埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1891|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
3 _& U2 |+ h) Z
& G0 x# }5 s  X1 x饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
; b0 T" ^) s% R8 X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。
& F+ t7 p2 C% n: R总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# J/ R* _8 Y2 S8 K. h( E' a% `) A0 W

3 B: D: Y, W) @( U* G: c  L" Whttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html9 a- c( s% d5 t2 h
, a1 H# t2 t4 j7 T5 K# P" B0 Y+ |$ u$ c
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
& U* s6 a9 o" W( a# b7 t$ W- t5 u1 i
英文原信附后,大意如下:: ~& X" v) t9 o, A$ w/ q2 z# \& i
3 S  Q0 C0 {8 N" J+ ~* v
斐尔,4 d' y! d0 Y. b( \
       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
( p9 O) P! E# I9 D' J7 |: i( Xemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
/ \5 ^  u0 t" z) W" [       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5 k7 C/ b3 {1 I: _# M% ?% n
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 V. \; }: F- G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。& H$ S3 a; A5 b( |6 R
       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, t- \' M. w# g# G
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1 u3 h, _8 i! m3 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( q  a% V6 |( R  h
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。. x8 l: q; N" T: Q* w
       我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中,《自然》可能意识到了原副标题的偏见6 e! E( R" `7 ]
,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7 o1 i, N( G9 S/ u0 U9 L- H/ }
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
4 T2 D$ z: m; b9 G& O       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
. ?6 g# l) Z3 h' v9 _+ ?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7 p5 Q2 d3 N- \8 F) Q" B
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
; B( x$ I  _* s! g) Z/ X% p0 j       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- l5 w2 X3 w0 y3 t$ B
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
$ v/ C5 C+ W3 y' }/ q1 U+ \" D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& N) r5 A. u- j: J& a5 R
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) \0 r) M* s2 v6 g/ n- o: G1 u0 f
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. q( [/ l+ F$ C0 O# g8 j
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; }2 S$ i& W, s# Q$ j
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3 `; Q; M  g9 u$ e( ^
。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
; J/ z* n  o' ~/ _9 s! Z1 [录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。! O5 m1 t! g/ g5 Z' _
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
6 _/ N  e( |) d5 y7 a4 O5 L; s1》,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
- @  m7 Z' u4 h5 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: i( A" |4 n# A9 v, ?$ S
同意见的专家。
7 y$ }( A' t. U9 e1 H5 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% E' K) B' e( ~8 W3 n! j0 f$ 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
. z- C* n( X3 g, l; p+ @7 V8 t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; |4 |, K' P. |/ L) F1 W- @
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。+ f1 e8 c$ |2 Q" s# ?
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)
1 H" O. j$ b8 F8 C9 I7 B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; P8 Q- h( `: V+ Q! |/ O$ D5 H
《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 l! d3 O) P6 r8 `2 p这些被Callaway忽略。
. N' \& C# a! I. U) O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
; z2 A1 k- z( J& D9 X1 h2 H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8 S% \/ ]- S" i0 K- w
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: Y& d) ]( \) w, F+ V
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
& h/ K! G8 z; j7 p" ~3 N' a8 ?( w& m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6 Q+ {. J: p" I0 Y' m. l
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9 i  G3 b( d) `2 r& s5 D0 e, ^
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。
$ @$ J1 t& V% 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8 ]4 w" {' A  S8 m! E7 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
6 G' x! c; b" p! P- a( l5 s9 L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
. [& L) ^' q2 K* f  a) K( w8 h9 ]( @”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。! ^  G+ ?3 p9 O8 y4 c
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) a0 _% K0 L" L
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
) K4 y/ K. H( V3 p$ i, O" N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, T- y: E, F  @
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次
# X* V. H1 x4 |- V' F, `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
+ h* [# s6 b  \0 i: z5 H而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
+ ^# i+ A# q" e9 c, D我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。4 ]/ \" ?: f$ Y" `! }( R
4 k$ K3 {6 [6 `6 ~4 b: j0 Y

: z5 J; Y3 R8 B& {7 B北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
, @1 U' j8 r7 A. e
' J! V* Y! ^# ?附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
, Y! y) C( w- Z  K附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email7 H: v& S; o+ W1 k( N3 @. U
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见: g+ ~. U/ W4 m- J/ A2 H! T8 Z2 J
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) V2 V' D/ L5 a+ O

