埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2089|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 0 X! _  O6 K  \# o) g6 m( f
! ~7 P3 E& {# y% }
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* A  S' H1 s1 G( \6 L3 S
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。
8 \; h; u+ D. A, o. D总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
4 O8 H! P2 l0 D
' Y( l/ N  u% d) u+ _http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ C% w2 [9 L7 ~

8 ~- ]& [1 N; b( E" w2 M致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
  \# ?7 N) ^6 L! Y5 ^
" k2 k: H/ Y- e- }+ X1 {, ]英文原信附后,大意如下:- p- K; D0 C: a; }( O

: w. ~5 A1 _# U; P; a. m1 h斐尔,7 `, M$ ~" H% }/ O* ^
       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
' F4 ~. m2 b5 R; V. `) l3 `email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
6 }3 o% f* S, b6 k       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) v% Q& {2 p% d- `& W9 S% ], l/ 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
2 t, B2 t; H$ ^8 a0 Q) a- I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。
! s6 e. y5 r, |! y1 F8 V       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
! O8 A* ?2 ?) I: X- r% L3 j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
1 y# S- H+ d8 ^9 _7 @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
" T/ T! i  B! 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。0 e, y% w* K/ P+ C9 a* b* Z
       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
+ E9 x2 u/ O! Y. v- \6 e0 V,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
- ~! r' _, ?' j, N”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 G! J( X% J+ d9 Z, Y       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
, P* a. w+ x* N1 ]  R) B4 o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6 `7 }$ _/ Z! i" i
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。3 Z9 w2 K& ?  \4 D
       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
- L. |, U& ]. }, W" H& 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; Q* F: q! }& t% _9 l5 j5 y- w9 m
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) J, B+ B  I1 s- [# Y9 T
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 p5 Y' M  i$ S300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
  J: \; f8 Y: N0 k2 v! |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% A# z8 V" z8 q
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1 y9 |. _2 v* ~( b3 }
。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4 m* H" R" n7 [$ j6 p) H
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
# A  q' C+ a! y- r/ Q# M+ |( {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
" K+ ^3 V% {5 `+ H9 n1》,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
* o7 l+ a+ ^" \+ m0 p- vWikipedia。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9 x9 W5 |, v* ?* q- z1 `& a
同意见的专家。' O7 j- o" J# f4 z! t) o
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' W6 P" [( K; G! S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, X* `9 a# o; w5 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
7 x7 E) U+ u% ?5 \0 a《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ y- y3 u* ]6 Q4 b/ \* s% o4 d3 ?
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)
; P8 |5 @. x+ w3 L5 s8 R" {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
# U$ H* g1 X0 i《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
* f0 P2 F: [$ h  ?5 s- A3 w$ o' l这些被Callaway忽略。
/ M* }' V& i3 Q) [* A( {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  A& S& ]; p! X) w! X
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
# m: {; n* |5 \教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。5 L- c* M4 _. U9 T8 q/ Z
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
4 z& X- M; |0 N2 s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" J3 K2 i* @) f6 S
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  R8 }* m5 k: i1 z/ F6 ?3 J
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。
; V* Q& j% s& o2 K/ |/ i7 c* |# ~4 U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# Y$ O; M. P- t, G
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 z% t4 [6 U( H* G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2 k8 N/ `1 X* t- E+ N
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
' D3 t  t8 d5 v: w0 f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 z& M# C" Q( k& i7 {7 L
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9 P7 J: u" {8 ]$ \
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0 J  u, s  ?1 V/ v" h
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 k; m  d4 N7 E. ]2 V2 j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
& O% m& o6 d! i而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。7 v$ p9 `% R( `* y
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
8 s/ u8 H4 x) X; O& o% t: X- W% |4 t0 `, K! p; u9 E

) F& a0 T7 V" Y  X' B2 A8 T# f北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅0 e8 c  _& \# a* ~
8 m0 x2 X! n- I
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结/ [8 M' o9 Z8 m" ?) ?) a0 \) z
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
8 |$ i" [; x4 G% `附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
7 d  v5 U7 }( E% d+ h) D5 P1 [, F附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 \' O* x0 p% F+ i0 |9 M
( `  T  v7 B. D. I8 B9 \. \
. f# ~% w1 a9 h7 v7 ^- p4 a) \( }3 _1 b
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
* S0 a( Y! r& O6 N2 lDear Phil,. B9 E* ?0 P! s3 q
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s- d: c. _. U4 D5 V
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 204 y6 k& q9 N' y/ [& k( e
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; U' d' S6 [) @5 e& Zyou.6 t: H5 n, U) M+ F
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have( M0 d1 M3 R6 [: [' m
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
0 Q7 S( U5 |( ~+ U0 w! Y0 W2 K5 \  X  @readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: h2 Q& i2 B4 S. ?+ T8 `; iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature- g  a) X" M2 i' [* Q
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more3 f3 t5 u) |8 j# _+ G/ ~& g) C
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news1 H/ {" n1 ~, Q+ }7 S  q! o0 z- t9 r- t
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.5 I; u, }! p' |! [- L" q$ d9 @- ^
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
2 N7 y, \/ i% Z7 Eworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a0 F& v1 Q  q2 z4 \0 B
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
3 e; {& |( d! k$ m+ c* g+ @that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
$ g: C. ]0 }7 E- N! s& b4 sdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping, w8 ~1 X& z+ n  O# Q8 u1 J) b
