埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1856|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 ) m' J, K9 C4 j0 l
% T( q" C& t7 X* ]$ D) C
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
- Q& j' v9 }& H1 V% z# `) B4 |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。7 M2 t' a# |* }8 f$ }- K' S
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
8 J3 T+ r# G! f/ w
: d- Q4 J3 o# I- c/ Uhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html/ [( j: l+ a; M- f! f# }
% {$ G* X9 l$ W3 S: d' j
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
! N' g* w# T6 h4 R( K' _" \' P2 ]+ o9 z1 Q- b6 O
英文原信附后,大意如下:3 H7 M$ X" `/ b1 j) j- ~' Q
# I) A& T, }0 R
斐尔,  {: `6 w( S2 C- N2 f8 ]1 H3 W
       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
* P' d1 u. c8 ]. Q. y3 P! q( lemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。% d, U+ g5 d/ w, B) p! _9 L8 ^
       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
0 {  t( W! T1 J  V2 ^0 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
# P: S+ I8 P8 Y( {% V4 W能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
' P# P  ~0 j& M8 C* R9 b       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
3 ]7 c1 i9 S$ D" ]. A/ u5 H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2 m, X/ e$ d6 c& v4 Q
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* W5 X9 l: O" N& Z7 u2 O
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。
- v2 I+ R, p" x2 n7 m/ M       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5 l% \) t% D# f8 M/ \& c  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
/ ~. g9 X2 U9 r# m0 e' M”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。4 k2 v* H) q9 D( 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
/ ^* T, ^& r2 P7 x( J1 ~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
5 ~: ?* }0 E5 M+ C,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。  I; p& U' u6 O. L, k: [/ 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
5 K0 x: L, T3 ^3 g  H7 ?& r( G2011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 b; g" {) c& a. I3 N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
) M( l( i* P4 T- E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/ i  |, y$ z. L+ V
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
0 E7 G8 |  Y+ j- G( f; {( I! Q, 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
3 k, b) B& r6 A1 M$ c7 N项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目
& b$ t. k' W: g: i4 f; ^/ V5 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
- ~* Y3 n. a; P录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。8 ^" b5 B4 P/ v' L" b1 _
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( {, C; T( O7 t, U! O* B
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 N# u/ G" \: e/ r! k
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
6 c  ~$ m4 `/ |/ @# L9 k同意见的专家。5 ^8 M$ M7 g) X9 f# g
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9 E; _) k6 A( b. z- Z3 U& j
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
) z1 V2 t( {3 D; G. ]$ n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
: K/ O9 c7 ]) P$ U4 `《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
  Y9 l/ N/ N3 T7 l5 FCallaway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)
  L% B8 s: @. a. s0 \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) u8 ?/ u" ?8 N- M, 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% y3 u7 m0 E* d2 ?5 |% @( G' p
这些被Callaway忽略。2 t: v7 r& I- M+ W" n' 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
5 _3 l; \1 b& q( P+ D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# r: W! }6 Q/ m5 U5 ]& F9 `* g6 o
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. v  u, A( j8 i0 q
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7 W7 K/ a5 a* L$ j# v
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
2 x$ _* t9 `, ^) U* i4 X. p: {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( ?; C; ~( r$ R, H# t
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。
/ j% c3 ^, t+ G, y" z0 s* Z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0 c9 F7 w2 u8 b0 Q
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
! c4 Z, {( C% X6 h& }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
3 a/ S. h( L: y' p0 c$ b$ U”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
7 j$ \, u% r, R( T" `4 P; a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
' ]) j9 P; R* N, \+ d2 P2 E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* s2 g$ y% N6 t. y" ~4 F4 m
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
* t1 Z* O3 L' s7 s( t1 _; r6 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
; ]4 A" f5 c- }: q$ i2 n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4 n, o$ p- j. |7 S1 s
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
1 D. x# Q+ t# U5 u' E' D3 D我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。/ G  c8 l. g+ F- C9 Z" T; B+ Z
1 s, B% _! @6 H$ s

' ]8 s/ c1 l$ o5 C$ r# ^8 G! L北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅; E, n" B$ R( n0 j: R- \& q  N, P
" e& ]# d* l0 R
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 h5 z7 W0 C9 n4 e附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
( E3 u) h) l9 g% F; M附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 ~9 o* p/ m/ u/ ^! t$ B1 g0 b附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
. H2 b- v% [- C9 ^) e: {  U; f! u; r; u2 F; l