7 a; \- b  X, [- a0 H0 P/ P( q# q  {+ ^4 ^, w- z
( H9 k: W) j6 c1 j% o  E; K& y
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 s7 P; W( k. j8 }1 z  G0 I
Dear Phil,
! I# c4 _6 ]$ d9 F& {) \6 d       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s' g  x' N" e; ~* s6 W" M$ @+ a
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) {; z! n6 {1 K* Dhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
# x+ ]) L. o0 L- r' B8 b0 ?you.
! Q" O0 D' c! H; }. A( J0 D5 y3 W       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have% I# r; z- J( W/ s' C1 T1 d( l
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' ~. \# l; ?" g% Areaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the2 v; y' j( T6 l  E
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
( {. B7 M5 n6 e1 T1 v* B6 G$ M1 x5 q* fpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. j8 h. Q3 c9 {1 D" A; `: X, xseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
2 l; P- I8 o2 V% R( ]( ^2 ?pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
$ Z6 A1 Z% J8 E# {       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the6 x2 ~* V# d. u; ^+ c
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
0 T) r2 c8 m2 wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish2 `) v! g) x) @8 r3 I
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 {; h# l$ h6 l/ ]0 g0 G2 |2 O2 ndid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping3 k: `$ i( }, W3 E8 X5 I3 v% `" P
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal* |) s& B, P4 H* A
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,$ u4 l6 C+ \) ?. y2 P, `
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
4 c' |& a" p* j7 p0 \4 Sto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 \  q% b! G7 u/ C
reporting.- o, P+ s6 x& J6 e
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have! e& w. n  y" i3 R
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
# r( v9 S9 B4 |# O, }6 ?& fchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in1 R) }+ c2 ?9 d6 M% V; [
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
; E7 h( }# h3 v+ fpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.$ C% n" J# W4 ^4 s1 \% I9 |. C
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 m+ u4 `/ x. @more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds, h7 L$ g0 g' U& @
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50/ }0 @+ q# m0 ~! W
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
6 \1 a' b. x6 i( n. O0 S) Jevent for men, with the second fastest record.
' |+ k5 W& T/ A0 h       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
  O+ j8 M5 [1 w- rwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16% @+ D1 i6 L1 T0 k! s/ S
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
# _1 B9 L9 s' Z6 `0 R& S. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400/ Z! R( t; Q8 D6 @# Q: N$ l
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,8 e! [8 M3 S, o; `2 }
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than: P9 G3 @# c7 z! e& i
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) ?4 a% r0 b  Y! {behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
8 d+ H/ z$ Y1 @; B* c; Eindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( B! h# y" s% i/ c# X) J
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
0 r! U% v* C! H3 P4 b6 bthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was+ m3 X2 L7 w  w. J
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( i* g( ^/ T/ B8 d) T
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
  m) }4 f8 ?( {2 |7 [5 Zproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 |7 s/ K0 [" O4 m* r
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
  s0 p  a# v. Z9 z8 U' A; G% yteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
" s% b  r/ }  Y+ oCallaway report.
2 p% ~6 `$ a  f1 R  V. t; zThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
" ?$ ^0 q# \6 [' i' A* c0 lunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details& ^/ n5 M+ Q6 D
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description7 V; `6 f! z" r( P$ K6 F
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been! D, y1 t0 m$ p& z1 H+ S1 C
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
$ j9 }3 p; q2 ]! PWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
9 d) u" N, Q) J* E1 {publicly voiced different opinions.
. U/ m+ W2 M$ ~4 R, I* c$ m' f1 J3 zYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
* n/ g& t  c( e& Hfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
  z- ?4 ~: |4 u* P, aNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent) @  m" x+ t0 U
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
6 P7 R: M2 Y& w& m* Q6 Y9 ~you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 D: k) F5 J) M1 k4 mof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
8 |+ g! |# i" e3 j! cThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
" t7 m4 y2 Q0 A+ R3 |$ \) d0 Bthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
. s9 y  j. n" \# ^6 w1 l/ Qhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as9 z- i+ c$ A0 z$ q* u* _" x9 J- x
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
0 o  a" C, `0 @0 T  k1 Bthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 [* C) V  V6 W6 ]) I4 V& k6 @supported by facts neglected by Callaway.9 \7 j8 q+ A7 ~( E8 v$ I
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that9 q7 u8 r; ^+ P. h
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ a$ d# a; U# a$ ~5 N
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 L; i$ O4 N9 v+ t
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
! ]/ G6 L- O2 w9 f% ?and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
% Q5 }) `- z& q. D8 [4 e. y" AThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science+ C# H: M- Y  T$ E  _& e
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and. `% a2 e* t$ B3 K2 U
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.- S/ m+ |" q: {: L5 ]7 J, N7 Q3 \, G
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
6 B1 r+ p" @' C7 Z3 s% U; iobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature7 K& g- p5 g3 e4 ^) b+ @3 g5 H
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
' _' C9 o: Q8 W4 B8 brepair the damage caused by your news reporters.7 [8 Y3 B  V; J8 p# h/ Z% M$ s' p2 t
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
. z3 x# o0 G  w% K1 U" `show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced% W% _; a5 P9 \" C' g) K* {
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
: K$ p9 f9 a! b; k/ Ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that, G/ F8 h- ^! R, i/ O4 f
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( C6 E) n, V/ ]( l3 P: R: t! habout British supremacy.
$ U9 R/ E- l+ IThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
  Q" O% V8 O7 [) T9 Q2 O, q( i" Kunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more2 r* _; [4 L" _& O
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 @0 |& Q! G: E0 p' Q9 Sour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
* k( k4 O$ x- i. k6 v9 @  MOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
8 @8 M) ~$ l8 |8 Q* uYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
& K; m! O2 d" Y5 s8 kprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests" k# G( m- e+ S" F% ^9 ~
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. ^7 V# a' P, p+ a' ]" @9 U/ e* uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly1 F8 S& e- M. O& q0 U
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
& C! \  ~; M. @0 A/ r# P( I7 lNature.
' `7 v5 I) k% [I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
- R1 |) f7 h: u% u% G( n% Rthe Callaway report.$ ]6 U7 A$ [) y; W6 X" {; u( [6 d

