埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1995|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 $ K" T/ N9 n+ o# k1 I
* f+ q1 a+ P* Y) ^5 ^, P8 M
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。3 x8 L7 b4 U" c9 s% ^! d
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。
, [/ l* `! v: R1 y+ g/ a总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。, G4 v( ?; ]$ r/ w! i( j% ~8 W+ p

, J9 ?  S& N7 b8 chttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 p% Y" @7 G$ r) p
4 @7 I4 ]& H! B
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选9 S3 I4 `1 y, ?$ L3 T8 a

" V9 K. r4 W* H1 G5 l英文原信附后,大意如下:2 B6 f% [( z7 {: n* O. @! {, M4 g

8 E9 A& s9 }" n1 l+ C斐尔,
+ B( A, c+ j" ~' t. ~       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
: C! N1 d! T( Semail的人里面小部分也给我来信。; g5 b5 h) s# Y0 P' c+ o* S
       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
$ S8 O0 m6 E  A% l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! c# X# I, f0 {7 x  e+ C
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。
& j  }. _4 T4 R* z6 y! S4 ]) _       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
' \. k3 I- R4 T. L2 S# t1 p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
$ {3 @' `: ?5 P; n% P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  A1 z7 q' B2 `$ x: _7 e
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。
! i: n' N8 I2 p6 e& B       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
& E$ O% t# L: \" i  o,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
! Q, p6 O' a& h& u  C+ \5 N1 z”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
4 k( e7 F; m: ]+ `  i. 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0 d. }& w8 P( u, b% {( `* y
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1 d- Z, G# G: k( ~2 a. q
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
2 i, g' |. P9 I% t2 m) d0 K1 Z. w# d       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0 s4 P4 Q6 l2 n. E2 ]9 I5 B1 b
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9 f. ?5 W1 V' J9 ^9 j
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. k9 Q- f, ?$ ~9 B
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
$ d0 @' Y4 w! }# 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 b% O1 z& j/ M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
( w. d2 \" i6 }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% S4 l( Z4 x' x3 x5 g2 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
1 N9 h0 s6 O: S; s6 F录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; l0 l$ S  ~( l: l# _( |* R
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( J3 y( n8 Q. P1 @; o
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7 e' m1 n) M9 G
Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不3 U6 H0 `2 [+ p) L. C. l; q9 ]
同意见的专家。+ Y+ ^; v; ^/ ^* X+ B7 p, }
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
8 l  W9 @+ l; ]) i: x+ ~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
( c6 E# U3 R* w/ 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) C/ J8 c' Q( Y3 D7 w  ]
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
4 D) ?1 M" ?- `' _6 sCallaway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)) T! B# C$ ~* \; q3 e; {7 \5 g
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
$ r0 s; x- |' S1 V7 T' h《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
) F( C& T7 F0 K/ H$ X6 r: x这些被Callaway忽略。
& I, s/ w  _* T2 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/ I$ j: W& m) I6 R
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5 q, K& x3 V6 r# t  Z& [
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。4 I2 S' w& J+ e# H
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
' F7 W! m! ?, b  b7 s! ]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 P: }! T0 o" Y
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
' Q7 V$ ?5 \. \" u8 |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。9 H5 ]2 O6 F! S1 I2 @
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
  ^( n5 c/ c5 b! E0 h6 D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
  {3 d8 Y, r( r; t/ c" A+ [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( m. a/ t2 x8 j9 b) {1 q9 D! \* v
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 z& _& {' S6 L' w6 p中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞
+ v$ Q' }  ?7 s, H4 |, B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
# Z! R# l& d4 p. n3 W+ ~, }/ r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# o' q5 ?: }+ r- I4 S  ]
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3 e; e7 a# ]( r8 V
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
& D; x& Z( o/ I# \1 p7 i. x而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
5 E5 ~# g; w0 x; d; r( Z我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
: M. k5 z$ m( p) `' o! A3 s% N7 U7 j/ L+ c5 J6 ~

: X# [1 m2 |" a' a7 d北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
/ S; a8 I" U# C* j
( @+ q. B8 _5 W附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结) @" N" G0 w( R8 ^& X9 q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ E9 k  n5 m3 V4 U5 Z+ Y* v附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
# Y* ^0 V8 T) g: d1 q: }( `, ~附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
! V3 Y' |. `$ @7 c( M, k( E5 a- o6 I$ |9 d

