埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1849|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
  X# v, {4 N' ^4 F
: K/ m' e6 g- ]& a. ~饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* U3 e( w7 D% [, x" ^1 Z
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。! t: x* E' b! x7 x1 a* Q3 H
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。2 l) P0 m0 x( y* t1 j6 W( {
- Y+ {+ M4 e9 u/ p3 F
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
& q0 K+ \2 x" ^, T9 y+ Y/ S, W* c4 f5 f
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选6 H9 o/ i% O! Z$ w. y1 l8 M

# E7 b" t3 ]# B- M+ T英文原信附后,大意如下:+ u: s/ t& [1 i
3 X: d$ O. H& Q0 G. V
斐尔," O4 S! s+ n- L; w1 i9 G
       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' h, ^9 e8 R: ]* r
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
/ |7 t( e4 q0 [& m: |9 Q3 `( J  _       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* H9 h( d$ H* \& x5 t
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
8 H# r) Q& l" M  r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。$ f7 o# `% T0 O- N. @- }% W: i  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
# B* o0 I; t: b% I6 V# f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
" F8 A% K2 B" }1 X: s  [. O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& b0 T: `( d2 Q* _) |/ r4 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。
1 m& d3 l# P1 ?( @, R       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
+ B2 X5 O( K. ~+ E" b2 C1 S,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& @3 `8 I  I9 E( l; q% ]
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。& B) b1 N; G' q; T
       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1 c8 p+ [3 x1 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 g- p2 x; o) j0 p% u" H
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
. t, d6 c" U/ f% I) f       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0 ~) ^3 a3 O' a2 a$ @
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( u& F+ P0 T3 A, 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' S4 h7 W/ B1 H
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+ C+ W2 U, F/ `+ J: c) b6 j
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' i3 d; j* D! R; 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2 r7 l' M, W; S8 d4 r2 o
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
, `- h/ @5 G0 R9 ?# X* H。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% ?) |+ y( H6 j- E
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
: ]6 O7 n$ B/ I" s8 R! v. n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7 W: i" Y3 Y3 Y: R5 V  q5 ~$ u
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; w: F. j# S$ w! Y5 l/ 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$ K0 X" ^! ]* Z  t
同意见的专家。
8 S' Q! C5 ?( f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) m& x. m: O( t8 b/ C5 d. H; _2 ^
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- l- {0 L1 i/ f1 g" `
学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为
( T; j5 k7 O% r, e《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
& a& f8 M+ G1 Q/ }; ACallaway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)! {1 z, m8 }/ o( @5 _( l) W
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, [: o; [- @- m& m
《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
; ]0 t- K9 I2 K0 w7 v这些被Callaway忽略。& V8 @8 g& J+ n# n3 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
+ u2 K8 [6 r( F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4 Q  y6 t8 k1 ]  Z
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  {- d( N, I# U, s, M/ ^8 _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
, b  I/ l6 b) e' q; l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
' _$ C! [2 A* [" k5 e) 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
( U; ]# i! a% W0 L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。+ t5 B" i3 f0 R4 @' C) m) S
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
  ?: @# v- H; \* g" h' r1 l8 x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
- L$ ^+ _' H8 b& O, x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 i8 ^% m- u; c$ {
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
" e  w* l& t: t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7 O/ B7 y: ^4 u
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
3 R3 U3 H& e) ^8 V: Y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 `# l4 L# w3 B/ o2 r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# b! H& s2 S! K
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 r  K, q7 ]而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
( F% B$ X9 b0 ^, W" J8 \我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( X& R- C% |) s2 S
$ A* k2 U( r2 w! M
( @+ s+ y4 d3 Z
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅$ Y- s6 v. o1 N2 U7 p8 Q
' I9 b; y* U5 \+ O5 j
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结+ l  t" t1 `4 Q: a
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) S2 v) g  e3 r! `6 m7 t. T
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见! q2 h: }  v  A6 z" A
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 Z* c3 a  u0 y# J% F+ D: K! g- G# a4 C1 j$ y

