埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2078|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 6 c9 \5 t3 u9 K
" W! g+ L6 j, h. \$ }6 R
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
0 f- ]: V; w+ F; I$ 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。/ g' ~6 [2 Y% o
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
, Z/ z  o% H: N1 ~! K8 G& `0 P+ j2 P! t
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html- y7 ?- z  h% h$ J! e: y/ j6 l

  s7 _) e2 U: B5 Y" G7 n( n0 A致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选! u  X+ a, [/ t

7 T( K: K4 n; t; l) t1 j) |英文原信附后,大意如下:
/ f, l, V, a) h5 C
% ?5 {4 C3 B/ X' G' q1 Z8 |. D( \3 T斐尔,
& e) g9 I4 `; e       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
/ [" O1 y* Z+ P* A5 Cemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。; H6 J6 L3 n. d9 P+ N0 I
       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! G& U' ^1 T  ?4 ~0 h) C
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
; F. U/ }# N* X能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
) u$ m( @$ }0 s- k4 ?7 ~       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) d4 z5 x6 P6 g4 j5 e( O. P
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
6 p; m9 h/ g5 H5 K% R- a) 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, a  M9 ]+ N5 i2 e) y9 v) M/ D( w# P
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。' @! l' n0 d  _5 Q- T& u' _% U0 a9 L
       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* E3 L& ^; b' Y% `7 M8 U5 l
,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
' f# O# J  e$ z' x: Y6 E”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。) Q: Q  f( S/ ^: Q
       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8 t! O2 `; b9 t; h6 {& G+ F1 d6 P
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" G' K1 X, k+ q# O. b
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。# Z5 w' i$ L( `
       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/ b5 }% f& H4 w+ i$ \
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
; d# `$ u+ k9 P1 @  e" w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
* O( m% v5 [4 g8 @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
) O2 X: Y  [5 T* p300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- ^$ C5 l: g. A% \
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( e7 O& H4 J, s3 T( y* a
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
) [- K3 d7 j# B( _。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  O9 o- D* f4 W" j
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。7 h9 {4 z+ o4 M! l8 ^/ A$ \1 P
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% s  q# `, I7 v' G8 E' B6 M
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, q! q- q1 t% U; N0 v
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! a& U# P; X4 r& S9 T1 @% E( Y# C
同意见的专家。
# L! l2 F, e6 H" a$ ]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  [+ e4 P$ U: M第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大  W# C5 _  |" M3 D) H) |0 C* r; E
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
* W8 |& U7 L) h9 _( r《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
. Z  b% _: N9 A  E! P4 OCallaway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)! X2 n6 U( e6 _: d6 I* 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$ i2 F4 h' H+ u; s  b/ q# f# r
《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
8 V' D* o9 a. e1 h8 z4 a这些被Callaway忽略。
3 \( }. W4 X" n. ?7 s% ~( h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+ j- _& A7 ]6 u; E
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2 t9 F# ~6 G/ {" r& v6 e3 o$ c
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。& @0 i/ p1 P8 X% T: X; 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9 m; o1 F# H' n0 }
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
# l7 z3 x, ~# o. u. X' w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
% [- B$ E% y3 N4 L( ]$ L' d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。
) Y+ W8 s% I0 J1 T+ p4 K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+ j* Q4 G4 q/ }& N( L
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
" B9 l+ {7 Y, U* }& |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
, _' u6 v) x1 `! y/ v”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
, B- d7 f) F+ B/ R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) u: I! a4 g9 \3 q( p5 I
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. Q7 t! P( d# g: K1 g" v9 o
题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁. C# O# B0 d! d- c7 \
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
$ Q4 a3 u9 @4 i8 Z/ v' 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
- a8 d2 o; w7 T: ^而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。6 i4 k  l* `  O+ p+ D2 P. H6 H
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。1 V- Y3 Q+ d( i5 O0 g; G& H0 s* X
: Q7 r) o1 J$ O& ]4 g. j
% c# w& d4 m- N+ L( y( H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅- P( ~6 \; h1 ~2 |  Y
$ S+ D( Z+ U; G, ?8 }9 y9 ^+ }
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 y6 @( U( j+ b' [附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
* r# ?6 v  M5 Q; E7 Q( Y6 J附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见7 r% b5 Q" z9 y: U; L) f/ Z
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
, U9 A5 c. c" A4 n" T) h  m7 M" C4 q! P: X

