埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2029|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
, m5 b1 i( U* n0 H
& {0 q* D+ M4 K4 a饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。% d7 s; q( `9 c
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。
2 k3 I6 B  L# z6 f4 l; I5 \总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 C4 e, f1 g5 p4 ]

. j# [$ `% L$ D# y7 Whttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html" l  U4 D$ ?/ X; X

# K, v* h) S) W致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选/ I. w- F5 M6 \* A/ y
* F* H# D; }2 M# l# }! c
英文原信附后,大意如下:9 c: @7 {4 K, W, t" e7 J

! x6 {- F( ~7 z0 F1 _) @  G" C6 H斐尔,  ^! k9 S+ d( k5 P
       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
8 m+ F0 j7 E3 V/ f7 d. ~$ xemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& D6 x  n# U( D5 x) r       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴/ M8 }8 ~* ]& f: 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
3 R- u8 x$ x% r& v  d0 @- `$ t0 v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。
" C) P# U! C- l% W       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' |  V& c/ O) Q! A7 q
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, Q5 w# i9 z. Y
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5 D9 z$ o1 J' I! e! H( @. B& W
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。
, H/ ?6 {+ W* @       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
" U" j9 m7 a/ r- W7 S0 ]1 B' G& O' @,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2 E7 F7 A  B" f
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。+ s. @4 X+ L( @7 m5 A& z6 e
       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7 \4 x' K! L+ e& q+ U
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
" _# R- k" k3 ^$ w! g) S! ?/ a1 T; M+ ?,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。0 s( t$ E9 W6 D+ O
       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" P$ a* X& P* k4 R5 E
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
; i: _9 Q$ r! |0 t/ d% ?- s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
+ E+ O4 m4 c4 N" e$ M0 U* Q0 f7 H5 N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" K" ^$ N' ~, h) K9 n, _/ N$ x$ {
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
- n5 Q$ Y9 _1 L, K- h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  U; c- w2 @" Y
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- k7 h2 c% h! Y* ]: ^8 V4 T3 R4 z$ j
。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  y$ G$ Z: ^  ?% r2 K: R录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
/ _7 p, O/ z' b) G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
) c1 r& a: ~# g1》,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' F8 i" s% f( u/ J
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& l. e( v+ x1 y/ |  c
同意见的专家。; t1 F/ _* D$ B9 u$ L  l: U7 r
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
* P! A4 E! l5 A* Y1 T& D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
6 W3 ?  P# d$ B( }7 A4 Z, I6 h& a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
+ O" R2 @8 t& E: I; C《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。7 t; M6 d( {7 A' E2 [' g
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)
( ]$ F7 y, D& c' _$ h: u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
+ A8 i' l0 R6 y《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
$ c% K, r- c1 L, a' A7 I9 _这些被Callaway忽略。
- O7 C7 c, V8 E" V( {- G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* }; Z% i; I/ ?- g, S
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
% W& t0 v' N7 e  i. V2 ]2 j教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。+ w  e  I# _' ~2 o
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
' m+ T6 B& R+ N9 j1 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
( U3 q. G6 K* o4 W$ N% _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; L+ \9 P+ W7 D2 g9 v  E4 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。! h0 S: n# }0 T  |
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6 T8 h9 u* M( I+ `3 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
1 o% @, D$ a" K0 E4 z' k2 v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+ E' s# q/ B6 w! K
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
6 E: {! y2 k( Q- b( u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
* m) C4 t, T5 P: f7 v) _& R" `2 L+ R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 R- i2 S/ p* r$ z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4 {) i, d" A: n6 {5 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
! V1 P2 l* a+ T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. J( h6 e/ p  v# m0 X& S
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: Q9 Q8 ~$ [4 ]% n0 d. P& k8 z+ B. }
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
5 B  L5 R, b: E, J: u
! E1 Y+ W* a" E  {
; U, T7 `9 B" x! k9 e北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
3 G; H, G/ J5 y7 R. {, _1 k+ R' F- B# E5 a, a- g
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结. Q$ x3 V" C: j1 S1 i+ `
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
1 ]5 m8 b: }5 K附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 S0 U% w+ g5 q, H' C& Z3 b+ j5 \附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见- `; q/ j5 z0 O; s
& s2 m. q. E% p  L" V

