埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2010|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' Y* d! u2 e( |" ~: B* [7 _8 |1 Z# F( h( u
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
: j- U1 E( W! z& R. S; j; u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。7 s+ q" _! }' v$ k' Q4 f. W: V
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。( z, L0 Z9 H+ w/ H9 u" n  U  B/ S* A
# s/ V6 t  y( s# N0 z5 |0 _
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html. x9 J; V9 k* R

" a0 J; W  v* v$ a9 h1 ?; g致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选$ o3 d1 {7 A" n: [7 H# P/ p

0 D" [& b4 W  w6 [& x英文原信附后,大意如下:% V. i1 ^" v. ^/ Q

* M/ _. r" w! H; P2 f2 [. Z; \- Y斐尔,
& R# n: V; X& O$ D0 w       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* B! ?$ ^7 z% a' W
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。' n2 P% {: Q' Y) G8 N$ V2 b
       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0 }- }' R3 P/ i) W
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 u: S3 ?# d( P" i: I! k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 V  L. U( Q( ]3 d       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
/ i3 r  i, t: q) a: P& ?. v& r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7 m; U9 {& A" Y/ H
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 ]' u1 {+ Y( ~0 o  x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. p; X* t' c
       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
! Z8 w& N( u1 g. K3 U,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
( y1 }# Q7 e8 n8 V”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。8 ~" o) a0 b! v9 V
       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+ ~% D# s6 [. t  r8 D( f. f/ L% R
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5 a1 i/ u% F# C% w8 |" D
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。, X- i3 I$ I( Z/ {, G
       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于) ?8 y' t" q* h% h; \5 P* \4 y$ S) U
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; ^+ h4 j  A% k1 Z3 a8 B! K2 @
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
; O- ^0 Z; g+ Z- c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
# z+ t1 ~5 n7 K2 u, o) b300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
% K8 J, \& H/ E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 i# A. {3 s6 a, C8 N& ^- q4 d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$ W( r* h) G) r9 L  n. H9 W; ~
。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
9 x; I0 G) F8 L8 A录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。2 A# p# G9 V) o' t! o% K. T
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9 \1 |5 I6 o* X( U& l3 A, v
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
8 x. j0 a- E* BWikipedia。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
9 G) y! d3 i2 \* D+ n: m5 d6 z: D同意见的专家。
7 _9 z& `# |# {* ]  W# A2 x. K0 |7 W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7 ^6 \4 [. \/ c3 c) W
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 M! U5 q; o6 U9 f8 h; ~' H0 k& k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
- v# k1 w- C: z' }8 n  W: \《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
/ M5 d$ x; [9 ZCallaway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)
, w# C" t/ u! q$ [6 k8 u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4 \; d8 A- F0 I0 P* M, v
《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 U! C1 R: G4 m- M. A6 U3 u这些被Callaway忽略。
$ V! S  U' V) T& ?3 |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% O1 M) T" Q7 B" Y
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
; S# _) {  Q: L- h! `$ p教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
/ z  O' l  ?, }$ O. Z: R- c- m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
* d8 E. Z- h3 `1 d$ N. t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
2 K" ^6 ?2 j6 O( A5 n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. x4 r" c1 ^1 z( K' Z, T, V% e
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。
* }4 p3 w) V7 i+ s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8 E& c$ t3 D5 y3 p/ e1 _6 M5 k7 V% p
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
# ]; \7 ]" Z' v. K+ u  R1 ^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: W0 Y+ y% U) {2 c5 z8 V. c; p. Z
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。' n7 _7 L3 O8 ^; c4 Z9 Q8 m7 `
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6 j& P9 H9 W& \) u0 s5 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! O, U9 ~9 n+ p; H6 S/ a  b
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0 _  b# e9 B9 L0 r4 o9 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: L; F  z7 J. M( u% W* r8 ]
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
4 d. z7 h/ ?' o2 \" G( ?& u而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。% n) e- E3 e7 O( G  c+ e, i/ g" u
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 x0 t- m; ]! i7 ^5 \3 M
: d7 P4 D" a6 k
" ~; `1 u( S$ V6 v6 _, M
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
& _7 S% ]9 z8 K* i  ]' V* ~
3 R/ D1 M/ c0 l( d' |附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' R; f# l0 p+ S# f  w2 {附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email: e7 n# t+ V* w3 ]+ j& O
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 Q. Q$ O8 v* ^0 r! s% i' w6 F3 y附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见  z  P+ V0 u; A

