埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2120|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
% F( ^. x6 E  k, ~( y$ V4 z
2 j& F9 I9 w/ [) Z% ?9 Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。/ R* n1 M' s2 r& m* f' D6 f
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。& o* X5 c" N" C% q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 o3 Z  b* x! q5 b& n# U
+ ?2 o7 u, i+ l! Z  {9 W+ S' S" bhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html! P6 d& n, q0 H& ?) v

6 |3 ~, z+ ?1 o  A6 J致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选( H  w! l7 R% c/ l

1 \8 c: c6 _  X" J% \& J英文原信附后,大意如下:9 r/ }4 _* R! J8 }$ r3 I, G$ }

- p6 ~8 H! z$ X& L9 G! `5 X* \( _, k斐尔,, d/ D/ e4 k) u* f' B- P/ v: ~3 v
       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
* K6 z8 D- K! F- ~9 K. l& Remail的人里面小部分也给我来信。: d" y8 I# Y7 V7 l+ w9 D: M( r
       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& b1 J! \6 h; A8 Y( }* d
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
) R; m! B$ q9 l+ a# ?; i% `% y* d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。
! h( ?, h! J- k" L       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
# M' A, N' T+ O. 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' R6 d, n! h1 p: m
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
! D" {# k* K, d0 Y: y& [  a5 y) I% 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。
- a0 c& b+ H- t2 X       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: R0 x: g" `  x; c* e: R) b3 E
,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& @- N. f1 E$ H* E9 O”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 G" b: I5 D/ v5 K% a; W       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
+ Q( |9 a7 J0 N; Z0 ?+ h4 x7 R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
+ J* k$ s4 D& c* ^  K  [$ b: L,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
( @5 ]& D/ w2 I" y; B1 E       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 h: B9 P" ?. O/ H. D: {2 Y
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
/ e4 f  j. h! n+ N! L" O0 t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* u3 p7 }3 n: X( O. ^, Y
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* E0 g7 C/ [4 D" f
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
% a) K' h; n! P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) e! D" Z+ @8 Y  Y. b; A7 k$ 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
4 Y6 n3 t* h& k4 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3 ^7 T( m6 d5 x7 h5 K$ N
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
, Q, S+ ]1 \9 P. y# {% y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
$ L; u3 h% d: I1》,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 z6 W% a2 |1 N' V5 h0 b9 ?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2 A( R+ {" T' h8 ^4 T
同意见的专家。
3 Z1 [  z9 W- R0 e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
) z5 i4 W" i% }1 V1 N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
% n2 c& n  D- R* s" r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& W6 e  h- V7 _; ?: v; J
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
: O( d; f: t# D/ v2 g! C& @& xCallaway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)& e+ `0 T+ j: T
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
* \! M, O. }  f7 K' p+ L《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
% x  ]/ t' r5 f7 L: O6 \" u这些被Callaway忽略。
# M- L* M! }9 ?  z2 j5 a) x, K7 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
# U  N# L4 r/ u; R6 |( N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
- D9 y) G! ^  g  L教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
( e7 M+ I( R+ Q3 N, Q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& z5 x/ F  ~  Q! E
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( z1 H8 ?; U! i$ y! P
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8 ]6 k6 T' X) P" W# n. g* _
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。
) u" ~+ `2 v! l3 n2 {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3 B/ F2 o0 ~4 y/ n9 D5 B  m
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
, C# l! ]- m: J* H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
3 m0 i  R4 F  O4 O' ^% C”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
# v# F& Q; q0 P9 K( b+ B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6 n6 n9 J" R' d+ A" V. K- 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
2 a1 b9 t  [% o6 O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
) _6 B) T1 [$ m6 P% ?0 s. 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0 S" e) x7 Y2 K% T( Q+ b
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6 ~5 U5 q* e+ c5 A/ u8 I% G
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。! h; G! P6 U" }9 k6 C
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。9 c8 i: c8 Z8 y: K# X$ i
+ K0 y) Q1 F& w9 H( t- G# S2 w) W
& u( j: l) n/ N% L/ @
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: c9 g0 G8 @4 a% j- [* i

+ t8 e; ^# |- ?( Z附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结2 C1 }& E1 W5 x% |3 L
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
5 U2 E$ t2 B+ V( m; [  Z. d# B附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
7 D6 u4 ?; C- g- Y7 U' E/ H2 x4 `附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: T, H8 L1 b/ g+ X

