s* O7 Z7 Y
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping1 T- i3 c1 ?' }, r4 S
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal6 C$ c% ?) y% z+ [' r: ?1 w" C( k
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,9 q2 Y% q% o) W5 D6 u9 N4 B/ z
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone  E+ i' b" `: n, N, |2 B5 ]0 G
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news( x0 W2 T4 @) _: [
reporting., e9 n0 q7 z" F5 M
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
+ V: U9 Z$ W6 u  O9 l% talready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by4 g5 R7 `2 G9 x
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 q$ v* b5 l* ~$ bsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
2 w  F. X& I# U5 T6 r/ X5 apresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.- j4 z9 ]/ l" |4 F+ v
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
) L, M9 I$ c+ m: C$ m. l# Y7 X! u( Xmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
  E8 O" F$ I. C- s7 Yfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
5 ]# I/ q2 j. V0 {- Imeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
+ M7 Q% {( ?* u! d" vevent for men, with the second fastest record.
# l8 g" S3 G( x' Y0 s/ J% l- \2 o       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
( X. i0 r& Q4 j5 u5 B4 vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16. u( O, J. h& u0 V  C7 t
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record1 l3 p; ?$ I, M' m
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400  w7 U- n0 J& @6 n
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
4 Z2 }+ F( [7 d2 U/ o8 {for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than3 l% m; h6 d6 c  C% @. W% j
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed# p( S8 q6 r; Y6 A/ z) m* A0 y& b
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the# s1 H1 S( v# g  m
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
. X" n) a: m. k8 q0 Mthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than7 d9 c5 }! z1 ~" e1 d* e
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was/ u8 E( K- z) V5 z: N  @
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
; P* v4 F2 {% H" |6 h) G/ [he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “6 e3 L. Q( O8 q' G) v/ ]' L3 Y
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other; E$ M/ \& v8 e. A3 X9 a
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the* N; G" q5 y+ s- `1 _
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
3 ^* W, c% x- ZCallaway report.
; E: n' H8 D; }- g" mThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 @5 R5 ?0 K. x% h1 [- o/ eunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details8 q* h+ t1 y( f: a
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description5 B1 ~" J% I9 X" z, b
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been9 Z% z# [: p' h# W5 \) m
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
* s* K, N& \: ^# R: W  [5 gWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
; T% T5 J) ~2 _: N9 ]publicly voiced different opinions.
7 M. Q. }: h4 kYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD/ m0 j" d: o# ]7 f1 z
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature; p! ]' C5 ^% m' l: N
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent  p  x: a* {4 M9 k. o/ l9 |
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
2 x( Q+ F% K9 E, f. P/ {you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
* w/ y' Z' _* A$ `3 S; Uof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* d  J1 B/ y, K
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
( b% i0 `1 a1 b# u5 D' l, Mthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
6 i: N; k! T% s3 L) z" ?( U% |# Xhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
& e& I$ c# \; V2 x" HAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
3 d* H5 U$ X% Y7 ]* lthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was' Y. R( y( K  n" i- i9 K$ Y" n
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% r8 p6 f; a4 r% s9 g, N( POne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
, Y5 g8 s! p: K/ e" A2 wmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, a' o4 ]4 P, FChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
; x" y# A6 S% B3 Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she. c7 ~: J1 F& i, [
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.& U: J! e1 _* f+ X
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science' |% n7 P6 \9 T* G; H
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and4 X* X7 D. C6 B% |" j8 _1 a; l
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
2 t" D. v8 |4 m4 g! nNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
- a0 k, F% Y" b$ k8 vobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
3 c; Q. r& ?" b( zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to/ n: J9 ?( C+ |# D4 Y9 X% V/ b
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.% H+ |  E, C8 L% x1 |
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not; H7 i1 n4 ~6 V# f
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced/ I) O$ k. S- t: e) e
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather* q" }. l/ M6 R* _7 H7 e6 c1 T
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
% V8 O, p  B( `7 x# r0 R: c/ y4 v, E2 Tthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
& k9 O& B& l3 kabout British supremacy.
% V0 H8 Z9 K4 y/ bThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many+ x! r8 N1 d" Q: D1 c; q( V; N
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
6 a, u+ }* i- b6 W5 iChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by: h/ e! G( |1 d& @4 J% B
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
$ ?5 t" A( \& W& Z. AOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.5 x1 n9 f9 a/ Y+ B: P2 ^
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 q* B5 D( E7 O$ n  Gprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests; k' Z7 u, Q: F; z* l5 Z1 J" V/ B
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
5 P+ i+ V  ]& u  B& Hit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; L$ T1 u  }$ g7 u6 a  N, w
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
: D8 C7 U( A8 B( w' D* INature.
- F$ ?6 I3 h* ^# |% j) kI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
3 m! ]$ N6 D' c. N* A0 B8 Wthe Callaway report.. V1 U" Q- z! T' z! }$ }$ i9 b1 ~

