埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1875|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
4 B' z/ \/ u; o, c- Q. v
7 ~; @/ |7 d, W: X! o饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
8 E3 \5 O: U+ P* _. `1 `" _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。0 ^- A7 o# m0 H" ~* S% Z& ]6 s
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
% \0 h: G  A- x- V: Y4 ?
, o3 i* Y8 M0 d- J) |1 v  chttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
" \  Y$ |# V( H+ F
6 Z; r( ~* b0 B2 s) ?/ I5 n致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选$ E" _6 ]) |. Z6 S; W
8 h1 S  B5 k0 v8 g0 B
英文原信附后,大意如下:
( i/ E8 M5 v; s3 M
0 w" D$ U. T) z# ~斐尔,
' L4 g6 C+ u* V" s       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
9 I! {5 g7 S) R& a1 F! T/ t5 M+ temail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
, q5 o& s5 W% {9 e% ~       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
) Z/ N0 `# l8 v0 H) ~3 p" g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; K# O" l& D4 Y* `- e
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。! `& x: V5 F# D( J9 B; R' V4 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) }3 ]4 x6 |$ y2 J  E) ]
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- {6 S3 X- `* g( k* d; T; e7 v
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% B" \4 G0 G+ l& x5 J
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。
: G* ]. B; ^  F: H2 C; 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, W+ ^7 f7 _( x! `/ P! H- G! G
,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
1 w, P. T  }( t6 ~/ T0 ]1 [& x”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
6 z' G7 a8 G0 ~       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
2 C% O# g0 w+ l  @  T2 f/ n4 z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 E; l3 V" a$ i$ |,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。0 q: J1 J: c' R. h$ W
       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
- B' X: u0 Y# \' z$ `$ V" B6 U2011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
: Q) b) R/ ~8 d' s6 N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) i0 O. r3 p( r8 y
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 b2 s4 m. u. W3 t300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! q8 [$ y$ h2 i& N& \
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0 I0 H( L  h+ b! ?
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+ M, O; c5 m7 }- A, r7 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
' f, H7 y1 }" N+ z6 e录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。' p% u" \' U- S) Y0 k) z9 }
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; ], l1 o2 g0 X( I4 l
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
/ e+ n4 W0 n1 T: 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
. T& s1 [% H. v6 M' d' X; T, \& A同意见的专家。
/ q; l# s8 m, k2 [: l- e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
5 k8 p. ^' Z5 `: G' c第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大9 a  B) `* }% ~8 g3 c. f8 C
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* x8 V) [/ D6 _+ b7 s4 `, P: f- u; W
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。! Z. K) V( H8 P; m( u5 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)) B2 Z" I# l( Y7 Z7 M( h) {* 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
, _+ L3 L3 }1 W- \' E6 [6 @' s+ g9 q《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 @( X' j0 \* O8 u! P2 Y这些被Callaway忽略。
# R) L& P# Z0 o4 g  G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) u+ {& w4 l( q( `4 R5 c3 r2 b, L
英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院2 d8 ]/ y4 }3 l0 s  F4 H
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。' R+ W! K* i8 s
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) X3 M# Q2 P' k: 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
$ f# U# p6 p3 D; b+ b2 \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4 l  d0 @. c- a5 M/ n% R$ Y" g0 E5 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。
  W9 `' f' {2 j6 V" B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( a+ |  F2 P1 e' S8 I; Q
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
: U" f$ I2 Z: V& A7 h. L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5 ~3 s  Y8 _& J* S) j
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。! u5 z1 q- Y' S$ l: 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
) o0 t5 V% f( e: ]( k& A: W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! l" W: B' M1 A4 Z" }* o" Y
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
: L1 m$ d' f7 S, a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; ~- B3 U/ ~8 y. q. }( \
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
& s9 Z9 i1 x/ p+ `+ C' _; B而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。) K% Q& Q( A5 Y# O
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。% e7 q5 P9 ^* x  M- q

3 G; D7 M% t% n9 B; z# X* B( c
+ B, V  x- f: N# s  [9 Z- u6 u北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅" |, L0 c/ v, a6 h" C5 W+ W/ A
0 C2 ^$ j: n' d$ U4 A* z9 l- P: A5 B# P
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- q# r$ B+ k% P2 |
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email8 ~$ m# `7 M5 l5 \: c' q( S; X
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
: t* |% A: J; Y& I7 D附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见! G5 H$ N% {3 G5 Z
+ x1 }' w. S# c5 t$ K# s# @- G" q) ?