* d1 p9 R4 |& f2 h- U1 f5 I+ P- R0 K

% Z% B7 Q/ n4 ~1 I7 a0 c) ?; A; l: n原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
7 k9 N" i( n( ], ~  eDear Phil,
1 F6 r% l$ @& w. a1 U       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" E& |! `0 [  }2 p. f/ k+ S9 ~
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, R# Y6 s* w/ Q0 m0 Y
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
3 j0 l$ @- J6 ~3 P( M2 Vyou.) j' y5 ?' Y! z" L! p7 G
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 P1 w2 H9 v$ S8 ^
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese! }- u/ ^+ c; ^+ c6 ^2 x
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the% m) O5 a3 T3 a' }* y6 \. s. `0 F
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature4 Q: @! M& C4 R8 Y' O0 K
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
2 ?& z6 M' j, p( Z" e1 cseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news, H) L9 u; r& N& ~) p
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.; Y4 t- m7 E% ~0 Z7 S8 k6 S  I- Q
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
4 r' ^5 P* H$ G) T, B: Wworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ y3 y& F- Y: i  ]7 Z, p1 [& r
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
9 x6 W/ [7 C) M/ j0 N) Y9 {that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway9 d' o. b7 X+ W/ y: l
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
$ J" E2 @* l' z8 c- k: U# D+ Fexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal  [3 I; n3 ^4 C5 d
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,, R  x; b& A* I7 U# n
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone, B. u3 F# J6 W" v% A% v0 I4 ?! O
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 s2 N- q+ s0 f1 R" S* C3 R3 B/ N
reporting.) g# x# a/ g; e( v6 f
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have! J! ^2 R& M! B  a- g; e
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
, A* A/ Z# U! D+ G1 f- V) w9 Lchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in; P' f$ q# o. n" Q) j5 _- D. S
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
+ F% D2 B! l  N+ H: ^presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 t; R1 }  [0 B       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem! S( ]4 e& T2 f
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds* u7 Q1 v! B: @- X# y
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 504 C1 W: J& ~) R$ j& N0 {$ Q- p5 [8 @
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same5 q! r9 J$ l& T/ U  |
event for men, with the second fastest record.& O6 _  f( a& R
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
$ O5 S# L# e; A8 C# zwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16* @" `9 \9 a, ]) x; U! e7 U% \
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record9 O) C1 R4 m! N% M3 |# @
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4004 q& D+ V6 A# f) v: w; a8 w7 b
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 o3 y! e( u+ x, E- m/ E, Cfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
! f2 y- T9 A' @' R. _4 T0 iLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed2 O3 f7 {& K7 c' l& d: I. L+ ~
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
1 B4 J$ C8 c  g  x) Eindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower* n0 V- ~+ U! W* S8 W
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than, c& S6 s# s) t) _* {+ W+ Y( W
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was( D: n- V3 i9 h0 ~
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
$ K) c$ t4 K; i3 s3 ?he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “2 U) z4 S8 T# z" _- S* I$ S
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
2 H0 C, J0 }7 y* {" B2 \# @. |1 Kswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the/ Y; \6 g* G# w
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
/ h0 B2 Q' t+ F( B% V- @1 d# ~. {Callaway report." N1 t( q. o; {% T
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more9 r2 y5 H6 s& h! p3 }: S
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
; o: i! g* p' K. ~3 Nhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description3 c* j0 x, v, t; {$ G# q4 V
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
" d0 y3 Y7 T& l' q" Kbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the9 H1 B) d8 o9 m: I0 K* f& f
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
) F' V( i5 U2 L$ }2 l! Npublicly voiced different opinions.
) _' X2 F- n1 P; mYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD6 J8 z0 I% W# @0 Z
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature, V  q% D4 U, s6 L3 k3 e4 ~9 X* i& |
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
  ~1 _5 q' _7 kpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ ?9 F' g# n4 ~. |- Y6 B# U- Zyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy, ]4 y$ o$ _5 C8 b
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ G4 d; o' o6 C4 U. q$ x/ v8 U+ UThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
  a# C+ L1 U- q7 b) tthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 g- e  M6 F/ e7 L7 z
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
3 v9 k, l# @+ F, X  wAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that: J! s* c* Q3 m4 g4 c
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was* m, x- P+ q( K9 g8 o& k* B% C" B3 e! J# i
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.7 @" d, M) ?, v4 r9 t: s) o
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% r9 Z% c7 I+ S! @many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ |' t4 u/ Y9 J- W) a. S9 h
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
3 P4 b% I7 ^3 O& v, o(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
# w+ k' k3 w, B& m& N) ~; y2 l( g! ]and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.2 H4 M, v$ b- V# E% N$ _3 I5 h! Q
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
" R# k" o. b9 Mand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and  S  ^  Y( I% u# P( d
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
& |$ ~4 y4 R( d: B  }Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
1 S( _% Q3 J2 y4 \0 |# I! Hobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* r4 F, v4 p% p* u
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
3 \& F7 G: Y4 M* Srepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) b/ f5 h% _7 t- P+ L+ R* XThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not. w' ?1 \: `0 G* }  Q8 ?# F
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
; ]3 F! _1 N/ O8 L8 Pus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
7 z. T" i3 d" F. D0 t5 wfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
3 G. b4 s9 v, P; A% a1 D# J  n3 kthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
/ C# d  O. U/ p. Aabout British supremacy.
+ p7 Z& C+ i$ a  jThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
& J- @* O$ Y+ M7 S4 ounsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more6 P3 M+ d; Y) N/ i6 L9 q: f
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by5 n* J8 K. }5 U. x
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 M! X4 O' y- Q; z% `4 M. x" |  KOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
! W8 Y2 ], H' K! }" iYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
6 x9 N( h; }2 v; @9 U) aprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests! x* |+ C, S. [( ?) Z/ I
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,6 X/ G/ T  E9 b7 S( r$ B/ Z
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly3 k% F& w6 o. _
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like! c- C6 h1 L! y; M2 n# S
Nature.# P" n- C: V8 c) p: A0 {
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ R  a& {$ I# C' q$ }# q' Z- t4 wthe Callaway report.+ A) F8 q. r: e5 @) Y4 n

