埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2294|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 % E& R6 x' L# V- ]8 a! w

3 y' F+ b: w: v: f: F6 _" g饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
4 H  Z- P! |/ [( _: m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。
; \# l5 I$ E. _) e) m总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
$ b$ a  y: |& }; w
# X  t# w+ Z8 _$ @http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
, S) d( p5 w/ t7 B$ J7 a' A$ \/ D5 q( H8 S% z7 i( R% d
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% S. w2 B+ R1 r  K1 V# I! A
' K7 ?9 f0 I) [
英文原信附后,大意如下:
8 q* h" ^" r3 H' W* D8 y
% {7 r& V3 y# L" h斐尔,
+ P2 ^  S/ h0 `; ~       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
* |4 ]! T0 A! q! V! L& h( M' bemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
! j4 F; U, h% m8 ^       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 o1 a; L# b* V: M) }8 }' c% T" \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
5 f# l9 f6 p# w) E) S$ j6 m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。) Q' N- v! ]; j3 ^
       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
7 ^8 h' I! J2 P0 ]9 t& U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; n+ \4 h- J8 x: Y/ ^# d
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 l* [. n6 g& \4 q( l2 G" w
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。9 j% I' @5 Q8 h$ N
       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
' _- E# j: p' l) Q& 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" b. b. Z, n. t: s& \1 l9 _+ e/ c9 p
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 c# t& F% w/ M/ r. w- g+ K       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, `1 ?6 E2 N; Z* P  w) ?* F7 o3 W
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
) V% s# C. c' Q" z! l,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- F% ]' E' F. l) r; e; H       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/ e  Q3 I- R; v7 O  t
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$ T7 \4 Q) _. w# B0 _/ u* o
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
# f! v' N' O$ \% i$ B  y" U4 }+ X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
$ g- S  N2 u& H5 p0 s! i! c300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
, d' o* t$ g0 ?/ u7 Q& c; Q) U9 ]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, U, L+ c" `' z7 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/ }& K7 b1 ~, t- S; u5 ~8 p
。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
  d9 ]4 R7 n* H4 C  K( t5 f4 B录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。3 f# K% ^; O( |% Z' t5 \, ^1 Y. z
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
8 g. V$ c' j& d- [' m4 }$ w$ G% 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
5 }% o0 P6 v) K7 cWikipedia。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
( P4 R+ N! U. G' M' V( F同意见的专家。* ^0 t4 I0 K8 r' D
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( U$ q! g+ s/ f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
, W# b7 m3 C" k5 o& L' x9 k6 C学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为
! s% O' F5 `; \6 R# w《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。! a" i# I4 a, k# D. O" K
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)  r6 L% \3 d* N0 N
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
9 [! F) B# }  b4 f  j2 x& N. Y; ~6 E《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
, o. Q( I# I3 P/ N4 v: p这些被Callaway忽略。
; S; Q; z! P7 E6 ~  J( ~  w; 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, C: e" A8 x" t$ L; j9 t
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8 s, G* K: _; a
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。7 Q7 z/ b* _8 K
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
6 J" _2 K5 L% R% X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
# u; F/ T- j% Z6 |+ i/ i) W/ I( B/ H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 p0 O4 X& p7 {# 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。& j( f% U2 d. I9 j1 B: a5 Q
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9 y. O& @4 }( L+ E6 H: S: S
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  z  N3 y7 |; P  N& |
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
' @1 Z) d" d& |& T& a: r- G! z9 K”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
6 e9 s9 B6 s, l) X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; }, b# O( d: ^, O5 b
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2 {3 c9 ?8 M, f6 \3 Z6 f& ~
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
# u  v. d% C$ v6 x) o% D3 O- c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. j& \. d; a0 `
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9 i5 K1 H. Q. a4 Y/ L
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ X4 n4 n' V; Y& f我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
0 G2 J+ a" O/ G. n, ~8 x2 g0 ?' i! x: g" p, a- f. q" z6 ]' D

# _' V: r# a5 X. v% l8 q, v: b6 w北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅2 }; q$ _* U* B) K% q

! Y. Y0 |+ ]2 G; F9 O附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结9 h) L8 D6 d2 A9 g! g( u
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) C  t; G, h' w7 c' y
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 ?. o; s- o5 w" w附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: a# u7 |! U2 o0 P& \* L
. _) O9 B8 X( n& O  b