' Z- R4 F2 t, ~; O

1 L5 Z2 f, p3 ~原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)  a- `# b& h) \' @% x; ]
Dear Phil," R4 z9 T7 H& H/ e
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& e: K$ p8 G2 Y# E" c& {1 ^
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20' g+ @$ ?; ]" l) ]
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
% M9 u  K+ a! a7 ~( t* ~: pyou.% {+ G9 V- v& T3 N4 n2 w. I
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have3 E6 s; R( h( u" N, o2 I) c
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese6 H4 l4 G! Y4 G/ F
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
; Z7 f  I5 ]8 I& ^; M" Fworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature$ X  J% X- \8 m( ]
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 l- r( e$ w4 ]6 O4 V
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
5 j0 A& ^0 x" I: O! Z. Dpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.( t7 k4 B5 b! t# g, ]
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
, l2 M7 h' p( z# J; E( Rworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
9 M4 W3 Y) h9 ]# `9 [4 w: bnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish& s9 L9 ?9 U7 c! t, G
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
2 I- W4 D* l  ddid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
" _! ]4 S4 [3 }) @* s! Rexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal7 t/ v- B/ p8 o2 M# \8 b
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
5 f2 n' M& T& r2 V" iand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone8 J2 S2 t* A+ r: N6 ]
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
. i/ F2 C4 N4 y* Y* wreporting.; F% P/ P2 ^: }+ F) H$ w: E* @
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have: a2 b0 g! v! M: m& E8 r% {3 i
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 N) ?. q* ~; T  ?% [$ vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
, _) z" M$ q& Fsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 k# _! F) S- F+ O( Q3 y( e
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.6 ~/ k9 Z8 c4 V4 S2 B
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem6 N, Y& T$ c1 k  Z
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds7 {& A; S4 Q  `
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
. x( w5 o. ^$ k7 R* l. vmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
" w( ]* e, x9 E3 o2 y4 hevent for men, with the second fastest record.
$ ~$ l! i5 J# \. S       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
/ z- W" y! v7 C) Y8 awas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 162 w$ B+ a6 ?/ T! b3 G  G
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
, y8 H& }# M! N  H8 ^- P% D7 W. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400' X8 H  H4 D& W& E$ K
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,2 S& L1 E: j' W. Z, y: f+ ?) P
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than: G# Q6 q' j5 @& t6 Z" r* F; J
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ J. y) _+ j% H$ H* C
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
/ A, A+ y1 h8 @+ N6 z/ nindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
2 Y# `2 N5 p5 }5 L5 Gthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than) m  T5 G; ^0 {
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
$ j0 s  o# L* ^( L8 ^0 L8 i" bher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. ?6 y. O: q# T/ X$ H/ f) K
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) f$ _, U+ H7 \2 ~3 P6 U/ ~0 xproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other* Z, h% W. T" ]4 P, J
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
! ]2 a  q4 {5 V& ~& Zteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the4 G/ ^) C2 K5 C) H5 o7 r
Callaway report.) X6 K& L! H, z' a
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
0 R8 W8 s; e) b9 Ounderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details7 h1 o% J+ L# C, Y
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( t: v- K! o* t$ Q! U& \' W" _
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been) p5 n- K1 [7 O2 E# G, n. x
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the& o9 `9 a4 b9 Y. k, ]% ?% Q) F3 W% f
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ z9 T9 H8 ~; s( V& `3 Z- Gpublicly voiced different opinions.
) V$ ~( E. N, I& w, U  MYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! J, K3 H3 i9 p8 y3 D
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
7 J1 `! J! N3 V* PNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
- F, u; q. l+ L* H: s* Vpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds& _/ X/ K+ A* n% C* k  D
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy5 [- ~2 g6 [0 E% W
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* b7 z( w  o9 n1 U, [
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think. j1 G- Z' F, l8 T; X, p
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
5 s5 R4 A0 c* {have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 J+ R. D( B( l/ k) e
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that( w! t8 K# X% Y$ W# n& C" ^
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
0 o+ F2 ^" k/ @# A$ ~$ Usupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& z( R0 t4 ]' JOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that1 C, y7 R$ H$ T! V8 N: X. O7 q$ ?
