埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1898|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 ; {2 b* A( ~& z* F8 U# d$ S
! k* J% n$ a( {( ?
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
' R; U% ]( O6 c3 i; s6 f! q0 L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。4 t! q  J4 J; _) r
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
* O8 ?! a* {$ Z# I' O0 e, Q7 }( r) ^, C
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! }) G$ v( V& b
2 p7 }5 ]; p  o, N. `0 r8 _+ U2 h6 _致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
1 s0 T9 N$ I3 `6 B$ G
( x2 V2 [' N2 W7 f, w% a; c英文原信附后,大意如下:
  B* p' t4 D/ L0 N0 ^  F* J
8 @- x9 I2 ~% R3 R1 z& z9 s! h斐尔,
  K. R( q  r0 S       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- L* M2 u7 G$ K0 s- K
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
/ H9 e* l8 f- n2 M8 m: C       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, n5 e  V2 Y( V- K
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6 p8 w6 l! T& Y" a
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。8 D+ s$ V, Y) k  X, Y# p
       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
' \2 K% J, F" n' y9 c; x3 R* G  C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! J7 R/ V6 P+ f+ R
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
+ ]' W1 _3 r$ S* R$ b  K3 C" 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。
/ u8 ^8 E( L! k2 _) ~& a       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
! {+ Q9 ~4 z+ K6 {,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5 e! }' I, y; t3 e& f
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 |7 y, q) z* A       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, Z! S$ p! d; J) x, L" E. \' B
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3 ~2 R! p9 o; M
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 o- c0 Y1 v  w+ |/ 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
# q( u, R; [3 M2011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
( A. R+ t6 K5 x. P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
) E3 m7 r, e7 S: m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2 j) X! M' t; B6 [8 l8 \# 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* [/ ]" [, M' ?. \+ _7 R
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
/ N' [  G! R3 y; V1 v: z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
- U" O+ A% S) ~& z" R。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. F% q- q  W6 c* O( l  Y$ t; x
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
& V% r( v. {% Z* B; T# s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' I- U) \3 P: C7 T8 M
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. g- V" B2 s5 x: o6 s+ g) u. P
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
5 b: V9 s4 ]) X& b同意见的专家。6 J- B7 F5 U+ U! q: s5 t
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( B: O  E/ M/ a) j. N- x# V
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$ {8 X1 |! f( G
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( R% e5 X3 }8 C1 L4 y
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
) \1 d. l/ e4 k! L5 p! pCallaway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)
1 U4 s7 B7 y. Z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- y: P( i' e0 w: V
《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# W# J( I5 h: i4 J这些被Callaway忽略。
" \6 X' \) I& u( z+ m/ p/ N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
; T1 c2 L3 g2 V4 p; e, p8 w4 C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6 j" W" x* u! F( C1 V
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
( o* ^8 v2 w* _3 `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
  f) }. U) o; K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
2 V, B& i% I( ]5 b: n" _4 \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! Q) K& J5 h% S; s' a  P
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。& P% v8 t" B! r0 r) G
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
4 \/ D) y2 ]2 y- J$ x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4 w- b: b* {6 w9 d) i: X, V/ C' r
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
& ?8 N0 `: P- V- |: c”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。9 N; M+ d; j0 e1 G+ A9 C& s7 v: ]' A! P
中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞7 L# N! E, O5 M) D7 U1 i4 g1 ~
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
6 V0 e: m/ n2 G1 t% T- G0 J  U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; e- i, @7 N6 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
1 M4 X, y3 K7 ]$ M9 O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$ M' \! Z& N) u' Q) j
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。, w# z' ^, g0 n
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; M4 S6 L' r) w
$ m& S$ ]7 A9 V; {+ T1 b
# R: J* p. I4 s) n! a北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
0 ]  r) }! D- g1 B5 l
2 p4 Y5 [9 t; i( [附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结3 S5 b- Q0 E! L1 G
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email. N$ v; X: v9 Q' W) D' l
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
& d- [3 h% e5 ]) u附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
. `+ k) N. c* w  E/ t
- H8 `  N9 P9 O/ U$ a& y
, p; T  H+ R0 Z" b' Z
6 \7 L8 d# T! t% s) {原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)! i' {7 ?% p! C
Dear Phil,
. z/ }- ~+ c7 U( s" }       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ y- d: \% I7 W7 l5 X. U+ N
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20) P2 w; ?4 C7 U/ \! I: d
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* ]$ `  L$ M$ F" V7 s% r( M9 r& z% lyou.