6 ~7 V  r8 I) y; N' E$ R
/ S2 K; Q, ?+ I6 \5 d+ a原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)' a6 n6 m& A( y+ B+ I+ ~* c
Dear Phil,
& ~" Q6 I+ [, {' c0 p! f       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
' w5 F6 P6 B" mreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
/ J9 c$ Q/ k1 ^hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
/ \5 d+ L1 e/ Z7 dyou.
# m+ }3 j+ E" J4 D4 G       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have: u! n) C( O7 ^7 z+ I
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese4 y  R8 b( U& }: ]9 Y
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
, }0 h& w2 L) T* o3 E$ W, Z, sworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature! l/ H6 ^8 e& m  M  G" D" x
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more( h) [$ B$ [5 n; [! `3 k
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news/ x! E/ _) F' `) _, _% m
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
% Q3 b: w2 |4 d9 K9 O# G# `9 p       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
3 F  w; w. ]7 p" mworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
+ ?2 \  J; {' [2 Fnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish7 \8 Z, Y2 g1 x6 i5 q$ r9 u/ m, p
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway+ }2 G) C( K9 T9 c
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping3 R+ l( x0 {2 m, r0 l9 O" @
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
: F! D5 a6 |: n# ?/ ]standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 Z* w+ z( U: Oand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
5 ]+ v  Q) X; P4 s% Z5 Dto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' `& n% X" r' [6 |  Y' sreporting.* ~$ M. D+ x  V& U, r- c% k
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
  q6 t7 m! y/ n3 Z$ `already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 a* q2 r3 r' Q+ r1 c
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in1 M9 H- ^3 W" C' ^7 U! i6 R+ j
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
) J3 P4 v6 h# O9 gpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! O. K1 K5 s6 Y( y* y% n( K0 d       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; {& |/ u- f# x1 G
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds0 a! ~. c  ?2 [3 e( }! p
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
; z7 q8 {& J: K  Nmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same8 z5 }7 _$ L5 c: T3 L$ k3 @& e9 k
event for men, with the second fastest record.
, C* f( ?) ~* k. }8 ~       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye' x; `6 ~* a* b. w8 b& _1 m
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
1 P8 Y" L2 ]8 w5 eyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record) ^. W' I* n  z* F( x
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ F6 v+ ~6 @% s. C- a! z+ Hmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,. N1 I* @( g! T( W
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than/ Q! c4 J- K5 k" o: ?
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
& o2 s5 t* L7 ?: S1 f" z3 vbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
/ i; x6 P8 m3 [, sindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower  p( z* {2 W& w, q. n
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than( x/ ^+ ]: h- W: z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was( V, x/ @2 ?) {2 a; X
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 p! L! r: i5 K! m/ N5 E
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
5 h( p8 M9 x$ G- `, B3 V" L) Yproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
0 Y' m  [) l" C) z2 O1 tswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the. |1 U! l. q2 r) B# d' U
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
. X% J& W! Y& g  ~2 g: g9 u  bCallaway report.2 l2 I3 _) j5 U0 m% \9 J
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 g1 u$ t7 L6 C* _understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details. F! r4 n/ n. q) w
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 X$ U& ^7 l7 Mof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been; G5 u1 |% Z! R7 _/ n8 i( o
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the, `6 s* N4 a: F% Z% i! F5 k
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had7 D4 I6 _, x8 }! q( s4 ^
publicly voiced different opinions.- m& t/ U9 z! @- e+ t6 j* a
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
. o) _0 [! ~6 Z/ J! E: Yfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
) ~2 B. }* S6 |4 _' b( wNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
' O4 `- |# G9 k7 Dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds/ z! e, Q7 S  c3 ?
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
2 F4 ]; U1 r7 a- R9 ^  Yof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
7 V% R' d* h7 F( ?. tThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' Q$ _5 q" O# Y% U& H* s% q
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They* H8 C/ Z# n# Z7 x
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as' h& K. x8 ~9 L. y  H8 h
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that5 {- S. @+ [) G( C: [! h% y
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
/ k" h' M. r" f, n8 Msupported by facts neglected by Callaway.: }8 I( ~4 Y5 G! w
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
: v( Q* @! L  e7 ~# Qmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
9 @) s1 \  o9 n0 W4 [Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
9 q4 [# D$ v6 U' [4 Q(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: `) k2 H9 F7 w8 p9 kand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
4 d8 `( B- X( {3 j- S& J, IThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
+ F$ e8 C9 p3 n8 j  Iand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, ^) d4 [2 O; ?9 k6 Y7 w
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
* W  Z( r) N% E0 D. q2 E* ]Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
3 m4 }8 s7 j* r" K5 Aobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
) b, V$ \7 _0 R3 k- [- N/ Iwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to! s/ R4 O' [8 j6 }) O
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
% z& E% {! ^, R+ ?* t% z6 c. W% c3 dThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not2 H: x1 [- C: y/ m( u& f0 F
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced) N; Y6 X) S! O5 g
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
/ F( q4 L4 O( [, s. v) ]; Vfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that( L6 o6 T9 g! W1 U8 w' ]# V0 r
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
) s& ~0 D( y  j2 G2 Vabout British supremacy.
5 h  y& W3 h$ n3 EThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
6 D: t! ~. L1 P6 Z" _unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
: x& D6 c" j' I% p8 O* u1 @1 lChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by/ H- d5 D, c( M3 U
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
* U' r0 f2 N, B9 \" W* QOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% s2 m0 X  X0 N: A" m+ CYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
/ h: o: P* C2 x; S7 G, Z% _9 y( Bprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests  i: z7 E+ x9 _% r! G
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
" z1 `; Y6 ]: l: |$ Uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly, ?3 K% g5 @- y& A# b2 R! c0 I
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
0 n' b- z0 s6 L* hNature.
8 [7 K* O' j4 |  s1 u' JI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance- w* Q0 }3 W3 ?; [, [; a" W
the Callaway report.
& Q6 x3 K- p% U; K& }8 h
1 P; u8 l# l8 w/ ~! B  a& r+ yYi" q8 }6 ^9 L3 ?4 p! {# v

