埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1894|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
' S  G% l( U! V/ J; `$ l
4 u4 R+ q3 g) a' a/ B( x饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! @8 p0 S% {* F, O( i6 K4 {$ k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。# k( j3 V3 q! H) k2 ~# i& {% G" I
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 v  J9 X7 O% i/ r4 \$ W* [( [! ]8 w4 t* q7 @4 D
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html7 T. K" O) M( t6 W% D
) s8 D* p' ~, t( s0 x6 Z' q+ r
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选+ E+ `" V# M# D% G
' b/ m) k0 I' U
英文原信附后,大意如下:! S$ q; X% p5 j

0 Y6 `. E" j, c) {6 N9 P斐尔,& |! H0 g' H: d) Y( F0 [. o4 ?, y
       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4 R+ ~0 d+ s/ I' d! N/ ?
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 {+ _6 f  K- I- r6 E8 s       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 g  X4 ?, }& H; m: M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: H1 i) C  V/ p
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。0 D0 r9 H3 ~6 Y0 Z0 W: W* J
       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* n4 |, T5 V' V
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  _7 }; |: u7 T: t1 ~( [4 v
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
4 Y4 _7 |& g* _/ r) Q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。+ z% E4 f) i% C- @* T0 q) K
       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
0 `3 s7 t9 I4 g3 h4 {* G( V,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& a4 b- O7 v' x( x$ u
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
8 W2 U, Q' J+ J5 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
6 D$ E' v- u" V' k, R& o; ]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
0 d, h' Y' p4 O# v2 y) ~3 @,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- H, H6 K, p1 H9 K       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
7 S5 ~& p; [. @+ U1 W6 E2011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
3 c: W- a5 R! a# w3 W: Y" i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
7 S: X) ]! L7 Q" ~/ O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
! l& m5 Z, I0 U+ s9 W) f300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、六6 t. s, d. K2 E, M9 b( h4 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( A4 O# h: o; C6 ^) ?# c" X" ^  y
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6 q' S$ x$ A$ s; L6 O  M6 h7 Q
。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
, \$ f$ ]- v3 r' X录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 l" ]) d( K' o5 s6 {, C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# ~$ K2 r/ I4 V$ ]2 p& q
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. S7 S* n$ g( u* H
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
$ O2 I4 s9 k8 u9 y0 O同意见的专家。* J3 ~. \0 i) M$ N, x$ x
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
: n1 Z! I+ v" t. ~8 j9 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( i+ ~9 q1 H( ^& w
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
" {0 L1 j4 N, p《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。  y1 x" ]' `0 m; y9 K
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)7 f+ N9 @, V( C3 n
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# A, B* k/ V. X1 B; W& I$ ?: n
《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4 H1 B; i, s3 U$ J5 c; K3 W- v, S# E& p
这些被Callaway忽略。7 c1 {: R! v. a% N% T6 V9 X5 C
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
. a2 h$ H0 ~& c! N) x4 S1 u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
* \) j+ Y9 l2 O2 f0 @0 e1 E6 r教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
$ Y) _- ~5 J( e$ F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4 N: Z% z3 t) Z, K. Q8 }
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( G. J8 r; v$ w) }7 L, |' }! 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
3 W7 Q7 U# g: C# w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。
5 h$ Z% J  i6 O5 Y' f* ^  p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$ I# b" A4 U# Q) u9 I7 @* 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( Z' U: s& K8 P  A* 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0 v6 z: r7 {2 W
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. M( E* Q0 t$ Y6 x% 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- O0 X3 w0 P5 j$ P. }* n% _
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, X* k5 \9 m7 R  R: f: g! d3 E: @
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: ~1 \  I1 w0 }( l) c! O
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3 f( f- }+ ?. b! p4 v4 L7 U
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
. J/ L  f- k( E: Z0 K4 ~) U而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。( D6 ]; r6 q! |! W! L
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。0 B' d; c7 G2 Z# g8 T, g
: P- f1 S( V# C2 K1 E) ~+ T
1 B/ D' c, `5 f, o& d
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅$ u. X. G9 B" Z) b" G$ L

( \5 X1 M8 I- M" Y5 J/ v. x$ E, A& {附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: F0 a# |4 {+ r7 O1 Y
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email7 b) Q! x6 U0 L! B0 w$ M
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见1 x% ~$ t9 P0 j1 {6 n4 [
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见1 \: B6 r) `6 Y% e( [