% h) q! K/ |! N3 J. |1 WYi- x/ ]7 X' R$ N2 h" C% s, z' U1 e$ V3 @

* B8 z2 O# @3 u: w- t1 xYi Rao, Ph.D.
; f8 p/ g6 [- a9 s* D' ]Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
: ~7 M0 k+ I  d; g) x# zBeijing, China
; x9 S$ }. Y* l& C" v) W' T
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
" h3 I% Z8 A5 _# N( ~1 P8 Y+ l! \1 H0 ?原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

7 U; `$ E) v6 C) m3 ~  _3 `原文是公开信。
7 ]) K2 v/ z7 t0 K& N- s
; U  \- O: }  v2 T; Q2 L小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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 ! I7 o* g7 o- o# b+ |+ e* a  X1 I8 W
原文是公开信。, h1 s" s2 P- ~/ \, k9 |0 }

, Q7 }) R4 q# z' d. F+ U小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
1 u# k) w( W) e# w" m3 j
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG! z8 f* R* M/ S/ q  j
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
% c9 `3 ?6 f' t: F1 a" m. M% ]& z( x% z- C
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 U* _2 C2 T) ~
* _4 ^4 j8 T  vFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- n5 I; J# r" i; r& y* ^5 u- a' f4 @+ |! i) m) v
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
' p( z7 M4 F, `( J( G. Z! `, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
: _7 D5 k( X$ p# \% w% Kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
) L/ M/ s! z  i1 J, \is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the, [( S+ C/ m5 }
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) N# _% }/ `& z
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors' D2 \4 B- v) b# Z' a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,; h/ u) j& E  }3 @# ?: O
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ t. p2 T7 x0 o$ S, I5 k( M; `
4 z$ |9 O- L2 {$ w, @1 J1 e- {6 H! D7 pFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 v/ k$ c: k7 f( B
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 i# V. Z' O" V  Q/ a2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ B) v) K% a% z0 S4 Y+ fanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( {5 U: `' c1 D- o: Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! t$ t5 k8 o: u! r# V7 ~% }
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the6 O- p$ u& Q4 w2 S
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 @+ F' R/ q( u" W0 T; r7 H0 Fbe treated as 7 s.
: ]* u& ?$ g: F7 R' ^1 f
5 L3 n7 d- S* T8 i- s( y6 jSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 h% K1 w/ I. `* \. a3 O
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem8 K+ [0 M, n/ t4 n: }
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.  e; n! \, }7 ^" M7 z# z4 r
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
$ k+ g% M+ s8 Y3 _-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.4 z: s. z- d4 L
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
) {0 c6 }5 j/ Y& o8 y: Z$ Oelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
  w! S" y7 F; Gpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
7 o+ ]; G, h$ p; q7 u: C# Ybased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! \. y% N: }7 L9 d, {8 \, b/ Q# Q
* D' C7 D& R% f% W: m  b
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* H' @7 o" N7 ]# Z/ n0 m  }/ ]) W
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in6 l* y/ i6 O& C/ @
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
- Y' a% _# u5 m; ^' y0 \% Y. f$ Ahe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) e- t  z1 G! N/ \& O! s
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s) k0 N! L0 ~' J4 m  D8 N: r: w
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
4 x3 S& ?+ U7 J. a. P8 kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another  H: m+ g$ E8 D" ?2 M0 V. |
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
" T2 H( O" h3 M" K, ?5 Y8 Ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle0 e/ g+ f, f4 c  [2 i% A  o
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. h# v, h+ G/ T; _5 |% [1 @  G; `
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 t( O+ r* o+ `: Q9 Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
, \& |0 L( V6 M6 C( D7 b# {: wfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 g4 T. N5 _' R7 `4 P  n0 S
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that5 ]+ h3 W0 j( Q" A5 @' t
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 S/ L7 ]; y- N7 N7 C
! l6 e$ R% D( e; ~Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are% i5 {  m% I6 M8 D' k! a
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; X4 y+ y. S/ ]! I* R9 m
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 i: z. U& w- C
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 n" L2 K6 @7 D2 ^5 d
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) A$ g8 a/ ?7 O/ A9 k* n3 @' J
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 B4 Y- G2 Q. r/ |2 [3 ]of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it- M7 ?: Y  D4 R- K! Y9 v
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in2 k. b5 z; P) J# B  J/ g
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 f0 R3 B8 Z8 n0 h3 i  cworks.% d7 N0 ?3 H4 S$ m1 q

