埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2233|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
, T! Y8 `! m& F  ^- {: z9 \- Q. {0 n
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
2 H+ V! O& }  W/ Z; ]  y' M0 Z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。; T3 m2 R4 v+ S& x
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
; `) s, W2 O5 I2 I3 G; e, L
; r9 }5 q# r. O* D% U/ ^+ Qhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; O# }# |/ B- t; C2 ?, a2 ~' _7 i. b5 P; M7 D  f2 A
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
$ F9 w$ l% s+ n5 k1 b/ h, @4 }$ j! f% w9 S7 [4 V9 u
英文原信附后,大意如下:. G9 w/ H, d$ y1 f6 \0 l7 K9 ^( I3 B

) L+ g+ D* s' M  S4 @" c0 }斐尔,
6 W8 }' M0 g- Z7 o2 |( 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. g* N5 O; [8 O
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
! h6 M( K: M9 ^0 v       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/ }' a2 }3 Y: g* [  R* J& p
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
; i/ k7 U5 _8 M) b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。- K( X5 O8 E0 |' V) f
       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4 `0 V3 p$ n1 e/ b
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+ G2 _# q$ ~: C; 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5 o, P: ?* Z7 l. Y
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。
- o1 q- C! z1 w$ L0 J. t       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
1 h( t! W- a2 r; f& _# {9 A8 Z* g, p5 {,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
9 @2 V" W. c9 o; G  C$ x”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
) R. p7 |, T; L! I4 ?       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# B  |) U% c7 E7 j0 E* o3 O/ }
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
% e7 c5 U/ A  v* I,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
; A! K$ }. C, S$ m% m: A       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于
3 k0 K* R* _* }' z5 j2011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. {( |8 V0 i% i2 e: M' 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* h# ~+ L2 ]1 ^7 D
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
; x/ G7 M! g& z300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
8 K* O$ {+ j- I" y6 a; i7 q5 i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
! I; |' ?* y+ ^. k0 k) e: m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
% o, u' y; J5 w5 `。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 l" w3 m% k5 m1 I* ^1 `5 q
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。3 z& l6 F, A  u# ~; |7 Y9 Q
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
0 }6 a+ B$ C2 Y- S2 x2 ]; f2 e/ 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
7 ^+ C: g: U" W* G. m; p, E! ?6 aWikipedia。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: V0 O# b% |# m3 _- \& \: j- u  z
同意见的专家。
: ]- B* H/ s  G4 \4 j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 R" L4 t0 ?+ L0 y# K$ B
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; G0 Q. a6 d2 p3 k- V5 O1 z0 t
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
  W$ P7 y3 K* ]  F《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 k3 X. ^8 S8 Q+ l- S
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)
* X+ Z; o; K# s( A5 L$ b$ p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
  o8 W& Z4 ^; G+ |《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9 x; R" O/ j+ E: d' a
这些被Callaway忽略。
7 o& w9 j' {4 _, w8 D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
5 t& c( g% l0 B, C) k0 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+ U' I$ H3 I1 t+ Y  B& _/ _) ?5 A+ H
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。, k1 g' [' K5 @1 q; D& g1 [2 L! Y& G
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
+ s- \# j8 N* U0 q! [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
7 z0 J% W' u1 v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5 ^. Y3 R% N7 h8 X3 R
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。
; R& w/ m' [( l, T. A" m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
& m2 l, U; k- ~6 M/ W7 V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
8 {# b1 A$ b3 a' ?1 w) I+ Z9 Y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; E, ~6 h4 k8 N. ?" J
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。! G- \. u7 j7 s# c* ^
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
$ E* r" i7 d4 ~, n, O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
, e) I3 E7 [$ G# F9 T( i1 [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
& R4 r* G# n+ 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4 c2 E" ?! k1 w  \
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 ]! S$ k$ ?9 M3 F
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ {. S. L& ?0 w( j* L, n; L
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; @# i0 y& p9 O& O7 I
% R+ m- S# f. }* B
' s" ^+ Y! v. n* N北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅# }1 `9 l7 @. A, C/ K+ I0 p

* \6 ~; B: V" d: I, K附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
; x5 h& d4 l1 B& t1 M附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email2 Q4 ]: n. v) A/ A, B+ K0 i& W
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见, |3 Y! J8 g6 @  F0 ]- W) b6 n
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见; T, X1 e9 e+ p* W% C
2 d$ C& S- b  N& m

9 a& E, s  |& N6 S7 ?- n+ s- H
# A4 B/ V3 X& f5 U+ C- u原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
% [! m& Z0 F8 d, LDear Phil,
3 E6 A% B5 {( {; o       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s; \0 s4 g/ A  [
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20; {. s( i2 d  X7 M; z6 X4 r6 t* ?