' K6 G: U! c' |7 sYi6 @3 v" I. C) N8 s8 p
2 }7 ?8 u1 Q4 ^3 j( P8 o
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
7 X! ~4 e9 z% g$ E* ?& P# LProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences) Q" \# d$ a* T2 Y( E
Beijing, China$ `! |! |' e, B# \
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?
理袁律师事务所
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 * l7 U, a" [( k
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
8 m) y4 M( D  u4 A% _/ x/ A% z
原文是公开信。$ \8 v  N  y& p& l
! W0 Q; S2 ?9 c7 l: w6 H' D5 N
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 9 R* @- t- I* w: |: C0 X
原文是公开信。& V; |+ e8 @8 ^. T$ c( p- ^6 o

% A6 s! t, p" t2 k小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
9 r$ ]9 n# Y& H0 L' v2 X& v
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
7 C! P# i2 s( u/ M  y: u8 c如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ ?4 l5 U- t: o; [5 y; ^# A4 O+ c, C
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 O# E9 C# Q% `. N0 M2 i% l
* U, `, k. z. B3 j4 G. FFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& G( F: J4 e$ Z% }
3 K0 [1 p4 E5 AIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself: n  H$ d- b6 }9 q) X% M2 B0 v7 }
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 J3 v, v  G  mmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this. E. N; O. U  `/ I/ b1 \
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
/ W; N1 t( ?$ a9 nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: W  s( Y5 a7 ~3 u- D% P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors  c4 {: F. z: u9 O, d; w3 k
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ p& O$ V7 N) c0 k1 k4 X2 K# X
which they blatantly failed to do.
  [- D' f. s0 K& J
- x7 x$ a7 g3 E7 Y' pFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her$ y9 ^; s1 N$ M: p9 t" }
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
% r0 V9 Q, R& R7 D% d4 J2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( G1 J; M6 C" r6 H+ t6 Tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous7 {' S& {/ |/ ~" {. R5 y0 a
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; \* `6 u3 B/ l3 R% C2 j
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, b6 r2 G. `* F& ~, ^0 A8 Q
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% F5 X& z. b) P0 g9 {7 o# R' ^7 @
be treated as 7 s.
* N! ?; b) n1 g# Y& e. W1 U1 a
/ G( I1 B+ O" T4 S) M. kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is2 b. y1 d( L6 w  h& ^# z& N
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
9 S  I" S/ ^$ Z3 Qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
1 S- d) Q; _2 }  I/ V) w2 ?* k- W# WAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
, k0 q7 \* o1 H, I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
, R& {$ [1 r/ a0 R! V# E; c: Q7 @For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an% ~* m  I7 T* y9 E% A- [" T6 e
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% Q4 x" K" A( {' C
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”8 V& E9 i/ |5 j- U$ k
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; l0 S; o" }4 z
  t% K1 {) S- C, L. BThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' J1 D2 ]+ Y+ o& b6 J
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in  L0 V& V9 j: d& V8 V
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so# T! O. a$ Z! ~9 N) k2 g8 I2 Y
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 I" e1 j$ ^7 Q' |  F4 Nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" h8 K2 ^% b; f9 |( `' Xbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 W# F( f- h  T: j  [( W: W$ H! W- ^
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 t: [" @6 w1 J% r: r% j1 ~
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other8 @: \  {; P* V' c( t: z4 w- c
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle/ Y. c" \# I9 e( @. B
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
" \# ]1 Y( v# {+ Ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds: V6 |8 a* ^8 |% I6 m1 ^5 {4 V
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- Z$ m+ s+ q5 f% U- gfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 m5 s; c9 L  m3 }6 Caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 L( c" l$ T7 [' Y/ C" x2 x/ O9 i) F# Yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
  N( B; V& H% o" w( D
  N9 M2 t8 g, O" f9 `5 s+ O6 CFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are3 }' G% Z: P% y1 w# N
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
' ?7 w- u! b2 {/ w' m3 e; K$ as) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s" V$ p2 I3 q+ z/ x
