埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1981|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 ( v$ z, N* G6 n) G+ V

' W) x- j  _6 [! J/ _1 y, y2 P2 e饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# [! }  H) T" R) V+ w% w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。
" t! ]! ]+ o5 d4 ?% F总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
: `# \4 X3 A- x- V% T$ s/ p6 T4 h$ _5 ~% j" m" U9 k' [
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html( z( _$ z! F9 H5 P6 [1 `
. Y2 T# \6 q' u/ Z: u4 Y
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选7 r. ]* Z% \) g1 l% h8 I

2 D# y* ?3 P" g" o* e/ Z英文原信附后,大意如下:
- ~+ H( ^1 [; `1 u2 U7 k/ e
$ A3 L& _" v0 E: R7 B3 t+ G斐尔,$ q* |- O+ _5 I
       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9 j, A! w  |8 M4 W, x5 `1 N
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。+ G5 M" I0 R! D* ]2 p9 U- o
       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# ], Y% t+ ~( V' B( S7 ~% w
中文读者比世界其他读者更看重你们的新闻报道,与科学相关的(即使关系很小)也可
$ f2 x; F) t8 }9 l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。
, @, c: G, t. `. ?) `       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
% g' W( I0 q- `' K! z! l7 N+ n: f" M- d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
$ d6 W. A7 n, {  V1 ]& {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& L5 i7 |3 s/ l, k$ n
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。/ t1 B& x8 U- ~# t  x4 g/ W9 R
       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
2 _! ~  F( Q+ f- B,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
2 y+ i# P- Q8 B”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; U7 }' i: x) _       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
+ @3 h& l* ?* a  I1 ^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: q1 _0 I" [* n8 l' d
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
* l$ c, w& ?/ G6 A+ ~* {5 T5 t# 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
6 N( g) Z+ x0 v8 Q% S2011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" |% m1 D/ F: j7 W
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二8 N0 ?# C. y: f' v' Q6 q. N) |9 I- u' o
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' |: e. M2 X: ^! N- l300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、六6 K' p4 ]* u4 X9 v7 E
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
+ |5 ~& y# ^" M* X9 ]( B; o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: a1 a9 B( j0 o3 m' M
。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. x; p7 ]# n0 J3 O/ q2 t# @* Y
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。6 b# e# V7 X! l& ]
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+ W* F' q! {2 i% Z; Q; V6 g( l$ ^4 i/ ]
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
+ }8 B1 B  v+ IWikipedia。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# Q/ G' l4 `" F
同意见的专家。
: ^* L+ X: `1 C5 p+ b- S; Q6 C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
  W" g+ m; r' ^; m8 z$ O! Z. d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
6 o; W, i, E, j1 ]# E/ c5 l1 l3 B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" H% \3 Z$ N+ l& j
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。" y0 R$ R# U; [* p
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), }* V  H+ g, l, U7 E& _
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
5 q) f  B1 |; t; Z* `《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
! C( c" u" {' O" y% a, B这些被Callaway忽略。
3 R7 Y; i) l; e* E+ X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
2 k+ L( o( ]9 v  b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
$ _$ O  Z3 i* o9 a0 l& B7 g# I6 a2 c教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
4 q. R# Y& ^4 b- h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
/ q# h( b$ J9 z  P" l3 R/ a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
: m' F6 a. U. B+ ^* 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
; a% A, \4 Q% F5 }4 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。) n, F! b1 ?  B' u- B, 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
1 A  m, D9 Z. D. r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6 b& m1 \9 L" n4 k
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
( i, P" K. \- K3 U”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
( I- ^/ q0 B' Q6 |3 V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8 Q/ f+ X0 S7 @
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. O3 W# C* {5 N4 ?3 x
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 M, o2 I7 x7 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
2 m% D. |6 r/ \% x8 [* _) k4 ^% f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 H* X) N' X5 R* n1 `& G+ K- R
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ o7 k2 s4 t) c: V1 L; f我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& ]; s8 T/ B7 k% v9 T' K& o
2 d& r! ?1 S) T1 X: z( b, }) g; [; s, ]) h
. K; m1 j$ ]+ L) _+ ~7 Y+ H- O
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
' `: m1 N! b3 v; U0 K
0 X8 V' e+ y! ~( {! o: c附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
- I0 d; g5 t0 W附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email9 s" P7 U! @, W$ {
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 c* }; p9 A& _3 l) P# m: Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 N( a2 ?7 B7 |  \/ U: j, O) p. z* Y* ?# G4 k2 G# Z1 B! A. }) `