* b3 n* f6 B3 F, w6 ~1 B  w: n. w- V  u4 T& w" K! ]
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
8 A+ B, ?4 u9 ^. x( C- SDear Phil,
) T/ Z8 a. {  b1 ^2 M# o       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( l8 t) e4 c) D. lreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
; }! I8 U2 X8 _hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
) `4 {6 y/ P* y+ v# P% Gyou.
1 _9 O4 P; ]. X1 Q1 u       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
* }5 s3 q# j. s1 t5 m$ k; w: rbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
4 A4 J( b% a' r4 `, n: c) ?readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
" j  q: C) k& q( l7 s* Lworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
, c, V' |  X' m% B6 `( [# apublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 }/ n( s+ H9 Q6 X/ i
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
0 @5 x; b" [; {5 z" Z, Fpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
+ o- ~2 d1 F3 `) B* |       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
* M; Q' a5 Z" |, Z$ A" C+ vworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
; {$ M) b+ g! U( j; v8 vnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish1 c% K: U6 T: i" \; Z
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway- N( [$ d% A7 H6 [/ I
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping) d( v1 m3 b) f- }
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ @; J7 G. x# U' X+ g) F/ |
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
& w( a0 F2 j$ C9 E; A8 h% Dand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
# C6 ?7 v* K% K1 e: S/ v& t9 Yto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news9 S: X$ B) l* l/ l
reporting.
9 o9 N* \! M1 N, D! |& n       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have$ `. t& x8 N/ f  }# B$ t: N9 P
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by! m$ [: `/ z- @9 I1 b7 \
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in7 U1 b: s/ |) y, k
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
4 Y4 r( H3 T0 L" O* f/ Gpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
8 W0 S6 G9 z; m, }       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. @8 j  ^& F2 ?( T5 @
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
% Z$ T" Q+ X" H: H8 G3 b  @! e$ Nfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50& G% N2 Y# V+ k9 ~9 c& I
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
6 t1 z5 u7 r. ]6 |event for men, with the second fastest record.( S; Z! G+ q$ i4 ~' l
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
7 C/ W3 x# X7 h1 |+ X0 _was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16! I4 e! E  j( y) P- w2 b, E% _4 k
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
4 q* Q, }! y/ q, v3 x7 C0 z0 q; O  X. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
+ y5 C$ @4 I3 `4 t0 Vmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,; h' P8 r% F* I8 @) Y9 A2 S
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" m" c& m4 o" m  @$ [4 H0 l
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
% |8 S( R, }7 d9 a# U0 n" S3 \- l4 Qbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the) b* k5 B5 O9 V1 r, k! g
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
6 G: Q9 I( U+ othan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
$ _) o5 u8 Q0 W7 g( R" J# ^those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
: E  d% V. I* j: Y/ g# N. wher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then  }7 J5 q+ r, J! S' a% u
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “6 I% m& a+ ~1 z. \3 N
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
0 n( v8 X: N9 \- m* N/ Vswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the& k/ k7 a  Q* \5 A
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the4 \( |: z2 X+ L" h: M
Callaway report.
, N* E6 K" U& E4 @, kThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
# y( L' O' V, t5 q+ D( C& J0 W- cunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details" C. R$ f# G! R
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description2 `" B: b8 \  C/ A0 H
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been. [* F- A5 d# G1 W0 I
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
9 o; m7 U9 s% _( z- H1 tWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ f/ m' f3 d2 O/ q- X8 A( }9 fpublicly voiced different opinions.% p% M& q- B: ~$ ?
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
' H# L) q  c6 M3 j8 ~from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature5 R9 j) j! @& V; @$ r& J
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent8 N$ [4 P/ H8 Y. O
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds( @- F4 @% o1 a9 L, n0 d! j( X
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy) _, ?, o! b) B$ s: T- N% q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.0 Y1 ]+ ?7 u, N$ [0 i9 |( q. q
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' Q! X$ l$ x+ ]' M" c9 o( k3 H
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
3 b! Z% n. [4 ?5 a0 k. Shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
9 }# h/ s7 O. K( N- t  M) K3 jAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that0 W9 C. e3 x# G/ n
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was$ M6 N& Q, I0 D! y, ^* y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.- K7 ?8 ]# ~9 o
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" @) L4 V! g& k! E# Bmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
; T7 g! }7 G# [) yChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
! Q0 J1 q& }9 f(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
3 Z4 G$ H# B# z! Mand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.. _/ D( s3 ]- e# L2 E; J; Z
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science  R& H+ U' a3 V
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and6 p. l2 @( {# N  n  a
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
( q" I7 _" S! zNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
; ]- e3 N$ W7 ]objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature0 D  a( t4 }1 `  m, ]  @2 H$ N
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
0 C9 U& }0 b5 T. Z9 Lrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, x6 ~7 r/ U$ ^8 AThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not- I9 y$ h. g9 Y6 ]! M2 a5 f
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced+ y# I& M' r/ h  _% _8 D% B0 @8 h
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
) H0 R; L$ z/ M( @- c: ], y9 P( Lfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 |3 O6 p+ {# w% a# o' M6 K) ethis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 O: O0 P$ l; Kabout British supremacy.
3 s9 i/ G* X6 v- y7 c3 N. VThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
: k0 o9 W. e( P6 {# g. Cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
+ [% U3 D$ R, U, uChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 _9 s2 h. u1 V1 t) uour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London* @6 N3 V6 d5 n( I1 V' w
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; s( G! e! j' g* b
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: R) ~: s5 Y' w' n2 f4 Uprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
; E& x( f& [" ]! O+ ~- ~before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, x6 y* e+ [5 D# uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly. W& t0 ?. r: ?) q# v1 x+ c
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
" c6 k$ M, u$ S* L0 KNature.7 x( T% ]- p" o8 M/ J; l
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance* k/ ?0 |5 o+ @
the Callaway report.
, Y& [0 n5 B! Z3 d. c3 D8 I4 J
! t1 ]8 _6 M7 ~  d5 FYi/ P4 y1 y! |2 R9 P6 d' r
! S5 r" v) ]: Q! Z! f& E
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
3 p3 \* C0 ?5 g8 \4 u: UProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ w+ P0 z7 T. J% F' w$ G
Beijing, China
. |+ Z2 E9 w3 ~+ E: X
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
: e; ]! j! i9 ?4 W- H5 J0 h原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