' S' Q* g8 K" B" ~0 O" r0 ?3 o4 q: v

3 [: G4 a, ^3 R' G% t原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
; j; o9 x! U/ p1 j9 bDear Phil,% Y. j9 l  y& I4 x  |: r7 u
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s  K  C/ w8 S) Q8 m! }  _
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
, r. i! r- }! q# Phours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed" v, X  d4 h* c! w7 V3 q% V
you.
8 @$ G- ~( l6 N. Q       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have* m& d% \, C( K2 |! {4 @* m8 D
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese+ ], H( ^3 H. l6 D6 a; N  V
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
, o  |6 r. p+ R0 {4 x" Xworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
, w: `& J( C  C% ?4 ^& H2 f/ Z3 z0 Xpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ a6 {: s' k" A, b
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
( k2 A0 u+ I6 z1 ]pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.2 m- u4 M2 ?( b6 y
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the- n' b' D6 Z" h# ~6 [0 ?6 u
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a6 r, n0 z; C. Q# j7 Z
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish) J: U6 x; I, S$ d: d1 i2 Y9 C# ]3 `
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
; ?4 a  z$ d+ e, P8 {did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping4 s8 _$ V, J& k* L
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
; ]  \0 p0 k9 j4 A# ustandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
/ q; h( l7 _. N9 z: u# b/ ^% Kand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 e* q& J/ W$ h0 M/ V$ nto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news) D# ~- [' X- D8 _% q
reporting.& G+ |, i# R; V  u3 B
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
7 l& j* n: T( A3 T: M$ I6 c$ F2 dalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
8 S; k& h( Z$ ?0 ~changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
9 N$ w5 _% O1 @& ?$ T( d' @sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A, k& r5 G8 I% X
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! @6 C  a) l, O# D5 e. l6 d8 C
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
. n& z8 L& O5 X' X: Bmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds  }* Y1 M+ G1 m2 \; s
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
0 `, Q6 H7 E% |$ J, r/ w: J# u- cmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* e/ k+ Y1 P- k  I% R  G1 z
event for men, with the second fastest record.# f  F1 y1 O2 l. }  Y, F: L
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
, j0 T# A" b% M1 G! H* I/ Jwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
+ z$ h' Y5 W) D- oyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
5 Y( ^  {, h7 p. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; y0 H# Y% M6 b/ t2 [+ m; {meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
6 b) D6 j' ~! Z- o: j- ^( Nfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
0 i3 u; f1 s9 D- j' qLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) |* f/ H3 I9 k5 X: D  pbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the4 Z& ?' ^# r  q. P  Z6 s! G
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower. B$ y$ Q" Y( b# B
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than: q# g/ W; t7 z5 T) q! t2 ]2 b* P
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was; j; h4 _* U& j1 J. a
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
8 Y1 N/ T' `( \  `: o' a" Khe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “) L$ Q0 r) U- j; T; m2 R
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other6 z+ n5 q+ A- S5 N# x% `
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: D5 ]1 m8 Q3 P/ K$ Q$ Vteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the' {: v. J# ?: }9 i( t1 T  I
Callaway report.
: K  P! ]8 G8 v4 L/ Q6 r' M$ SThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
# J9 o4 b& [  Q' b+ Munderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
9 j$ @* R. T. Ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description, N8 ?. D; D/ g2 d9 I; i
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been$ a$ X* Q0 ^# o9 j2 ^6 `8 o# e
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 R6 P. g0 v' k/ P" F$ P# ~
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
6 s/ @( B3 d- J5 X/ a) mpublicly voiced different opinions.
- Z7 o" t0 U" r) V6 e( ZYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD- h. [6 h# f% N( _0 \3 u" \
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature9 Q/ W* g# C+ B: }0 d
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
. J8 k5 q- m  Upostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds0 k, @) b1 Q( I- l% Q; O& r, E
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy% z2 r7 X: ~; d% t
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
6 w" I0 g$ |6 S) t7 ~. ZThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
, L% N- A+ p$ i. \  a6 bthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They% r" W4 r, [& E( `
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as' D' g, _" F' w8 U# k# K
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that( l) d. S! l9 }+ {9 u
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ f1 m7 H& t0 J! c5 l1 L
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
# M  x/ P  a) X+ ^1 ?) Y$ L2 pOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
( c3 H" N) ?* t( R: Umany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  q  G5 g, Y9 {$ I" c% x% t
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
2 ~  i7 s8 R! H+ H2 D(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she  c& }2 [" m0 _/ i2 R* _1 t
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.5 h5 ~" O& \4 o5 R* S- O
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& V  n7 a2 z' n# iand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
- d" C5 F# W  O1 M# N( d% ]/ ZDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; {- L/ W( V, u/ q$ P4 e8 @
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 Y: I( g/ [) C
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature) M; M) w1 E. K
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to' V, |6 q$ s$ u4 H% _) M9 _
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
! x8 [# P. S" |2 ~0 }; B! j0 [& PThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
, B) ?6 `+ y9 E' P, g) Zshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 C* v. W2 z* I8 b6 `+ x
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 g- v) o/ [% T) h; Q* _
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
" ^6 @$ B- J6 m& c' p$ Z  \. Wthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
0 P% N2 ?& |+ h, M! }. yabout British supremacy.4 |& J0 W  z6 P
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many) l% B" Q7 A( u+ N
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more' g( k6 T# U; }
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* H  N* ?+ V& r5 Q7 T/ U/ n# }1 Sour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
/ H' D  o  }; D& }8 B9 EOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
( |8 n3 [: I. Z; k! I9 D* G$ uYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 Q+ k  |) M5 {/ u2 L9 C. Aprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests' _: T% i# @& b  D2 W% M
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, k8 z4 B1 m6 Pit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly* Q; z: \9 i  i2 c5 L+ F
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like# w2 ]  L* _# c( I. e
Nature.
# M7 i9 O& Y6 \, s& XI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance' X9 G% m9 P' j% J/ ~
the Callaway report.
# Y9 z/ y/ C! r' Z
. |7 A( ^% T& M4 V8 j' sYi6 x$ w+ J1 t9 ]! V: ^