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
3 d/ i, p" ~) X% estandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
# n4 i$ ?% s6 j, _% |8 D+ qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone. G$ r0 |- {; K5 y
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
6 S, Y+ U7 @  R2 X$ dreporting.
' M5 [5 O! f. O$ B3 O5 b       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have* r6 C1 z5 e" L3 T% K3 \
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
' l/ L( y2 R9 a/ N) U4 w' m- Rchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in. g* N2 y3 w# s) `/ ~" T) C
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
( c3 y& R/ @0 x/ G% \: Jpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 l- z, ~% u/ Q( v% o) ?8 [7 Q
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. L. ]* O) y6 G5 U% d( M' g
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
# H# t: \7 o$ K) _faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
5 ?# p8 r, e. l6 A5 J. qmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
. X) C+ n6 J* G  Eevent for men, with the second fastest record.
+ W5 p, |0 P% D% h, `       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye( H5 p8 R# `+ c3 V( i* }
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ ?& F2 P; V4 y# |7 m9 F
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record: L6 Z. D* G  t
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400- n# n" c& ?3 P* B
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 s: t6 C+ ~4 T( N" D! @for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than4 h0 P% t& F& v' z
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed0 H0 q8 E+ u* P+ W! M1 p; W$ O
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
7 P. \1 g  i; ~1 n/ N7 z+ H; F8 qindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower7 h' G$ {% I7 _5 @& S' H# e
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than/ d5 K0 N* Y1 d0 w- y* G
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
  A. o4 U6 t+ d2 }- xher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then, f, O# j/ W0 ~
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
2 _% i  M& t% Pproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
2 `8 I1 P$ B9 a2 X* _& h$ U6 x- dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the0 a% P! ?" n5 A
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
  c* S/ \( T  C  j  Y" tCallaway report.0 N) C) y, G/ }
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more  c$ ^0 {( y" w6 e4 i
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details" o  V4 Q8 a5 t5 s* }
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
- |6 k  G7 H- J9 y) [3 M' [2 M) ^of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
3 e3 Q( M  s; M1 {4 S+ pbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
( F7 r0 B8 U7 g' RWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& y" {, ~+ m/ h; Y
publicly voiced different opinions.2 W* g. w- r! j# v
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! X5 ]$ C: W* c/ b3 \* l& v
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
0 H& s% e/ ]& h; A% uNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; Z8 w! z  z% p& o" E7 Fpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) [/ G# f! o) |# i/ N
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy9 R  x( m$ ^6 j1 h/ }
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
; V1 A/ Z3 P5 x2 P8 qThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
# ^0 R, M# n2 ~9 I; M" |9 y( ^# s  d9 kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They& F/ z- c* T, N0 l
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as/ H5 w5 S- c5 l' w
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that1 t$ e3 b- G) r: _
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was3 a/ V! U5 e! w! C. m4 y% W
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.# F$ Z- g% n5 m: K' L. S
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
7 X' f7 A0 E, J$ N3 C5 ?7 Dmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the7 l( `8 N5 _) P# J7 t
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
! ?& B# K2 \% T5 f4 }% O  m+ P(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she0 O0 U# L5 X, o' ]: j7 U: s  M& Z
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.8 @5 |: x& I2 D0 y& K9 }
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science) p; x6 w8 q! I) j
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
3 [6 s; a) s3 C9 _. |Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.9 A) D- R4 \, m) A2 x) M
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
  H4 u5 `4 D8 m& A, Cobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature& ~: |6 D2 i2 S; c. s* s9 A- b9 l6 s1 _
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
# {- O" X3 [7 r$ {repair the damage caused by your news reporters.; f9 Z( p0 ?* M0 h) f9 h
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