9 O" g( R1 N9 ~原文是公开信。
- z5 c6 V# N7 J
  A$ _1 c, ]& q- M0 E3 X, 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
" f8 r8 M  B% j" @) B9 `1 @原文是公开信。0 B# H) Q8 ^) O5 u: h4 O
! {. `, N" ?9 }* K1 i$ G
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

/ |. |: ?7 ~* b& T% s3 \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
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG# x' G0 z0 g  F7 U% s" n
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。  y# o9 y( T; D0 p# x0 x

) m3 B# v$ g* }7 v" \http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: T, ~% R3 N* y+ a8 f5 q
/ F+ r7 H: B5 c& P
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania# z  F- L6 h; {+ k- }- F( l7 @) i

- D! i# [6 v+ a( x  D4 c" [It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 r1 ~0 _8 x2 R" t+ @, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( g- A9 {7 U8 Y: C* u/ ^1 Bmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this7 I* g' U9 E. v! v  F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ Y: h$ k2 M3 V- [7 _+ k/ K5 s9 q
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general" L% P9 z8 o& s' V: y
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
3 |* `. q% l% z. T& m, q* b! Ushould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: O9 r; A  Q6 `
which they blatantly failed to do.
( f, z1 D8 u3 ]; D- P
4 X: e% {5 {! S9 j% d6 A, dFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her! S3 g$ r1 J9 O* R3 ^
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
4 m5 J; ]" J% i) {2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' V6 H- S: w  S. `
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous# G* u! A% I: a- Y2 a3 d3 E0 w
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 S5 }8 `+ m- i8 \. n  M) jimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
2 T. @% q$ V; ~9 i+ S( W  M: [difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
- ^& B; ~& X+ `9 B8 w; Hbe treated as 7 s.
! B/ x: y$ M. L% W) V. x! W" c4 U; x  H
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is3 a0 I9 b4 Y8 D% [
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
% t" M. x1 G6 G$ v, c  mimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
5 u/ B' ^3 b4 z7 D# j0 t8 M1 n6 n2 wAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! k& B. K# F1 ?-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 Q/ e! Y" n+ n4 M; X  Y: V) J
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
4 G$ ]4 ]& ?; f1 m/ y) welite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
1 P7 j( d4 E2 l7 t9 i; x6 C. `2 ?! ipersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& N! ?* N2 A: u. k' n( d, ?7 a
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: y+ z5 ?/ N  E- |3 E
0 Q: b; H+ Z( |' U
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 K( E: D* L6 Y7 j5 f& H; h
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 D$ x5 [  @, V; jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
- x" d2 ]& y. o7 O) nhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
7 y+ O. [9 @. F' C& X' g. }6 Devents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( T% P0 C, a% Qbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 k8 j/ s4 C- {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ c* j% Q/ o4 c; g7 G
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other& O! D  l6 A( g' W0 g' K  ~, m% w
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle! T- H' }) ?0 A. o/ v* B
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
/ H, M. j, {6 u! n3 u# gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds: i5 j4 A! R: T0 U, }) A+ m: G
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam& u/ y+ H: d$ ~; p
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: |  ?: s) m8 T  }
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ w9 @8 a$ n1 k4 Q- b( D1 F
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 u2 b$ B/ n$ P8 `) F  w5 r* u# H
) t! ]' ]  D& T, QFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
* g! t3 F! Y2 c& \, n; Jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93: [& X9 Q/ }. x* ]
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: G2 s# p) b* g4 L9 n2 _3 n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 R  \1 c9 s& s3 V: ~4 i1 H9 g
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