* q* h) d/ M: ]" YYi Rao, Ph.D.
  O1 H8 O, B7 M$ dProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences7 I/ w' r: b1 P1 e5 K
Beijing, China
2 M' d  W# ^1 Y# R
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。
大型搬家
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 & ^" A$ Z. A" u5 V2 ~
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

; v, N- p. Y. Y2 {- U原文是公开信。. d$ W+ f$ M- `5 V
# {- o# G5 U1 v5 ?/ \+ d
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 7 ]1 H; q  {  k# ]
原文是公开信。+ u8 O. W& ^' j8 ]

; w3 d; s/ M& P- D小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
# ^, H; {' f, l4 t" k  z
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 JIANG6 \; r+ f: B9 e! t
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
$ B# a5 a& x4 d, _$ M. r7 B7 p- M4 f, O. y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: b9 A: f+ n+ J! U7 Q' M6 i4 V0 \9 p1 g& L
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
+ M" w4 {4 |! ?$ _; e1 {* t" a4 O2 C% l# L* w7 Q
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 D0 a3 B* i$ A* T" [! F, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. d/ i+ }# R( l6 i7 `* O
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
: ]9 M( n( c1 x4 {; l- y9 wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
$ O0 {2 C5 X8 D: T6 e: P) r6 N1 Zscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general! E/ s4 V5 N3 i5 M6 S% A% P
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 M* B6 V( H  l4 m
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,5 w# P) d4 p; z( m( n. F
which they blatantly failed to do.6 ?% J. Z8 z0 j9 y, x" ]/ r6 O; B
$ b8 V3 }5 t/ E9 p; D
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; z4 m! @+ W. `, gOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
, p% g- _6 G. x) x" }- h8 t, _4 O1 D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
' B4 n6 k* m! q' A. s  m8 wanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ N6 N3 J$ w* I0 w- j% J; K
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an# ?$ V) V. l+ l% k: Y, l, `2 u6 J# ?
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 G4 C4 [# c# w0 F% i! B* K9 W- m1 ndifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to6 Q& ?" e2 z) Y7 C( T- u
be treated as 7 s.  v9 d2 }& \5 v9 B( I& p: G
$ Q% V5 t  V5 r; Z' h5 R$ t
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is! y" D! X* s. W( O: g5 x
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 J5 a6 c0 d# x. k+ m4 W* Nimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) D# D( i3 i7 j' A: zAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400/ J8 R2 {( z" ~# X
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
5 x6 v2 I9 b) j; v% m9 u  lFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
6 M) V7 m2 ~$ v" M7 jelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
) G. f) {0 y' dpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”( \" J# N: T# p3 w7 g
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
9 d0 r8 i9 f; K/ n8 ^: }5 \3 {3 S9 L
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
' j3 H: n. v$ T; U( Z: r- Rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 G1 E7 v  m" W; |5 |# ~the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" F3 U- v/ c+ M% G
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
- R9 K4 _1 ^- x8 vevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% Z$ t4 m( K5 a7 h! Abest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World0 L. P; z$ X  u# N
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
: j5 ]3 Q% x' q# d) O: O) htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 A# I# H" h: M! _& ]
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
- W) F% N3 ?; c. Y, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
" K! v2 ]7 ^/ |strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds" l! `/ Z2 k  E
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam& K3 m1 d+ h7 m, Y3 X* k
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting- o  M" g( S/ D
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# n: P' x, g' u; y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 N- N& `$ V  _- E: ]% G* i