4 h; i4 J  S1 l  V, `6 p$ B. @2 x- O' A7 d4 \* i( F7 h. E
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送). ?; G; {% U" l4 S
Dear Phil,6 R* S% o) |+ S/ ^/ b3 ]
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s) }9 [# z5 j. w; p0 V: O  [
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
2 R$ }* {" O  Whours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed( E, }9 r  }4 V' F0 \( @
you.0 Q3 {& A  F+ U9 P+ Y0 r
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
8 k" _" A7 {, _0 f' r9 v6 S! H1 R( qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' {% h  E0 T( }1 R% ?8 x9 m" l, R
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
5 M0 d6 p5 d4 n8 @world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature, u/ K2 b5 W6 T4 u5 ~+ R' J
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more  w, R! e0 d$ ~: j; k& y. d/ ?
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
& B) C1 M0 D- {* O: D" S0 Gpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
! Q. v$ I- B6 n# \. @) C! O       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
. F! m& }, ~% e- x( wworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
2 I- X8 ~, N/ ?/ b' C+ o! inegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: O1 t: Y9 |: k. v. A3 _that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 k& v& M8 I0 F4 J& ]
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
, l; @( R, R) \# f* Eexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! a% m( D4 E* Y% F0 k3 k* `
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* n$ M, p# c2 j* V
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone1 T2 j  S  U! d* k& t% g
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
, s3 A* y, c: wreporting.( @( T+ b7 s8 s* F7 ]& g6 y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, S( z) O& l/ U$ I
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
! ^# r. C! b7 ^5 y5 V4 \changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in& _& `: i% ~. i5 x
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ B. ?, ~' `0 ~3 ?presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.5 a- T8 Z* n9 B8 i2 P8 c& h
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem3 l+ \  L3 ^  N4 U2 K: e9 _9 ~
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds& g% x) Y$ V) i/ G. x0 {# g5 _
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50) O/ Y" S9 f  \' [
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* D5 |1 s9 F+ q. {0 I- V
event for men, with the second fastest record.
  L' R% I9 x, B  I  `       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
, _$ f# l/ K. ^. g. m/ w1 H2 Q( Swas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
& S1 v4 s7 v3 Syear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record! u. O) X* [5 }( D# b5 k
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4001 @2 [0 F6 M& i$ }2 k! C
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,3 j" E% I5 f- @2 L* g/ D
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
  t! c* {) i4 \* M+ KLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
. n2 c0 L% x7 n; Hbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. u  P, `7 X" f  W# Aindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower/ {) c+ f. v8 i  E
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
) F" N7 T" L5 Q# Ethose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
9 X4 B7 X/ o" o6 aher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then; u$ e6 v. m$ Z$ u! ~: b9 n/ Z# Y" d
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
4 C( w5 m7 w6 N6 Z  Bproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
6 b2 O% f! K/ K8 k3 q. yswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the+ p% J5 M6 m6 e
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) ^% W5 Y9 \& q/ O1 z$ u
Callaway report.% J1 B4 z2 g) j0 F5 D
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
: F+ A! p1 G. B* {6 y) Qunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details% B, Y( R% K  c. m2 ~6 V
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description; a# Q+ G9 o% G7 r3 M! c; {/ r' m
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 P. E. ~) [# H# v3 w. r' f
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
+ }' r/ K8 L9 s9 B% K& a# l9 F4 eWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had0 c- r. r: W& i
publicly voiced different opinions.# P" p% r) v  G; b& E' W
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
" |; V7 p2 \1 ~8 H6 Sfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' F" v# u9 t; |# _. z2 s& ~: r
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
% \% |" x% M( a6 dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
, S4 P( i4 T( _  z' @you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  E% P' y: |! t# U! N' d1 ~$ X
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.% Y$ ?0 l  X! T6 _' q
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
( C, H# X6 U# ?% u" B- t. athat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They; N) R8 A) v  R
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
3 e/ Z( z) L5 EAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that# h1 |' e9 r8 W! }) k% e
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was$ ^# o% K  ?% I4 X
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.3 G* |/ d! ~* {; {7 e) k
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that! m! u7 p9 K0 k3 T, q& q
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  T& q9 k/ I  s" z. i
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June5 G* a5 v: \7 Z7 E' I/ ~! k; K4 `
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
; \( D" w; h3 l5 Y/ g( H2 w7 G6 Uand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.& P% d# P. c3 [
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science, I- K  T2 K5 C4 [" O
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
0 w2 t2 z- s& |3 ]9 x- HDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; C1 n5 `9 P2 b
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
# l0 f6 ^5 P; B$ R. c4 Dobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
( Y6 M, w) W: W2 [. vwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 H/ `8 _5 ]: w9 Xrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, x+ H  w1 [+ t1 U! R  bThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not; w' k9 q9 \$ U% Y# j, |. j
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced/ x8 D3 s9 G! O0 }2 m  ~3 ^) l9 O
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather1 w4 q/ U0 v! N# R% M7 j* u
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
4 |4 X' ]( z8 Z9 l1 V' T/ h' y# ~this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
# ?. N4 f: G+ ]% j) N* `6 K: Gabout British supremacy.
, Q1 s; c4 V4 G: PThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
! ^) g; e4 Q- t/ |7 @0 ]+ Funsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more# ?: U% I$ J' @$ q) N4 R' S- _9 w% U
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
0 A% K4 Z* T: |$ O9 ]our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. [/ M# J% D; f/ ]1 k2 |8 bOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
8 k* j5 c+ `" T5 y3 O) iYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of8 ~: h; q6 V1 b8 Z# m$ D6 T( {
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 |, I5 {0 h/ l  M* ]before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
( S: X  ^; F9 s, z3 K% ?+ jit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
" i/ M- x( C1 qpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like- m* }3 |( C% X& l! C2 Q! W
Nature.- {# ]7 G) v: a! l2 F6 a
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
5 i( Y) G" w7 F3 [8 ^. m, s  K4 vthe Callaway report.) L% @# J! w' Y. Z# H% ^

