埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1826|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
+ g, U% a& i4 h1 d% @/ \8 d6 l0 q2 d% D- B0 {& D& l) [8 f
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
1 h' i% K& d4 E' ]: b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。
" t3 O& i1 E2 o总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! i# S7 g) q' U& O4 {* k" c/ _7 @! I/ T5 F4 x
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
( V6 X( g, [6 A  c0 R+ W1 c; `: T9 v0 t, E4 ~9 c; q
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选  Q( V) p  k; L

- M3 u2 l2 O0 W) t* }8 v. ~英文原信附后,大意如下:: a$ l, L" D  o# K" Z2 q
/ e4 O% Y" q% A4 j; G! `# A* H
斐尔,
% |, V: Q3 x4 f! g( K# K: `6 g       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% N4 V2 V$ W4 @4 ]! q7 z
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
# M9 a8 i6 F5 P) q8 w       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6 w' b9 s' P2 M. j: f
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
8 o+ D  _; [% ^! T7 I2 x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。
* z+ K! a7 s1 |$ h' V* Z/ ~       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. @4 ^; E6 n" I
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, z7 _- }6 t. x  E
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& j5 }) t9 @+ V
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。6 `$ C+ V3 _& 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9 V& a  i7 F& |+ E& a- G1 q
,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
, k; P6 Y$ N4 g9 V4 y9 @”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。( X/ I3 N  ?2 b' b
       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. F9 f8 r$ \; J7 I/ C  F( s
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
4 ?  h- @5 }+ B- H,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
; z" j7 Q1 U( e9 e' V       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
& A) C: D$ m; |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
8 w$ v+ |( u" t. J% p7 C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$ C( A& \% a8 b. W
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. t- v' c, ~/ l% {
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
! Z  [) Q0 J5 `6 q+ e7 n! X1 k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- y3 O* t, A  x1 s
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$ z9 d5 w5 }, f& ^+ h4 O
。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
$ k3 v* Y0 [. d. w  b录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ }3 R' N7 u* M6 k1 d$ i7 ]
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
6 ?( z- p: r3 Q: U, `9 x1》,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 I2 i* Y  x; g1 V; B% TWikipedia。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 H9 d- H* _! F- g5 V' t, Y
同意见的专家。
- l* u% ?) X* x5 y% j6 c6 |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4 H5 P1 O! [  ?3 K" 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
* j3 Y; o7 R1 ?; c学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为
" [* p# o$ H' J8 F* q& o) O《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。9 w: ?' D  E7 G# B& F3 p) O
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)
1 m  M' h9 i& M5 J" A的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
9 t! |# T, ?+ P7 j: l& k" e. g$ }《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
5 v$ F3 Y$ c" x1 x: E: t这些被Callaway忽略。
; N- H+ b% @7 z& k: e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
" n' t0 [- `9 h  F% R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 r. _6 |; I& K8 U
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
, x- s% n( T9 D: W5 q; J9 t7 @) T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% r9 K0 R6 j" O% d
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- G% w+ h$ `+ e6 X4 o7 D7 h
家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文,才有《自然》的4 q8 B5 w5 m. b
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。
/ w9 a" |) h- d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 ~& D2 [8 p0 C' m) L" A2 V; S香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年
& S7 M' q9 ~3 c$ [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7 U* F; U5 v( G' \) _
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。$ n# V$ s/ ^: S6 L
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
1 A& R5 a1 c, U5 j4 U* N6 v, |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1 j' h2 V7 x% {  A" K8 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1 r/ M# F) l, ^" J/ C) f
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" w1 ]' \1 i9 G- 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! e! }9 o" m% ]/ ?+ `  r
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* Q/ e8 g6 z+ o; C2 `  d- G. u我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
+ W4 V; {  v  y# K) u2 E' s: R; J; `; j' U

$ m1 F; C9 B) Z% L6 M% b* C北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅8 S! I" r4 f8 o, h' U* t% Y

. s9 v$ M, H6 w0 j0 m/ D附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结6 j6 S9 |9 y& w) }8 [3 F
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email. u& q: }& f. `
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
* o- K; M! a  X  E- e0 s附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 F; A2 h. z2 h0 Z' x* Z. a' X! @" r1 P& B: i

