埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2300|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 # t3 \* ]( I  a6 g' R
( b) _3 }, x  r0 ]5 `& b
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。9 K; Z1 U/ F. T, q2 K2 S
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。
( }  x# Y7 l0 f7 v7 B$ l4 y$ I; P# ~  i总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。; g8 u; k3 s0 W+ n( x

  D  ]) k' r6 ]0 d* [+ yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html9 f' i. d1 n& f, _
* N4 C9 c4 m, p. k( q, d! ^" P- W
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
( B& c! r% ^! R. X+ b5 l; z5 O  q5 q: x1 h, y6 ~1 Y# F; Z( U
英文原信附后,大意如下:1 k# ]: X, f$ w% d0 q7 N

. ^: z4 z: ~3 U+ N斐尔,
; B* V' U9 g7 ^: b8 I. a       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8 ]" f' ?( m' y' W+ E$ E
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
- M) O- o) M  X+ J: b9 V. r4 t       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1 t6 g* H6 L' ]/ Q0 t% q0 V" }* A
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
1 q- M7 j) B# ]; U. O4 `8 {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 a+ S  A' w" D" `7 F% {) t$ F; s9 {
       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
6 u: u& L! z. l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
/ q& r# J& K, L* C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
, I: k! k" o+ n( E( K9 ]$ A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。
5 ~" t7 o; q0 a" [3 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$ h: f3 m! U6 T3 Q/ O2 j8 L
,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
( C5 U6 J: z9 R" D”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; R4 W$ C& C7 W6 W; N& H       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% h+ x  B  N8 ]( K
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! A/ |+ a) P! e" `
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 W4 ^' N: B- j; T6 Y  S7 r
       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
1 b$ W- b( K  l# }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1 q7 o! n% R! ]! L% G, W3 G( g
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二4 R7 p" k1 T4 t0 T
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0 W" ?5 r8 y+ g8 B! d/ C
300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、六1 q( ?% y  w- W+ ]
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$ w/ G( j6 j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
) I) ~( L" G9 ]. D: E; q+ Q。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
2 b  S% ^# \0 I, c9 ?$ L) T录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
" s" q- U/ j6 W4 Y- V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: J) E% Z3 G4 Z& ]/ w' }) n
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& v+ L+ ]7 K( x1 ~
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
" f+ ^0 a# g4 s+ n同意见的专家。# @9 X/ S! c! S" y' V: z
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& w2 C( A; \$ {/ A3 L2 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# f% @- p/ v+ a' l4 ~$ {
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
2 g' A" H2 }, ?6 _《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
) H3 L' |. f9 |2 ^  }/ W! ~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)
* |5 ~$ X7 X1 R1 ~/ J8 J1 l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
: c2 G7 W4 m2 h4 j, `! y7 k8 |0 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
2 j! _4 t& f2 D, n+ C8 p" L这些被Callaway忽略。
( [" B; H( k8 F/ U7 X$ D4 a( 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& u2 _  ~) }' v4 }- d3 s$ o) \. ?6 |
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
4 ]: N* {. M8 n' d. _" d教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
4 J( u& J* e1 L8 [5 s3 Q+ ]# 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  [: o8 ^. g5 ^( B! H3 d. V
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
' Z7 F" a4 g7 v  b, }+ I, ^# X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
7 y$ R9 W" G  |8 X( u2 q5 x  x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。
& y( B$ Q0 d1 x1 W, W  {- p( u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" m& [. Y3 E* Y# t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  W5 X# B0 V9 D+ a3 @. 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
( x# B+ l- i% ~1 Y$ o/ t5 ]6 l”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。$ a" T: t: Y. g- |% P* 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' {& _* d9 F. f3 @! U0 @0 l
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+ g4 w4 C, V7 G/ R6 X' g
题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁
7 ~* u3 u3 X! `6 z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& f0 p6 G* r+ w8 `( {9 k' L. c
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
3 \: R/ G$ h+ V+ u% |而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
2 \# M$ f5 M) b: w我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。1 s( s* ^$ r, E! }+ S3 G; F+ L
! d( y2 t8 z3 v/ L
6 H: R0 p1 M2 }: g
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅4 ~  k6 O: q- _( _

& G; ^- y' c' I附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结$ ?9 |. |+ h; J$ ^
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
! v) E2 @8 G, t; v附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见4 n7 e! @5 S5 k' m" u6 d9 e7 X
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) h. f7 n0 \% w, O! f
5 x  X: H: o2 Y: A5 @" Y
; h7 z4 }2 q& q: |, S1 h/ Y. X. V" m* k9 G+ ^9 S; n; n/ K- }
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)1 |; F( {0 k2 f3 A3 F
Dear Phil,& @7 d9 s) {8 e3 g7 u6 e9 e
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" p+ j7 j. g. g9 Y! e9 |5 g: b
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
2 w! j' D$ f7 chours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed9 z" r' h, J1 Y
you.