( v- a3 A6 w- `" X+ t: F+ B! ~Yi
0 @3 ?* F9 a% p6 ~% S. @3 }2 z4 v- t' l
Yi Rao, Ph.D.6 X& {3 f  Z1 z: L# h
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
4 F3 J8 C# A8 GBeijing, China. }' h; s% `/ _, s- S
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 0 G3 m, a# v9 P- b& _. @- b3 U
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
" x: J& d2 t) x0 f( U
原文是公开信。9 ^. G# R+ G, c8 `
9 `  f5 p* J& \- a( q& P$ e
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
4 U% V3 W% d0 d  z0 H$ F' z原文是公开信。1 r2 m$ G1 \( f, \; @, y' w  l- _
, O$ h% ]* b$ l' x2 O$ C/ w+ `9 o
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

% q8 B& f! J" ]! c. }+ o9 r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 JIANG4 h; X8 z/ M; j/ P
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
! e( n' H' n$ D
+ O# T/ `' v! m- Ehttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html4 F6 h' m& G" c# I. ~1 }0 t! d

% g  D; W% [8 d* lFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ h8 _6 D& K2 O# a+ {
5 A* v$ S  K( B! q  h2 `It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself4 |/ ^6 r( R, A& U
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science' g; F) V1 x$ n
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# X) n( p4 e$ R% Y& Qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
5 j( f& c1 J. Z4 N; {scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" U4 l& I2 `" vpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% _* i) w6 ?" s+ W2 g( `
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,1 K" {+ d( ]7 P+ d/ x
which they blatantly failed to do.
% p- |9 S& T- h: c& q  g" D! O+ {
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her3 z) y" r  E1 A3 A5 m& a" O. U
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& W& h* O- s1 k
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
' Y, J- \. T& k) w8 R1 }anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ Q% [: b- f, p
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an9 Q9 @- n5 x  @- \
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: @# t5 D! v* [
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 K" Q7 L! I4 Y& N
be treated as 7 s.
" C' P. p9 O; h/ G' K) P$ L
( O( P2 M) y5 |7 l, @Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! W4 z8 {8 j' A6 X+ j8 }& ?' Tstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem# a* h  J" s% d# m* M9 D
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., `- r; V* \, G) b0 B5 O
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400) z4 `4 H( Y5 v
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
% {( c6 {2 X8 T8 J2 |For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
$ z. H+ ~8 q& m9 _$ \; N( Celite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 L  v2 l) ]* \! ^persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
8 l2 B' Q4 M/ k0 d# A3 @: k& _based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* n9 z- X5 v+ Y+ }" P$ X! |. Q" S) n* W8 A% P* k& l5 N4 i/ q& s+ d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook: @, x8 E- T, G* `+ ]
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 x/ Z2 ?1 X5 Q) X& y2 C7 k: o6 d5 [0 i
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& r( O1 H4 ^8 N% R/ b8 she chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ B$ ^9 v! U' j' O3 @
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% z& m0 v' N0 H- @: B$ S2 w. J
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) O& h6 K; w/ f9 Z/ hFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another' E/ F8 O4 P5 B% X; m1 O0 ~% X
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
4 x3 X6 o% H- k# q) B5 I! xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle2 C) R" n5 n4 j* C3 R. |6 z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 P* w: L1 ]# z, P! Ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
  c! W; ?, E! F/ b3 @4 I! jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( b  F) ^4 j8 b, ?
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 \' D- k8 p. g+ Y+ d% U
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that. ~( G5 P" S1 z9 _8 X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
2 u' |  t( M- O' S) h4 `
9 m7 M$ }! K& A* J1 n) {- l" N2 {Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are( Q6 j7 D4 N* B8 \% r3 A" o
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! `: r6 N) i  z' os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: J2 Y% T3 L6 |), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