: B! \3 T) `9 pYi Rao, Ph.D.& Y- X( ^: A. {& F, R; V% s
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
. }7 f1 r) v3 x+ \* fBeijing, China2 f/ {8 N1 w: ?' b! D
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 7 a, Q- |, u& h1 U3 f
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
( Q+ }$ B8 r' w# A$ ]
原文是公开信。2 g3 n6 r% y3 j/ u) D
+ ^  u, ~9 o0 |& b: Y$ m
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
' E( w1 j3 o- L3 V" K, F原文是公开信。
! C8 g, \* K! F1 n& `
& [1 h& K) u$ J) a% C8 Y小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
1 n' f: a: g- Q3 C/ P& x' `" }
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
9 V6 Y8 ?6 Y! ?: b+ R+ m如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
% c  q% O& I: k6 C9 j9 Z4 B+ x- I' L4 D; l+ [* l
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html  T' {. P1 P% h7 b8 T+ I3 U

% \) ]& `0 O& O$ J: o$ H2 C* ?. E: KFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! |1 Y" J5 j5 x0 O9 {2 E# C4 `% B! I/ R# c) A
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
. m7 \, s9 l# r$ R& P, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science  P0 J6 T( Y8 H5 V- k( U$ L2 ^/ z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ K$ ~- w- D2 N; O. g  \1 D, Qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the0 s! f9 h5 K* ~, t% H
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 l! K0 A$ N) G8 f9 _
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors! {4 Q* t& z1 V4 V" E" R& O) |: d  M
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
$ v* m  y4 ]2 l3 `: [/ g1 ewhich they blatantly failed to do.
" n2 m8 B- ^3 k0 {6 S
: E) {9 L5 W' S8 `First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
" n8 S2 q) f0 O& t3 NOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in; G7 v' \: v: ]' C) [6 E
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 z/ A. t' o) W$ R
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
3 b: k/ g3 j7 ^( B$ }/ gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ z* U4 q9 r  v6 C1 ^improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the7 h$ d. X3 U, M( ^
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
! O4 h1 B/ v2 @, q3 kbe treated as 7 s.) c: L7 e% K- A; Y- E. l: W1 E