! U( E7 s9 Z0 g& d/ v
& A5 p1 g0 C8 P$ X) W& W, U原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
, \, g, L" Z* Q; J' YDear Phil,0 N* g: N. X" ?( T9 o7 m' O% v
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s: ?* G9 B. u3 N/ k
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
" q- ~: y2 T* ?4 g  I4 \hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# }! R7 i. Y  A6 D- F
you.
4 Q- P0 u% i! W: d4 q; T       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
1 ^" U0 k0 r  o  B( Q2 ubrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
5 B& N, N, L. X2 u+ treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
3 y; H: ^6 E9 I. C$ M$ R( Zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
  e. f1 W% F, ~9 {" ]: xpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! i& a' V, X* q2 M1 N/ T) Cseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
$ N. {- p* p7 Z) n4 Q  ?pieces much more than the regular Western news media would./ Y8 x  q$ k' l" Q5 n1 J4 g
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 T1 O8 l9 K# n( [- ]) O' q
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a& s6 L; @. M% h; h! ]" k6 v" V
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish6 \3 {+ F1 u: x, @( `8 k+ U! \3 L% @
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway" A& B2 x4 R1 Y7 c- c
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping& H6 F* a+ k/ I2 ?0 z
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
9 ]& M; r* B* N( w% r- fstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,0 E' d: L# D  i2 w  N0 U
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone! k8 u5 P  ], X! ^( \/ U
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
+ U9 \- O- W7 z4 [9 f) L: ireporting.
: _8 ?6 p5 U# F3 Y0 v; n       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have7 R3 m; c+ h% N7 N1 O7 U5 g" Q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by9 L! V& ^2 z8 I- |4 y6 K; k
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 s$ R$ w' U, L3 i, ^
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A- h. o6 n& p" K* [' c, t
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.# m+ f6 ]* `+ ~, b- q" b
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem0 E& n+ F! T9 U% ^$ n1 ]1 t6 r0 l8 F* s2 j
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
- s2 j6 b; h, i# b$ D  U/ }7 _faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
1 ^+ h9 t4 c/ b9 Lmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* D0 Z& L7 @8 W/ j( b
event for men, with the second fastest record.4 O. @: @( q$ P. ~! Z# _4 E2 Y- Q
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
( C+ L' `+ r& F! E' Bwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
0 ~: Q& M# K; A4 W. ~) zyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record4 a# [& T5 @6 W' A/ n
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
3 l! h  c. i/ j) b! ameters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,1 c' z* U8 \/ D- \* B/ I1 F
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* A6 o9 f) R/ r& v! [
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed1 d6 E; z7 V' x5 U" X
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the9 A+ O5 Z, L/ N1 ~
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower9 V. C9 b' k# |  S. ~% ?' |, U, f
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than5 f/ m& a+ q2 e3 w5 N
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was1 U# X) w7 k6 K0 ~/ p
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 F  i8 _. i3 z
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
1 M# J# P0 @3 rproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other1 A7 y/ j! S" e
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
1 P. G; x9 u! U- c% f  iteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
# y: Q1 C/ z1 m) }Callaway report.6 ~, a% R0 s5 d& C, y4 X& C9 ]
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
& V8 ~) R9 t7 D+ zunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details2 \& s7 N1 b3 I; k9 Z3 U# p
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description1 S6 e! [( T* ^9 M5 ~* _0 d
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been# j7 Q* ^( c5 U2 J/ Z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the! E3 S( k+ n+ u$ e8 G- R
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had) h, m8 h& Q  S& m: T8 l& k+ j
publicly voiced different opinions.
& C( Y3 I, |, |- O5 sYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
8 D" @7 {6 K" V0 ?+ Efrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ o  F6 H) W! t* O  o* R: k; W- FNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent5 p5 m0 M" H, v3 E. n
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
* l. S9 D- l4 F5 O1 }! }* lyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
. F& o3 z) h0 p/ ~" R$ tof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
8 N% M/ `. r0 r2 y2 x) p% `There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
2 Y* }* u  K! hthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They- m. D$ P! @' Y4 Z7 U+ K( z$ H- l
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
; Q1 B7 Z- Q  x! U$ aAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that2 T) {" x8 x) s! {( n
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 z$ k. G- a# R
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
5 W! G, S% [# r. U8 n9 B* IOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
7 B' G2 K8 X8 y# D7 ^) k' H& Jmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the. n' X7 p' ^( |7 v/ y
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June( o. H: N* |+ Z) a- z( S7 w' u
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* r) G7 V; q/ ~( [/ Jand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
# f6 c; g* v: ]' d9 x, J7 r* gThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 }( ?) `2 s  ^2 ^5 {5 v  B- P
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ W$ H. h* g8 O- E
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.# L1 K) R1 C2 z3 o
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and9 ?8 f/ `) U/ q3 z- C3 c0 A
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
" ]7 o9 E0 T7 `; d8 \" L! v; j4 mwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
6 \  y" S4 |7 B8 \) ^repair the damage caused by your news reporters.3 w# M5 w! \6 ^8 L6 o
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' d& [  {% M+ Z
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' g2 f8 g# }/ ~6 ^8 X( jus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
, I8 Q  a' z3 h. y- |# ?fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that- m& D! [/ x/ S9 ?5 L! H
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”) ]$ X. }5 Z! t; K0 O
about British supremacy.
! e' T1 `, c0 v! r* o/ }The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many- D/ P0 @6 |& x% ?2 L! H
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
* e' x5 A6 s6 CChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
& r; X; \; T& l5 B5 `- U9 c: Uour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London  f' l7 M+ A' m5 d# x! l, `
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
' ~# P3 ~1 u  E4 j, T. RYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of# g; I: W% v* j. k( h1 t
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
6 Y8 }5 T6 X% H. r, u' e  Ebefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,! Y# s; }& o% v, `% P
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- P& L- W- L( Mpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
$ Y- Y% ]2 i& A. C+ }Nature.
  y- Q# h4 g% ?' ?I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance* [  |) c: g/ @2 W7 Z) @6 p
the Callaway report.' h9 j; L3 |7 X8 G! g4 N. m/ b