) L' J% Z7 I: Q8 M  s" {; c. u       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
2 }1 W! ~% ?5 F# ~4 qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese6 Z% R6 T) R* A1 s+ ]8 R) h4 }5 m1 e
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the9 @  R: b3 \& c# N
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- t/ N0 B% A( u; ^publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more* J$ N! f% ?4 V8 s0 D4 {
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news( h" F/ s6 B- j+ G* U' j% ?
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.5 d  [' e( X. h+ F9 @( t% O; h
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the4 V! v) ^7 M$ H+ n- O7 X
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a9 \) x- k- m& X- I9 g
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish( z3 V5 H0 q/ Z/ I. M4 J
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
; F& ^& q+ W, Rdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping+ }, _( N5 P7 `" _" v8 X! D
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal0 F* n9 t; |- _) M5 v
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,3 X  p; `2 k& i% c. d: Z
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone' a. i& {# }8 g+ P
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news: P: C& ^9 Q  F
reporting.
; r" M3 X# J& `- W2 u! m* l( w8 J       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have3 r- S( n3 B6 O
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 ^6 |# U) s! F- d& N- t- J9 N' pchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 K6 Y- c: i7 s# k# r7 O+ H% Q+ O
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
5 g% \* g) ~# k: p# R' ppresumption of cheating has changed to doubts., @& u1 y0 ?+ m, q
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ Q) z, V) |: o6 T- u: n/ k, Umore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds6 k+ K2 O, ~4 I  {- d+ c) C
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
% B- D, ~  i* T5 e5 l4 l+ cmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* V! z4 Z3 d, O* X! b7 g7 w
event for men, with the second fastest record.
& g, X1 j2 d: J3 u  _, B       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye  m: l. p3 A) V, A" c
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
1 M' L- `- [9 V/ y0 d" {" Myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record0 B& o2 \2 h( r
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400) [7 ~7 Z  t8 Q3 G$ _' ]  A
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,$ V3 k) L5 ]* O4 e
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 g: N6 h* Q+ bLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% _0 `% ?% d* G3 U; L1 X" y
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
! P9 }4 }& \7 ~% f$ S; qindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower  Z$ u  P' T3 Y( i+ s/ s2 T8 u- s
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than* K& p; ]7 Q3 F5 c7 [8 ~! X
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was) R7 S7 j6 T; B& j: F8 h+ V
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. T* ~, y3 P9 M6 s9 T5 \3 A8 [
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “/ X1 F" I6 n8 ~  L; w/ h4 c
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other  [) {% J+ W* A$ T% m8 E
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the; i* ?) \3 O: _# e( y5 ?
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the8 |& H1 S, I6 a) X+ q
Callaway report.+ [1 y' _0 o5 H6 ~1 [
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
& j. S' ^4 n* yunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
# [) ?# |; g7 O3 |. p- X8 mhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description/ K( [! f$ R4 D! {" i
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
6 [" E/ [( P, \; b$ j  O1 b% ^; Qbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the% z, k  Q( ?8 W" ^: Q
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had2 `1 s/ m4 D3 G
publicly voiced different opinions.9 L, Q- Y: }8 a: d0 Y& l! L7 @# U
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD3 s8 s1 N5 B# a0 \, V
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature# p6 S2 r* v0 U5 q2 x* p. _* j3 o. }$ x
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent! k. P$ a3 [; T" k& M5 {$ C
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 p5 K7 Y# Q) s0 t% W" jyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy6 ?0 F. R  ]+ q( t
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
4 J& z: X( M: c( R* g9 @There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think5 o( o- p. U( u. o
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
( A  Q+ k# b  C1 ]7 _have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as1 @' C7 @- l7 f# [0 d/ c
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
& @7 M2 z2 V+ athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was, U3 J. U+ p) n7 _2 _
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
2 R& i* z  G0 lOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
) y! F; ~6 p! ^* b( v0 S7 W+ Omany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
( z$ P6 z0 o9 p# F% y6 O' cChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June) H# Z, I" h! V5 R
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 J) Z+ E/ b9 T3 z  q# ?' [and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
% ^+ z  E! b- V( @$ g/ mThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
2 E' N) j. [5 e# h4 ^& g. Mand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( |1 Q) h- a, l$ k  [) P! U# ~- R
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.4 ]5 j' B" r4 N( W- \/ M9 R
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
5 b9 [4 |% E8 O1 D; m$ Q$ C; Tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
" E  |3 B. A6 a& X$ [% g  dwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! p/ l( }0 f$ c3 @: [repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
4 ~2 ^3 s5 P0 B  S- \0 q( wThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
: ~! p: f3 X. j  d" A2 mshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
; _9 l5 u: B) S# m$ yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
' I' |3 |; Z# x% D$ o, J4 S. nfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
3 u# W. i4 _- ~  {; S7 n7 M& fthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
) }. E) |1 I" kabout British supremacy.