: Y0 O+ Q! {$ [7 f5 s       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
+ }' R- ~/ ?: m6 \brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
  m, @7 w1 z+ X9 oreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the* A7 i4 R5 x. O% Y3 D
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
3 u- i5 F5 p3 y  v6 O% |. w1 upublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
2 s  g5 A8 J, q( l# lseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
0 t4 ~  j, C$ U8 e0 apieces much more than the regular Western news media would.- K' E' b! m1 g+ n
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" ]' v, X) T0 N- M1 s* N4 J7 [9 I# a  t# U
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
/ L$ b2 T7 F! Q$ U( F0 Y$ gnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
; A7 p- U; W8 d: Cthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 r( `8 L$ ]0 C8 Edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
4 `! o- G( c$ L7 M1 k" ^/ Q) bexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal  s$ m/ _/ O* a5 X( f6 I) n  Q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
  @: |& m- N/ b8 uand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 T% }/ p, ?& H. X1 M: @2 V" K; U
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
6 W" G$ w8 N0 |, r! J9 Q& m! s7 ereporting.; g6 X. G9 n" O  E
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have2 {" f5 ~' e# _7 R: U$ t
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
# }1 k+ A  K4 G0 a# W/ Cchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
( ]; ~' J+ R. F1 }sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 i! V0 X( @; X1 p5 I' ]5 p" u
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* h) p( m' A. C, x       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 W1 [; W& }5 ?more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
" g  }8 U) `6 @; Y& r- Vfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 504 B. L  K3 x1 v3 f* k
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
( B0 h- y% w" E* k; c  n; [event for men, with the second fastest record.) N8 g# M* q7 M. M2 [
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; s) B) n# P; ^; y1 j' s; Q6 L) I
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
) X  Z9 @( m4 I( j8 j$ Oyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
. Y' C! v1 i! X2 [0 W. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
, d) r' V3 P, Z; U& umeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,3 ?$ r- b9 T- n# d
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
' w) W( Z; g; hLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
/ t, a- m/ \7 Y, O4 Ebehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the, e1 A% j7 c0 V3 t
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower5 I" r, q% f+ }' J* [/ f* n
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
* O! Y- R; Y! `5 sthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
! ?+ Q" R5 J( R1 u) Q6 `6 Pher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- v& a8 j) ?: ?: a, ]/ ohe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
3 L* c& Q+ K8 k/ Eproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other, B" K, A2 @% O) F* m8 V0 u
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
7 e: F: Q$ E! {* \3 K9 Eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the6 w5 B& R* m- C5 N; I( \
Callaway report./ o0 O; O4 _- Z& b
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
' S" y% Y$ b0 y% S5 G9 zunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
. R) J, Q" R) h6 ^& e' Rhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# j3 g6 W3 A0 J9 k+ J+ vof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been: [* N- J/ c( C3 j; S$ J6 }
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the9 n/ G. H& y0 J! g
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had7 B: G/ `  s+ N( e# U" K' F
publicly voiced different opinions.
: \8 H2 y: A" ]( z) U# Z* p$ j2 OYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD$ k+ U' {: U5 |: d" Z8 v3 G
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
$ T5 o* V9 E9 @) iNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent: g8 \7 s2 b2 J: k2 m
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
" Z+ g0 F0 N. Z2 L) ?, Gyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 N8 j. N, J1 g3 K
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.& h; S) P  t0 f
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 T3 d% u5 l) y2 m0 Jthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 ~8 x" s# p+ ]3 T* ghave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
1 j7 r/ e  ~- q6 F" NAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
7 W' X: C8 {* }& B9 F: [. athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was& Y/ i6 ~8 l. C% Z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.% O8 n* r, q& L' h. T; X  g, p' n
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that  f. H! q  `( ?5 }/ \) b
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the2 r" E- q1 C% e
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
/ k' e; E2 D# q9 p3 v(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she" g# w- L8 _3 k! Z4 u; M
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
# Z- F8 w9 x) gThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
1 j0 ?, s3 l) _7 Dand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ @0 T1 i% m$ q- ?$ I! H% W
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.: v% L/ B! u2 h# q! C3 f( o% v
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and5 b7 j' J2 @1 H( u- C$ X- H; W) {
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature& [- v, L9 D2 k8 x3 B: P
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
+ B4 T, h7 T8 B& I  Nrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.3 m+ f- f; k/ H1 U) I/ C- _, ]
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not( {8 \. w2 n( F, N. L+ W' r3 K- H' E5 V' p
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
. ~2 b$ o/ l4 W& O( n" a% `. t1 Cus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather$ ~  N2 S" {) p# p$ J0 ~  w! N- }
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that$ v5 i$ x7 P% f' L* t
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
, q$ ?6 @# R/ F& K( l# vabout British supremacy.+ y1 p( G* t) [' k2 W* p# |
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
: w  J9 ^3 E+ |unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
  @& O- R1 Z; }& aChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
$ _% i' k) o, w+ e( Q: X% J' four public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
+ p; d8 b. w* o- I3 VOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
5 y* p( l% E1 \! b, kYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
3 ~5 ^( F7 {! N2 j6 o- h% O0 o  {* hprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
3 b  `7 n- o  h2 `& ]) Qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ k& m+ ?. \) [; g0 P% f
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
3 j) \4 H5 ~* V+ Ipublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
8 |. J. w' q( \0 tNature.
