埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2028|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
3 ?" f$ p7 g  t  b" L# V9 h
$ ~6 }* z9 e' ~' G) w+ Q% b/ u饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。6 J, C/ o6 J0 U8 @) @
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。+ E, L) G0 X. i4 w1 D/ _) t1 F
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。; e& o' m$ K. Y; z: E+ R+ k
4 X5 P# }. H' z9 w9 k
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
, N7 r& n9 e2 \( I( U6 t4 [0 S3 e8 c1 f: s% `4 e% U
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选; y& }3 P# Z0 {" G$ k
3 {: S0 t8 b! x# T3 u
英文原信附后,大意如下:
# U6 @) {1 }% a. R: N
. G' L. c+ P( t  Y, l斐尔,' j; y3 x( t. m
       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 I( M. i1 ?6 U4 G
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。1 R$ x1 ?+ U! Z
       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! w$ N/ b/ W: s# d) b
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' b1 s9 c) l6 \" i2 S
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。
. P+ r. k) S/ W4 u5 L% G       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
6 }: A8 q. R/ d/ P  {  s) q; b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
% y! T. X/ v$ M, B2 K# [; \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
+ Q$ @4 j6 d# ?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。1 X) d: H: [; Q# U7 R9 k9 S0 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/ K; o/ y' g, W+ z$ x) S
,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0 i- U9 \. g; B- R# A; C
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。# x7 A6 v5 D5 y, ~. H
       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% |0 X' E; {0 N+ K
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
1 P' M8 g0 G+ K8 {1 [  w# |,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。: Q' \6 Y& u) L8 P! s; u& F
       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
; w  \3 Z( ?  @; z; o8 U# ]& V2011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
/ c/ q+ a& |/ h; y* N& S4 u4 F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* q' l" i; B$ t  i# v
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9 U, Y, ~; |0 h6 V1 G7 J
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、六6 W% {5 S$ B# q" {7 g+ J2 d
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
$ `( E3 G7 ?! n: h$ S2 n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
. R- x# o2 P6 \* U3 s' x。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( U) [  o- Q0 A9 I4 E$ X% [
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。( r9 x& ~' B- Y4 s5 ]2 [  y, u
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
- u. m/ e* g6 p/ j% r7 i$ k1》,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9 y. Q, L  b$ G" {8 F. A2 ^& `
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
' a3 L8 b( C" e, x+ L1 C6 g" q同意见的专家。
& q( m8 y; }$ H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5 o3 O6 o: f2 a' j& M
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% l- l6 ^1 f& R/ J+ 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2 K' l0 k1 e# @$ u% @
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
) z- ?% ]2 J% N9 |5 ^" O- ZCallaway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)- m% `+ B( G  N0 ]0 }
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( }' G' H" f* M$ I+ j  ^0 }
《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
6 R! d, _  T1 T7 j2 {这些被Callaway忽略。  ?& J$ d( \' @$ A) j9 Y+ S
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
! R9 F/ H* _" G  D7 z0 ?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 g# f. F8 k4 [5 U; h# j: ^5 u' [教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。+ z8 t; Y0 f2 ~& Z/ s/ ]
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  ]" L% J, P( F& C. W
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
& w) _1 a! Z$ [7 Z0 g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, f+ q( Y7 {" d9 o8 z
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。
9 f9 p% A& {+ O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! \5 Q+ U1 C" d# w3 k- p
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
: X5 u3 k, i. e2 f! P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
# n" `" f  b! k/ u# r3 f”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。% q* N5 J6 O0 R0 y: |$ b+ S
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' C' A8 b$ L4 {( W
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
, n( t2 k- a) h# S% e6 u3 u+ r3 s1 t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
  S9 |+ t7 u/ q( n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
  w& t; o% K' e8 e5 e- R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 x. {) m$ R, _% g/ X6 d- c! H/ c
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
) b4 _. ~3 I$ g# \- I, \7 E我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。* G7 L/ D* I& v3 h% P

, B" Z7 X4 d3 ?) V5 ^7 c. e: n# H5 V& v+ k) {& I  I
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& p4 d0 P( x4 Q9 p0 u. s

5 R& B7 i, c8 r  y1 o( _$ y附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结4 _4 F" }# c- V5 q* i
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email1 p  c1 r! g& v6 z5 a4 w8 c
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见' ~4 A; P0 `  c/ q  P
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
" R" U( {* [, r% R7 @) c5 [" }  Q2 ~
  z) V8 O3 m1 j3 H1 |! N: u. n, A
0 v) T1 Z. G7 A9 `/ D
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)9 g6 G1 T& D7 e5 `; r
Dear Phil,1 M3 c; e/ y. U) W: t
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s7 t( K0 \- T! h. m
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. m1 W; z: w$ g0 X- n) {5 h
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed! E! b' y4 o8 i& C8 t. s4 b
you.
