埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1962|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
/ G$ X) X2 M7 ]+ h
: D  e+ C7 {7 ]' y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。2 i8 T/ U0 d2 W
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。  B" n7 Q. s9 c/ {4 t
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。" S4 \4 P/ H6 ^- f; d6 }
5 w1 w7 n. |% s. D  u6 }
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html- V) Q3 x5 y2 Z# k) s9 N

- d. W4 n3 t8 Y4 q# Z# Y& v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选! D5 u: X& r. Y; v, a, [
8 X& q. o( g* H' ?
英文原信附后,大意如下:
0 ~: z- t/ w2 o4 L7 G0 c0 I5 F1 [9 M8 Q4 m1 H
斐尔,: ^5 b4 Z- K8 S+ V8 c9 \) h
       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
0 }0 k+ ?& o: _( F+ j; ]' remail的人里面小部分也给我来信。4 p4 x/ p1 B# d) h' D
       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, X! P5 t& Z+ J9 h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 G: w: o% V6 I  P6 V& o! D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 A2 l  J/ I# o: y' Q       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
) M7 F+ ]9 [& e8 H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
/ H: x4 y1 s, P+ A% W+ g3 o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0 @9 _1 N7 t& f2 O
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。! R: t& w5 Q) d  f& }; P" Z
       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
# A% U5 ?2 s% J" M4 N,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, v+ V; V4 v# _
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( E2 v! J0 N& ~4 R       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
+ r, x. r0 D/ \& j) S; P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/ g: Q6 e. k! I; N
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。  J9 S: R+ ^6 @0 X1 A8 Q; X
       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
, G6 x# k5 ?$ t, X5 F2011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
3 b. K7 `) ]% k5 p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; a9 k9 q5 M5 S' {( z/ a8 m7 E
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
. u$ x! ~$ i, n$ u- m$ I300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* s5 i- {6 C" B" B
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& D6 Z- s& }9 c) Q
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0 `8 U  f0 Y7 R" F' t5 F
。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) r2 l9 a0 {  `2 u% M8 g
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ N' O! @1 K* O& 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
& d. @+ M  W: m9 t1》,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
+ Y' O. Q4 X: {7 PWikipedia。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
. s/ X1 ?) X" S0 Z" W4 c: Y同意见的专家。
7 t& a  [2 A* k: S+ g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
% {' c7 q& q* ~" H- G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
" b' ?3 @, Z# r1 p' N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+ I4 T1 q3 Z+ {" ^
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- `5 w5 I7 g3 i. ?& uCallaway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), D$ A5 X' Y+ B) t# P/ M) u  u2 q6 [
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- c7 K* c( Q5 f
《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: v0 F3 U( V, o( t5 G, r/ I% V& T
这些被Callaway忽略。# k% h3 s# b9 ]- ^, M
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
1 @% `! F2 L* ?6 w6 ~; }6 N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' {5 i$ [% P2 w9 A教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。  K9 k# r& m9 r: Z$ d7 u0 b: z5 c) |
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
1 Y( y' E7 M7 ], }+ u( }* Y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4 q  v2 X( K  S  M
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
. u1 `3 H( k2 I$ C. 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。( H8 c4 @* w8 B. s. N
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: y% ?& _6 k. O! _- }: K0 H$ p, R) {
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) q. I* ]0 U) |% L9 t
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" }+ c7 ^. ~( A$ ?
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. f" n4 b8 j: o; e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
+ e0 \* k) q$ L$ g7 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
' ^( a8 {6 e- R5 g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
7 q( q; ]) Z2 l1 j2 k9 M. |/ W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
) R2 e$ w. V' J$ c! l7 `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 ]" T6 J" {  \# f, d: @  R
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 a1 K3 T3 a6 L+ K  @, C我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
* `' D& O+ Q9 w& \, H0 R- q" x9 k3 G& x# v+ u
  t  Z. h5 U* _; p) F0 c
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅' m$ R9 g' ^& ?4 f
! A/ p3 h! N- C& \$ x% i1 Q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
7 V5 F, n5 i, B  n, a附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email: _& V/ x( N4 G$ ^  B1 c! w; @
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见0 g- E8 T: `* p5 ]& u& [9 p
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见9 v0 K) u( _0 X; j
& _4 K7 n8 m/ S( g! q2 O) A' @

/ B9 J1 M% f/ c* x' s7 V8 M6 v; s! ?1 q% s- Q
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& @6 W; O' T% D6 @. f7 w. W( z- `: B4 Q
Dear Phil,8 a. C3 J, f. B4 j6 e; X; l: ]& H) f
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& U, w8 N. g: N+ k2 R( Q  |
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, E; {$ O& g6 q5 Q
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; r. v* M" _& r4 qyou.
