埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2032|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 * h6 ^; V8 z& x; _+ F
4 D# C$ d' Q; i: F5 O, l7 ]
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
8 P  _1 m# G) I7 l' R5 ]- I0 Y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。# D# H; }# z7 {- w& Y
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。8 x6 O2 p- H) ^2 `: k6 R

6 V: {% `' E- ^* Qhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html# `1 b+ W9 X/ C, q6 P

/ `7 m: r( V- `" d( c$ s5 f致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
4 A9 I& x- [" p! z" N  x+ y& z- O8 s8 H1 S4 v. `4 M! A& `, {6 `' l
英文原信附后,大意如下:6 n+ B* ~, X: M0 c$ A, L* E

+ K. l, K& r: [4 ?8 X斐尔,
! r) j3 T: C3 H6 s       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你7 p! }/ c# [3 k
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
; m/ }1 a  n5 a1 g- S" v. B       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8 L+ N& P9 I, Y/ _1 e; Q
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
. \9 r; L; W. d4 c$ e9 X  l能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
8 K* S9 s& y* w" p+ {2 U7 H       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 G" W9 [5 V. ], m& @7 ^4 ^' E5 D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) W4 V( Q' [. a- ^" F" z) E# U
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2 x) d5 g+ g8 L: ?" e/ j( s$ N( x
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。3 y  }% |2 X/ I' K- y4 ~3 K+ 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! U6 h! v: E" ~
,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6 ]9 c8 c/ O8 c6 v
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
# z8 S: z5 O: u  {2 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
/ J8 @% a" `( B# i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8 ~  F+ [1 q0 E9 \  X4 d/ s; K
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
9 c' b9 D% I% B! p, X* }: B% X       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" S# |1 U& f9 n
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
+ X$ w" u* L$ L4 k" n: V0 a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
- K9 m7 M/ L7 {+ x; W( Y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
. c8 J& T! @/ B) q* [; _  k300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、六0 L7 v$ E! b% A8 I) l
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  v' a' A" N: w5 X
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
5 w6 t7 r7 z# U* 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
) C+ x4 V: {4 D录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。) R1 J1 C! T' {$ v' O' W
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8 W4 |+ ]9 {  H8 Y: H( f# f4 E
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
8 H+ P( Q# g& J& F$ }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$ `* M$ h$ L4 b% `
同意见的专家。. h' ^5 ^- t4 R# N
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
( Z- Y- z+ v6 W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  e$ v9 Q; d6 o# w; w# ]3 j
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
( i3 N6 ], @+ s/ X3 {5 P3 T《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。* R* C  N8 D2 U* O* @6 J2 h0 O2 H
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)
% ~- R) h2 D9 A' B! J/ K1 Y# y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
+ L1 f- D+ s! P  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  H* Q  Z" g9 v1 a
这些被Callaway忽略。
$ \  j  s9 U, L6 Z1 g4 P8 P; P+ ~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& B- k4 r0 h. v) T
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
" M0 G8 G& Z4 M' {6 q教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 @4 F# ]" G# l' @3 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: O. P5 d, W" G7 I5 L' i( E
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
/ S' W& {4 b/ p" F; q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
, w! W: 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。
8 h" S6 R$ L0 W  b( @/ E: Y9 i) _3 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+ l$ z$ ]6 e' n
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, I0 s+ S8 N" ~$ |
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
6 V$ _2 `' L9 s- m”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
( q7 _9 r7 q: x7 ]- P5 ?  W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
% _4 |" y7 M; }) X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/ J) d" C( f0 |# U2 a* P) c% p
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
+ }2 ~1 |% G& x6 K0 D4 D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
, P3 m2 M2 |- V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8 c# ]! {( ~8 @: e; @( d
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。; H, K, T. n4 {: p2 G1 p* }
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。$ |; g1 O" V, C; K* n; B+ w
7 A' Q; g* `6 u, ~
9 b) M, r3 t0 x9 u# o3 ^) u
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅5 A% M0 u0 {& M6 ^: D. D

% p, ]. X9 z, J$ [9 }附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结8 H3 v4 x9 h  n* j! W$ F$ ~
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
& g( [  {" n1 d4 r$ t" {6 Y/ }5 P: b. j附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见$ a* Z; ]0 h' m; k7 {
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
+ \% P6 h1 I. ~1 E# m- r3 {
* e6 f, U$ K: r: Z1 T, }4 o: [$ ?. P' Z( D