% B0 K# E$ V1 d& y" h; Q  c7 l6 Z, R0 E( w+ k' I! t4 F
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)5 I; D1 d' Q. M  F7 U4 s
Dear Phil,1 y0 J* y, G/ f5 i. \
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
' e/ @, N0 E2 C, z- W3 lreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( y# Q9 Q& G# R# _( I, W' Z$ Q; }hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
8 {- E0 A/ R; `8 G+ q! P3 \3 e9 U; Myou.5 l7 l' M+ F1 o0 T& _. v, L8 W
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
$ L  _- l$ @1 W' vbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese! o8 O* m$ `1 U' D1 p# o2 \
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
2 H1 B+ H9 v. G2 e2 E- Gworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
" E; h$ u. |' B! u9 B0 vpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more3 I, A$ |2 U1 o/ f# n% N
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 r* K, [, |$ \! [1 l: V& E# s3 B
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
9 ?# y2 |! f: E4 e7 D) J       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" j& Y1 A) O- m  g7 u
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ @' k9 j- d) ^2 Q6 Q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- a5 V- y1 G) i8 l# q: J0 K% x% Ethat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway; w+ b1 h- V% _* ?/ ?
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 q5 ]  p+ X5 z  B% G4 I# T, xexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
& y5 r' Q3 W" |' Y1 J2 b; O* \standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
! f" g& R4 Z  g! {) W  _and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone$ J& s. M  G* {( k1 g
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news' J8 v% J" a( T& l) R/ o
reporting.
' p* w0 w2 n7 W1 e1 n: ?7 C       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
0 @/ j; S. T( a0 I9 |1 h+ ~already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
4 ~- E# R3 N& pchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
- ]. U1 Z, \" E$ V5 p6 V% X  ^sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A, C0 b& s& J( W! M& d
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
% i: l& {* u6 M3 d9 [6 `       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
( H; ^" h9 S: omore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
0 U2 T" h% ^# U2 k  Dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
% n# F- W$ N- x! qmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
. E) ?0 D3 [4 tevent for men, with the second fastest record.
5 a- }, r8 i, c9 J% k+ Q' t       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 \2 K) u' q0 {$ B( v# Xwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
& E2 q& E7 E- R- iyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record4 j; K" v6 G2 }: S0 {
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ o: I4 A2 V+ Y& {9 H, wmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, E- ~9 J7 e0 ^
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than% Z" M5 Z3 ]$ ~, h0 }  G
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
" P( u) m6 {* G3 t/ g  Mbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ _' M9 r2 m7 }! C% G+ m- g1 ]+ ]& `individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ I9 B4 S$ I8 y7 t1 tthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than7 b6 i, w6 H/ M# {& |. W2 B0 S
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
$ S9 I" O+ _4 A* Q$ B$ [# c* `. oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
  N% x2 E( `- @he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
5 m, e/ B3 V( C7 A0 g! [6 qproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
: S# q# T4 b- ^5 ~6 U# @( ]swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
& o0 `) Z8 ^9 L1 Ateens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the$ @3 g9 Q# o: D- m' ^
Callaway report.
8 H* ]! M  N0 I% p# m1 v5 L8 X9 F- EThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more  @8 G8 g6 v: F# r
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details9 [+ \1 X% k: W9 W
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description+ `& ^2 j* Q7 `* B# [8 C9 B
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
4 _# t) c! c4 `- F7 ~0 `better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 u- a$ o* U6 x* ~
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
" T9 @; R. \- C/ m0 E1 |publicly voiced different opinions.' Z$ W" {' X6 o. T6 \8 G! z
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 H1 B: m: L& Z- U# T' g0 f
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* c! p  M7 _# U9 {. ANeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
+ Q# N" V/ G$ O" z9 \" a8 Npostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds( Q; W/ X5 h8 M7 ^
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 n% m/ _& z; L1 K0 {! M( w6 Pof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: u3 T+ n) X0 i$ L9 E2 k8 \7 J% g
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
' O* ?4 M1 h9 qthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
% L/ S% {& d$ a7 E; ~1 F- phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as; ]' `" n' y/ G9 l7 }# P
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
, p2 R3 c* M3 S1 m2 fthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
/ g1 J+ e8 e- ]( Q, Qsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.9 d6 L- V4 {! d
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
+ ?* }+ b, ]) Kmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
) I, Q2 j! s5 Y6 O3 \/ ~Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
7 m& m& H: }, i( s& z" g. C5 n& ~/ p, G! U(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she: M  a9 p- k; U" Y3 w
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.% g# J; X2 _4 f' w
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science5 Y. O8 i  ], ^3 i
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
( y% P- m1 `$ W  V5 ]5 r7 VDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
8 O  H1 X% G& O5 f5 `1 u/ UNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
3 g3 Z0 J* a) _( i2 y" D. Jobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature, I8 {4 M. _3 t% I2 G5 ^  ^6 K& Q
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
8 e0 ^$ W, Q  Q& w# `repair the damage caused by your news reporters.) v3 k) R, ~8 V4 i/ x/ |  _# M
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not- ^1 h3 V- X" w9 o" ^7 f
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced- M- _& h9 K: Y
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather# c9 T  d& h5 K" U# i- a
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ _5 ?7 i1 M- Q
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
& Q: w" r" B. b& U- H8 ]about British supremacy., r) Z8 F' g$ q8 H
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many( m/ X. X2 ^. R' g8 B) [
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
+ v4 u* a$ ?! U6 ?Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by9 P; C2 B) ~" K1 V! F/ M
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London3 b0 ~9 W4 P# a, L4 f/ T1 Z5 _4 e
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; F' q2 K$ j) p) y" h6 d( \Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
6 t* J3 X" v. V) hprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 k% `8 w0 t2 u5 L9 ~. Bbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,- h5 I0 x7 b, E0 p5 _6 |
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly) n' z0 a8 W2 U% L$ ~% t3 y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like9 m1 k! J8 g- |8 D
Nature.
* Q9 W1 N- j# m. P6 rI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
+ {# X4 v1 P; z+ Uthe Callaway report.6 U9 d" _1 L" N0 |% a+ k
1 O) `5 h7 P+ J4 U& S3 `5 @
Yi
" H$ n! m1 V% ]8 c: D4 x. {! K, a. X8 F0 f' N1 u/ ~# i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
% Z/ K6 K/ E0 {- BProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
- D7 O# x! S, h/ GBeijing, China
7 |1 b+ l' k7 S- O, x$ Z
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 2 G/ s1 Q& @/ `
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

