埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1878|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
" F3 I, q' j$ M' I3 R9 ^' q% G& H: ?* _2 W
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。. b+ x. d. A* I) w1 q
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。+ f* ~; E! r3 K# z) n. g* S7 i
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。5 ~5 ~7 I# O4 _0 p
5 Z( M5 c* A  W9 [6 {
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html; p$ {( p0 l! ~
& h6 p$ p1 r' A- ]% \% F
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
  z$ ?/ L& u0 r3 d3 C- K  P" {/ k+ R. I7 e9 t* K$ F7 K
英文原信附后,大意如下:2 @1 g5 \8 _, A% C7 J( `: v0 N

+ H8 E9 _1 ]& z  g# f7 I+ R$ n% H3 c斐尔,
+ w/ [6 P" a2 ]% h+ G  g% O. m0 R       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* b2 g, K5 J6 y) T/ K3 N
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: F  j$ O# Y( r8 D3 x       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  A, k8 J" P: e& Y0 ~9 g$ f
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
" L1 L' C& B# }/ @6 X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。1 ~/ n7 q1 s0 B' ~/ C
       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5 M0 {# a2 O# s) J
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; _; W$ y3 o* V6 @& V: g
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/ P7 {3 ~+ I) p( ~
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。6 I+ p0 n/ D$ m/ G* J/ ~) b
       我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中,《自然》可能意识到了原副标题的偏见; H6 ~2 q* _$ h' H1 P
,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
* @7 r+ Z" i! ^- W* b”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。9 Q% g$ ]7 ]) [2 M2 i; Q3 q
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她
, L2 o5 z! H  H2 V! ~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$ x  e& R( {7 e
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
+ _9 J, c& @/ a" n$ `) G. X       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
  X. h, W8 a, j3 ]5 E( 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0 z( Y* }) G" X2 ~+ c$ r9 Z
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; I) ?+ o5 D: a, s
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4 M) T! w# j; V7 ?4 r" [
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
3 D$ H) K2 [# }, D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
9 `/ D  y7 i# x0 y6 }! [+ j% F) }: k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
$ C1 |' H4 S* _. j/ Q9 t' @6 N+ u。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* A: e: t4 k, A, W
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
& f  x2 e4 J7 v0 [% g8 n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
6 h5 S. k/ x1 W0 O4 `* r1》,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
0 L4 n( Q8 Z" X& Y3 r0 {Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不
% ]& ~3 X0 a% @4 {7 o# t% Z6 ~8 i同意见的专家。
# W3 G9 N7 n8 t- |/ H# i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; x  F- g, _! b- X/ S- @
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& x; E) f# }2 x4 p' h( m& ~; J( z, ]
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4 O* r3 y) R) B! ]" r' S( @. t# e
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。( u3 p$ ~$ D* x* D5 V. t
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)
) t( a4 ?- r* Q; M  R2 |# @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
$ E- M1 T0 [7 f4 A' f《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
3 Y$ r4 y& v' v" u' b8 S3 v这些被Callaway忽略。4 I" B% |+ ~$ e4 Q5 O1 U
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给( q4 H1 x8 _, z! B) S
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: K! E+ l. c+ Y* ]. R
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 U$ K# a9 b: A2 I; m  R& a- T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
7 n/ p6 @7 T0 u  t) D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
  n, d6 ~% k4 w5 e& }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& D3 w' a! }7 |* ~2 @; v
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。; l( ~0 B% N6 f& l4 {
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
7 W' H1 `+ F8 O$ y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
) N7 p4 g9 N4 U( u* l' u; g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
: j4 N0 I' O& }* h) c" h7 c”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
0 l5 c# I- D! M0 ?" K3 c( H+ F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
0 L8 u+ }" {, A# b9 n. g" R5 e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
; D7 n7 K6 k, ]4 [3 m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 A% X8 H& E
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* t3 {3 k7 Z# |. g/ t5 Y' g
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& a5 f$ T4 j6 Y9 \1 h" k: Z
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。  j. w, d8 [3 S
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
4 I$ G8 D! \. G$ \9 f) m2 E7 g* R2 V& Q4 v: U& U( F' r! K
+ w1 x7 P" U( P# Y) ~( E
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% m8 C$ N3 \! w# f
* O2 G% O' n3 _9 V
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结  q6 D  u$ O5 O& m* T  y! [
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; y$ }2 A" H4 G) T
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
* i! n7 @7 }8 P1 A& u9 R附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 D$ r- ^; u( n2 F" ]/ n2 [6 c9 o- }; O
. ?* D; `% d& C: Z$ D1 m