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns( c7 b+ Q; B: ]/ L8 e
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
; F; Y5 j0 @! z4 S  V5 E! RLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 G& l; L4 R/ I/ f3 U2 Rof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
4 y* E3 e) p  U) J( qlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in; S* e' S2 M) p( I
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science: U; @. L5 f3 G' i/ ^# J
works.
  W3 e5 O. ~4 L
' Y/ V8 S* z3 T" Z8 Y: z/ }  hFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' V/ C% b5 E/ b, `$ A& Y" d: w. h4 Aimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this3 p/ S2 w! R8 J5 N* D4 r
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 ]8 l" U/ i& }0 x  G+ ]9 Y
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ ?, x6 y+ s! r! {& Apapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* N- ]; X; [# {* f
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One! E( j" q! `! g, T6 L
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
$ }+ ^! D- {) i1 f6 xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( ]+ O8 h; k- L
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" I1 F1 d) _- ], I7 M, W
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ f- M# }3 R, U# G! M: [' a( }crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
9 B- X  }  v: r! X. q( n9 qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 N- A- k2 l' S; A/ H* A5 l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ @2 n  T% N  b$ y0 W$ jpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
2 B0 S& o) O- o; t8 Huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation/ M4 j) g5 V; |% o3 {- Q
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
: B9 t. {; A! t* _  jdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" R6 q( X5 Z- z: t3 ]. c, H) m
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, p" d' r$ A$ e- a+ l8 \hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
' T& m, g, v+ A7 H6 x1 t: Bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" \8 t& s/ _1 r0 {' udrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:9 G- w* O' r3 y5 ?$ P% e* v
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) _& g" l* t3 v, Y- Z3 T, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is6 ^1 Z' e% H3 K6 y5 C9 }& q
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an6 `) m9 x( @/ J2 [, T8 l! H; e
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- b* U9 l% J: X. k. A$ U# `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) ^! q7 I4 m, G' V( D' \) j: Z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping+ W; N! Q* x& T6 o4 B( D3 J
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for/ f" c. o9 |4 F: r
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 e% \) }. l3 K3 T+ n# q( `! A& \Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?8 H, N1 f) }* R; Z4 y2 `3 `3 X
* S8 N9 G: {: }  n- d/ o9 ~. N
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
6 t  q4 ?+ c8 Tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention/ }- V# m3 d5 B: W7 \( w3 V
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for/ E  @# K8 p8 ?  A" _" {
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 U- ]) O, ~) K2 J) ~
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
4 Y; R+ k* n  D4 S1 D8 l0 R- hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic! B: a( e$ B  |. y* Z& c2 D
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope0 u: j- B% J6 C6 X; X( B+ L* T
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a  c3 k4 U5 E2 B* q4 O1 v
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# E" Z0 e3 n/ ?; P! @  e
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.3 L" {8 J& u! J$ W  u+ o. R
$ r$ R) n3 I+ \4 q5 h
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: h  J9 K4 y8 a: E- ]intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ a' c  b  N% O! ]
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a+ V5 |0 x, T8 k" o# H+ T6 c5 [3 w
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ D5 o- E$ Z, j( iall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) c% q3 i- l* _4 Q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 `, M' _1 K( D+ A( F% A
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
& Q8 s! M' ]  i0 U) sargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 P* j4 ^* g0 H. U( o: _- \' {) p
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
6 K9 j! t3 q: i# k4 L7 Sreporting 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, 2026-3-11 17:38 , Processed in 0.288900 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