" K6 b4 ^* y& ^) \& F" F9 T* Q
+ l. e5 t4 C( G0 l& L+ _8 V3 Q, D( W7 G% R# `) C5 ]7 P( F, Y* H$ p
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
7 B; R- Y# T- [, A1 b! EDear Phil,7 Y5 w/ n7 o! x( ?8 A7 e8 q9 c
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ @, d7 w$ t3 y$ `. z8 }$ ?
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 208 o, A9 L! H! s: K
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
- m! u+ l% l% Y1 Zyou.8 X: Y+ j8 n, z- |% p
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have% w! V) v8 Z. s- h( X) F
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese5 z9 @. o2 d- Q  m+ R3 o; s6 Z* f- O
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
2 o5 |2 V0 E8 I$ Tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature$ G. x9 }% m9 ~) u* z7 I2 H
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more; e! {' Q- k4 |
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news* R( n7 h! w8 c9 j
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
; m) D% h3 ?& T( Q) D       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the( ^6 Y$ ?2 E: l' p
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
' p; T" q, ^7 y% t  ~; Cnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
% V! i4 i- U: I4 jthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
( D  R3 N0 o$ i0 J3 F8 Odid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping3 {( {. e/ ]" ]! M8 K
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) x0 j+ N* Z' @" N# i4 ^standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* E9 W/ I0 ]# x
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
. }9 `" w% {6 N% F# c' {to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news  |  q$ m% H1 F! q/ c" W
reporting.
  f' q& A* z1 t* \9 O1 X1 c) g       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have* f) }" `5 K) z% i
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by/ [2 A; I* o; J" d0 E9 g* w
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
% {& r! H) e) C( u: b: Gsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
. o- j+ n7 O; [* ipresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
8 v7 g8 c) b  Q- J$ p       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. Z* d  q# B$ }/ h
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds- |/ r) t* S% C# }3 `
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50- s; a) B/ y6 ~0 ?' ]" @! R
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same# r7 W; j: p# R2 c1 K
event for men, with the second fastest record.
, P1 B/ C* o# i4 K; p0 V       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
' p1 v- h- s; p7 `) r: W) {) Hwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ W& U2 E% Y+ T1 @
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record: b1 t- q  J2 e9 t3 M1 Q* W
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 B; ]% ^* x6 C% i4 f+ ~7 f! \2 ~
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
: q; ]( \0 Q. Nfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than. [& m$ b6 G0 \0 B7 S, m+ r2 v' [
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed  J4 |: ^3 k9 I1 ^$ L  D0 }' t
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
( a* |; ]+ z5 [3 K$ g& Jindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower% z5 N1 A0 K* N: b  C
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than! \7 r$ X) A; O9 h/ z, l2 E
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was: k. S9 a* C: a* T
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 ^7 J) A$ m, Z$ L( x! h
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
, B6 v# q. K; h4 D( E7 q3 x/ @3 i" V5 sproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' ~# K( W  u9 r7 ~6 w' mswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the) q& H: @) b2 q
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
2 o0 R. f' B+ m+ Z4 u4 @Callaway report.4 N$ g3 A# {! X: f2 @
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
+ b6 g5 c# k* A$ V+ _understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
1 q5 }3 C* ]# n' Ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
& h4 i  V3 [& c! _of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
/ _: V& K( y" o3 I, f: L4 T# S) Lbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the: W+ i/ i! P( Z; w
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
' P- y+ C; @; S! I5 \! E/ Zpublicly voiced different opinions.
3 }+ @0 R+ Y( S  i2 oYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD" b7 E) ~/ Z/ L/ _& H- ~
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature6 g* f; x! }" X! K
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent  f  n- [7 w' ?* o+ O; X$ E5 \
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) D. e1 `) y! _0 Z' P6 ^$ y; e
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
6 c; x. q% z' g) Kof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.  X! s: \. Z. {& p4 j  A
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! @2 D& v% t9 S" ?6 wthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
9 }% a' Z9 @: A& K( hhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
$ l$ K4 u1 A# n; {Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that7 Q5 U9 \4 J. E" N+ r
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was4 m% U( @7 v0 `" Z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.  t' X: G. d2 f4 J6 I, m2 V2 N+ `
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that7 m6 d+ f4 x0 X+ w
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
: K2 W! O  N6 R5 cChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June& }7 n. H5 p& ?& t
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
) z! q" W( D) G. n3 O7 `and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting., y9 f8 i2 N0 u7 W% ^& K- U
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science( _: z. S5 e1 t% O+ L
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
! k& w% k; t  @Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world." v' E( J- H+ B
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
: T( q* p' O. T( U% G6 ~objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature, b1 a+ `  a& J! v7 @) M6 }* ~
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
) u& z+ T6 V* Drepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
  B6 j) Y+ J7 x" b# \+ nThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
3 S6 I* t: R) yshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced- g  c, O# {0 Q2 s/ a8 D
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
" E0 P# S. m7 `1 U- P- W! c6 Afresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that1 b' Z) }) G" q6 f
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
7 c) x# v- A; l, n4 a2 oabout British supremacy.
1 C6 l# b9 m: z: `# a' hThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
4 ~$ e% ?- f. i3 {/ i' cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
/ y# _& M4 P: L% zChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
/ `3 s, ?& @2 S. b) v$ Zour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London' X9 K, b, n% c2 S% L3 H2 f3 X# h
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.1 s. `5 i( C2 s7 G) p& Q$ x
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
4 G6 R5 c( R$ E( Dprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 d/ ^5 W; h9 e( e' A5 g: s; Xbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
# j& f0 S6 [* I: _* `9 E4 Tit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly. i1 Q7 J: w2 i* \6 P) ^! ^6 h3 ~
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
0 V% N8 z& v8 t5 [7 lNature.
" D8 Y6 x) ]( d: T7 C8 E. BI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
+ z( T3 c0 L6 i4 j' K8 l# Sthe Callaway report.
  u" |+ x3 `# s3 ?
5 O% v# {& g) s1 XYi5 V4 ^' Q9 [7 J2 p
7 {5 {! B0 p/ d
Yi Rao, Ph.D.  e: E" r/ Q8 ^$ }4 N
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
$ a) f; G  S1 `9 M* [9 g$ RBeijing, China
; A5 b4 t7 A. w7 l! q8 W8 ~
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 % {; Z4 s% W  ^$ @& |( s9 G5 \
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
3 D2 ~! t& c5 z) C$ e! \/ m4 j
原文是公开信。
+ f3 C4 H* F0 `8 J% w5 F" \; E7 h9 ~2 u
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
# u2 g" a: N2 t' Z& D4 V原文是公开信。
0 p. D* i( M% `6 l0 Q, L) R" r6 Z$ g" Q" Z+ w3 v7 t6 O
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
0 K3 m5 ^* C5 ~2 f
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG0 z, f( P6 b+ e
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。/ z) `! t) P# ?: u. u) |