/ H! H2 \$ V. {" d) x8 {+ f8 }8 `
) h" [  Z- M# c/ a! Z6 \原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& v5 C! ]" f* d, e2 Q0 u$ O% P
Dear Phil,3 e$ n3 P' f. m$ g
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
* S$ c; F9 {4 @! lreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( V$ ~0 p* Q% b) h! L8 M% R4 R  Bhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed8 |* \  p; Y4 e- E" x. c
you., Z8 X5 e) N1 B; O. c! K- Y8 C
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; |4 L' f0 B( J5 k5 ?6 C. k  [! Fbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
6 r; [8 n* d. T8 Z  y, ]readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the( F3 j$ d1 S6 e( V1 T
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature! A7 u8 T( _, U: F/ F. r
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more7 d  P& x! n9 R) Q4 U) q6 W' D5 h! s
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ c6 S4 o2 \; A/ `pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.2 Z7 v2 x" x/ S. e0 ^
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 d& }; V5 u, U( i6 @) _
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% @, e6 c5 N  R# ]negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish  J/ A# I8 s6 ^% r8 [
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 A0 C: p: v* d$ B  q
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping1 D) s" V. H+ c! f3 H: X0 v5 x
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ U& D9 y2 P) e2 Lstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
  {7 d9 m3 b) O6 C& e) aand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
  O6 {( c3 l1 r' yto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
  `! Q; _) j9 p% H$ `reporting.3 X( _. D) f4 R# f
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have) z7 P0 w3 k0 P, M( a; {$ F$ D
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by' D8 \) c- ]% P3 G% F4 M8 f$ }
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in- c$ G- G6 D+ T/ N: m" a
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A4 l" p$ Y/ ]  H$ A
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
5 t8 H8 a1 \" ?' K- R! h       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
1 ~" N% l' y% mmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
/ M2 ]8 ~4 U# j$ Bfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
, }% @& d! B# [: o% P0 q; U9 }meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same% N6 W& {# u2 h. {# e  c. N, W
event for men, with the second fastest record.
6 X6 u2 H# R2 x9 g, w& E7 ?# B  }       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
/ M9 ]6 s0 h7 Z# p; q3 B, cwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16$ o6 U2 w  `- ]5 F
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record5 S) O: n. U7 v- ?  w5 b
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ L2 C& `" }3 j9 a1 Ymeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,' _2 b. b5 ?  T& B  J% E
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than- c* e3 J8 o9 S4 V9 ?% U, G
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
! t! E( q8 v5 n( p* |behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
! {8 n/ M1 j; H$ e5 d* ^individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ X1 I! F0 j& ^9 Y
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 X; V% `% y3 S/ z* L
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
9 M( K1 A5 y. v" ^  `: r5 M+ t5 d8 Iher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 G1 U  Z# W! b- I
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “: C2 P: v1 ^! }! }4 S+ t
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
. ?$ s: D' k- j4 I  t+ lswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the* k2 ~* U9 J# u" t$ `) f
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the. ?$ x1 |, V) T  d0 k" E" N, u
Callaway report.
2 Y2 U' v( @/ F1 u, AThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more, M4 I% F3 P. b
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details  _* B5 `+ Z( |5 h5 B' n
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description; \! T0 X6 _5 Q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been7 h8 k* x$ C& u% c0 y( W0 h
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the1 c& }0 k2 v( b9 ^& c
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had. b. h/ K, e3 b4 o
publicly voiced different opinions.' V& N2 v4 L- K* R  W' Y# S
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD' I  N0 s1 Y; ?9 Q4 K% K+ [
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 r" M+ k7 Q' zNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent5 f- R) R, ^& W' l9 |
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 Q" a1 t. h$ g6 L+ a: Z2 Oyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy$ Y5 z3 U# S+ s* B- _( Z- D& |/ G
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.  |5 [$ N' H! y- z& o7 @
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
/ k0 B* k& P9 J3 pthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
0 {& Y5 n3 {3 c* D; h& Whave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
& d2 w! i$ ]  t. i  p7 u" e) \; m& KAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that2 \% I0 q- |6 Z2 u
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
& `( l' c5 C' {' ~% m& |supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
0 Q9 l7 K2 B7 wOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that8 l' t& |5 I$ ], j
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the* R$ l3 D2 ^( A0 e& {& f6 S
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
/ S7 H5 C* ?7 D* ]0 H2 T  p# P* w(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ B. a' [  [* G- n/ B5 q9 Eand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.' j3 A4 U9 h( o; \+ f9 Q) t. ~
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science, |* `* T7 L% a. \/ `
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
9 A# y$ C0 S& Q! H$ b4 rDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
( {) A  s: [/ H$ k; uNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
( X: V, Z5 K1 fobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
& `, o' z. h/ hwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to. r& a" ^7 Q  D2 ]) I, C. F/ B
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.7 @# C  Y7 }8 A4 ?: D: B
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
( i& j3 ^* h4 y2 |& |" }" |) h( Nshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 _( x3 ], Y! }us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
1 e' g3 n6 O7 E  s2 T4 B( z6 g5 rfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that: {! E! ?- i/ L) w4 J
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
* R! G$ p; n0 f9 W3 \about British supremacy.
3 ~- ]* p# o! t  J2 m# LThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
! M" h* A+ x5 D/ l! Vunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more9 V+ j) y; F8 R4 O1 E% z$ k9 v
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by" Y- H- o# t4 [/ f: n+ K1 e6 k" V( o
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) V1 S0 {% z* q9 v& {5 x4 f
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
: H& }' A: n) `0 {$ L. ?Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
- g; X- [) \$ q% \( {/ cprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests6 q7 [) K' c* r* [+ L2 \
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,* f% Q8 D/ e# |7 g8 r! f7 \- e
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
/ {3 M. ^! y8 A$ c0 s' I5 j* Epublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
8 M# d/ D, b8 UNature.# j1 k! l2 n( m8 j+ G6 r  G4 f+ H
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
3 e& S" Q6 A: }3 }4 \the Callaway report.
+ X8 @/ [! O; M  G. t
( q9 b8 D9 Y5 {1 A6 b3 z) mYi
8 y1 b$ w% n0 L0 t- L  F. K1 W9 u# b
Yi Rao, Ph.D.' e, Z! m& h/ ]" N9 U2 x
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences$ p2 r0 W3 _' r1 A  Z9 z
Beijing, China" t7 c) R! W2 U5 {. M) y
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
& j5 R9 F9 ~2 s原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