, I  }4 M# [" N1 D* z原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)' }8 H7 m2 H, `9 n6 o2 l8 ?  E
Dear Phil,/ |, T6 s$ N8 U, M- E
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s1 \  W; [- W) m4 ]0 L5 t: y( D# o
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
9 e1 p+ o# V% F, L0 B/ u, D' w* bhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* H4 w! y( C7 A6 I$ o) y& ^! l4 {you.
: O# Y+ h+ c5 {: x+ Q       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have, g0 q2 U6 b+ c; h1 b, l
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
# s0 F2 d$ X5 ]$ ~readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ R. O* j" i/ B; J" u9 u  Uworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ ?5 c$ z; v/ L$ g! C/ D) Tpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
0 U0 |" y4 F' P2 J" `/ ]seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news' ]7 O$ y1 S8 r3 ^8 h2 v
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.( X2 A2 Y, c% e$ P  L( `& T, Y. j
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 B1 }+ A3 c  }5 E
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
1 d% F0 U9 h' R1 \: Nnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
4 x; o! u! Y, o! o' mthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 e) e& r& P4 y
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping0 R5 A0 a6 @+ G) v5 C5 L& w
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
" @  v  Y2 {5 E# y4 D* M3 I" ?- Ystandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
+ b: x8 F; t0 [* rand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
& B; [# J( ^" r7 U7 oto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) k' n4 Y- G( w4 H  [4 m+ {reporting.. p& S+ `+ g& s/ J( S6 }3 F9 n
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, b% Q/ _+ s0 o  q, ^9 ?4 [* C# nalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by' Q# v% t! ^- |' a1 e1 G
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; ~. _4 q! w& \sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ C! b, y! `; _8 F' Ipresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! {) b: J" \) y& L* \+ w) }
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 b2 A* F) r" ?$ @5 g: Cmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
7 Z1 x, j) T& s: D; Lfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
) h/ q" y5 s- x4 Rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
* s9 m) [2 t& |event for men, with the second fastest record.$ ?1 q+ Z! w/ I& ~% D: n
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
* V7 u, o7 h. N8 {3 s& v6 N% M# u; ewas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 165 Z5 X2 @7 ^, S" C5 J1 ~
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" \1 e3 B0 C  X8 u/ L. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400) {* ~2 c6 o+ \9 l
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
8 e0 @" i# s( g" s6 Lfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than% e* r; F2 R- ]4 {) u( e2 ^$ @
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed! P! Y! ?/ W- v8 L- v+ Y
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ s! \6 e0 N! b! Y% q, F2 Sindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
" Q; @/ U9 `4 ithan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
( b0 z: K1 A' _3 ~( ^# Y) gthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
8 z( P0 B! v& s& lher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
7 |  t; ~& b. Q  u0 m% {he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “+ a2 s9 I1 E" {: A- d
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
  F8 G; P9 ]5 dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 ?/ T" \- Q1 Y1 mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
, A4 E9 {' b+ jCallaway report.
! z3 s! @7 o8 |6 ~2 x# X4 fThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more, j6 X* G/ d2 {2 p5 H
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ R0 L3 a, j9 B2 ~% H' Qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description+ T1 U2 [+ m3 ?+ r, Z: c) _2 j* F