1 Y% r8 f8 `7 o! W- q
+ {: ]1 @/ M$ V, [原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)1 V$ d- w4 A2 n& m/ z7 t. @
Dear Phil,6 u6 X' v2 A0 M
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
! r7 h- V% D" B3 D3 Freport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20/ C, T: [* `8 q: j* ]4 Q& E2 I! _
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed! Y6 k% a, Z# }2 z; _% B
you.
* C- j& E5 y1 _, W8 \       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have) x/ S8 O  I$ r% i) F( S. a
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese& b0 [9 q$ V0 C1 @3 Q
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the2 c' q0 u7 y2 T5 t5 n) r+ K1 W) U. ?
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ O' E3 i6 i4 h
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
; I) a& g, f2 p: \3 o( W5 tseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
" a3 M* M2 _0 ~0 H9 ?- ~( }1 k7 S7 tpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.; M. [, b4 C! H1 f) X- l
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the0 K3 J/ [& u0 U% L, V" f
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 s* K: J8 M9 Y7 ynegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish% ^6 `* c" u4 H5 F1 W5 }
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway- i! P) I5 z% `' I+ ?
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping+ ?0 A- w! X9 B1 n* f
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal) _  S; s1 h; F: S. h: s
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* B5 \  c. a" H8 }0 |1 U
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
. A9 C) s5 O/ A8 o. e: [to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news5 v5 q9 j. h/ M6 K9 G7 ~3 m. ^) O
reporting.
# C& |' e' x# U$ F: c       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have% w! i2 m- U. M! `1 a  C
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
! Q. y9 w- C5 _6 d, d9 Y+ Cchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in4 O% B6 E, C5 i- h! f# ]: a: a* f/ g
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 _) X5 ]& J' H/ ?( U2 Kpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
2 X$ b& m1 D: z1 R( b/ B       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
: b6 V& e  w$ ^% v4 K' smore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds' c7 o3 l5 @" A: p) p
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50$ f: b/ x2 K1 b1 R
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same9 B. U( V, ^7 h- n! T- Q
event for men, with the second fastest record.
, l; S7 k9 O+ f* G9 B8 |" P       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye3 T. ^2 a; c+ F: q1 l" n# t# s
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 I! R/ t' V3 g- G# l: Uyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record  _* k* n7 K% e
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400  x% {1 k$ S' ]
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,. A/ A! D- r5 u0 w  u5 x) x
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
3 R# I& ^  q0 _7 \) e3 vLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed: a5 Z% A* E" y) L
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the2 D) {0 i1 Y5 V$ @8 p
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower! ~) _  B) W0 Y8 A# s( V
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
' W  P+ r* n2 m$ y" f0 ~" xthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
5 T, d( S5 ~: Z( e" ]9 Dher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 v' v- G* x& S0 Y
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) O% q4 B7 J2 b5 kproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( v7 P( r! W# R. @: uswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: F) @6 F! d9 @. N# Zteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the' [1 }) D/ U6 I! q+ Q' v
Callaway report., @$ K0 T( z6 c/ x
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more8 |$ {  B  x: H; h/ J7 `
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details+ a# q* U( m& M' b  h; }- W
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
2 G" D$ @$ i; V% Qof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
; v& S5 ~9 G9 w* a2 |9 mbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
  o0 H" H1 R0 i0 A$ K  u1 l2 ZWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had! [, G8 g+ K! o. f% l  b9 ~. ?, n; _
publicly voiced different opinions.! t- N0 u* v4 L) K) c# u* v
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
  _5 L; [3 h4 W8 @: [from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature" f9 b8 S  f4 r2 t
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
+ O5 `( C' j. Q  s0 k* r! g, \postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
! H1 |$ R7 f' Z& u1 a0 Yyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy4 S5 q* ^; j- s4 r
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
! I! ?. N" H" a3 T1 ~" LThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think$ ]$ l) \0 W( r* N6 M6 q
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They8 r7 K) n) [0 t" a+ N% m
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
" `6 E& E- ^' g" j4 R! |$ s& }Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
. x. g$ L) w2 Pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
; E& x7 H1 P9 Hsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
2 w7 t5 Z) M" K& F" |One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
0 M5 R8 M; X$ {0 [$ h: m* s! Hmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the$ H( \* d/ ?9 `4 W
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June% Y2 V& a( J3 P, Y3 N# e3 W! r* J, b
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she0 v$ g/ Z0 U6 f2 \9 t4 [& m
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
6 |5 P: D- `8 D- G- K2 |The British have a good international image, partly because of your science$ q8 v$ }. Q( s) \# l" V
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and) q; J5 U5 g" J9 N/ v
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
# g9 G! p6 P! MNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
7 C& `! Y" [: |, Sobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature8 y/ I8 m2 N( C2 A/ h) g
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to. n% I4 [& @0 S4 C
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
1 h9 `2 V, w4 g' H! P+ cThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 L  C# ]# d* L; bshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced8 \. @, d& H' t* Y  h' N
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 U, D9 L& Q9 }fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
5 F* Y( S: ^8 B7 A( e6 _& |  kthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”& d5 _) Z: \/ M: ^. m2 ~
about British supremacy.8 j5 G; R, W6 E4 u: h+ A
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 `+ ~+ `) p4 J! j. }unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, b, @5 X; o! d) q/ oChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by; w# {( H2 o* I, U4 j& X/ D
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London7 U3 `+ b6 l2 x
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.) r4 w, K* W( n2 s/ f9 I5 Y! j
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) d4 ^: z2 D, l7 g- Vprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 Q1 ~+ `8 h+ V% Gbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
% m/ {0 Q5 ?" dit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly8 l) p, F; m4 D3 B, {$ ?
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
. p1 Y* Q0 M' U! jNature.
0 s! `/ }5 D7 ~( j. x9 vI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance+ A6 B% L, k. k6 y) ?6 ?
the Callaway report.
& U8 K$ |: L: z: l; k& T" w* C! {' l/ Q4 \  t7 ^1 J
Yi6 R. @$ t# d1 {* v, P1 v3 G% n( j
' x. P; q/ w4 c
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
; c. [% E4 ?9 G! D. w9 }Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' Z' @7 W/ I+ \+ v! \7 a9 W4 CBeijing, China
3 u: z' q8 R5 O3 C, c
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·········
大型搬家
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 8 C/ w$ n2 `# {9 S
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
% h% y1 A, B' p0 k# b6 B
原文是公开信。
: b. n4 W2 x0 q2 @0 ^1 @! `7 t) u2 I. _
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
& @. U. |* h0 o5 k+ E原文是公开信。; i/ N8 b* G6 d7 G