) O; i' e( P( f- P- Q) H8 e原文是公开信。; ^( q2 k' p. f7 s
2 v3 c% X: r1 C$ ]
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   X* @' Z: Q- @/ Y% p
原文是公开信。% I- Y: O1 T) k1 J7 X, h- y( M! W

% e- H2 c. x. X3 Q1 j. |小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

0 Q& o; z; |+ \* s  S9 S, R( R8 G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
( O2 j: l7 H# J1 a3 u/ w  m% O* e如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。$ j' ?' G& R4 S/ ?6 T; y# x

4 T6 Q- y, b( j9 vhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- W# d$ U  b* k
6 D4 Z7 }2 O5 h$ i
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, p" p' J! w) ?
9 f! A9 h5 z$ w& M& l, `
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
5 g; \, Q. T3 |8 h, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 }: q+ S" T) K1 W8 [magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
. r: r( f# |; p! Jis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: {4 R# r8 ?$ U& L: @: ?
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ q, I% F/ ^# `# }0 J0 N4 P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
+ X" E4 `! j/ g3 S, J2 f  Ushould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,& D; A( }# s) u. n
which they blatantly failed to do.
( Z* Y0 G. N. b$ B2 O" U5 m& b5 x/ O
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her& F9 S( M& k. ]% O9 z( h0 k* d
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in8 S' k7 o2 U( q5 G
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* @& O/ [( ^! E( w  Tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous5 Z& h8 @6 r( O1 D1 p+ F2 i
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
) w# o* R/ m) S4 S& u. pimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. S# X, [8 ~" }* t& h" gdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% F, @3 @: B4 {
be treated as 7 s.1 ^% |1 M9 I: b) |- d# V