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
) W% T. W3 k! {: G/ K1 Yyou.: Q) J6 ^9 t- z: F( N" W
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
7 `0 X; _: K. ?1 D. Kbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
8 x2 h6 \& k( \' m  z. d; xreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the# S0 e' ?* x, r. Q$ [
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature6 O# I! [5 I+ F$ s
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. {$ I+ ]4 y+ Bseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
8 ^9 B% k) k: J& M$ x+ g) _pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
* ~4 |8 n6 Y8 Z1 q5 g       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
5 G0 i+ u/ X% M) Hworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
$ G, z8 @1 C( Ynegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish) e4 @* F! n+ j) `! E3 a  X
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 t) f$ x% u3 ?" ddid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
' {' R0 H2 p( ~" `explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
! j  N- V$ h0 xstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 d, Y5 Y* ^$ p3 J4 o
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
2 J& H4 Q- J3 t& B/ Jto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news0 Z  h! O# w5 A' z+ _
reporting.$ A* P2 S/ U8 Q# L2 |
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have& n2 w! n& C+ l9 R2 N# E! t
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by9 Z; V% `/ ?. X( e& C
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
5 @# Z: U" d' s% F' j" Ksports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 e7 j5 X, ?+ T* v. W
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.& L+ ^2 c4 U9 m* c7 N6 _& l6 t
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
9 X) h4 ], S; F. |more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds* Y$ b4 ?5 e+ b$ V9 Q
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 500 ~! e# m( R( W5 {
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same! Z& d6 Q4 Q9 b
event for men, with the second fastest record.
9 g  }' s2 ^' K' y, {0 W       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
+ T" f3 E, _3 N9 Mwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
) S3 ^: \; T3 R+ h. J/ Z, Q1 Vyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
! f1 q! B9 x' B, B; S. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; ?: C" @0 `- N7 ^8 P# N8 e. emeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
( J4 r# T; [7 J" U4 a0 |$ j- u* P3 |for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than6 b7 R" i" F# |# _# s3 P( L
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
/ A# g# Y9 l1 w. z( Z: B: _! @$ _behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
  H9 B; |/ k" o; {1 Dindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( W, \! W2 k+ C8 e. a6 A1 B" }
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than9 d# S& a# Q! X. Q! y
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was- b: g$ D+ T5 m8 o; e& K
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
3 T3 c5 l5 n7 w" T0 J0 Y% The would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “/ b/ t' {% d' L" J
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
$ s+ m/ n# A& q5 P; o9 qswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 V" w5 ^( t$ m- j# ^5 }; B' z
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
# E3 o2 K$ I+ c2 h5 J' V$ y, cCallaway report.& h' y9 v) K. L; s  q! }
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more/ T1 q9 ~  p' k
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details& {4 l1 m3 v0 `8 K) A9 b; m
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
/ q# Z" |' Q! W% m, {" Wof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
3 O) r( R( ~& @; b6 Kbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
6 o8 m3 M* t* gWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( K4 j! G7 U- E0 P: B& k+ [! z( ]
publicly voiced different opinions.- t9 T# X7 O+ E0 Z1 T0 V  T
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD' A, g9 v* d9 m. V+ F& J/ n. H2 X
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
9 ^3 V9 V. V: x' eNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; \# b3 g% E5 J& vpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
5 Q( K* X8 j( d' vyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy- W$ \* P$ Q0 p
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.) c7 C, x" G9 ]3 x! p
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think1 N3 _% I  m# k
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 _' `, x; v1 \# A9 N, T
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
" _% G( l$ ~& \4 ~2 X; gAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that% b. a2 k- G) G7 R5 _
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ U! A! C3 K3 g+ B2 u2 A) u
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.% p* T& U7 |2 ]# ^! q* K+ G
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
) J5 |4 R: Z+ L% ^7 smany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# ^/ S  ^! `! H" h- J" G
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
% P) d# w; A6 B( q(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she% o' E6 a6 \) {0 ?% N
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
3 X" c; T  R6 h1 RThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
; q4 p' a' p) G. yand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ @+ G" c2 M: v8 b
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
# G4 d. ^2 m6 H. NNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and% n1 y/ ]/ f* H, T7 U
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature1 b& q" u( r0 q
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to& D4 v& `' r4 p$ X, s
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.7 ^0 U8 r' |6 E  j  e9 [$ }
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not4 R; x( q  y6 H! u5 G% W! y$ p
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced2 U- B- j% O' c; b! ^
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather0 r$ `& ~) v' f% t! w0 @