! }4 K, M/ G. y1 |. ?  [" qThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
% g$ Z# V) m  Y3 [7 ]  ounsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
* t/ [7 y9 g, q) Q% b; OChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by# k3 [6 w2 ]5 T  ~1 d' s
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
0 \* {$ d) l+ t# |7 G0 WOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
( p$ x* i& t" |7 mYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of# A0 P8 Q+ ?' g/ a  \4 r4 ?( I0 w
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
! i$ x& j$ }, w1 M6 k; \+ W7 b. O4 abefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 u! ]: Z/ R; k4 ^) Dit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly, e$ R! C+ Y3 `) z: w
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like( w. Q2 ^5 B+ V* y' d
Nature.
% Z: Z! W4 J# `2 @$ H: _I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance3 A0 P; M# i1 T
the Callaway report.* `( p4 Z* ~8 y; S* ~

4 [( a1 @" V& g. u9 O5 f0 kYi
* H& N" R$ t( \( `
* b- p/ Y2 B5 x8 y- w$ @- \Yi Rao, Ph.D.
% }* q' j' D1 T: k, j5 p- Z7 iProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
5 ~* E& u5 Z) A: D7 f/ ZBeijing, China
( S8 d" E. c6 s! K9 J( y
理袁律师事务所
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 * p. _+ ^! _% s- ~7 }6 x$ z4 M
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
  K; P9 o; B/ V
原文是公开信。- h4 x$ R7 L0 V5 y; W! Z) P) W
6 B) c$ p; ]' B4 E/ Y# }. d
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
0 |% T3 d2 {. ^6 ?8 V原文是公开信。( h# V6 X5 U' @4 ^0 `
5 R7 [8 O3 z! S; ~8 x( B/ E, X7 q
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
# J0 C9 @5 t7 [" 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
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. N$ z# K$ K) f9 G4 Z& Z/ Z
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 P( x! [' G6 u+ m& h. U0 H( U$ a2 q; [9 A/ h! B. V- Q$ J
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
  w1 E. g/ r* P+ S/ Z1 b' t6 f$ j9 Q
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
' ?/ ?! f5 d! i
* W# E% d; q+ S, e9 Q8 hIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself) c* N1 T0 w) z9 q, a5 i' e1 M" G
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 N3 Z* Y, _* R$ s: L
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
6 Q% z, V9 Z9 _2 ~( c% _. Fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# i% q6 D& r8 Zscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general' Y. e% {; F2 {: ~& f4 y' V1 d
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 c/ C& S+ |3 Kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 H6 o2 N! h; N& m& o  J7 Lwhich they blatantly failed to do.