6 _9 z8 N3 g  a( x7 K7 O. p
  K  h* K/ y& h8 f+ E/ [原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
. N7 U4 I; C0 R# {8 a3 F$ }9 oDear Phil,
. R2 i5 A+ w$ V, c       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& G* u% J8 A' C
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20( g' E+ v" j2 p. r& J2 [2 i6 v  I
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 I$ e6 q+ s4 g9 q+ Q9 v& `you.
/ N0 Z$ N7 d5 r: W       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
. |) c3 X( N! T; Abrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese" g9 }7 j, c3 Q! I! O
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the0 C, }1 D# l. t& n/ U/ N4 X/ L
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature; V: r# w7 u9 W! C' {
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more! _; [2 C7 [- n+ r0 f$ y! B
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news/ |  T. z5 n* R% D
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 g2 a/ R! H  W7 i5 K       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
' S. z' {: a/ T: {% d% Dworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
# e1 V$ U2 Q$ u5 A7 c4 nnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
/ g: p" B! f7 G+ ]3 sthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway2 P* n+ R" y: t
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping) a, B" [) C6 o% m  s
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
# q* P' @3 x' l) ~* }$ k0 nstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,0 A( S6 B' D1 h4 u) m6 K
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone" x6 ]1 q: A4 f8 ~* a8 ?6 J" E. y2 k+ k
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news, ^5 K5 K& U; Y+ E, e7 e  o
reporting.! y9 d9 z  J6 K7 Q
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
: Z$ F0 E: L6 @7 salready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 ~8 N2 [5 g# I! vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in. Z# H. I0 ^% K  d9 Q! g5 [
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ c2 @. Y- {4 kpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts./ _- D( Z1 e; a
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
; U/ K5 W$ W1 H" _+ }0 I) Xmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
6 ]+ y- m. i: P$ Q) M: Gfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
. S# |7 c" W8 F( L' X6 o# p/ kmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
7 I6 r# @/ r; r; ?. a- l- Ievent for men, with the second fastest record.
$ _# l8 f$ M0 e       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye  B9 s$ v0 P7 I& g' w
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16; i& d' R2 K% }% a/ b- \- I5 }0 k
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
4 Z& H& Q: J5 Q: X4 ?* o. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
+ c. n2 u! j1 j. L; w: ^/ j2 N! ?( `meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
2 ?9 W" B+ E6 T7 ^+ R" y" M& D1 h, Bfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than( o( r, `, r0 r
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( }+ U6 ~+ Q* g: R, Y! d
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& l% M- u1 e' @, Y7 _; N+ {individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
3 p" P9 C6 G2 C% r% wthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than9 f) ~0 s0 r6 S5 q. [8 `" ^6 q
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was* r1 U7 o3 @2 |- [# {4 t
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 M1 ^+ E. \1 p$ X5 b* [3 c2 F
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “. s. a9 a5 A6 R* E
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other1 ?5 r) O: I& q, k* S+ c! r3 T) {
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 B0 M6 J, z2 e6 `teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
" X# ]$ V: g3 K- w3 X  RCallaway report.
+ A6 S' G9 Z. w, Y, Q! s3 m& M4 }There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 j: f4 T) x/ L9 nunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details6 \% T& w- o& C) u* t2 G7 ^
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 [4 X" p9 m) p9 W" u2 pof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been* l4 F/ {! ^8 ~
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the0 r( C3 ?6 m( Z: N+ X7 t
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
* _: ^8 @6 \2 {7 T0 Ypublicly voiced different opinions.
+ b" G8 j5 V! [$ x7 `8 ^You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD  c6 ~: p' s' y
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
. c( u' g$ [$ j, ?% _Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
3 R) I8 f, K' w1 ~) T0 E7 Rpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds. P  a# K' v/ B$ J/ ^" `! A
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
( O, a( J: X! s  n3 v& u# _of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.6 l! w8 ]! H1 F9 F7 g  `/ o1 p
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think. ^, Y/ f  M/ a/ ~  f; J; V
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
  I2 m/ z) Y& |: U2 xhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as: Q* i  z2 |$ }* r
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that* B* \: Y; z. x: l  E3 b
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
9 m/ R# H! W1 H* u9 Ksupported by facts neglected by Callaway.6 y% o) a7 D1 @+ {, C
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that8 V, \- s5 d- i) m1 G
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the& f: @$ o- D' E. v0 t2 Y
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
( Q9 D2 O2 i: s. B; [8 E6 i. D3 u(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she# r; B+ X4 M& {2 y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.3 J  S7 _6 l$ G9 ?6 P8 c, }5 Z* G1 q
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, m) d1 `. J1 k* `/ u& j( cand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
3 Z2 j; ~& S: m5 U, y6 rDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; q8 k8 S- N4 Z  b3 MNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
8 k' m1 D5 O9 R$ |! \, \& D- G" xobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
* A8 H1 o$ N% m6 s. Xwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
# i+ H* D  D! w. r' ]  M* y& y/ orepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
4 g1 t6 f8 y& tThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not; e6 l7 d3 t+ G3 M
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
$ w1 n  `; E. [5 Q; c  D; ^: _us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
  k, n# `, _% n  Zfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that# `; ~, o- X; d, H# s' F/ Q
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”4 _+ d( j8 Z- K+ U1 a. V
about British supremacy.
4 Y5 y0 N- b0 j0 Z; ?  p! @# n0 VThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many! }, \* P0 Z  x
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
% N( r: s& J" D7 c8 A6 w9 QChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by) S. ?% \3 M2 C; Z! G. z
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London  ~+ R6 A1 M0 v9 f  I
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ r& ^/ F0 `1 [
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of/ m2 a2 e9 |" W' ]) h0 T5 N
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
; |4 L( N$ a( V( p, O9 K$ U8 c3 ~% K" I: Obefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,: u: W8 t( ^1 m7 V- x7 A7 ]2 ^2 [
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
1 F! g( {" I0 j- e5 Hpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like! \* _4 y: R5 g  R
Nature.% ]# i4 a; i1 T+ [  D) }! T) Z- N
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% a: y+ c/ ~, ?" d. o9 a' q
the Callaway report.
% d6 m( P; f5 w9 @. d5 R
" H) D; b! g+ e1 @) F# JYi
( G* s9 Y" k+ X- o6 V! K8 [% F
0 v# D2 N8 `. D7 M2 ^5 bYi Rao, Ph.D.. H- M# E" h$ |$ @( u
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences1 t4 h' M5 ?* A. g5 d1 r% |
Beijing, China
$ y: K. @5 C% T" c: r
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! y- g2 ?/ q0 N2 l
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
* e' d- G+ w8 n6 E7 n, u$ u) D; T( k
原文是公开信。( U) s% C" W# @. F