$ v" n, K" F) _& a' ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ T" M2 ?& w4 _; u! D) P* o
4 D6 Q( x) S. @' S8 G0 ?: xFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 I  D+ F" \( I
& s7 q3 m; M2 x0 U! f8 [It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 x6 L- N5 F; F  \, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 [8 R6 r  Y, `6 G
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
1 |, V* [& ]6 \1 o3 Q# B  o& |is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the/ q6 O* s* Y. U
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general5 e: u' J' g3 K5 Z5 S; p" U$ ^
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% M+ a! g2 ~9 m0 ?3 r* N1 l
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ D. P% K0 z8 n9 n1 p9 D
which they blatantly failed to do.8 K7 m  x4 z5 L0 ?. d6 w6 C6 |
% Y* q( P+ S7 D0 V; R
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her5 u% V6 z0 T* T& @) \; q8 J
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2 @! j8 U/ J- j0 A2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
, F  n2 G1 `4 Q% _anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous* W. G8 l5 H$ s. x  F" [# Y
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 Y5 D8 B, F" j; s
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
1 c: f% R5 T: x; ^5 I' ?& Odifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 x8 H2 Z' `& n. |9 m4 S3 o
be treated as 7 s.
) \4 r/ t# u0 o4 l- Z
! _7 @8 X" [4 r3 kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
1 l  _. |7 B# F2 T* ^) A) r5 ~still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, q  `/ {: Z- Timpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! b6 u- s& V& ~& n8 Z. q9 TAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400; @6 c7 W. Z/ p  c' I7 W6 @
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
4 @7 t% R% I: u! u* fFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
: ~  T" N4 y* i2 C3 belite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& u* W- d8 l- ~4 H% h; [& Apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; \. V& T  }6 i4 f/ @) j
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
' ~# V; k) `3 v6 \5 i# {
4 q" s: f: _) k- T3 t' c' s5 W5 rThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* s; p1 X* t  k  hexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 r, T, `: @' M6 dthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so8 z, k& r/ O8 w! }
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later7 P3 y& S7 T$ N
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s1 R7 I! J# D0 ~  w0 l
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
0 J6 w) n; H+ c4 k4 o+ k2 ^Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ A* @" @9 e5 d+ E! _( E1 H& w
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ u) x, j( Y5 @) y# Y. M) Z7 H) M
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle  t5 Z# u, P# Z9 V, g
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ z) s$ x; u9 z& c0 f+ M% q2 F
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
' b8 f; s! M7 m1 l' rfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
5 w' ~% {' I0 u6 T- dfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' `7 U" z1 _1 q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that$ \; h9 M* X2 @7 P, ^3 Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.2 g" X' F8 O/ c  w, v4 B9 |