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the, V  q3 O$ V# ^) t
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
3 Z" q+ v- k  j0 k+ V5 [  W(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: ^5 Q9 A1 Z% _3 cand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
, H( s8 V) b( L8 C! Y: uThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* s/ t5 }. e6 }and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; ?3 k7 u8 R$ K' d4 z) u
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
: a; E1 T. o8 t; P% eNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
  }. l7 z' U+ I& U4 qobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
! `8 C' c8 V2 d) p" dwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
7 Q- s% I) c' q; R3 S$ I2 [repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
8 k1 ?, [) i4 r" E6 ]The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' V9 j8 Z: J; G/ f" y. G1 S
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
; d. G  q5 p" b$ Sus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. z" U, |% a. j! @fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
( r/ M, L; ]2 p  U( w* Dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”: c+ V+ h. y& Q
about British supremacy.! h: O) t# j# `( J; F
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many5 _, D' Q8 D( d6 `( Q& t
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
% r; g! I& k2 v  P* O, uChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
- N5 r8 W6 `, G0 V, C  n3 @our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
& J0 ~, b( ]- s8 AOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
8 T+ p$ \, v7 S9 ~; a& s" Z3 cYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of* z1 `2 t4 @8 }9 I
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests2 v: S0 N$ L) M( D4 J, E) A
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,+ A4 x1 o5 I  X. ]; P6 Q
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
* x+ p/ N! d# F# v5 jpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like- k- E, |! g5 i: ^+ `
Nature.: }: P- Z3 C* @: s. B6 y  X
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 `( V4 F  {+ T1 Bthe Callaway report.
# |3 r1 m( X; r: F+ j% E  y2 y9 O" [9 `+ L$ i/ h2 s6 X
Yi) E$ E3 U/ \2 S8 [9 \
9 _3 R* ^& z5 q. s1 ]5 I
Yi Rao, Ph.D.& M; q' g* A0 z2 k8 K: H# r0 A
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences$ w$ P" W9 V/ {
Beijing, China
1 V! v1 X8 j" x
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 4 U% H! w$ ?& A  k" Q0 C0 Q, `
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
( q' m( D7 B0 N3 J5 ]4 K: F, _
原文是公开信。
1 f; u5 x) a9 W+ P5 G% q8 m/ J% v3 X5 W2 T
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 k6 G3 S* D+ r) U: m! |
原文是公开信。0 z% o% h) Y: V8 N* I! G; O: K

. b& J# @1 b) T2 v% R9 e小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

0 J& Z9 ]5 y' c5 P8 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
( n0 b- o9 X% f* u8 _如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
9 d% f& {' ]0 q& a
' R: k  S, G' h* f( d8 B( e; Hhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: M1 u1 ]% u4 {1 {- ^% u
- L# K9 ^/ @/ Z" ?FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
( q: n, e  n9 S9 A7 d8 O" }; n2 [& @6 o& q
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself# ~) I- F2 |* @5 C' i
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- B) D3 D7 \, M2 {+ t# t7 T' nmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
9 j# h5 L/ S7 @! L; b" S0 gis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
9 P$ B# `% m6 w8 W. x" q0 C6 Xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* O. K) Q+ ~9 N# o
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 H; T7 _7 O6 W' G/ I4 u; K4 c
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# z+ D+ a2 `! P# _/ r- e
which they blatantly failed to do.
4 P# }# X" Q" ~" t+ M. U: R
% w3 f  D* r* KFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
* F7 C4 K7 Z! [1 n8 c% QOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 o& R" |/ b0 @1 E$ y  C1 y2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 E3 Z$ |- o2 e6 O8 U3 B5 X3 Nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 K" y8 L1 }9 l  o5 Y) x' x3 ]personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 n5 c$ w" d" k  E* b, M+ h. R
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 @! c( A9 P' O  M* odifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
" x3 _' g* D6 N4 U3 Vbe treated as 7 s.' S  Y/ j6 z4 P  A
! h) R  K( h6 S0 C, B& b+ K
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is: A5 {7 t4 w# }( U0 c$ R
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
$ b% K5 u6 S9 a. u  X) E& [) kimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.1 e7 H5 [- F( C7 ]5 F: I/ ^1 \
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: E% n# [* N3 a0 e8 J1 Y+ c+ Z-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
# c! W' l( C. i/ W! hFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' J) ~3 H- x- t- u& V1 _! ]elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" V# d. P* [0 B
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
1 |8 t5 j. H- v7 z' T5 o6 gbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: i% W: @7 ?/ Y. O& x) Z$ Z* X- `0 d; z8 M* \/ T* M- p) q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- W! T6 i+ N9 {5 W
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
: Y$ d# _: c2 P% R6 F: N3 ~! gthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so+ q8 x& c( B7 P' a/ q" v
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 n/ k* V8 J+ {! A; H8 Z. `! u4 b
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s. S8 P- G( O: t9 u/ D4 a# n) S) w