9 @8 d: C" t* X4 D' [" q$ s
! L( m% N$ s  `( _$ Z& G0 z8 }. Q$ oFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her" e. [2 x$ ]7 ]9 l2 A
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ o4 l) b, b. g( k( `: s+ |- m# X
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “  T' s8 i' C2 U# \6 K/ H
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% ?3 n5 u) i/ X6 n. x
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
+ Q- n, b( H6 g) limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
- O+ C! h* j9 n7 W" a+ Mdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 O  o0 g) `, s+ U4 `) Abe treated as 7 s.2 P4 Y) T- X9 w4 @2 @8 {" f. U$ a2 N
+ W# k9 h  F' B+ S
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ m1 ]( n6 w, t8 Tstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
6 a0 y) ~; W. c+ W( F1 Bimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.( `( _4 ~$ Y: a7 M
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 f! M, Y" [/ b, f9 Z5 Q8 F5 }/ d-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! M$ \; b; d) V5 K( m  C
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
% B2 }# L5 m! y3 \! \$ K. Telite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and7 q; }# s5 f5 n: n' L7 x7 B
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”- S0 f& a- |8 Q, _3 A
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.% X, T. H, k  R  b: ?, }$ O+ @
% @( @5 V2 V) V  m- P
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' W" V& [# q4 l" b7 P
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in% m. d& T3 k/ U
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 x' t  S9 ~7 C+ M# vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: p3 l! `( Y# F: d7 i" gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% h0 z2 L4 Z, A8 Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
0 T+ C7 M5 l; r  S* J+ bFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another, y1 S" {! C; @6 E+ ~3 D
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
. O- r8 m- i# Y' T5 ]2 ?hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  I- n$ V% d6 k% r, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! x: T6 O* a/ ^6 ^( X0 pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& }) s; `) z; i+ N3 p- E4 r- ffaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam4 S# l- }( Z1 {! u( `9 Q- J
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 Z' H: _+ W7 \/ @2 C+ K
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
1 x7 E' C& Q: n# c3 _8 nimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
+ p. I0 G' x% G. z. {% ~# E5 \, `* X4 ~6 R/ k  }, A
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
* n+ i" Y3 T3 O+ @four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 U1 `$ [5 K9 B* t. Ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& A( l8 n# J* j& q2 h8 R) M: |
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 U% J7 {) E: Q4 \% V1 S
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,8 s, s$ a# a" l  V
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 l) y; A% ], {% F
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it: G) N  t" k5 f1 B4 C
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in; |8 y( N+ L! O+ W" P4 l2 B
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ }3 S- l4 p) g* }works.
2 V# }% f8 R5 e. ]) k, Y  e/ z! A" X0 l' j4 P, e+ p
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 t1 i& E6 s* i" Q; W2 v
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 |: c. {0 r9 `1 w4 G  ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that' H. Z% M) ~/ W" n* T* `" k
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
/ ?' {* \/ z; L/ Z& g( Q7 d% Cpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
% l' K7 f' W  S& p" G! k  M! W* Creviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 E: k$ ]" u% t9 vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
, v  j" w5 N/ V$ i) xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works0 P. K0 R5 R- O: ^
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample! ~5 A7 K: i& z: J5 R3 m2 V
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is* ~1 h- S3 Q+ ~- }, Y
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he, E. e: p" c) J" m3 ^7 q
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) H% ~: [2 z- M% R
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ K' U0 l2 c9 f: ]& v$ H, o
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
$ {5 B& j; s! p# u& L% c2 Iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' V9 w8 X5 P9 S! X( |$ b+ v* ?
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" C9 P+ @7 p1 K% s- Zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may3 a3 E- ^6 |( q7 {- K: B2 B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ F! S+ {9 @+ M* phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 k3 r7 z3 M* t; G8 o# A) }1 `has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
) ^% V  J5 C% `. bdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* b1 @: D" N" @. E2 l- Q
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 ~) n7 p8 e' c' k, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is7 w+ Z4 b& N9 O: g2 F$ r
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 F6 u" v0 B# M& G5 p5 d: ]athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( A! |& @+ s/ N) A. `  l
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?% ?( j4 W- K1 v9 s. n
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping, D% F- |9 m. c6 B
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. i+ U2 {( b1 [0 t2 e! G; {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
9 Z1 H' G9 m1 c- eInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* l8 C, v9 d) L5 w7 u/ @5 `* i

8 T0 f8 n$ F- p1 a: ^Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-- A# A$ H: f, W5 h3 Z
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* y6 |0 B# ]0 G7 g# M  Z
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, y" X! K2 @9 D- x1 l" Z  S
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: J( S$ e3 }% H& ^" ?: hOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
% L2 C4 J) ?8 W1 w8 Ndoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% i( m0 T& k( f# {games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
8 _, Q- d$ U& c0 Uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
8 }9 C  H& V4 h1 N$ vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
! f" o( k  ~! V( \* s5 c& {possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 O# Y) U- R7 x$ r. y) ^9 L8 H
. @  O! i. m7 ~1 O6 z1 |) m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# B: D! U' `9 Q4 ], n& pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
4 p9 D$ _, N' [, O/ b- E& u8 isuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a8 r5 r' j8 t2 P1 j: c8 R, S! a! V
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide& }/ E# C" t4 @- ^) X/ h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 q% Z8 B; I8 {$ J
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* \+ Z2 g! \, z0 A
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your* A. ~; ^1 d. C8 z6 q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal& S6 F( [5 l( K1 k* \- m: t6 d
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
# F0 M/ P3 b; q) J1 I: H0 j7 @9 rreporting 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, 2026-5-5 20:59 , Processed in 0.108535 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