; w: a/ e8 |/ t( VSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; J) a- h( `% j. l1 C
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
+ z, p  _0 b. [* e) f" y$ |4 Timpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
; R- x, a! E2 j! a/ z+ MAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% a$ T6 \; [, ?; U4 d. G( q) q
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 ~4 a; J) _. \8 C  s/ M/ CFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
0 F% {2 V, T- X1 j0 }8 |elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 {6 D& L! s; K8 u+ dpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 y: {6 ~& F( n, z5 G3 g
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% F7 I; u; x. x& D) N
% e' D1 s- g6 G9 B/ ZThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 z  @0 T- z! G; }
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in( Y3 A) W" y: P* s9 t. T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
0 |! R6 t  \2 k/ U0 o# Z0 Ghe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later  z5 T6 m; k# T. C# o: C
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% _" L, i; H$ ~/ ~/ D, \best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- v( m* x  k9 ~! l: Q; }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( c1 }1 q( }5 `, Z# E$ K9 r" jtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 P5 S+ H) k* X) y( O
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' C% V) \7 k- x) \8 g: ]1 D: ?6 J5 f3 d7 C/ o
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this$ n9 l2 ?5 ^& `9 S0 z% M% E
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
/ T/ k6 \4 ^, R# G. xfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam) N9 x: [: I  L' B: k. F+ R
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
1 D9 E5 C- a9 P+ x( r" U2 Taside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 D9 s  r" ]; `, Z. dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 L, ^, W# u+ {% I  z) o0 |( n

% q; c% {( U; _$ |6 n( @% KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are* Q5 u( m3 l: _
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ ^6 L" c+ B0 G. U
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s$ _6 A3 N2 b+ O% y0 }- L
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
/ s6 R) O! X# m6 s& Fout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,- K3 U1 ~# d0 I7 S2 b  M
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind, P! [# d; n. Y$ R- G
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 T% t4 H) o" @
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in' e( p6 d6 n9 c) ?
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% p0 Z, y- E5 i2 @) U/ xworks.
6 {0 J& S: F, [1 R! Y. M, _+ \$ t/ O& e0 G1 j! D! L( f+ p
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, M/ J( Y8 ~$ I+ F$ l2 u
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 B' D% V' d4 A; j0 p- K  ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that$ P" \# b: Y( V/ c
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
& m/ d. L$ C6 H1 \- Ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and0 B" c4 w% s0 w9 c  w
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- _# r& w4 |* K+ Bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to4 j( Q6 Y% S5 e% k  y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 f  q1 v" r9 w4 L; t4 k
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample5 P/ y* {) a2 F' J/ d
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
0 D# @2 f( r( m3 ?; icrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he2 D- Y0 F6 g1 d0 U  s5 \3 V
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ P. s. ^0 |5 k8 R4 Y$ Q4 K- e/ ^advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  k3 d. k2 W1 ]8 p" G; |+ }2 {5 x/ _
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not& ~" M& X  R+ t9 H  C
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! Y: Q5 z( ?- _9 y
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
+ P5 A! F  _3 ?4 Odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( y: ]: D" m- f# H8 [be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. r+ Y7 {2 i5 M) r0 q; A8 ^
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
4 i' [+ v7 ?5 r6 f  v" Bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a# J+ ?7 h4 v; a* q% y9 |
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* Y, }8 s, f- M% n/ L
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
2 l: [5 ?* C) u; {6 D5 s, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is$ H5 D4 o" Y4 e  `
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 T6 b6 t3 ~( j0 a6 x# x  B# [1 Cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
8 `) h1 x: h* t6 e- v! Gchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ |  V* e* J4 W# `: eLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ w: c3 f- M" a, X, Tagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for( u- w+ p' C) g1 ~# D" L
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
& E5 A/ @* y  z" G3 h" _# IInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?- ^+ {2 b8 |7 _  U3 N' \

4 w: Y/ E) D) N8 S8 M* T8 u% L% XSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
7 Z: m- g& b6 Y4 e* E, mcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention$ e8 C2 C3 z$ G3 q
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 e) ]7 h$ d. D) @Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; _4 r" d: C9 x0 M% y* @) ~1 vOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& L+ Z5 w2 t  t; d! v- ldoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* f0 F( D/ {/ ]+ o% O; Ngames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
0 @) t2 t' P/ l4 uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 t3 V$ S& ?! ^- B3 X& C
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: W# A% C( `1 w9 lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 B! v4 i1 s3 \# G* R* \2 s
/ V: [" L% Y! ~% N" ]0 I# QOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (# q* J/ E' I. X7 T* Q" _) \3 t
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too; }3 r2 B) f# y) G4 @
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
- j9 B: d& P% U) qsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- p1 ]& d1 N. {# c0 Q& P! ^all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your7 b5 T; ]8 p4 |6 z2 g4 k4 K
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
; y0 g4 o$ w: J( |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your) [: O: {) g9 @" t/ L8 M; ^  ]
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 `( I  s7 ~- Csuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or5 c1 j" w8 @$ `, o- o6 E" O8 Y
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, 2026-1-30 23:36 , Processed in 0.154395 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