1 U' ]4 d# s% O( ^/ j# x& C       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have7 p1 I6 \* x; q( [9 N
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese6 p$ i/ s, Q  \; F$ L4 C
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
& _2 C4 t* F) B: Oworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
6 O, Y/ k. i% h$ r: A7 s: n0 w2 g: V  z, Cpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more, y! @& P+ q7 s2 e) j! ^/ p
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
2 z& E. m: m. ?+ l8 M) cpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.+ n9 A- u: Z: L/ m. X- ^
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' ~2 v" x3 A+ R. U1 \
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ T2 @4 O! l# M  v; ~
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish5 D" T  @* C5 `
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway, m/ ]" s( @6 c8 q6 ?) S: p3 b
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping8 ?5 O! ~( J1 y/ Q1 {2 ?5 I* d: h& l
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
0 j( F' W" S- D! v& a  ^! ]standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
5 L6 L9 d! g7 H8 _and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone% W# a2 b7 `! I4 B1 Q- U
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news5 P* ]- z/ A$ ?7 J  s; W  O) f% l
reporting.
6 R) |6 k% j4 M* ]9 M/ j* _       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
( s3 y# ]8 c0 Z; i& Calready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by# `) f" d( x' A$ K' u$ N3 o- ]9 x. B
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
" J7 |: }. ~2 I; ^4 I; [2 Osports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 `% y: R$ x) z/ a2 R2 y2 C
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  E+ u7 g) l- a, A- n& T- x       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem$ s+ `7 o6 n/ G  B- d* M- C9 x
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
: v4 t# C, S3 f. j5 o$ dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
0 |2 r, a: x. o( F' b& Smeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ |" m6 v2 o0 u
event for men, with the second fastest record.3 C: _1 _- \4 u/ f, Z
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye& F7 k/ u; A# d5 j! P
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
7 }6 ~0 z& V3 H. @2 Pyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
' r" p. F" x' B; \. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400# ^% J$ Z2 J, j
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,$ U; v8 u3 k# {0 Z7 ~/ o
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than) w$ S6 o' k. x' [
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
4 K0 {: Y! A+ r* sbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
6 x4 @* h: O& Jindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
3 S" E) D( `5 B) {& |$ {than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than0 m& ]( l5 Q5 I) w1 \7 @: g
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was6 N( x, D5 ]3 I& X
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
3 L$ g" H- q* \3 I) q6 \3 R  z1 [he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# a# u. L7 s1 ]4 |7 f! N+ Cproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other' P- p. _+ T7 L  B% o7 u+ {6 v' ~
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the+ v" `+ S  j) n6 h; r# l. [" M2 Z' E8 k
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
* H' k- i* y" C7 P+ ?Callaway report.4 s4 b9 i% R! I- `! @& H
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 q3 W. u; D/ ?. m6 H7 B  V3 |
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details8 z/ S. [, N5 F* T
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
( S: M% v' N6 R! O5 w# E6 ^- Vof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
7 _0 {$ L3 s$ x: U4 a. Tbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
3 f7 @# b' Q5 v  l% S- m% _Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; H' R9 W' ]7 U6 ]
publicly voiced different opinions.9 g2 i' B7 `( K- p) v( T
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
3 m6 z! w/ W( U; t, `from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature2 C* ^* a4 ?& z. B
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ r! N& Y6 l% S
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
) M$ T$ x& O4 L! N7 p* S1 y3 b8 }you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  T( z  v% x1 Q- f; H" n5 I
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* g0 M# x7 I& l
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think5 j2 r  H6 `% n( f. B/ S
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They# o* O8 E! x7 t2 l+ Z' F# p' X
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as2 u/ g/ }- T2 {9 U5 x
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
- k: \" D# J# G2 uthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was. {. l  K& q5 ^3 g1 T
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.8 w: \& q( p; i# v9 u4 i
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
$ u9 k* A/ ?; j( w% z1 Bmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the( |8 x7 t, w; E" n. j
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June5 F6 [, K5 _3 x+ b4 r
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* a; n3 r) F! ~& Band I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
) I- i, Q  Z. c/ @, mThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science! ^4 n7 g1 m$ x* Z
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 J2 ^" J# w* X* o2 u) S: K2 H
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
$ [) v3 r0 z: w/ D' oNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 _* e/ f/ H; \2 A
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature1 O  P1 D6 T7 M6 h. c: n) j0 M# \
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to% ^" ]( q; K6 t9 ]
repair the damage caused by your news reporters./ V4 y4 m4 G" o; a5 T
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
8 L$ k9 k5 r  ~+ r! w: h' w( Zshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
% f4 D# _2 C# pus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