8 m, _" I8 _( s: ?$ n原文是公开信。
  ~- {# u8 O$ Y( e, g
( [0 T1 E# I' R$ @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 . m4 K( ?- X) d0 D$ _" H
原文是公开信。! g( X* j% R5 x

( R. E" ^9 H" T- Y6 F, u& V7 k小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
1 O2 _/ g, `8 w5 ]; Y2 y
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! x( q* a* Q8 V& q  @
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。/ d3 ~( q, H& O) G* Q7 t% b

3 c6 Q% i7 x- T; Y, [: Z* ~http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
2 }1 A& b' m  B  c3 u$ @" Q& |: U: C# U$ A4 ~7 d2 `& _) P2 H* K
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& B1 W3 ^) z1 E" K2 }3 M2 _2 n
: j$ g; c. m3 v/ y4 r/ BIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
; z3 r4 B7 a- {& L, `& t* O, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
4 s# Q+ B. r% ^4 N6 Z7 U7 amagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
  M& S( U& Z5 D; \+ H8 B9 eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 C$ }; N: T/ t1 J- ]2 U& B) |scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general+ n; b$ ]0 ?/ B* I5 K. K% Z
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
6 K5 I, I9 [2 Q# y$ Kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
  D/ ~0 [- F! x1 n0 xwhich they blatantly failed to do.( A7 U# ~* {0 a. m

7 o- j) j, Y! }3 x) ]First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her: A! w+ U  q8 Z/ q5 |
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
/ B* |8 T4 H5 K2 i2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 x5 \9 Y: m8 |0 X; j; ?
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous8 \" ^# z' }( r& t1 Q, A
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an- B4 d) R! t, y2 U  s. j
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the- [! z' V5 j( I/ A1 I
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. ~, X: ^9 a, {% d( Ibe treated as 7 s.
0 P7 T1 ^* t& f; |  [$ e& _  V8 N2 Q) {8 k$ z' e" I# c" J
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
) v9 w& {: o2 H' _* E5 n0 K/ Gstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
0 b8 c0 t+ A' V4 z) F# h/ o3 j- a9 Uimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.3 y6 c, j3 t! c- d! V1 S
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ B9 {& [; R4 \5 y" A/ c-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.- Y$ Y6 `& H$ p3 w/ v% y7 R( u
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 z) H5 D9 m: e: q1 t
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and! M+ h. P0 N: j  d% a3 u8 I& `
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
  s- A. f  {7 F0 ?* D  R4 p8 g) I) ?based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.# r1 c4 T" @% R5 u" ~# v
- j0 a" n/ ?1 V4 B6 f0 {8 e1 x
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
5 E) @: [* h4 \5 [. eexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ k, g8 X6 H3 y6 |
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so: c: y8 v/ t0 u' E2 j
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 \  v0 c- L& D0 W+ R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s3 E8 T7 x: Y- @% U  I+ A
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* a( D7 u4 |, {# V% {4 M% e, t
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 ^  J4 r+ m1 O( Htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other! b. [" G8 @" n7 }  Q
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
8 K, n3 [) |& J4 [' L, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; l% A0 f  z4 g. x5 Istrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ D- ~  q9 d2 Z7 V
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam  U+ }  I% [9 o+ `
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# ~# u( @2 V7 Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 r% B8 h8 k! m: Y9 N0 \% Simplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.3 v  G. `+ p' M$ {1 ~! n