5 l& f2 j# m& v& Z7 L: Y7 s5 M: i小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

# G8 K& o; |$ S/ \4 P7 @% j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" P( [! J2 A' V6 }5 U
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 g  j1 O( h' I; @* z

3 D( M  S2 r; P; k: C: whttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
" R1 J( W2 Q, B7 |2 }& C) g% g! s
9 `$ S* y: ?0 f( O' g: r% QFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania6 H8 m: k* B3 W3 L

  P" Q0 ^& i# U6 [It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
& {3 ~+ x, e' d* P, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
2 i) M3 O/ P. a& V/ Bmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
* g( P5 y4 Z; a3 R' S7 W' His not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the  B1 l* z" `  r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ L0 U) N/ d- r4 E" A; k2 B* ]5 Tpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" n  p  ^( s' y, ]
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ F/ i7 i" ?: ~0 ~8 z5 m
which they blatantly failed to do.5 n  t, X# Q* ~  i/ I* R5 _

* l1 ^; O/ J6 w3 |# vFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, c# Q8 o! _+ h. P% p  qOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
/ }% Z  R1 u5 L& ?4 ^- b4 J2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* R7 {# h, Y% H5 j. I, I9 W. A  X
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous2 f) E- j4 p. A- w) _
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, a8 q' |6 d# x+ O1 m. X7 |
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) }5 }# ?8 a2 B+ i7 @% Edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 }0 ^8 V+ _' W- e4 nbe treated as 7 s.7 R+ _4 @6 M2 R& m! v& \