& {1 |, [2 T0 FYi; g  N& F: Q1 I  _$ W

4 g; _1 e" G! [$ H: XYi Rao, Ph.D.
- G6 z) U% [( Z  n3 VProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' B1 S( i! _7 ?' E0 zBeijing, China% q, H% b" A" z& `- e: U
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
0 H: k8 A4 k) X原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

8 I! d  k1 j' f2 A! q' N/ U, R  \原文是公开信。
- }0 a- ?% ?5 b# x4 U2 j6 j9 `& n2 G" A; d9 o4 z$ e$ ]  c# p. K
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
理袁律师事务所
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
  ~: H5 G4 R* j, H6 C原文是公开信。( p  s$ m, ]8 L' _, I5 H

1 s, y, h7 ?% E2 r, `3 T3 f小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

' |( {* [6 p$ 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
6 W% y/ d4 w3 _. @# e0 h& i2 t7 K6 h如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 J7 l! Y9 W: {1 }: ]
4 C2 g9 \; Q9 `" `' h3 C+ mhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html8 d) O- j( ?$ p& U2 _( X" P
; W  i: U3 ^1 i) i" A3 I, q
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ _- K  S: \# r3 v; P. \; k0 V% [2 E: U

- j' [) T. d4 r1 R0 WIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
! ?  A4 J; l5 B1 m; I5 K, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 f! W/ u$ @' S$ I! p' ^$ pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ G. k) O8 _$ A# Zis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
1 j! q5 J, e' Y1 |$ Oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* }5 B# X" D  n/ b; J" h
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors2 ]0 l6 s& ]7 T8 ^! q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
  m) B4 j) f4 U0 Y. k* kwhich they blatantly failed to do.
5 q" I9 y+ |6 x4 E; @! d* [. a; T+ G: T  Y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 q; b7 t  q9 h' y7 EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: }$ y4 G& m; ?  y
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- [; n3 f- g) s  i8 z) E9 @2 ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
$ B) Z) h! d3 ^7 ]0 w2 ^' Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 f0 A7 D( c  }+ S3 i( {5 c
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) h: z3 H+ K3 C( S. T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
2 W% q2 w+ T: obe treated as 7 s.
1 z3 V/ _0 O1 V/ |! z6 r
( m' L+ @6 \0 A' u3 m# sSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 o/ m' D( I% a/ n. X. P1 R7 G3 ~$ U
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem: R5 l3 D# b3 [9 I/ a$ n
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
- m/ l3 c1 }1 f- R8 O: }8 OAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400+ f  Z2 m9 b- }% e+ T
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
, z, k- e: _9 e! bFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
0 R( G) ^* z% h' W, d. s$ {" a, `7 Ielite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& Q6 F/ N1 [+ L. L/ Z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& W2 E' S8 f5 W( Y7 l
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, U0 @- `# u9 |4 t- W5 T- M& J8 {( l/ x" X" M+ D, e
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook; K1 Y  `* k; d
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in% d! `& b; V; F1 w
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
4 G) E9 j! B4 r8 t! b, a: Phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
/ }; I) a5 ^; g) f4 gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s) @) ^' P) W! [& v
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World7 I% y6 h( g' h* q: V6 [
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 m/ |* I- W% F+ p
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other2 A7 L# W- T, c( u
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle4 \/ I+ G2 p: e) W
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 d9 f% h1 w* q; |' |3 B& f! ]/ S+ E
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
; z$ B. z. ?8 S8 cfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam, L, c& |  i3 J7 a8 S8 p% G+ ^: X
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
' q- l9 O# J- \aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that8 n' b1 F+ s& J6 O
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
- `! O5 Y; l) ]. B' k1 i4 G! r' [0 h  ]& F% Q
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
) v0 D2 _% D! Q( Efour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 U0 k. d( c" g6 s1 d" qs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
5 K# m. k3 \& X), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns' ~, `3 X2 Y5 s5 h: v4 P