8 u, _& d, e! T! j( h* s3 k" W6 N4 V       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
  N) m. Z3 t' M1 e* Vbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese# S0 p7 `0 C8 `. z5 ~
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the! m' G' w! m+ S7 x* N( g
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature( u: |4 u# |- t) p7 P
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
9 O3 }! w2 n- T1 Y! D; ~) ]seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
6 @% j; Y1 h5 Y6 Ipieces much more than the regular Western news media would.7 z0 x2 w4 m  p$ o
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the0 z, @8 g1 o3 Z7 }- V3 g" `
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a  N$ ~" Q! o0 y# }8 j4 [! k
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
0 f/ x# F- g/ H. d1 T/ Uthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway- N. N. I- Q+ O: T/ J
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( [2 r5 L  z8 S- v+ a# L# fexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
3 w7 n2 J; `4 A7 b0 p! `standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
$ i4 s8 ]7 b! k( f) Y" f( w- @and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
; A3 R5 N: x  f+ ?! [to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news# I+ |+ s, B" {) h; u, f+ a
reporting.
$ v# K  @' f/ _' a0 n4 d) O       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have6 u+ z, S+ x8 z3 e" k& l1 J
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by$ D$ }% {3 i8 B7 F9 `& k5 T- o
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 k( @+ o4 F9 w. J( ~8 Q/ P: \* b
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 v% i; w  v) o" k8 y5 S; epresumption of cheating has changed to doubts., z6 I& @& c5 d* q
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem, I  i0 i. Y& }* ^3 w8 n. [
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
) U) {2 H8 d5 b* Mfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
; e+ q- g1 K% }" Bmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
4 Z. G8 R2 v, _+ j3 a: mevent for men, with the second fastest record.7 B* h- a* q0 @. I
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
! S" j" R1 X& @  F6 x5 I2 @$ }was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
& H6 j: e& b% z3 u; nyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
* A8 W1 t, \. W. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
( ^. ~. t4 S0 W% P' Emeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, {+ \2 V7 w. {, i. f4 m
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than! V$ }* |7 A2 S2 c
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
- W* }  X& {% fbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the- S) o3 C7 H# G- @$ y! G
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
% X5 r& U5 j- ^" p2 B% gthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than# _) G0 {/ L. O5 \! s9 |
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( V. D8 y; G8 F" Sher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 ]$ ?6 y; m/ N' vhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# u/ H* i8 r! J% [* Y. H; qproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other& g3 O4 _4 Y  t4 |; E% {
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# O) F( b# e* m6 l! o9 u  hteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
; m2 z9 E3 T) l- \; RCallaway report.7 t  \0 ]! `0 W+ |: q
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more9 o) v$ a& w% D, @: i" f
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
( o, S% G" o6 {( ^& G9 P+ Z# Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description* h6 e! v4 j2 Q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
. L7 X& l# k6 S( r: z1 `better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
. O3 z* ~: o* E+ t: X! sWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
% a1 }2 y; b# q# \2 wpublicly voiced different opinions.3 I$ k/ F( y. q3 A  u4 e
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD5 ^$ g- c0 m! ^( a7 k1 F5 c1 V
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' e* z4 W7 p2 l, M- z% @
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" l: o2 r1 X; R$ y' p( T$ ?postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds0 q, |2 Q3 r% l' c4 y
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
5 M+ f! J. }+ V" m$ K4 dof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue./ K! R* J- ]: m& K1 n. h' H) k4 P; e9 ~
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! {* h1 ~6 C* w( rthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They# P  R  L! R' m' Y( K& H* B
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as& x$ T/ ^: ^" u  ]! d
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
* M* k& x0 E( p, F: Qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was' Q' M5 }# J0 O7 |4 i
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.7 B6 v. V3 u/ j/ [' i5 ~7 \$ E
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ W0 s& J+ q. _, I* _: t* J5 x
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the6 ~) [7 D0 u* q$ ?