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* u) t  S9 |' d, r% PFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! a6 }2 U6 m0 W( w; j! K
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other: @& S) P. L/ w( H# \0 N
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 I  b" {+ k+ n- ]0 L! V& y, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
  G' P. i& G. v/ W$ d7 lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
  }4 _& y" b% ^) h- `( \  E  q0 Qfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. d9 J& J8 W9 V1 C; E
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 H& H, n5 W$ |7 Y; Caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; I2 Q9 n5 X+ p8 b5 B% l, ]implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, z- E! P4 ~/ W( P6 X1 ^' t
8 }0 @% p/ J5 R# jFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 j3 d1 k) O) \/ cfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ g" _6 {/ e: V! F0 T$ e( o) W+ p
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 U3 y* \$ u# x7 Z" Q
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
; Y0 P7 G+ C6 Y$ F( G$ b# X) [out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
9 j# B: x" Q# u0 h9 q& bLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- O9 J( K4 N, Q5 B1 }( Z
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 A  i0 K1 q( ?logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
3 D1 |2 r1 U& e, ievery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science# Y% d% g5 w" O, u, [! w
works.( ]4 [! A. ^# `! ?
9 V( \4 `' l  @3 N/ ^5 e
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
" \* l, o! E: f: p8 M0 `/ Simplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
& n9 c- m% J1 s) [3 D3 ^kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 J; r. ?* ~5 R4 D4 Z; [
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific+ c! ^) n# p" @; o* S. s8 h6 j% p
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and& ~; f  Q' `1 a; u* [
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 A: h1 i2 \' J& T* ^' A3 w( vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! D' t5 I. Z$ ]; a: l# K$ j
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works$ U3 I1 a( ]" h9 [
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
& h9 l$ Y: H& H9 p+ F1 his found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is7 U  K7 R4 L1 Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
/ O3 E2 m4 S% F( twrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly+ O9 z, ]! @. E4 g! D
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
# z7 e  N) n7 J5 g3 \! v6 H  }past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not" ^8 A3 v, `( L) U2 `* V7 W
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
6 q& |4 z  ~, C+ U. O0 O! h. t. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* g6 ^4 ^. F$ v
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
" I0 B+ E- u3 u/ h$ ybe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a, |& J  [% y" T2 v
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
! x" z1 u) S, {$ A: phas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a9 h5 T% `+ v  g5 o
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
0 U! P) l# @8 \% ], H) h; ?other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( ]+ @: j+ J' P" X5 e
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
( g- m5 C( X* F9 `/ T+ T6 Yprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an" ^1 m9 x3 H# ~0 Y9 O8 X9 j
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
+ T5 v6 s0 w6 h) Vchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?7 r3 N# i+ ]: D9 M  ]( S
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping* {5 b5 k# N" W' |" D
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for" l+ I- F. C" @4 S
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
& {4 }. J6 v1 v, t9 \6 BInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. o) T: L% D" O; L; Z

- J0 z9 E- E* ?; Q( m6 gSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-  h. a* ]9 M1 J$ Z8 ?9 q! a
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention9 S2 @, f9 s8 i; F4 q. C( s- Q
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for; K5 l% m, j9 {/ h& ~( M
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London8 m- }: S& D0 i# m" e
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for: @% i% `( q$ i. s- X) d: S
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, {  X0 q: }2 T& bgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
8 p0 i% ^, i5 X9 r" ~have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
# `, y+ E0 H. @! n! @& i5 h: fplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; V. N% S( U& x5 L  r( ?6 r% A
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., V6 Q* d8 V  z1 G( O/ v. D

6 T7 ]! J6 Y' B& _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ |: ]; `: K3 N4 i/ i3 nintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 `( B& P7 a" o9 Y) @2 U  }6 M
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& D. |& P; l" v( H/ i( Esuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
& Y4 F/ o# }" ?/ d$ A$ v. d  g) sall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 J) P4 M$ s7 J7 ]8 i
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,$ G! E& e! f, ?
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- W- u7 ?+ d" A3 P  L/ L3 G
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal" c2 {$ c3 {. J. Q) U1 {
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or+ \) f! D( P* j
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!
理袁律师事务所
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, 2025-12-6 13:12 , Processed in 0.187693 second(s), 21 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