6 B& u* H! z' VSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ C  S4 G8 ]6 ]' g9 Q$ b' Jstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem' b& G; Q" @- O! t8 w
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.& ]% u& G3 H# R- N: R* {
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* K# m  r# w% I" W/ Q4 K& ?1 @
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
% K5 j! \4 F+ E' M; C4 j2 bFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
; k0 M" k) [0 h. G: {4 L; Relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and9 `" V, C$ q; |
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
' [1 Q# \3 ^2 R  b3 g9 sbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 R( Y# P+ W- G. R/ C7 p3 \
/ J, F/ B( \! j5 N( ^  VThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
9 p& ]8 G5 c5 s+ K1 s3 U! g4 D3 qexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
: q$ q0 [8 w% D! p  `$ V1 Othe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so: C  O5 ]! V* ~9 a- _2 Y+ L) y9 I* |
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: Y4 H5 h0 y4 i+ T! p! E/ E% J+ a) l8 F( J: T
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s- I* q4 k9 o" x1 N
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World3 j; L5 q# V  R8 R7 z
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
5 |. d8 b. W, N! o5 y0 _topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. x' ?! N) Z+ E2 ~7 K
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, b8 |  T8 n9 u, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- b3 R0 z$ t5 E/ ], n& J7 @9 g3 k4 [! ]
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
" K1 ]* a/ u' {. f0 |2 dfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% r* S# K% x" p  W
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
) U& U5 [* S* ~" a" a4 Y9 Z# ]# laside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 x# R! C7 u& `' P" S' S0 z& y5 U
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 I: U; [* P$ y' S2 B7 k' |9 r% X$ Y4 z" O' x* r. |
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! F0 c1 `4 Y# W- z3 h! C
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.935 ]2 d4 D5 ?7 G
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* Y& C. f! M( J  k
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns9 T" y% A3 R/ I9 t$ U
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 `) L: z$ w% i, ^+ DLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 ^% a7 U9 z, `8 s) x2 pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 r; w8 X6 M9 H) ?7 N1 O1 i- Y! G
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
4 v0 t2 w# E4 {2 X0 m- ^/ P+ Jevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 `: k6 b6 j2 S; Wworks.# f+ Y6 S! P1 m! P8 d+ y, l7 E

" C4 D+ n( z' k" P% ZFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 o5 V% h9 ?+ }9 j; T
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this& {) Q# ?5 v5 y' W
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ H* I; Q, P8 {/ h) cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific$ v( P: N8 s7 ]6 ?; J( h
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 F2 y- F4 M& L+ ?$ o& s- Ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One" q3 z+ X" q/ R
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
6 Y1 s, F4 M2 p/ g: x/ V) }6 ^demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. [7 y) b/ i6 y5 H8 ]1 Y8 m
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, c1 u% N( ?  _& F0 C$ O0 t
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is) r& A7 [' V+ _9 ^# H
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he5 J+ y7 a0 j5 Z2 b3 F% j& l
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly2 n+ j7 @6 `, A
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
! C+ s# L! q) ^! z4 j  N4 _past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not2 d4 C) q" e9 y, k# Q. [+ d: I. v' a
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, f* @* D: z0 ^, U" U$ R$ e. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
1 @( m- {; C9 _4 j$ R( ?doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& y" T0 k" d1 G8 h
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
- q6 D, k" p8 ~2 I2 x( _% chearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
, m7 Y+ X: A2 z" C% M% _3 r: Uhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
# E& N) ^) q: E" \( r! kdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 c0 H- c# t3 g/ V! X+ ]5 M
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
' D8 U) ~+ r1 p% ]' N; N, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
  @/ u. @6 b. B+ r; J# _* A) \probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
! L# _4 Y; Y. `athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) s, X/ X9 ]& G0 bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
! B: K/ ~( {* W9 K; t& s4 C+ GLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 t$ U* w2 m, o  O1 |agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
' p2 s7 s; Q; H1 @eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
5 Y7 f/ u. t- @0 {# k6 e/ B* GInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
7 t: b9 |# U* Z# u8 V, d9 i
& m  W0 M1 l8 t5 ]2 }Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 ?, ^3 b2 W: {* d
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
2 z2 v% Y, }; w! Y8 F) ]" H. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
+ W0 }/ A$ r% m6 kOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' f) l" b! P; j" l& V1 y% H2 z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for# z. T0 X: V6 y9 |! X/ p+ o
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, I: m+ h& G2 @games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope. f! k/ y# B8 X3 b6 x$ w+ ^1 b7 j
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: t; @: r5 K8 y; `/ t
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this0 b* }+ ?/ ?9 Z
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.3 a4 d  S' M- @  |$ p- [& O9 t

8 K8 d1 H( e! eOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (# _  u; N" U, [2 b, O" N9 {
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ T" d6 @+ q; n% P3 Z$ R
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 E" i: d- h6 p5 y) d. M' csuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- ^2 e6 ^0 X4 n  u  Fall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your% ?* n( ]$ n' l9 Y$ _+ ?1 K
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. W' H+ M* U& W- _( N5 x( J: x
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
' h+ L4 c: G7 x% oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 F4 |4 v" I1 R
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 w) I) R3 k9 R/ Y; e5 p9 D# qreporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
大型搬家
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, 2025-11-22 03:38 , Processed in 0.126501 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