) U1 ~7 T- e0 W6 f* t3 e/ FI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
& ^1 A9 K- q9 H6 n; z) ?) d; Cthe Callaway report.
3 E( a0 G0 R) p% a  R' M, _7 C. i
5 F8 @( d- Q; }' s3 x. DYi
$ O6 C! k5 z8 e$ m3 Q2 \
, O& A4 S5 E' q. ?Yi Rao, Ph.D.* q' i4 v) [; L8 u% X- ~
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
9 Q& V' p  t5 G; H6 XBeijing, China$ L$ u7 c$ D+ `% x
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18
% P, x! l+ t2 `) M# u原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
+ F7 {( E; ^/ I- T, L; ~2 X5 a
原文是公开信。9 Z- O: q4 E+ y4 \: `! ]

. k8 m% T, J0 A- S( 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
; ^. P. S6 _9 ?) X* J1 Y& s原文是公开信。/ k+ K1 N0 l+ d: V# o
* i8 r  M- Q5 i$ G) V+ Z
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

% ~7 c2 I: [9 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
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
2 b8 Q5 C! S$ F& i如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。& K) u' T: U/ ?* A2 ^. p

8 B4 i% z( z( e. C0 {9 xhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html8 J8 ^3 Q% ^; e; j: A

9 z7 T  V8 h' G* |FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
  S5 ~; }/ s* V$ p& ?
. x/ K  U1 d! [2 @" X! X$ RIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
- X* a- m3 j2 A, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( u$ M' J7 R: d2 q& tmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
; O* A8 P. D' D# ?8 }: Sis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: H: o7 j& o: k6 R9 u8 ^) J
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 x2 ~- f6 x, t) e* zpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' }# A* \7 }( B7 l! s  T- c* m. {should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
2 n) c5 [0 s& f6 z- H  Pwhich they blatantly failed to do.$ l( `( E% a* {4 _

8 r7 q2 q4 h* E, Y! gFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
6 i( D- C8 T" L+ n  xOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- q/ U" O  n( E) I# Q- ^2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( F& h6 q# b  {* Q9 |8 xanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 V! C# n; @6 s" ^" k3 w( ~  }
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! {- ?9 {3 O9 k& r+ d$ Z+ `improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 Z' R5 c2 `# E' K8 L# I- a: I: gdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% g6 I6 L: D+ R9 _be treated as 7 s.) [! A6 S9 ^$ ^* L$ y* Z, {: g
' S: L6 A5 X0 h
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& v  \" l! t& ^, Bstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ e/ W- Q' |! [( B
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 {& B$ r7 H; O8 ]0 }% AAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400/ l) a- a/ `8 {7 m5 r
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.( C) g+ L$ k% y1 I) G3 E
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
: @0 i6 R: N& k& Q2 R& A" Z+ a+ q1 Aelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and# [5 N2 o: i* I6 @
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 J" n  f) s- k% Kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
  M: o# j( Y$ S( @: G4 Z" F+ r. o& ?8 i+ D, ]) c
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 \" \3 v3 Y5 H, ~* R3 v
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
" B4 L& M( W4 A5 V* y' O1 c0 Nthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
  k4 |) ^0 K: N' K, F0 o) \he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later& `* e- G5 g+ ~/ Y. M
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s8 g# ?. p9 X6 f! S. @% g& J* @
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 S" A. h+ ?  Y2 W/ V7 y% O
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another6 H) A3 N; B! x1 @5 M% `' N
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
5 V3 A% x; m, U6 g9 Y# ehand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle2 O' u/ s2 {0 _$ z" @
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ H7 F+ l+ m! [: d+ L1 ]1 \' w6 Vstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 X  d7 L1 ~6 S: `% o) ]3 _5 m# xfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
6 `! x5 |  A  X' Yfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 e" _( ?+ Y( d, Oaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 C9 A% A) b& j8 Q- N  V( pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
2 y$ p6 r2 B, ^  X' J' m' p; k, F, t# M' Y3 s
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 ~! p: b7 L0 q; n7 }. ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
  |# n) t, Q4 |) u5 A; j7 k1 h6 us) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s9 z5 ?: }1 f; O+ X4 b! l! i
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
9 W( o5 r$ E0 ^( z9 p6 @out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
4 ?6 v" o/ {4 LLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 j  H! v- H- S' b3 y; d3 V0 d
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% f' {! F1 X0 {. flogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! R! \3 m! r9 {) ~7 pevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 @- U( K7 b- ]* G: Wworks.