" o; S0 J! z* {# ~原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
& w( J; q4 D* }3 KDear Phil,6 A- J* }# N* @6 d
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s( }" s1 A: O6 Q% s" F9 W4 S
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20; M7 s, {8 X/ r7 d
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed1 H" h5 ~5 m! L+ r
you.
5 b+ i/ l* I- \2 E* g       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
% x6 D4 m' P( Bbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' ?! o0 V# S; o7 d: E) o. n" [  d
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the$ z; q- g7 h& Q9 U* q5 `
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
5 ~0 o$ v- V5 C- {& R  Epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
& ?6 s- g8 _4 o) J$ o, Jseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news6 j6 j: H. r; o$ [8 e! e4 c
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
8 s% r" a$ M# K6 C       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
- C. X" X7 s; h, T& E6 Y0 z. eworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a' t+ C1 ~8 Z: }1 J% C6 [
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
9 Q9 c6 y7 v  U2 V! u( Z8 p: y7 [that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
1 u8 O1 e3 D- _4 {# k: }' h/ Gdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping  Q( e4 T, O; D- N+ ?# c
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 q' o% {: {/ a2 Z  `- kstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,7 ?% f5 c9 y, E1 b" |3 b8 l
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone7 ]- e2 ~# X0 b& b
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' b  i* T# `# t6 ]/ u/ D( Freporting.- M  S! J9 g- Y" r% ^; J+ _
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have% ?5 [# @2 K  r$ o+ d
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 {3 y  C0 Q0 e( |9 r/ I4 T2 p$ t2 Pchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
4 R' t7 w- z- i. z+ T* Q: Osports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
" ]6 g, A; S0 T; g2 m; Fpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! x0 {  p- S: m, c8 [
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
9 x8 d9 |- N5 ?( o: emore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" Y4 y1 Z& Q9 }) S; B$ P: {
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ c, d% I+ ]) jmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same2 [2 ~8 W3 `0 q( O* j
event for men, with the second fastest record.2 H' ?' @8 k! }# l0 h
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
7 {4 m! H: e" t4 H6 k" P: uwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
) V. y1 b: L4 Dyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record  @, g% ^) P+ t' q3 ~! V& `
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, j- O# v. o6 N
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,2 n* L1 P# X4 q! L( V! k
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
8 u3 Y0 O' r: P0 @1 Y7 d& nLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
6 p* u% v7 R  v+ tbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the2 A# h0 C5 ?' v1 x3 F
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
0 y# Q. A6 `1 l" }3 b9 ?than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
+ h) y) ]- P. f" l6 V# I1 d6 rthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( V7 V, o$ u5 `1 T5 i6 \her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then- j: S' q9 }! |  y0 a1 n* l' u
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
$ a# _4 T  P0 }' ~/ o5 P0 r6 p; U( nproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
; @6 [* O/ l) `% a6 [swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% x3 X9 o; M% ?1 R4 |( {
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the; a4 N# i; C: m/ Q
Callaway report.% p7 z& m& V$ {7 N; Q& M
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
% \0 b! k. [0 i) v- O/ M5 c$ w* aunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
& H4 x5 m1 o& ~0 }" ?here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' F, J/ k- D+ c" w& w) iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been) L/ L9 [3 X3 a/ X+ A3 }0 I
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the, L/ N9 ^1 P: Z' f
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( R: D/ Q; S# h2 ]" i* P
publicly voiced different opinions.
# i  S: g8 C8 @You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
. D/ P- y0 J; b8 a) ffrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 L- w' Z4 }% W- x6 @) G  ENeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent8 w) _- Q+ s# a1 o! ^- ?4 F2 \8 o+ l