4 ~- ~6 Z  U4 m9 K) k8 `Yi
6 s( e2 o; J# `$ q9 K+ v) A7 e5 Y  [9 h  l$ @
Yi Rao, Ph.D.' A4 w+ t: \& N3 S0 d# \# O& m
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
  j% I* f8 H  B, ]* _9 O) N, GBeijing, China
8 P5 k/ `. P$ X
大型搬家
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 5 I) V! P: K6 M* S; u0 R$ V8 n
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

8 _  w# v+ g' G; R  R! t; ?& n' u( e! {原文是公开信。
6 a# t6 p% _+ E7 D
7 c8 ~) m0 a/ I, V$ C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
- {; f0 D9 b+ }& |) O: t原文是公开信。+ ?: W! q" F$ H3 V% I

! a) Q2 Z5 q$ }1 i' m$ U# \小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

; U- i. h' I3 T+ I* q" `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
, W9 W  k1 T' F8 V9 S" [如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 G  k( \' i2 @* G
5 P. f9 x6 _2 N( nhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 u9 d/ B8 v) Y( ^: \# J. b& X) }7 f% ]
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" @) ?2 R- Z9 \# c% u3 o
8 q1 I) V5 u" y0 J! I
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" I* F" Q& v8 J4 a2 _- e4 Z5 j, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
, X, n9 {6 g# omagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% a4 ?7 e, N  F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' e  z6 o! `( ~/ B, U
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: _2 d5 x/ {. g7 ~
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
6 B: b1 B) d" N7 d  n% hshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
! Y6 J  d: U  V8 D0 \" Hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
% L& H8 F8 y) T
. H/ m+ r. G6 {- L& ^) BFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; X  A+ T- u! \2 W+ L. v6 R9 V7 EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* Q/ t. C/ h0 x$ M9 Y2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
7 r7 n, O8 J' Nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous0 L  N  O. ?# I( S7 p; x: o4 c
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an& e  K- t) Q+ w! k$ s8 }* p; n
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
9 i$ t8 R5 _* Idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ b; Z1 G! u3 a+ F: Y( i* Gbe treated as 7 s.' x4 G  K) _! y0 V9 f0 K' E
( {* F3 p( t/ J' Z8 P5 E
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- d4 {5 X% L0 |3 D2 Tstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& Z& A' ]3 S7 J6 [$ Rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
3 \3 O& p- w: \6 X6 OAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4007 g" d* E6 I! m9 p( Q: J
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! n  m8 u+ s0 n- y* v' L
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) W: Y: V% n: ^3 B5 I
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
* Y' Y: l% l8 u2 z. F4 p0 f6 [8 dpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, I6 f+ Z  `) G0 `9 I( u. Fbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.% d2 ?: M( U/ `+ W3 b. r  Q+ R