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
) }! z$ T$ A) _% jthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
1 W' I" X. ?7 v& f9 Aabout British supremacy.
! b! l+ u' A- j5 {The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
7 z9 z5 s- l% Bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
8 b; |3 b: C; {4 c% e8 |Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
7 D) e' p, G) d9 i) G2 W8 your public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
4 ^4 I& m9 J# v  [5 T* d% [Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
' p" z5 }( p4 ]Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of, G2 f" O& n. k: t
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
3 j5 m2 m) W! z  Q" \' Bbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 B7 x( H( `* g, `+ cit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly4 g: W7 ~: |8 G- `+ G1 C6 c4 m/ f, W$ u
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like) U9 Q1 D/ W, B8 Q# h! \
Nature.
7 n, \  ^/ _7 @6 lI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
8 ~" \( V; f) T% x1 f( Wthe Callaway report.. l" R% a, a: g4 F2 t
/ K9 ~, ]: s- D  w% Z, x
Yi
9 C  |$ S& V8 d% i! ~$ m: O4 D. i0 _2 i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
: F( ?, B% H; D1 H$ ~+ @! ~8 UProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences0 g2 u4 S+ r- e4 X6 L% q
Beijing, China: a+ u% v; Y$ o6 H
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 * h2 D3 a8 t& T5 S+ G! `' @
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

3 d9 e+ w5 k2 Z2 b原文是公开信。
9 ?: k7 `2 \6 F) z
, K& s% |2 q4 Z5 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
+ i/ B: v: X+ I" [! p6 K+ `" Y9 `8 N原文是公开信。
2 r# Q- ^! `3 n" L: r0 z2 X; b: ~6 M. C) X& q
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
2 V% S) c$ ^( e6 R0 M8 q% u3 }
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( G! g2 i( Z- V* |
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ l/ L6 v  Q" U2 V* l: |' B- v( {9 c8 {" I. o6 i' h- q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html' F) n! c5 I. E' t. p
- k8 l% z: M! i( e. }
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
* d' `/ H- X7 r- v1 X8 O# b- e
4 \' P7 a; m+ Y% `5 V( `It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
. [- ~, t/ N' d; n, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 S+ V- n/ ]4 V- A3 O
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
; ]8 V( }9 Z* [; g+ Z# s/ U) ^is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the" {" Y" W, Y* `/ x2 V+ t1 |
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 k/ ^. z3 T1 l" Ppopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% Z; j6 S% M$ P% N+ J! x
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 B) X) D2 z* [which they blatantly failed to do.
* z7 \/ }: u* |' H6 w, P0 S  d
1 K" `9 J- c: m; v/ ]- dFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her' v0 e+ K: S' b/ X1 w: |
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
! u+ o; ~' O# g1 R# z2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
% y8 [3 E2 S6 b5 |anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous- @& G) F, S) c
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 }+ _2 K1 \1 }1 D+ I1 i$ K8 x" ]improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 ~% F- S0 C- X" }$ {difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 L1 I" ]* y/ `8 G  U. q" H
be treated as 7 s.