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
1 G1 ~, s9 {4 A# d3 t! i4 j8 k& A8 xLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
1 j0 g0 r$ h8 Q2 R! iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it# ]' Q, Z0 ~8 k& y
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 M  c( L1 A' \" Z* `( [% Hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
" k. r9 e! ]  u& v6 B. [  rworks.
" f( S" |1 H' o) M- U5 O& I6 c' n. }$ K1 ~
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
- U4 m7 L8 w/ b7 Gimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
4 K- x! o8 `2 L) ]( ~5 a, ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that  A. a$ c) ]7 D3 P9 o% Q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific5 i% w9 M$ z! B* ]' X2 l( y0 B* J
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and/ |3 B7 ~: p; C8 s( X2 e9 `, m
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 J% K5 I' X- F7 L6 dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% t' E/ o$ Q5 P% E7 ldemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- Z2 b% i5 m7 g
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ v6 z$ m: s" e$ his found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is- |' d; r0 m" U, }# b" H- G0 Q
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he6 m3 s3 e* W# G" ^) R/ A
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 H) i% l" v1 [3 x- w
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ k1 L( D0 U8 U2 p
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ o* J1 t$ N0 d: u( H: S
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
5 ]/ t1 M; a) R% q. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, A. R2 S% A2 N8 ldoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
% w7 z+ w5 f; ~be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a0 F) x& I1 E2 q# p- R
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. Z' N: Q" L# [0 C* B; q, }" D. Y: ehas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% |; s5 l& M8 p" Y% N* w
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- h( _7 G* m/ H( t+ U, Z( X
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
( Y1 C1 ~& F# `, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ Z/ O! p5 }9 a1 Zprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* o3 _& x, J" Z& b6 t4 yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( E& O- o0 \; k' E  d9 }; q
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
6 r2 c. p; e8 G0 q6 H% [Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
: q+ E+ O+ |5 T% W+ p& r( y1 s$ P5 H; Qagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
$ T+ [3 y: i( e4 J  t8 qeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ x4 Z* C! s- ~1 p8 l' i0 J6 O
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
! t* x+ X  x' }" Q; q# I4 _0 r- K  X6 }
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# t4 {# F* }1 M! p3 Ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 \1 m# [, ~0 y1 {: X
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 _3 P* W, B1 J; Z3 X2 g" E
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
! q9 f3 U% m* KOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
7 M- a* }% r; q- y2 ?8 e' d* _doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
; Y2 V! N' A$ [5 x  r' H; g! Pgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope! w) e* V' K. _$ M% ^4 k( q) a+ u) ^
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* S- c3 [2 E9 J; V/ `# aplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this! w0 N+ E4 \1 o9 ?, s: q7 d
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.; {& l" X4 A# A. L% C$ @4 a
' \' e. R$ O3 T  I% I; r
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (& j, \3 w8 C( R+ V( M2 q$ f
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too) S) L; r# A; Y4 H8 r
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a. v) G2 r1 l$ e# Y; Z( J. j5 C
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide4 g1 d9 Q4 e9 p- V" ~
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your3 Q% ~! K% k2 q8 V
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
8 Z3 Q* ?4 t6 y; X5 V% @6 E3 Aexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
$ F3 ]& ~) ]$ v* h% `argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal9 |& }( o6 Y; D# V7 {7 m) E' R: h% S
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 z- }4 D* D* `' h0 Y9 s( y7 Qreporting 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, 2026-5-3 09:56 , Processed in 0.135655 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