7 ]9 a7 m+ \, f0 ^) p- z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
; b5 m- P* `- j7 V- E/ r8 O原文是公开信。8 x  U/ h( [( P

9 Z- e* D$ a3 C小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
8 X: [/ D5 H5 z
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
2 v3 j& r+ t8 A, [9 i/ h% r+ q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。  ]0 O. i$ q/ o9 e' \9 ^6 X( D
) y1 q" G9 v1 W, |
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
* _6 Z8 ?; _3 H# c$ q: ~/ f2 V& r1 c/ L# ?5 l* r: G
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
3 i  t3 C) H7 U: V$ V1 Q2 s
% q8 X+ O& m' O$ d( H  |& _It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ p% ~' c4 S# T. p) i% i, p3 l, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
' }( B5 `0 c$ o1 Rmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 l3 k; }% j3 m" A/ wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
0 _3 x% a* j3 R6 ]2 X1 V0 O! s2 {scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 h; h- k, h3 I) t- Spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors* ]) v' E: l$ R% ^8 r+ C
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,& M5 l) }: _5 d6 A. [* e& X
which they blatantly failed to do.
/ G# p; T/ b' b2 h* {+ v
3 d: T$ h$ n% v) N1 LFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her  S! n6 I0 ~* G
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: e' d$ W3 Z4 K+ i  ?8 v4 l
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “( v! |( r6 h. B3 x9 K
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 m3 G* G9 E5 ^  b5 \personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an9 }0 z5 T2 r7 D* N- m% u! M
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
, W2 r( h; D& H# cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) T  i% a( Z4 O4 x# [be treated as 7 s.
1 d' W$ j- @, i% F6 v) L- E% M+ h6 p, ^9 Q* M2 ]/ R
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& ]5 k2 w8 h0 n. _still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ W2 K: T( \8 v2 ^
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
2 U* T- P. c# x& V. h, s5 nAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 u: W' G( r' ~2 G& y* w+ y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
, N8 i1 A) L5 f4 g8 L6 T' hFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 k7 s; h0 |: n/ @' l2 felite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 h0 q7 `  I" A7 j' ]8 xpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 o' H# \5 u0 |: K0 nbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
4 w* L3 \3 q7 n1 P7 s) o+ T6 X% Y! d& G
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 Z3 o  }* B- W# g* mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& d% A% H2 ?, l4 M. @! M
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 ?& V% ~+ C$ [7 r5 u' b
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; y% s2 J, E" j, g
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s1 I& f( T) n- t+ Z
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ v9 e  \6 z, T8 J4 ^) xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! r7 V/ ~& P2 }: _( K
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other# g. n. g/ D5 ?: a& r7 `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* H9 p$ v2 J. E
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this6 t' R% K8 V7 `: T( q- N
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds, V! N8 {0 g# q+ O- V& d
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
4 `" e8 j3 L9 I0 ?! H9 ]: Ifaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 M5 ^/ S' C! A5 A4 E; }
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that) a  C0 z% J7 w. F3 Q6 i% {6 c, H! {
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
  C0 Z1 z$ _( U
+ M4 S* z% M( V' K: |. RFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. g; Y7 Y6 L# D5 D  Sfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
% Y1 S6 F1 {5 u, F( S( |+ X: ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
6 i/ ^* c6 Z$ E( {), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" I: h: m+ S6 t' }- c) h. {out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* Z% P" l/ h# @/ ALochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
- D- a' F4 ^( ]0 I! J; dof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ K/ W; Q4 R+ l4 }8 P; q, S