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
! n+ [3 F3 ^3 H) m2 a) Z' J: W(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she/ D  U, L4 S. V* e. Q6 s
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.# w4 N4 c; L1 i1 Q( \
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 n+ Y0 G$ H: }0 u- O
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and: H# l9 F2 L) J6 s8 x3 \" s/ E9 s
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
2 R# L; Q$ ?! e% V- q) e. ^" JNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
0 G3 z3 |4 S' Gobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature4 L: o" K) O% F% o
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
8 s/ B! Q* R  b9 O2 P0 ]repair the damage caused by your news reporters.+ Z3 Z$ [- t. H& ], J. \. K" z' d
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
# w3 j( U9 X+ y( Qshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced! `- \' ^* j. y
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. N6 j/ C2 X9 ~/ F1 ^9 ^fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that3 z+ _' S! i: ^5 a
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
- d( Y& c9 e% e1 B+ v& t  k0 fabout British supremacy.6 a( h' M" B+ y4 D$ t$ a, a
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
9 l+ ~* X$ V/ t& {) ^unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more% [& y# K3 J% ^9 S; ^
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 ~- u9 x9 c" g: qour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London% |! o' t" B" K% N3 n
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
" e  j6 Z3 Y8 a& d  aYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: i* f/ C$ R% v$ q  M; c: L
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests  M* r/ e/ Q! [8 M, y
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,+ z, q& I0 V* \% }3 [) r% n1 V2 H* f
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
# o# d3 `. S# q- \publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
* C4 q2 J: s/ _1 H* i$ ZNature.
: y- b1 H; @; w  G+ n% qI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
7 g" M5 x( t* }the Callaway report.1 u, e) I$ g% |

; Z+ ~0 S9 A0 ~8 R4 K+ V6 xYi
: X/ s) V: o# O! N$ e0 |1 |- X+ x: s
: a/ l8 u/ h' k: j6 r# W# XYi Rao, Ph.D.
9 @0 j9 p% H: ~" a: |2 |( ?Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% l9 V- ^: ~; \" x& }# f
Beijing, China% b8 @# }, r. d6 b
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18 4 L8 U; F8 V- p3 R! G
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
3 O+ U' ?9 V  g7 L3 [! x( i1 }+ Y0 G
原文是公开信。& @! m, i+ f+ J/ |0 T$ q& ^$ W

1 e4 s5 m! K; O' q/ P& K8 B) S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 3 D, d. b$ z+ z! H
原文是公开信。
1 Q5 k6 X1 P/ m/ T7 V3 \3 C& p& i; _& h
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
- \9 ]" U1 @; Y# ]& q8 Y0 j# l
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
: h) r3 C0 n' U/ h' j9 h如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
- m* ~* Y5 g4 b, f
0 _, g& z9 L% C& J$ A8 v* w3 Qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html5 Y0 q! W0 J  M4 r! Q* S

3 h  q# {/ P9 E! NFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
$ W% N) C+ ]  \, }' J
+ T* c5 R  N9 t8 k5 Z" vIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
. F& Q/ E" G: K* K  U2 h; p, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 F& H) `0 [( w
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( X. _$ C& I' N. l. b7 {+ lis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 H, w  h+ m* k
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
( a4 ^% v9 v' _7 K7 Spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 I" h; T$ X  |4 ]6 I$ w# s1 Pshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
) {" g6 k0 f& ]8 pwhich they blatantly failed to do.