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 o& @, l: e' L( Dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; M# l' s/ ^$ s' n8 k* B0 g8 eof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ f/ X0 u+ s& Z. zThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 q# Z1 r( s4 e; G; M4 ~that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
: _% z( }+ q+ V( S1 o# y; mhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
9 I" f4 z5 R( j1 KAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that" a# [6 @! g9 i! I
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was9 F) J5 i( o/ e0 V# e
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
6 c0 o( N6 ]! R/ y5 Y4 aOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
3 C6 C% ^$ r4 x' B( Z" N8 t* Umany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the4 S2 ?5 b* G) D+ s
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June1 B1 k: L+ Q1 Z& J2 ^$ Z# D- g
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
1 h- U, e6 [) C) U& iand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.0 E1 T! Z7 p  K; X
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science7 U" S& T. \8 j: c
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and) ?+ \+ m+ @" D, w% `, }% R8 p
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
) e: \) Y2 e5 P6 fNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
& t1 i9 w# B' h: B) {. pobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
: y: M# l" X: E! H+ u3 J1 Y8 iwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to3 T* v; l" D2 j1 O9 T8 _2 f
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.; n4 }5 p5 c% |
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
2 ^: g" N" Y( H* q4 A# Pshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced. f& O& W$ G: ~6 `& _9 ~* _( d5 K
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: }( F' o. T- o! g/ ?% O: G
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that' E) Y' _1 H+ c' o1 `. x
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”6 s; Y  W) k8 j2 q1 z' V2 y
about British supremacy.4 }1 X6 a0 {  d' Q& x( D- ]$ b1 S1 j' L
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
# \4 A3 o: b4 H. y) i% }  Z8 Munsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
$ Z& B- [  f( H8 _) S$ y- V1 H# r0 Z! nChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by7 W. O5 u# G# J3 I4 F
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
6 P% q# E* R" N- l/ q$ D- |; _Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.* l1 D/ i6 L4 {3 w. i
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
% n3 L/ z  i$ O1 O/ `professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests, E1 m: q$ k4 m- R
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, e" x# R$ u% r" _it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly0 N+ w8 B" |% \9 U+ T) b, d
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
& ]) W& t8 J( y8 U. R7 ZNature.
6 ?) T  d% L- G" z3 y% OI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 q, m' X" t; q' h. K. ^0 m9 nthe Callaway report./ \% t+ Y4 Q/ G" t5 T) W
1 [; z8 \; b6 }$ s% `+ y
Yi
: M! G4 N1 w8 {9 ?! L! h8 N9 Q
) F5 j0 n( [# `( p1 TYi Rao, Ph.D.
+ X3 I- x. b7 j) {+ GProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences5 _. B5 Q: ^( c  A0 g
Beijing, China
( T' k1 f( [9 t2 [) _
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 $ b; h5 T( j9 Y/ v  k# |, x
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
! f) d$ L6 b" k9 I0 o& t1 R+ u
原文是公开信。
- o6 i9 r$ x0 V7 r7 E% D% b  _9 I: M& s) `7 h
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 - G: F. T" [3 h2 a  L1 [
原文是公开信。# r: s! T- R. ~$ r
+ \# l' E- H5 i
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
" w3 I# g- W% h+ X3 w* W
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 JIANG3 g7 W' _+ b# [7 \1 \% F1 g5 B
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。0 f9 I7 u- ~& I, y
$ s  k# s& g- L8 q, X
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html# U% @# Z" ^( l' q9 d, u
9 |- }2 ^: r! I2 v
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
% d; p+ M# B$ [, V$ R/ m! i3 D+ T0 a7 p
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 O  Z0 K! d' P% X, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 M+ ]$ O0 m* A, z# N! F( Fmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
. X3 ]) ~; ~2 f1 X  r8 x5 l( nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the  o9 F" g6 p4 ]1 D7 C
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
! @6 A' Y8 _) }# x+ N/ Bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
3 L7 A! o2 m. C; Z& l( v/ jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
) c% x+ f5 e6 ^# n9 }which they blatantly failed to do.; _2 C8 U- V& c, N7 L