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: q' p' ^' ]  e1 A. d
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' X! j3 a, W' I) p( x1 nworks.
% Z4 Y" N* p9 ^8 d9 A4 |4 }4 U8 g/ K- V; Q0 O8 Y0 m& [* ]
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 V2 f# j# L7 H: o& uimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
# E7 O! X  `1 R& x! \5 w2 Fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
+ x) C! q; R0 v- \2 S. s0 A! H1 Tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific9 }7 Q0 x2 K2 o/ C' ~! [9 y) D
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
3 R' z" K; F8 m3 `( M* Rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One  X2 g( o" B# q% v- B* B* }
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
$ X) h3 W8 ^! u) h2 Z# T6 jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# m+ ^) [5 ~3 c/ t. _' T3 u" k5 m& Lto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 `" Y+ a" M* O( U. O  ris found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is0 ^( o: ]/ F  r( E
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ S( r  k* Y% E, }( l' y
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 T& b9 `! f1 r2 i3 iadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  t. p- e( @) H- s
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
3 ~2 _* f! a4 d% w" Ause it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, a% @/ C+ W4 ?# G8 ]! Y
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
; V8 R5 z' n( d1 h% z1 @doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 Q- \/ t1 f" g" J8 R# c% p9 f' b* m+ wbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a/ S# l6 x+ j: i3 h  {3 x
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye- V& T9 Z( z( |
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" d$ n- X1 a: O3 _  j# `" V$ u
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:8 V% W: o: R9 [" e' p6 N) Y% h0 k* N& d4 g
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
+ e6 M9 }  H+ P9 i4 H& q: t, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 k0 T" D3 {& v" k
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; k; L2 C6 X3 g' o+ K- @  w
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
" N8 f: E& ?4 F# V2 H1 Achance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 t! [- b- _/ S0 n  V0 k
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) t  d5 r& Y$ ?: c* o1 C. c1 fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for, ?0 e) l( t6 [
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- f3 T4 t; R4 s: a; x2 ~Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?  v: O2 t+ z' O) `( X& X
& E0 g3 B/ [! v' o4 `7 a$ R) S
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
' y' F8 f* B8 d: |9 N9 Ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 x2 D0 v1 c6 m) z2 I2 B# c
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" k1 d6 u$ b, K" p+ L# POlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 T3 D9 e' T$ [7 P0 \- w  @, C1 `% bOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for6 Z% _9 c8 e4 ?2 f: H
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
2 O5 ]% S* _2 T: \games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope4 O2 U& U* B$ v. ~/ ~3 ~
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% _+ Q0 |  T3 J1 `8 O9 c$ h
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
( O# n1 b$ t! ^  L! M2 q' |$ V. |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 ?9 G( j+ ]2 x0 W

3 u; {$ m9 ~8 l, S  Z  q9 YOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 i  b) S& T. x$ I% A( N1 E0 Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
# q. j/ y- J3 G5 q8 D0 asuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 B  z: V; i& m% S' @" {% w/ Isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 m3 m( R* W7 O3 h6 y. m
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
/ v( j. ?9 ?7 c) R. Ginterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,6 G' F5 s/ R/ ~6 ^% Q" W
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 p5 T8 k5 s- V: C0 A
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal, B" z( j# l2 a9 E- \
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 x3 {2 Q  ?; H. |3 `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, 2026-2-5 08:19 , Processed in 0.237891 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