4 |$ B! G+ e1 Z8 e8 f5 oFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 }- M4 Y6 B5 W. S5 M. nimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this9 I& A& U- B: p, W+ Q) t$ _% m- Y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 Q: g8 i# t$ T4 B, z6 |standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
% ]9 ~8 K( T3 M# x" [papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 F5 I& Y$ |! ]3 C% L6 N8 j- Kreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, X1 r4 H/ @9 D
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to  B/ S4 X! _+ {. U9 a1 B( b
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 C) |2 Y  u7 k/ Dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample# \8 l: t2 ~5 t% t+ M3 @6 ~% C8 p
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 ^" E8 ]* \! F  g. {- b5 C2 H1 p
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 e+ v. K2 m2 t! q/ D% iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 o( b9 l$ O3 y4 I2 `! h! @" Z  qadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( T4 h( E* s. i" j  O
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% l1 F! j3 `7 Z5 U1 n* v
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, }3 R- L' Y* q) y% d. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. Z5 y" b4 P  K4 E( X" ^5 E+ z
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# h7 I% l) I3 Z; mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 X; `8 }4 P4 [0 e
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
; K; m+ C* O  ohas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% u) I! g8 z* n0 [
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: h) c, i' U; g2 W$ \2 l/ rother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect4 t9 |" N( A) b: l% ~- e
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 k. \- c. L8 L$ r
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
7 E# A- y/ U7 P, w- j( Zathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 k* ?% `. Z8 A: r; Zchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ @# [# q5 S& I: R* _* ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) m: J/ }) w7 o! t% |agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
" p" t9 f3 A& ?' k1 c/ \( t+ c& ^eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.: ~1 A8 @; \. \2 V, C
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 N. X# K6 ?* v! a7 n0 ~8 }  e: _7 h0 C$ d3 N% O" T) R. p, X) Q, x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' s% V" P  P9 O$ r7 x0 M
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
4 {3 s) Y: _4 z2 S. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
+ O  E2 n0 D2 x8 q+ P! GOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
/ u. g& Z' Y2 d* f. TOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
6 I4 z, m) N6 N9 g/ kdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' n6 l9 L% w$ V0 s
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope4 J5 I9 x* A3 `  h6 K
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a# n& W: g7 {- D0 J
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this7 M6 K' h- s, G# f7 `
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
4 ?1 d! F) @$ P3 e( w& m5 Q6 q# z' h
+ E/ t" Z4 b9 ^  B. |& HOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 C: Z% H9 {+ E3 ^) Rintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 [7 l6 Q; J& osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a. |& f- z" R* u* Z1 ~2 p4 }7 y
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide) i! O9 E4 C$ P
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your' x* y" |* E: Q9 b% o! K3 q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- F* @0 @0 _& Q: m# q1 W2 H
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
  ~2 l( E$ }% j. Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 G1 M5 T: V( q4 i& m; F
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
, {* j3 O/ v- |3 p) ^4 {/ `* [reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-5-5 15:21 , Processed in 0.245958 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