2 u. l  h6 S+ v1 m& Z$ p4 `  K3 Oshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced7 o+ N& g7 X6 P4 m0 B
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather  F& F6 i* x4 y0 l3 U; \9 H* I; |3 k, h
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
5 C$ U. \+ v" s' t! ^this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
' N) \; y  n# s3 Mabout British supremacy.4 K) W9 s5 ]) [5 `. z0 M- \. v& Q
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
. C  e8 g  s1 I$ E- A7 aunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
+ L) c  m) M1 s7 o5 @0 j( z. \3 HChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
- w* p& c# }, |% uour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) d2 ?+ u5 I; d( w
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.* r" g, g5 p2 A
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
. l/ A) d. z5 Q9 Q, tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
0 U2 v9 u" b' i, qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,1 y% t& j* Z  M+ C- X
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
' z  C& I4 z- H# c% I  ]publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
( q: r9 N0 v- l8 J4 _/ CNature.
/ a7 B) [5 P0 R* h" }0 Y2 L3 ]I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
( H6 w+ n- X1 f, ^0 r1 ethe Callaway report.
: d$ P' s. \8 _' O7 |* w# S, W8 s# Z5 C* Y* L4 J+ L
Yi
( }' i1 O& Y/ e, p; d" e, y3 g' X0 h5 D: S/ L* e$ U1 C/ t: @
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
( s0 z, `3 m% x" G/ yProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! ~( W3 a, U5 T
Beijing, China8 x1 O5 v$ n8 O5 f
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
* ~' U: ^" l" l; a4 ?原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' ^; h  b7 T- x0 r* x* u原文是公开信。
) [, q; O! I1 h4 Y, U: L$ F* ~
. v( H! C1 v* R* `3 [* d3 i小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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   R% x  w1 H( o0 L" i' P
原文是公开信。6 A9 O/ {. N2 V) @
2 N2 W, D, P) f2 g
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

1 z7 B/ p% A' S( G1 o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
! ?; }2 q) M. c9 U" ^如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
1 d# M. V4 z$ ~3 n! C0 \- S, r% a3 D
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
7 ~; m6 ^) G% m0 L% Z/ }! X2 B" Q9 C" G9 m. W# I' V
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania  n) k; s: i4 q9 p# `9 {  w
% J$ p7 M' {5 {+ D2 ?: v
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 l+ d+ I# w/ [3 l  H5 B9 ~, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
) q! D$ z6 J! Z$ _+ r" c$ x. vmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this! b0 a3 b' S! R5 J5 H# Q
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ _% X; X8 I( Z* _
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
# f. B8 a9 Z, ?$ _+ [, f5 @$ ~populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( t) y" F4 [1 a6 \should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 i* E, U' n$ f2 ~6 l
which they blatantly failed to do.
% U; x+ i9 B, [2 a" ]
; H4 ~7 r  _! ]7 }9 h1 eFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 c" }& m: k( x$ v* z# i. M# dOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
( t5 v% k2 C  u) Q8 d2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% \# _, t! P* O) J( {+ ?) D
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous' Y% ]8 d1 p) `7 a# U1 M
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ z0 `* }+ \1 B4 d$ @improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the4 u0 `% D3 ?* f' i# V# V' N
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
- ?8 S/ ^4 J7 \- Q) Ibe treated as 7 s.
; R* X1 I; o. K. f* z  b5 a/ [1 c0 M' `4 l; y  T# |2 p/ W
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 K" H9 |4 p. ]
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, G# X8 Q+ P# \4 j# y! I  iimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.! c# N( R2 v* T( r
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 r' I% d3 x5 w9 y* y5 w-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.) c$ s) d/ D6 m" a. u* q$ K
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
; I3 o$ B- N1 F# Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and, l% E- e* y, ~/ ?2 |, j
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% }  A8 {' e; ^' v* T2 ebased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
. _' q6 I) x0 b  j* o. W7 s2 Z
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ @* ]7 c$ x" o1 h$ Oexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 w  e1 M7 b1 K+ ?  ]the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so' I( K4 h! ?* j
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later4 p; ^$ C6 V$ J) p+ F' e% x1 r
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s6 ?3 X2 H7 g0 x+ H) ]
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
, ^0 e% }9 i: B' U/ L2 x2 xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 D1 r$ d$ G! X; ?