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
# Z) A" o  \3 a2 f) m. obetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
; |* N0 T9 O. u3 k3 n' _9 e) rWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had/ e% m8 l! {0 F$ r5 U4 L
publicly voiced different opinions.
: U* I. m$ t' ^! p$ {You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
8 e+ s4 @) c1 S  _# E; }! D. Cfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
: d8 K0 r) J$ ]# ^' WNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
1 E1 Z# v0 O; d( Hpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds4 T/ W3 ]% Z& J5 M1 x1 `# v3 G
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; s6 Z0 l2 K+ P, B, |" Yof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
. r! R8 P; I" Q# J! C- g9 ?- VThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think( m. X' B4 D& r8 f" C, m
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They  m8 I: V5 v# t" ~6 h* v8 T0 n( h
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
& `' P- m. U. A0 X: Q/ PAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 Y! w) Y& D$ y7 ?$ @the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was! E6 c. n6 T; O6 D% b# m
supported by facts neglected by Callaway./ }1 W4 y4 H8 t: ]- t1 _, t
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that* H$ a& A+ j1 J0 A2 x9 T) i- F9 X
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
0 p8 z0 i, d" i8 x0 _( r; KChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June' Y: p3 ~, P  q
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she$ D1 s0 h' m9 u6 ?
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting." o( w, @8 A/ p: p3 X0 o
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science# g# c7 a, I& f: M; R# A  _" O* w8 Z
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and) J, i8 l  R- h/ f) C; n
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
* N" V6 W: j& BNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
3 F& U; b% @7 O! ]* M# h* bobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature" y4 T/ B" o7 W8 f
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! Y- ?9 ~$ j$ a# e0 Z+ ]1 Rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.6 `$ s: d7 `% S5 v
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
/ Q& j+ p1 V+ T, ^5 v0 o+ A" Ashow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
; @1 g3 Y" c) w' |+ Jus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
+ Q) [; ]+ G, t! Q& d; vfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
+ Y3 G1 |1 V0 mthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”( d# y5 Q6 E. W, }; ~( a
about British supremacy.
/ C- Q1 g' j+ z, Z* rThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many) U: R2 r7 T+ \
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
( H. e% M3 Q& y: s5 iChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
  R5 z1 V- e" a3 M( b8 X& N; jour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( c3 g  e  h- s2 y( e4 [% _
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.# T; j& Y# u( H% ]
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
2 f2 g! R8 l# Aprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 Z$ G3 w+ F$ S" R: |  [before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ f5 k8 q0 O' L( J+ j
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly- L  `: n6 ~2 {- L
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
8 a7 q5 g0 _! y) c/ {# ^3 Z# oNature.
- e9 p# M# Y9 C: P' i. ^I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance9 f- N+ }2 {) u" \+ W& N- b& H
the Callaway report.
( L& `. ]1 E9 X. y4 c
+ l. G; D5 `9 R4 T  eYi
$ T) d, z4 N, h9 H8 h! K+ K$ \$ e
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
, H" f  g( W3 M) O7 Y& KProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
+ F6 s$ H& V! F2 f, Y5 d1 tBeijing, China' O6 ]0 w' G+ F2 R7 r. B2 y& Q
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
6 q  Q/ H( ?4 p" d原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
! C5 v- a; j2 P( @7 x9 h/ Q
原文是公开信。& u+ w; b) J0 I9 |# C/ \