/ y$ e. a7 i+ x2 J  f7 V* OLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; |3 f" J/ W8 P6 F: g: [; u1 q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
/ b6 _# u" w0 Z2 llogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
0 Y1 v# l; f0 L1 t4 ^every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
0 R5 A* s2 |5 t" E4 gworks.
& v6 h9 ^: D, f
8 @) S8 q' u* r* L# M5 S' n! PFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; m3 y2 w! b/ \5 |# w' O3 himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this% C' f& q$ W2 x+ F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
9 b4 I$ E# E  j& a# ?6 N" U& W3 X" g+ ~standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific, r% ]6 Z2 p. `
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 k  P; ?* E  r8 \& rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
% i1 P* @. E& t* S. {cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
  ]( ^/ ?+ U' x# N" B! v9 Ydemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' ], y1 ~" w, N. K2 B. r
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample2 N" ~( y- l: G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( q3 ?& k9 G8 A% ~9 \' dcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
* K' R9 y& w% Z" bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly- O- M2 C, D3 _' k2 l* f0 t2 h" D/ G
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, n, Q2 |  {1 L+ A" c0 fpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
; U+ u3 n, ]/ |! h) \7 Luse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
; W* ^7 h  o& n7 f. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# g% z# E3 [9 W& `) O4 E  @) C3 j+ x. xdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 U% H! L/ @- `) M# _9 W
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a9 D3 W. H& H) _. q* ]9 [
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% i6 y/ |% \2 i8 `% D" U
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' f& ]' i" e& U: F# g. wdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:2 O! x, [) k6 C+ P
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 M! ?- x: j* J4 c, i. o
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 J+ X) K4 p6 m3 L' a
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* D: w# |8 d' s* B* D& J0 {- N7 }athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight" B% h9 N5 x0 p& ?
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?* ]9 }! f: ^# ?- x9 G
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
" N8 T+ r3 n) `8 z+ N5 kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for1 r& p( \2 S9 C, O0 {0 C: Q: B
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
4 s, M# j1 J! G$ E0 YInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ [% V* \9 N* }5 \4 n7 c
+ A4 ?- H  }; A7 }' v
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 ^# u' Y6 `2 a+ c& R# h4 Scompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 |" _: V2 J" e- z: E0 D0 i
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 L" A0 s0 }+ |Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
8 ]5 [: I7 w+ pOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
( z9 h; t8 ], X( l& edoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic+ ^/ z% M2 t0 Q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope1 [0 d6 d( C9 H$ [9 r8 @
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, k- D0 \( N3 n6 c* B+ _player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
" j3 {3 p/ m$ {' R# A" d! ?possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.& e3 b8 Y- U: r/ s% @3 Z: i

1 e; ^- r3 N$ A9 x( ^7 fOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 ]  `, O, g7 }+ _
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too, @! U) P7 V7 D. T1 D% h( f
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 ]% @' `0 Q5 g- Vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 r8 N" `# b1 k5 x& lall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your& A  m3 n# q, }, E5 s
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 k9 I3 m, A2 X3 I2 jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( g3 e4 ]8 T# Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* i. q# k8 g7 o8 g
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
% j; C1 a/ |. f1 B/ f6 vreporting 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, 2026-2-27 04:47 , Processed in 0.131798 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