% M2 A( Q) G' i, a0 l  ySecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 M, Y8 H7 T/ s  R) `; j5 p# A! A
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem! }+ g; Q8 Q- B  l' O: f
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.  C/ K6 e4 z1 u/ g9 y: f0 a" ~7 b% W% T: t
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- a7 v" W. U" y4 ~-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: O" p1 u# ^+ O
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an5 ]7 P' Q$ \7 c5 ?
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and$ ?( f7 J7 D* S' C8 d
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 P4 u4 y; h& K' _0 W, o* u$ ]based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.% \$ @0 i' ]" Q3 c8 C+ a8 `& T
7 u7 R+ [# v+ P7 I0 L* ]
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 `9 t( M7 e% e
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
6 t' C! w- W+ |" o1 othe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
8 A5 a) d/ U5 ?( r: Ahe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later$ D9 Y* [3 @. {. e& Y2 i' U% n
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& V2 T9 }, L7 r9 T4 j$ k. K5 dbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
9 W4 H# s- N) d' y  jFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 x7 `9 C: E+ ~3 s' gtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other9 h7 g' q9 q3 P
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 V- z% Y  f* J" x, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this+ ]8 t: W! X; G1 s7 [
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 M: O! x4 `! a* b/ D# }
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 w8 N( O2 K+ I. ]/ Lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. j# Z4 I# H/ b( V
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) u/ s6 v! U2 \# T9 Uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ @8 ]: `% x  ^
8 P- _, W7 H2 e
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
0 c/ |' J3 P' o1 q- Afour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 t. q8 I- }, T# u9 `7 hs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s# t% t# m4 u+ B9 E" b& t+ i
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
  p6 C4 D! {- b8 \7 L. e0 pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,2 M) `# f1 q0 u3 O. X
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind$ u+ R" g' ?% A2 P
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 l6 j& r% a9 E# \logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; [  D' `3 B& j# I3 `4 [, j" x: ^# qevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science4 Z( j7 H6 _" d4 E4 g% `
works.) R& i* F# ^# c5 O& w! k$ Y
6 u" U5 _% c# ^- R8 _6 i4 ?* h5 D
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and7 U1 k+ Y) |' G
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 ^+ o* d" m7 s/ Ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that8 X- W4 g% d7 t' L+ q$ O
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific* m/ g$ W6 Q  y9 N0 b. m: G* T
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
# j( [* w0 F% B' F; treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 m* S0 N6 F7 q1 e6 @2 pcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 n) `" N0 s3 q8 ~/ x
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
; F3 v: X+ o1 u  V6 W' q, w  fto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: M8 B+ V' N% b0 J% G3 `is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 P, a1 C2 y+ l* u& E( h. e- p
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he% t2 M7 ~) |4 c& q9 |1 r
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
0 z& }, {8 R7 Hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
% }2 p' q- r6 u  kpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
! j1 d" D) q0 X7 l2 buse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
% @" T+ k" x* G: d6 p) K' M. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# A, B0 R8 K' }+ R! Y; S( L& ~0 zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
  [: m- @" P7 |/ p' I$ ]be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 Y0 ^* ~( ?+ Y+ E3 jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
+ }( d* D8 ^9 K3 chas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
; O. i1 ]0 \! C+ ?* K3 y# B& h( Wdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 D( Z6 X, ]; ?9 I8 ]/ l- _
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 [. t8 D" K+ G1 I6 z
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; P1 Z; N8 Q. S  K7 o
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: _+ Z* W2 v; Y" X! N, n3 L0 U6 [0 f
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
5 u6 `* f4 J. A4 ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?+ B* ]# E2 S6 H4 Y$ V
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 Z% }7 f/ ?8 u& Hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. |4 d3 E9 K- g4 A$ T) B
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- U% ^9 o+ ]# \8 }$ W# Q# n4 hInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?) @2 K* N, E: @, `
# u+ o  T( u" Z
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
3 H- @1 Z& P7 \7 Scompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
, a+ m7 A! c, E. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
0 m% \0 k) g, A) dOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London! s' T/ N6 y" C
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# p+ d" I7 |& G& [doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic2 l2 J! }$ c5 c! y5 `8 P5 ]1 D
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
; _! z3 |* S, |0 h# t0 E2 l2 Ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
- C+ z( j# h+ m( Pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
' E' k6 [5 t( g* v& d  wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! v# e2 E( E5 H* m" I" m& R
  Q. Z) r$ A. v" M8 g0 JOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
  }: h! @- F$ J  a" _- o, Lintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 A2 R( P+ M5 a) \; ~5 E" Wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ `* m' e1 q6 g# f& @: P% _suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide( Y+ Q* Y" R( o! ~1 o
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
) Q! y8 h2 q4 sinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," ^$ H- ^1 A8 ~/ T, h0 |
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 w$ b* [9 ~) W% d
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
7 j" N3 o; @, W. }0 l  Dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' B' n8 m0 m; C) L
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 20:06 , Processed in 0.145121 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