( h; I, Z& n( D: m- u. o9 }9 a% ^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
  [: N: }: j+ W, I: a. ^- o' e: x原文是公开信。
8 f2 t, a# t* @6 Z" k7 B
- _  e- J+ @. ?/ u/ M小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

/ }# m( B7 l# w. k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/ _9 K0 R& I" E
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
5 H* B; J! i) Y$ h# K
0 K& x" q% \! Dhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html/ o$ a; b& ]* ?# k: A8 W

, T( w4 T" ^2 u  Z( N8 z# i' ~FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
9 p) u# J$ r+ A0 W9 G
# F; M1 O7 b# M- \It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
; h- h% y1 ]1 B, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science9 y3 F& @) p9 P$ O( M9 h- P# E
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: E7 C' F6 \, T' K
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
- x, c$ G2 ^% T+ B. S* R9 Wscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general  ^7 [8 z6 G8 c# v! Q& P$ j
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( Q+ M5 Y6 H9 }. eshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,, |  g8 }) P2 M* D- p+ \: `
which they blatantly failed to do.* ?, Q* T& }* _- B  R' b

" E" l; S0 n: M& a: UFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her+ o6 F' W, t" f+ p% i" ^1 K7 G
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 u1 V8 n* Z+ P! g% q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( L- N! }7 v2 o: q* A+ f8 {- ?5 ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
+ ~( S+ r1 M& e) C8 e% K9 cpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
( B; u  a) I3 A7 {improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 w: ^8 Y9 M; M" O9 _difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 R7 B% t0 e) _1 _& ~3 a
be treated as 7 s.% f# u) {8 p) X  f  e' s
: M. a4 c0 K! P
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is& E8 Y5 M! X1 R5 d
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem* X8 ~% I& ?5 \( Y. x1 [6 |  T; D6 V! j
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.  E/ }) m# Y, B" R
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% @1 I# N$ {1 F/ g* m
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.& u5 k; e% c0 ]2 A  O5 l' P
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ J$ G; i' |. e! p7 a# }  I" U0 _
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and/ \8 D/ Z& X+ j( [, t' F
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# Y% z% I4 u  ?based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound." t, Y$ l7 c+ f& S
& ~& t) Q( O  G5 k; f* C8 |2 T& w
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook( y+ W3 o5 l" _1 y5 i
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 _  k( z- I  D+ ~& k# N
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so9 }) v+ r0 O+ [  T2 W, O/ K
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
0 f% }* u7 F% o7 p" b/ A0 Oevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
- n1 |- ]4 U7 M: T- ybest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 c( f$ \0 M9 m1 L9 S# pFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
- t: x  E2 F$ Z+ dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 R4 O  c4 N. ^
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle5 C9 c: \0 F  {
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
  f1 i! ~; R2 estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 Z2 V4 Z' I5 ~faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam; C- V% I( h* h" C7 `) n
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 \  V! r3 D+ r- Y+ x  f, \aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
$ s7 P$ f/ z0 h, Nimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.2 N0 u, c& a- ~5 Q2 V
  \: v, ~0 S5 t  s4 m
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are( H6 x  B3 `& H" A! c3 t2 j3 C3 W
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 D: J, j" O/ c4 g" Ls) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
6 T" O# c2 m, j8 C$ D6 H), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 l9 M1 g2 \# k3 ~
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
2 ?4 o9 [, f$ M$ DLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 t* P" ]. @% i! \. Hof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 p- o7 G6 [8 D7 y1 J
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
8 G; @: r! p% @0 Z% z; aevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, j& t+ d  \4 [, W) P2 S1 k
works.5 u4 M  L# q& b6 ^. F; T( @9 h

% y& Z8 z2 j. _! BFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! ~2 q9 O( h2 n- ^" P
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ J0 @; L, o* Jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
/ @- [% `; A( S' o0 x2 T  [5 Ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 V6 l+ l( w- [, z% X5 o( a% rpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and  E9 W2 A. I2 C& `( `
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
  b% F9 @( c9 B& M/ Fcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: p  x! e2 O* |' j) ^2 [demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works7 G$ z1 ?* |1 B. ?! {
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: U- y+ m% s: a5 jis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is* f8 Y6 A  [) _/ I- n: h! y- F
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he, l% a* e* p% f( _  g
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 f. D  E- `: Q$ P  w
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
9 K  m; h/ ^. d/ kpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not2 L* d! @7 K' c( u
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 F; e; \; H4 A. q1 z9 I
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 j& \* j+ f) n
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" ]1 y* u- [+ N% ^
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
0 i; l! H% {# g1 c' G5 V; Mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
6 ?+ x# o/ P+ l: W+ v8 R0 a# fhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, e$ c9 m  p- R5 G- tdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
7 t$ q7 \4 @: ~" Q. h3 ~other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 A0 p: c. g, W; O! a2 |, G, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is4 q0 d& H  T! \+ ]' [) D# z
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
! K) G: n1 w! pathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 S3 L$ ?0 z: M- s7 [
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, H2 a$ F& j) H) ]7 n+ F9 @
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
3 z" V- _3 c- j  {. hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 H4 ~4 ]& R' G! n8 A9 I& f
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 w8 B/ \' ?! s* o( |Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?; v7 B- L1 Q( Z/ w7 X! T
8 X% r7 c& r# _, L; d
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
6 E: p6 s# P- f4 R# Ccompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. E3 j5 f# j* \* V% Q2 T6 I
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# k) l; X& i" }' `
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
) w: {" j! a, w* p& X6 `Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
( @/ P) d3 {! S8 M1 qdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
1 o3 A( ^2 n4 M3 _games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
5 C& H. p2 y9 u; Qhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 B* D4 U) ^) t  \& s- f
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
4 l7 G, E$ j$ ]- Wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
& E6 |& g( I9 i+ @# Y+ p4 `3 @5 i4 R, E9 k
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: }! ?% f7 ^4 m& D) ]intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ [; M7 L" u) e. ~, O- Z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
2 s2 W3 Y- V+ y  psuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. t& u' |+ t! d- t2 i4 zall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  S* |7 A$ n1 p. z1 p8 F. R- b
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
- M9 `* t# q/ N& Kexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" c2 t" f. Y. d( Fargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
8 k0 U! E# p1 J, U0 U2 tsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or5 M. c6 W9 Y' m: Y; |6 c7 }
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!
大型搬家
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, 2025-12-7 23:57 , Processed in 0.211734 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