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ n3 _& I4 [) H) N6 J5 |4 x) Khand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 V3 r, {  D4 ]
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this: ^( m  f# k4 n& k! _
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 Y7 l( d0 `5 h7 M  ?$ C1 f
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam4 w, p( v9 ]4 u8 E& {
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, r0 R8 H8 q) I: {& d) r! zaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that, L4 }/ q7 m  a) c' H; j# l
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.* z, x8 _% I1 A
' b3 j3 m; G$ }2 O$ ^5 b
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are7 M  |( ^/ K$ U6 e- \
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) V: F6 @3 K$ D% n7 s
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# ^2 K+ k1 S) T- t! v), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: s! b1 j' H! Hout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 C, s& M; L$ [9 n. ~1 W1 @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
  T6 o3 i. f' Y. P- }6 ~5 Q. Q( ~: Wof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
2 n) g4 d6 W5 J2 _4 k$ Wlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
& e8 D+ C7 q1 j5 Z! ^every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science% I- D# C# {( q7 N, d! g
works.
! W  k2 x+ v  M; o% N- r0 r$ \; _/ l  G8 K# M2 Z
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and$ X+ P9 _7 k6 t% E
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this% k/ T( T( r& \" B  T4 X
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
& A; [7 Z$ ^8 Estandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific3 [/ U: u$ v+ H- H1 q' s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
  {' E! k1 G1 p- S. M) Dreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" _- }: B% a2 j2 k4 a% U; vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( [! G/ T1 ~1 J2 p6 V& x) {demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 l# Y( z) W# g0 q
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
# q# K% D' z) K3 s9 m2 D, Nis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# M; T  s( F& W! k
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he6 `1 V" F2 q9 }8 b
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; w. |' ]. \# e; E
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( |' q7 m: X( J$ w! E
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not8 y" |1 O  `; a. o: X, ]
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ a, I0 ]. |( o! B6 W
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
. Q4 F- f+ P3 p* k5 _3 }. N# x0 o0 ]doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" N4 P9 U5 S7 Y5 t: W' m" P
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
* N/ l& Q- e: P. D  R4 Qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
6 i" a. k9 b" k$ R$ j- }has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a+ G0 w* u$ W( d3 Z7 s4 f6 z- G1 R. d
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& `6 u& o. l4 L7 j' rother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, [% ?8 g) N# u. J5 D6 k0 q0 l
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is6 Y9 ^! [; q0 q7 E, z1 G
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 M, e* z( x( `4 ?& ]' y; ]athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
+ k: K# _1 y% l/ Wchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: X0 l' s" E& Q% e  d) y% q
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping+ l0 R) K* G, A8 n3 f/ ^
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for: C7 I! I2 d; M: ~/ J# H3 w
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
# X9 }2 z4 r% `; eInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: }7 t  {6 j! `1 x1 E% ^; r8 @8 a- U0 `  S; u. E7 g
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
4 q( q0 y9 }  A. o$ bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
7 X* g2 i. y, N. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
& P/ E6 X# K$ _; ]4 a6 T0 \Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
" }  z9 p+ _& \0 zOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; a3 `, p( [  L
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ }! ^, S8 D; f' Pgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope# b$ @; P9 c7 G7 k) B
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
$ m. v2 F  K: j8 jplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
9 I  M) I# b+ k6 D5 g0 Wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
6 ?" w( u# e2 e5 k6 V, y0 B) m5 t8 S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
! s% ~. C$ I8 Z% Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( w7 S+ m+ f7 M3 j2 ^
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& P* S: O. O4 }9 o* \( E/ ?! Lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; j- `7 Z: o5 b0 _/ K# H$ @' uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% c) o' V& y! J+ binterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
8 Y' X& U$ W% \# c* x+ k5 vexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. k" q- h; X0 M# j0 p
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, ?! e3 u  D; }such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
# G4 x6 w6 b" T$ a% R+ oreporting 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, 2026-3-1 02:37 , Processed in 0.151238 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