( O8 M1 S' |$ `9 |- d. l6 ?- C' M+ |Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 ^1 a) ]% P# J9 e( l- {four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.938 S$ v" ~) [2 m0 x9 Y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" M3 x3 j4 P, @3 K) ~. }/ _) X), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
( ?6 \9 v4 ]9 z" D1 A; H' H. m6 [out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
( E4 K# Z4 A5 |* C2 l% M) p- eLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind' u/ o) y: }! U# f5 v$ y, _
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 j" J$ b, m7 \8 s& ]) [8 d& U
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in+ D0 U5 }6 i7 u$ |7 |3 K0 F7 H0 o
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 R4 x+ u, w& a% R1 xworks.
/ z2 V: c; h4 E4 y* `* H, u. {) }# q, O, j
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) }' P, K6 v9 l4 Y4 e
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: G9 I1 s6 L. U8 c" S. Ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ K& y+ |4 {9 w6 K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific6 U3 A' N/ G% q. X; `& \
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
1 E8 D/ ]( o6 Q0 a6 Breviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One2 K1 s/ h; B4 y' Z9 E
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to& x7 q% }; L2 b7 H2 ^# @( H- l  e
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
* R4 `; B3 t  X; s' f, p  Lto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
% p- K7 Y; H  _9 }. R* ]2 pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
$ }0 B3 d( T2 |! E8 Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he# |& `/ y* R3 {5 A6 t# u
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 V  F4 R. r. q$ C+ Uadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the3 D% `3 N/ J1 w! U" {% Q
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not# p+ q2 P2 b* O. A, [* _0 s& X
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: U. d" p: D5 J# E
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
. B# G. d9 Z* S7 @* Kdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& k2 M7 h5 u4 `: o; s& P; C
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a7 s* B. Q- V. d" ~
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% l1 }1 _% a- \: t$ `& \has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a9 t' u) k  s/ L2 N3 C- g
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:/ h; A. a8 v$ {) O' B% F* ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( Q( w5 f: G2 f) c7 c* l
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
/ H2 {' o  r4 Z0 Tprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 k/ r' }4 w1 o3 k/ @$ N5 E- j5 qathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 S/ u' p6 W: C) t* ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 K8 D; ^/ J( D  V
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 |# Z# c: f' F* D. @% v# ?agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
9 w1 x9 b1 ?  }0 E: E5 c4 ?eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
/ @8 T: t) g7 p( cInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) L' V2 u( x( `. v0 x# k' U( a# F: ^. d5 C6 E/ m
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-/ [% f5 E8 w( c- k0 I1 C  E* @
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention6 K4 `7 o2 y) ^2 p; L" w
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
$ @4 a. z4 ~4 @5 k# c3 mOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
2 N; n% c5 [2 U, H# D" \$ k* z# eOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for3 K9 }. F6 W$ c  l
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
8 u8 k; w) v8 Xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope9 U$ y5 o/ s6 x, ?$ \) a9 f# X
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 s# P! y& v" ~( b6 e
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 g/ n& G+ z2 R1 t& ~possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
* n& @1 j, g- r) F5 H. M- U& _9 z1 Y. }
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
) b$ G& ]4 ~/ B) B: Q5 V( C' Xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 H6 F% d; @+ E2 v8 r
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; B( Q; Z! O6 X
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide- T+ t/ C! `% ^, m: M9 J( W: v
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 `3 F7 k) A2 O4 u6 z
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
# c6 `' U3 b8 c  Oexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
5 s3 l; S* f2 C; r% uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
5 t7 q; t6 K$ d) m1 p0 A3 C6 Jsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ R6 Z0 F  V( C) u, yreporting 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, 2025-11-30 19:30 , Processed in 0.115358 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