  O7 ]7 O( m- j7 v# bFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are1 C# X6 p8 I$ _; f1 W1 J) P1 A, \% ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.935 p/ N* e& i/ [. v0 u
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 _" b+ a$ C5 K0 K5 W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
( O" ~: e+ @2 c* r+ Pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* J) l  L- g7 @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind1 o! q2 P7 M. ~0 s1 a
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it( {0 @* {0 w5 w/ f' m: b3 W
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
' q- s% M9 B) r4 ]: N: Revery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, {' o/ F* X) c1 l. J9 i: L9 J
works.
# h8 ?) r* }3 T9 S4 O/ Q  S
: j( E- v' m1 Q7 l: wFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and/ F2 ^4 k. _- t3 @6 `4 k( Q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 A& S- h! ?* v, M# v9 g  K. Qkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that9 ]6 m% {% Z! W7 C3 }3 E
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
5 Q0 w+ \# s7 H& G* V/ jpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) q5 q8 T, }! F! Y) ~reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, [) Z8 p& N& X. R# k$ n- P8 w
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ U9 K- M9 o/ A4 j+ {1 h* H6 Z) |
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. b2 j2 U* d: xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ w$ ?& B5 q9 ~: _" U
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is% E1 e; ~+ W  o6 j# ^
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
: ]2 D0 o" B0 i- F1 X& Z  Owrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) R, Q0 J: V6 R6 vadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
$ ]$ r2 Z3 ]. e4 c' z2 J6 Lpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 z+ G( I3 O# Q" }6 ~2 Z0 W1 t. i
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
4 f. O! q" ~% M. v. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, U2 M5 t0 N0 N7 s
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
  e  P9 p; z4 I- {8 Bbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: y: ?- _) Z% W% X9 w0 j3 @- N
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye; U) A8 z& B/ F! U
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
) l1 E9 V, D8 m8 }7 Ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% W: z( A5 i+ g8 Q
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
, p0 F( a1 o. I' Q4 [, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. Y) ^0 b& X: Fprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* e: ]2 \, S5 h6 i" }athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight4 f& B; Y) N1 b* [
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?% l  ]3 J1 {1 y0 b+ |9 [" {' Z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping: R9 u/ B, {5 ^# }8 _* b% X8 T' ~: ^
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
+ k0 O& q) S4 c3 Z& [eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
. j6 d. x/ D9 v/ F9 d. ~Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?) I+ \3 X% c# t1 Z8 p* W8 h- Z: Z: c$ r

, Q% B' f/ s! I1 V0 ?( RSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. y9 c+ w) `: K: f
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
0 d/ Q% u9 E8 ^: E4 S2 ~2 k. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for+ G" g: S$ ?. R7 t
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
) n9 S2 q. t. F" G6 [! p7 P) ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 j4 Y/ \0 u. U
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( k6 `4 ^1 |6 N) u. L; M. w$ Vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope9 z& G) X& Z* X+ c, N6 d' K
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* V1 d/ d3 ]! @( dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# K. e, R: g% v1 j1 Ypossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. Z2 C+ j3 Y: w$ Q
4 a, P# e, m$ b( \8 KOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" S& v7 l# M* _* _intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
( b/ D# T* t8 z7 t# N( Usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 {% l+ I9 t6 t8 Y* esuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 {. Z% e% G( n- N! ?all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, S! W- s) T" Z5 A9 b& Winterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,, U" J) C/ ]! R! ]
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
8 i5 Z8 v% E( w% |argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal8 w/ b2 C; ~; p2 r9 f; F- L6 z9 N
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. t/ p2 H* S" P, \; {
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-2-9 16:18 , Processed in 0.215912 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