9 E$ M1 T/ D3 e8 r7 }
, S7 e# ^7 W$ f4 V. U2 N8 HFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& S2 f- f+ E0 o8 p  H$ FOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2 o9 X# D0 R6 q9 S5 t# I2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 ]/ G; ~; \, Y' {
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
# |$ ~% B/ u; X* d: I& B9 Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, r# O' b1 x' M
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the1 }- O8 y1 a( `% |: K. O% F" Q. z
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 L0 L1 y2 E& v; ?9 obe treated as 7 s./ O5 N) c; e' v8 \
. h1 {  ?% d' j& v$ Q3 N; [
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
  ]  C1 i2 P3 istill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 r: w! H& e+ Nimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
* j0 B3 k4 ~- u! T6 a; o. mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: w* s4 A6 F  p0 J* |3 {' B-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.9 P: ]8 y: B6 o2 c6 r
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ u; S4 ?7 O; p/ o. [
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
7 y/ o( H  m1 _; a5 Npersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 {# |  N$ o+ e$ R0 \. E
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
8 H1 l4 G& u6 J9 d* }3 L& h! \. ]/ D4 d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
% a+ w  J$ ?/ j. R$ X% G: ?example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 Z+ K; ~: _, q. B) o
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 A9 }" b- `9 h5 O) vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ U0 X- V' w" i
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
; k$ b. [( M/ s2 @best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 L$ }; V: b" k' kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
/ n0 O: [# @  Z! \; }# S8 z; Ktopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 M2 \* i3 o6 z- Vhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* V' t" u; G' ?! O* L" y* }
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# Z1 k- Q7 l# Cstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& e, m7 v8 g9 [8 H3 m; G; u) J
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam4 \1 [9 f" Y9 R1 f: z; d0 g
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting6 G  B* B( j( g. [) q9 R
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that1 x# N$ {8 l9 [6 m4 R
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on., l0 J$ M$ i5 s, T* a& j
/ F# z6 q; D( `' Y& ?1 W
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' a3 @- S. N( O$ t% V& D) r- E& x* A# g
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
  M; ^- q0 ?+ _5 `s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 Q" @- q- t2 c) z), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ k" u/ y5 r$ |( L# G* q2 C" wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# V; `9 P5 ^/ h# N& C
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
( s- r# C; o% d& G5 r6 Rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; x+ }) x" c4 Q. f
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* M/ O" j& E2 O+ M; Severy split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science* H! i, Y7 G8 B4 f; `
works.: E* z2 E: T, u* K3 B
% ~) X1 u' }8 e# l6 c% o3 I. ^
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 ]  T& U( U, H  A0 G4 u- himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 R7 U6 s, h* ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
4 Y& e2 C, G& X7 @  }+ u, astandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 o' Y9 o% p5 K' P0 Q
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and( O6 {  F- Y2 L8 E
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% Q( \$ N3 W1 `8 U2 o# m
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. i( {/ R  y! W( Y' I3 ^) Edemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 ~6 ?! l& f' \1 Z& U
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample2 T( m. L! h6 A. c' M
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 h% f% z- }: Z6 M1 S
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he6 e, H$ d0 o. B8 c2 ^2 ~! G- [7 R! @: O
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 x7 X/ o5 D3 B- p9 y2 G# u
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: _, x: C9 |% W, j
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not; X0 b5 @6 \. Z9 T
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, l$ w5 O8 K' g! E
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are% N* Q! i. B" T: {
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
% y; h) y' f/ _be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
$ B: }+ W% E/ F7 D# ?+ Zhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 e' D) _3 H/ ?! ]has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a0 K9 U( Z5 C" z
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:, {1 v$ ~/ L7 S- Z1 x! K8 |- c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% p0 g8 ~5 K; ^8 @& Y3 K. W, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
8 X' P/ i2 Y% ?1 b9 M9 Uprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 b. V; a% M9 _1 S9 f
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
. C% ?* r5 L  ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
2 E  l. P, v, k1 SLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping; d% X! T: ]! d6 S0 m
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 N. p4 O+ D4 |, g, @& s3 ^. |" Q: {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.; L. O9 `9 `% e! d' T" f" J( ^
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
/ g/ Z1 D' x+ g0 E# R. b* I* w$ k; Q* O4 n. |& J6 T
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-2 E7 _; R. x% i7 u2 f& v
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 K6 Q0 _1 ?0 ^% T: Y9 I
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
* N7 a, }/ E, N! ]1 a0 F0 mOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 e. R  r$ v& ~$ _; Q! |Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
7 t' X  ~4 x1 x. q8 n) }doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic  b/ Y3 R* A' O# I6 x% a
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope9 h& Z1 g" F. w/ Z( i9 Z5 b3 G
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
: z! h; d' i3 Q/ Iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this0 i. l& c! s: v
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 L6 z8 ?- P2 ]$ @  Q2 j
3 B' V8 Q# j/ Q$ h6 K, E
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 ^, y1 l# I1 b  i; x
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 \9 _  R; {, a6 e  A6 o2 o1 ^+ \suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
, r  I. ~' p1 }8 x6 i( E0 Osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide  E% E1 W- y1 H
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
; A! w8 N& ?1 O: x/ Minterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ E8 [; q) O& @" i6 d
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; k; k. Y. I- o* g" T0 Oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal! M: A/ x1 r, F1 b- E' b
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& e* F/ [$ R/ sreporting 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, 2026-1-25 11:22 , Processed in 0.136715 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