9 V  M* D) }6 XThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook4 G/ N8 U  M5 T# A& e
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 c" z2 B) t7 m/ o' f8 L
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
$ K: L) g7 e1 O& o2 hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
$ r3 V8 p) n+ ?0 z7 _1 X  T5 Gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
! ]4 L: S! f+ p( sbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World+ t7 _- ]2 E& _$ f- _* w: l! H
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another3 ~$ S. T# M! `
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
" E5 l! T- U; k$ R+ ]4 Zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle4 b1 e$ C8 S: U  W) v
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. x: k& v; T' H+ ?
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 y: w2 A5 n& u9 e& _6 X' D' Jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam+ d8 s3 i. k# ]# V
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
5 G; _1 b- X. _; K/ {aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that: H7 [9 P8 t6 z7 G
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 R5 w3 k4 i& ~7 u5 J! [
; I# L) c9 Y% I. J  p2 OFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are* L  I  h" @$ |
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
5 O9 C& ]9 P, N! M/ ms) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
+ t& c, n, f+ d9 Q; A), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
' q# J: V+ w8 `; Cout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& i6 J7 s! [5 l8 c
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind, H* ^, V- ]2 t) m
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% |' U5 E& T/ `( ?: T' ^, R8 r  E, g: Tlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
1 t9 m' q# O# b8 V7 [$ Z0 vevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# d7 V+ N' C  g" [* ~8 yworks.
+ s! Y1 j) _$ U2 {/ x% c/ g7 {
+ V9 O6 n2 @8 `8 ~! UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 S/ m; \5 ^2 o1 w2 ?# Himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this  M1 K' P4 b+ U: ?7 G
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
* K- y! E) s5 Ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 S- X; a7 D" Z( w6 xpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ E) I  B. @$ G& W- I; }4 Y4 Z
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
( C2 k8 {5 X) Y# V4 I, Vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 d) \( F/ ^* S. t9 _  F* D
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
' x( C% [. x) R  a3 eto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 }4 i/ W; I/ f: p  g( Eis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 b5 J4 `0 ^$ F& xcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 E3 N: u0 g6 L4 I
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
! B( |6 q8 x" ~- Hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 S7 g  @9 K) u) t4 ^
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not* q0 t& ?' o( n8 ~9 N
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation8 {7 J! Z: {8 x6 K' A/ Y( C$ ~8 U
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are" D, x( o( V" P% ^
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
4 l  V4 o  k3 I" I  b- [2 Pbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a+ N2 U2 Z1 T0 Q! t( }  o
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
5 A( z7 _6 m3 M9 n" N) Dhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a+ r& _  z& K# C1 C* m
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:, o1 v6 \0 T' c5 r* G
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
9 k( I$ ?1 T% z9 a! _# ?3 O, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is0 ^. \; `5 J+ u& w% z0 K
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ _  G' n$ @8 N3 F, i. Z
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
. |7 g1 d+ J. W9 _$ d# M$ l; u- }chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?! N% p: i3 C/ F0 f. _) _) v/ F
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping( S3 U: n( D0 L; f! y& d' p1 D
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! P/ r' o" k1 _2 y& u" keight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.. U( J* n$ U+ z& O* }$ b/ I
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 f. ?1 {7 w! d; O' v8 k* r' W) k. c; D3 y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-1 h! [% Y9 z6 j/ R' l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! P9 p0 |0 J" X/ w. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
+ A: x7 B/ k5 s' E$ j" WOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: E3 b2 c$ X- T6 a0 I; R2 o
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. f7 A! ~% d5 P4 h7 K5 X4 b
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic" Q  |" |! [; ?, O# n, ^- N5 P
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
+ T* [0 O/ `6 i6 S' d% B- Rhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a0 K9 j- b; Z; A. q# U. o
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this. W' P1 v( P! g) {! g4 K
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 F* e% A+ N& Q) i* {
9 |; J# |; W3 H, e( z, x3 a9 S+ n
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ \4 ?8 K' F0 \/ L% cintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 x. b% e. [! Q9 Xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' g( W" I% f: V6 y( M" t( |suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
0 T/ ?: U! i" W* C5 hall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' k4 g  B' \, v. Xinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
- ]4 ]9 x/ U& P8 vexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your9 n1 {2 f. c! c$ A8 r) h8 g) T1 M
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' Q4 m7 x% T( C
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ e0 Q2 W, w; f( c
reporting should be done.
大型搬家
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, 2025-11-27 18:18 , Processed in 0.185182 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