5 |- N& O! y- v) `$ _out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 q7 X* X( d  O" l, B) y: mLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind! J+ Q( H# Y, t  x" \! _
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
( g$ \4 [' s# D7 Y/ G4 k0 Xlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* Y+ m. Q) @- B8 Zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
; Q8 f7 L4 l, G$ sworks.
# R& N5 t; h! j% k$ l, w4 |0 B! q+ E0 k) B# d9 m9 \4 i
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
* f, C0 T& T( a% @! V1 limplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 v2 ]% U: N6 m- L7 G6 s1 w# Pkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that$ [' x6 C8 Z6 e# I% R- [" v
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific2 D) J" n% y6 B: G5 M- r* E
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and: H' q# u4 S6 d& ~: w
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) w: w* m7 M7 j1 o0 G0 acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to. V' f7 a) ?! T, p% k1 V: S
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works* T, Y4 J0 D- E
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 ^: t+ g# w. f% |$ Vis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, C0 |- X! r( a! s
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
) T" i$ t% u0 ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 D$ W) K+ x# H6 Y6 C2 a; A
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- v! k( x8 x0 l5 W# }) e7 G. H
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
! x& k- d& h# j2 F1 j  uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* ^6 H2 {! ^# d6 {
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ m# e6 I  \0 j+ X/ S$ adoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may, w; L# r( y2 r9 j! B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a6 y5 O# I+ X. a; J
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
; f& \: q& H6 V' E- |has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a! H. S; j1 {5 ~' `
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& Z9 d+ l  [8 T( @6 A" Sother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
+ l$ e4 w  i, A8 c; w8 }# i5 |* l, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
5 A! J% G4 m1 X2 Q% o" iprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: p0 s& I9 B' k8 m
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: n* L- i$ t" q* k8 L7 L7 L
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?4 j5 r0 ~+ t. u4 ^' C
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 q+ m: Q* X( Z6 N
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 U( o2 S& y% Y" C2 I6 _  i" d
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: m3 p- C! n  s6 V2 ]Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& p; t( H* Q" i2 h
+ P! m  Z$ q3 _8 y$ Y4 _- j/ \9 t, }" J
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-7 I% C1 h! y& t9 U% c3 b5 K; l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention6 N( h1 s' C- f/ k& B
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 M6 Y) @# v  A* m( j
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London5 W% T9 `. ?, n% g9 }
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
/ @5 N  D- E+ v9 Kdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic+ ]4 V, t4 I9 P/ X9 R/ c
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope  u$ \( ~! y! G5 O" K6 w
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
2 ^: @/ w( p0 B, n0 Fplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this5 B) |' M: d1 C
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.: e5 s. ~1 j$ K

: H9 \; I2 v1 VOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (  {. v4 X2 x2 M9 R9 K; q
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ |% i# I2 h# l# b
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a3 J+ ~) r. i% M
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" L$ t8 [( N& Iall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your# }1 {8 h8 k4 H+ c& ^4 {
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
% {; f; a/ i& X3 M& v' a  Sexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
* k2 f# Q  M* r3 sargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal7 ]- s; M) h+ G4 _& t
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
2 n6 B+ e) c7 {( {9 \reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-12-16 18:30 , Processed in 0.204301 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