9 e( M- Q+ Y) j) I1 {# _& T+ ~5 i" P' j4 X1 C- S! D
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
/ g# L2 b8 Y, j) p5 uimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
( ]" ?9 p: W) F" okind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
9 H8 F. f2 W' M1 C( G. g' |standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific2 z; m: x4 l3 O4 i; b- l4 u
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and' B& ~4 X+ r2 D0 ^/ ?
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One/ p% @: F6 c' ?) Y
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" B3 r, B; |. p0 ~6 ]. X2 \4 v1 c- c' L
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
3 r9 d# ?* H4 ~0 nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
. N# a0 s/ u+ b+ Z" qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 `$ G" ~( U; d0 [$ g$ [crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 L+ ]6 [) _# u5 i6 I; v3 Q- Kwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' G8 e* j9 Y* U' w' B# Q% c
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  i2 V; q) \! y  b: V
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not/ I. y% z0 v' g6 I( a) p. E
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
/ }* ]& N* l  t% z7 q3 F+ D3 E. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; @& W+ b: l8 f$ _
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may0 P; ~, l8 D% J
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. D! l' I! z  a  S* B
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 R% Z5 Q& j! @3 X# k$ J* Z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a6 G: ~$ {: ~5 k# b! ^
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
3 M9 ~" `( v! N- u. O$ u" `other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ g3 D1 `( Y. W: `$ @  r2 v, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is% V8 k9 u; [; K8 O% c
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* l- v' _; ^8 n4 }; O( Sathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
% M: ?6 Y" f1 p. Hchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 J% u# C7 Q/ M( v
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping, |& L* W+ ~3 l/ ?4 J3 I. B: v
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for/ F# v7 b8 V4 X$ f! i! q
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 I0 l7 d' l, s3 E
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?, l  A+ d/ E' H" D/ i" z& t

1 `* K6 q1 u# o3 RSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# W% P% x) ?0 l. w' v3 M0 acompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention0 w7 W2 a: i* V- s3 |; m
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 Y9 Z; j  ^/ n9 [, sOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
# t9 F3 [, }1 U& |8 _7 MOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 I% f8 B7 e. j+ b3 P
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 F4 M3 c$ {/ i; l8 A* T8 I( \games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
8 U% ~$ E# A6 @. f: Q& H. S& |have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a$ f- S+ K9 a- J7 j; R6 N
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; l3 O! @5 x* H- e+ }/ qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. o7 G; F2 R: E4 d# x- i* O
8 X6 m, @/ {  r  Q, c/ [Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (* U0 m: D- a/ Q: N
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. F+ L  e: f! s# B% Ksuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
% y& v( b, c& E; u/ i1 L; @2 B3 c# nsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 g% P% V7 A. x/ xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
+ p  F3 u5 ?" ?interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
: E5 V' p& {; s1 I& D0 H- oexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
3 K+ m& x9 [% g1 R% a" Eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
1 b* J: q" S, H, Msuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or% s* S+ ~! {3 |1 [/ m, ^! c, w% q! i; ?
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, 2025-12-21 07:22 , Processed in 0.159297 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