; }" U# r: x% j" B3 wfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
9 X8 Q1 i3 P) h% {1 T9 Wthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
& ?. q1 d5 F) t1 T- Rabout British supremacy.: F( N# s- W+ v: ~8 c& m
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
* w; h& |. [6 ~! Kunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
' {7 I# y4 {. W3 `Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
0 U: n: a& Q& h9 z7 w6 Xour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 G, p# B7 ^! @3 x0 b4 bOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
1 ^6 i/ T3 Y0 TYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of3 F; b' s2 w7 v2 g' e" t+ p0 m' R7 G
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests% g$ m, V5 A) m7 ]. a
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,) ^8 `0 W% f5 H) l: k
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly4 s. j2 F" |; }+ Z* t0 q
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like1 f# r8 w8 P  h! c0 H& ?2 d
Nature.3 {) F  d0 C) j; u! [1 X' ~
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
4 x$ }% L% H" f8 m! W8 Y4 dthe Callaway report.& m' U) b$ L( i9 [. k
" w2 q2 y# U5 c
Yi
( K- Q* f8 h% S
- ~2 q7 s# a8 O- ]- w, P% pYi Rao, Ph.D.
! F; u6 s- v9 ^8 ]8 jProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
" `0 T( M5 N. z7 VBeijing, China6 m6 R9 V' I. j) G: O. J! s; h- F& T) s
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
; X/ X  E( n, X* r, }7 |9 B原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
) P, L; H- l: F3 G% m
原文是公开信。# Z  X8 k5 O' N' s* R
9 j) p' t6 C$ `' I/ T, S4 w
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
5 V, |5 P! ^# U7 c原文是公开信。& h( B1 S, d( b0 T

" n7 y6 f- h! g3 c' S! y3 _9 y小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
& D" S) t9 ?* B% Z7 j& {  z; ~+ {
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
大型搬家
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
* T0 w. m" Y: f$ B2 J' E! x4 n如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
1 z/ u& X% O* D# K# Y1 y5 K$ E* Z% Y) {& Z  X& y) ]
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& C  r+ O8 v0 `( G. c, p
( T4 _) v5 v3 {. Z- L1 _+ ~2 O2 [
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, x+ H1 Q8 e0 v2 {- H! V! r6 F
* f# D; ~9 R1 `/ I5 }
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
5 i7 g9 L6 B1 M- v, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
$ b1 u5 Y4 v+ T, A' hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this5 {, l( ?& \8 ]& }6 ]
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the* M5 R6 M3 _, r( I+ x
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 W* _3 a: f/ E6 P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors' F8 R0 u# V: R- ^
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! z: p2 M6 X+ m
which they blatantly failed to do.7 c3 j1 D1 E* G2 I6 X1 r/ P/ L5 {& M
& E  }% U2 Q; [& `  X
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
! _1 R4 F; Q4 Y" L) _8 F0 HOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 j6 i+ v/ O* `* u& u8 u: Z- A4 o
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* \, w. i# H! E4 sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous1 O! T- e3 k, B# w
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
6 U5 Z0 J* u# b+ g) w: n6 \6 |improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
  \; t1 _" l" ^3 R' wdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
0 p# V& \2 E& r7 H' U& |be treated as 7 s., W$ c; L. f4 A. D  l

% X0 Q  v$ W. X  n& D4 FSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
7 b. b( I/ J3 s; v5 p9 Hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
( L$ l6 i) e- H( Jimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.; u/ j4 N; S. M5 k% e" h& J
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% ?9 K, e8 Q9 B5 Z" G9 X
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.7 b: M2 Q; ~2 D! j3 G. ~4 r
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 ]" r, [8 R6 T4 {& h4 B! q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ X5 k; D2 \1 ~4 {. s! G2 apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
/ W. ?/ j4 X; Kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
8 H: b8 P1 ]# R# V7 O8 n+ ^
6 g6 P* }$ U2 S! H& b4 F- nThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 Z8 i4 B* ~2 ]2 m" `$ O+ H
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ s9 q( n& P2 r7 r1 o7 T  f( Q/ Zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so: n2 ~) K9 o4 T. {9 {$ g0 F  y4 ]
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; X6 h, j1 X' T0 G! _+ Y' u+ `events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
- P, y' r; k( V- D! G& Lbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! l* q# o% ?' k5 }  m% E
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! H' C7 S+ J9 p  Xtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other, [( @5 j+ `) z$ i; {6 X. g8 W3 d
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
( I' `6 F) [9 ^5 O* l, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ }. \! M" q; h! ?6 t- Y$ wstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds7 [8 S1 b) l* x% K
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% \; v+ Q1 X. v4 T+ k6 Wfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting% S) J4 G' X: y* C9 g% N
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that6 f8 K2 a9 c: T" Z( V
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& k' v  ^# `) }2 r$ b
# i1 M, C, M: fFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' B+ i$ q9 g5 j6 H
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
$ ?9 M+ z5 @' [( Bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s- N9 h! }, u! J& r( H- d
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ Z5 }0 p2 \+ {. Tout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: S1 _  Q$ ?7 `% G- @" D: A4 @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind% j# V2 K" Y, U/ p4 F' w
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 Z/ P( E; R$ M# Z- I8 Plogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in. t) p% U" }/ J# j1 i0 M' t' L
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 w& ^# j4 [# B- P* |/ p! qworks.