. y; h9 n6 C. x- }8 HFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ M; E6 z) K' B( c. X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 X. ]' ~( p2 z4 v; ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s4 ]7 D) h. {, T: \! s- D4 f8 t. B- {  n
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns( H% j0 i+ `5 a- V. d
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: n+ a1 `1 j! s  u: y
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
$ f' P3 g  D+ Q: Tof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ i' X  ]( `8 h& n. b) f; I
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) b6 L; }9 E" ?( T% kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, U/ _$ _' ~7 T. e- oworks.0 {% N9 D3 j* O: ]& E% f

( E; x  i  g: f/ v- E+ dFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
* \5 d( d5 ]6 yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
0 {, z, W: p9 rkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. [% d5 c0 S% ]/ Z* D* o4 \$ ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ I5 a1 d2 F; }; Z' Z
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 |1 H# z3 m8 G% G1 E* yreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One1 ~* h: Z4 Q0 i! Q0 c' R, @
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 Y; W" O# E9 C! t" t3 J
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. l2 x% V* J6 G" I( B# B5 ]& O5 R3 ]
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample2 W" d$ l, j3 {  p" @
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ {% p2 |. G* x# n  L2 rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he: Y; z1 v5 f; m( U% N4 N
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
* v: Q; d/ y* Q. s, A! |advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) i$ u& t* @3 e, W9 Ipast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not3 W  I. U7 N# ~8 n; p
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation6 ]: t  U% n! ?; p4 q6 b; ^$ D
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; a1 H, {* P. [9 Z
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- {2 `) ^* ^9 `( ^; J8 i# s
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a# t6 Q. j/ \- N( o6 ^* P
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye8 C7 q: h: @6 P* A: e4 O; w
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
' K+ q9 ^1 e4 b5 i# C  t3 d# @drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
8 P! Z9 f7 T6 O/ r7 ]( Q$ eother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 j- b* c4 p0 ^' i! r; O+ L, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is( K3 M4 y- p% R
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 O( A; B6 Q  R% k2 \" m# Fathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- j. u' ^1 N# `9 r( L
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& P( \7 E: J' P; nLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping) r$ j0 Z- X( Y- f
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
( \4 `* U0 e5 keight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
5 {* l7 m2 d5 v& Q8 _, i* {Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?2 z; _0 A8 O5 F
6 I/ ~0 u5 _) O9 u; y3 P9 ?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-  X- \: ~$ p: ~' f* X" m( c; c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
  |6 U: r9 i( \4 A, I6 j( N6 Y. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
& `+ g3 A$ ~5 S$ _5 n9 SOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
7 P0 I/ R! d7 e+ q; IOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 q( {/ q! a; I! |+ I3 [) J
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
5 V1 g( o2 I* T5 B6 j8 p& Xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope7 w% w/ p" X- m* E2 ~! }- O9 q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a  n/ u- Z4 S5 E0 n) ]
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# N) N! ^7 @, X; P5 x% X/ |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
6 H4 p* ]( A8 j/ n" d5 W+ e! [% l7 S6 ^5 B7 H6 E0 c+ ^% `, Q# U7 P
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: B8 V: |8 S) Q) l4 w
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! o" T- A% p5 C8 Ssuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
+ e, f3 F. J8 vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 {! K# E, O) j( @8 y, G6 Yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: j  v4 V; [3 @' q% jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
+ I5 H4 I- x( ^9 Texplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
. B$ l. E$ ~; w! r! t& t% eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal3 p' J0 s) x0 j2 E# ^. p3 i
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 g% F7 A7 M! C" R' R, Q. rreporting 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, 2025-12-18 02:20 , Processed in 0.235289 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