8 D' S7 J0 Z8 [9 J# P% Y( }' V+ j3 u5 M% k
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' Q; {( P# `' n; |# y8 estill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* v& _: c% x% D$ fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 a) x7 ~5 W+ _; bAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400) {- d3 y4 z0 G. M6 x9 D" T
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 b: s/ p4 g2 _9 ?2 r+ Q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
! `5 c* e; {/ k/ \elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
3 b  A, W+ e& Q  Hpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 p, t7 o, J, J$ `
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
# ?- k, ~. ]$ b1 \" X  Z' f7 N+ |
; A" W$ P. _; b2 ]6 ^Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ e, H  K& T1 q7 I5 ]/ Iexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 t* f8 G" [6 _6 x$ p
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 z. Z. Q/ g0 |0 _, i* the chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later7 {1 s( C" G; D6 o0 `$ x; z9 Z/ e
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s/ w  [' O! b. t2 L5 L( i4 p. o% V
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* z& H! \* }# ^  z$ vFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another+ ]6 W2 c+ O: }5 F# i
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
; X4 |# ^. x4 w; g/ f/ ]hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
' b! X( |# f( q0 ~1 O8 J, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this7 U$ _- w0 J) G3 L! F* J0 }
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. X; u; k" Z5 K( i
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! p1 p: u" D; I3 Lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
6 o+ _) g# ?5 y4 r) daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 {1 H7 X" ?5 ]1 \7 c9 D
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.- D: x5 [& w- p/ `
9 V3 @. }9 w( Q$ G$ E" @
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ u, ~! F1 e1 ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* C- d4 U& t3 e4 L9 k' `/ K: u
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 G! G8 N+ R. _
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
* z- M0 X1 B& m, b' U; r; uout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,, y4 |) V/ ?' _) v
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
+ j! c& R# ?% X% ?. Rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ u" {7 b3 v5 @, e7 S9 q8 M
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 X6 U- ~7 ]% G' j7 g' ?1 s" d1 w7 h
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% u5 C3 r! h: T7 g0 Q: p& Uworks.
$ u, ?3 [* E; G5 B5 L; r- ]( y4 e1 _8 n4 k
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
+ N4 C( h$ s0 N0 ~implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this/ H; D7 e7 d. s- m) y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that) F! H7 v; n) r- r' `! E
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
0 j$ x/ G+ V. Hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 W2 n# h; @3 c! Greviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
  m8 l6 L+ u0 m  bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 S3 g! n& d7 `demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works8 ~8 p! N2 m0 f( b
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ A+ m3 ~2 X: C. C* M( Wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is5 G3 `+ }' ]; g6 I9 `9 ]' k
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he. P9 v# g4 p/ o
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly  F% \) F0 @/ W9 u0 t; |
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ w( e0 e9 K5 K, ?past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not# ~; d" I5 u! {" G
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
$ e1 h" Z% s, C- [# ?. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are% [' p9 i3 W  p0 O$ b
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 y- u% F) b5 j! z. [* p- n9 Tbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a$ U( z1 S2 S- r: S5 I
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
: ?: h* {1 P) G! C3 qhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- p  U( @! N' S8 J8 U
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ o: |0 N  h7 G
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
, \+ A8 y, y! b7 Q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is  D1 A; \' C, D$ }7 N6 b7 W7 _
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an, d2 d, L  `; Q$ i. x0 m
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
" p/ c( j4 {( }6 U% h. T9 nchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
- m0 j4 B2 s; n2 nLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 I& Y! c: q% b1 [+ v( s
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
1 `# |( M& o, A5 peight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: G5 ?1 O- i% ]1 HInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 B1 i. @6 Q% [# ]3 V
6 O. A. S/ z" v' dSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% P3 p- t! i0 C; S
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
  R: E0 v$ M5 t6 p. |8 o. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for) c: R/ J! O4 \) o7 }( e0 h" W+ l
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, e0 y" A6 l3 u) v. MOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" Y5 F% S3 {* ^( adoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; n5 u4 Y6 A: m) b$ V" ^
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope- x2 P5 p- ], w
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
5 K) d8 E5 s( Y  T# f! Pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# p3 O2 R) z# L1 r7 B4 V9 Spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.* n% j7 O: K9 Z+ q7 C& Z: s5 y' f

4 c* E3 f2 H8 ROver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
; _' `# \& F6 Mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 i& f7 ~( A7 T" |0 H
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a* A: P5 y: Q5 |6 i* ^, @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( V; |9 X3 U2 f1 W# |$ wall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- c1 ~. m1 a+ i' l4 O% Z6 I8 j6 finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
! @1 `* C8 W' _8 Texplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 L% D% x5 W9 A
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! E3 \$ [6 m, j8 ysuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
( X; p0 f6 ?: z! G( {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, 2026-4-15 18:07 , Processed in 0.090877 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