* ?1 t5 y4 E7 v+ N/ M1 C( J& m
: V. n4 [7 C& T) F: wFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- k2 P" V5 q4 a3 A0 F6 z( W; R& F2 I
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
- d. |) U9 Z4 d4 F2 p; `kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that' X8 K: S: }4 u: c+ e, @( A; I; G( K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! r; S: d$ c' H/ x: b* ?& npapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and4 J6 H) b" @& Y& q4 M2 {
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; j) h9 a- E7 w8 u" f2 Acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 e# @4 a# t; b9 N6 s' ~demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works! Q1 ?+ b( N  K% g3 ^3 @
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: u$ \" n* B5 n( D4 G6 Y1 eis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( v5 U1 M+ t5 \: A0 }" V/ tcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 a6 w" A/ o* V, gwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly+ Q' q/ _- L% M  W5 }/ ~
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the7 F6 s1 J  X5 ]3 E; r% B- l1 D
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
# u; x# F* o- a. e6 N* Duse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation& s6 L" K& W4 ]. U" F& A" D
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: z- b. t# W9 W! {* {  b
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may+ t) p4 ]8 o6 y$ c
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a+ _' ], q! @1 A( r6 u& K& }
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 r2 i1 _( I- n" p& S0 phas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a, A3 a9 W, }, X( |+ G( j7 a
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
2 G* H. K8 }* D& v$ ?5 Eother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect# m# E& P) C) r' k8 K& L+ r
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 ], W+ d  T1 n# f1 ?
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an/ D9 J6 }. i5 f: c6 j7 p, t" |! `6 v
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
5 ^/ I  Y9 {( a5 V9 Uchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?$ _% P4 v, W: I* }; ~3 `5 P
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 }/ t1 ]9 d' `0 U5 x/ Y) Qagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
7 g4 o- \- @9 M% ?/ eeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.# g* d% y0 _# y9 }
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 l! i2 m. @7 @3 w

7 D7 \9 A# I0 h$ ?* K) d* M, `Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-, A8 T) p2 e$ `. h) W9 a
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; q4 S* u6 p5 L( f( }$ c1 g( N. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ X3 b5 `1 N1 q6 a* S5 VOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London7 E- s2 F0 E, I/ a8 s6 J$ q+ W) _# u
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for' K$ H! h9 E" Q& L$ ^' G/ S
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic& u/ {3 m! K& x- [0 p
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope' E; N. {" z& B  `1 n7 T0 w& ?
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
  s9 Q" Z6 E2 _$ `) Qplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this, x  a- G2 k$ v$ r, z  P8 E9 o
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.  S/ [* R3 N8 H7 Z0 V$ y# Y

1 `9 ]7 v8 ~; H+ ~Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ E8 r3 j1 P  {* w' N/ Kintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
: a% s1 G  L) y3 Csuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a1 l0 ^$ P3 g% @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. H1 Y- s4 B) X0 Iall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. W) k; t9 B! g
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ v$ E# t) U4 J, V! Q+ c$ _( h
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 i# j) Q. A5 H0 h9 H" ]# F! Yargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal; d5 ]* X  k8 d8 U% _0 o" }4 r- k
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or" ?* Q* T1 f+ 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, 2026-2-12 12:28 , Processed in 0.258439 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