* t' w; B5 m: }2 m8 a/ T9 a1 NFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her( A* w8 P8 C  @$ w
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in3 E4 l/ R  O8 {1 T
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: X$ ]( t+ G0 S" zanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
. }: x$ x4 r  G  D5 h; wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an* I( F$ Z& u1 ^- o4 O, H. w/ C- L
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! K6 t5 H) o5 z3 F. A. P$ edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 S# P1 r/ v/ wbe treated as 7 s.7 X7 W( v- `6 W! Z" O- z( b

& ]8 j& l$ g0 y. g* J7 ~Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- v6 |: V: a( R( t& V3 m- P3 \
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* r, ]9 R$ Y" S- y3 }impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.9 F& V1 i/ C- I! a
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* Y* C# E5 R4 n( h( C% y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." Q% |& E2 h& h9 h
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an  s/ v2 G) ~& i& I% A* M: G9 K/ `
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and* T4 ]9 _: A' V6 B+ x: ^8 L5 `
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% j$ Q+ o: Y9 O. A4 H1 l/ L5 |based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ X: w' u; ]# h- h  V5 A; u% l  V$ ~# n
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
3 V& x/ v) b$ ~" I" ?# P+ M  l/ l$ Mexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
4 V; a% r: G* T0 l& K- P* F! b  @the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 g2 y3 H& m/ c
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% y6 b) R! ~! E
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s9 [  i9 x& g: M  F* y' a: g( l1 R0 r
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! t* L4 i% V" D- |/ i7 ^0 F
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! R5 K: v" i; K. w1 q# t: {. f
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 A' e+ e& |* z: u0 Z
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: h3 W0 F) J3 V  C, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this$ e  d* Q( v' j, }$ f- N2 w
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds- @* M6 a# y1 }! c5 P
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% |4 X# N0 X3 x' U/ }faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting! B; O2 j% v9 Y  h& g( X
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
$ P" K$ X8 S4 N+ mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
$ B/ `& B" p1 |) h1 e- x( L% z6 y' e& F- X
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 P5 c* e2 \7 C
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
) h2 N+ L9 ~$ d" S3 Ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
( C2 \: t7 r/ T1 x: W2 W2 S3 h9 K), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% G0 V6 h! v3 |  d# E3 u2 Mout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
( k& x$ g6 f* ]; I9 fLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
% `( b6 d% Y5 s/ ^5 Xof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it  q; G" T2 d, p5 v. _
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
8 k1 c! d# D' L$ w* Fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
; t8 N6 S; j& W( Y6 ?/ o" @works.# _9 P* ^4 ?; T. ?5 _

& U5 k4 b9 i1 x1 M, mFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and+ \5 k# u% @, B4 j4 x- C5 c
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
+ [5 c7 J0 U* ~; K; Wkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that9 w) g# x* p5 x" d- w5 ?3 G
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific, I: K9 _  B# c/ J2 v
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* ]" w  b4 Q) h$ greviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One" `7 R0 J' ?) H* F- a
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 r: A+ G) F8 t) _
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
% M+ d) v6 p9 m- A' ito a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
( T" I0 f  Y2 k9 u8 T+ |& t9 j: Ais found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" f( a7 W. }3 ycrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he+ [5 }1 K+ c: r5 b9 ~6 k* N9 P
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) X& E2 ~4 L$ o0 q9 x9 H+ G6 Q& Jadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the1 T# n2 K. f# B" t; n
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 A7 U5 Z9 C% f' R" r4 euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# \6 e; Y! z) a& m: ?* q7 z0 s
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 N- z+ d& {" S6 C- Sdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) f7 s  y4 O: l: _8 B/ L. j
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- p$ k& a8 M" `. b4 d( T; w5 l3 z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye) J8 p$ a. {" e  {% P
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& W6 _& r* l2 M4 ^/ {! f  y# Z# g; qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: `) m( L2 _1 w! g( x1 ?+ F" @other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect% p" O5 @! ?+ Y( ]. |8 G
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is0 x  D/ F3 X. i  s
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 u* U! ]' ]! N* @. g. Rathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight# h0 @# ]4 ~& C" f3 Z& H7 s$ g3 ~
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ D" [5 z9 x/ X* `: K6 d& w
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! ]- p' K4 M3 q+ ^. T- W
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
, q! ]- ]8 `/ }( b/ }* Xeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ |' S3 C/ ]( m9 M$ }3 }
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 E9 M4 j2 [/ e& `- _+ Y# q* C. h, _% S/ l: x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
+ `% X) @6 g  mcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
$ {! \0 Q* m' b* I9 I- ?% v. G. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, \+ a$ d  |, u; c9 GOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London, H% ?& E# v# S% {
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for' c& N/ t* h% \# O- P! D* ?9 `9 s, ?
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' M; l/ W8 T; d( {7 T
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope2 m, @7 P, [% H: r- n3 A
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a7 D, V2 z- C, ^" ?) |
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" a* h% o$ O) y1 j% t
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.8 C+ O( ^% V9 n, g8 |7 N. B
8 w2 x$ _2 c/ j, v1 O7 A7 V0 b
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (# C% M4 f0 B/ A3 G
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 a# \) m6 n5 j$ b/ y
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: ?3 @! _5 I, \
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' R/ x$ f7 J8 G! U( m4 Eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
+ f, }/ e0 ^. H8 n  \; Jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,$ W/ `2 z6 l; w# k# U5 t
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
' A' D$ \& Z4 P* b  U9 @) `- e: oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
7 F' F' U( B/ w) |, ?such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 q. ]9 Z: j! R$ freporting 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, 2026-2-13 13:36 , Processed in 0.193957 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