埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1890|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 0 E" y/ w3 C9 D' X! O7 B
: L2 R0 A# G( h, l/ s
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。+ w% u% J0 b0 C  p8 r* n! `
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。9 Q  L! L: E( V) p. G
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
, y! y4 t! @- H. O9 U
" [/ o, h  c+ W7 Z2 ohttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! T( l: U8 s( f  w0 w! b
. c6 }7 A: T, X/ w' l6 X0 ^, K致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
1 k0 Y: }) U5 E  J4 ~& Y. [6 A, F
7 l( h: B- a- `: q- @' q英文原信附后,大意如下:
9 q7 B1 G6 o  o- K$ ?" I( M1 `3 z6 c8 |9 |( S2 V' T( p' y$ a9 s; _. [
斐尔,5 |( i# K% |# ]( p+ F
       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# n! ^# u4 w# a$ Q$ w+ f8 Q& c
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。. m$ G3 K1 B' ^6 L
       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
" @& Z5 z' [0 X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3 Y# S- B! Z; }  Q* L# X3 ~
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。
+ n0 r  z# i& b" r: h* n1 j; Z       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, e7 U9 S; i4 w" x. K, `  {
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 c: e8 t! B2 \+ b' n- A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# v. x5 l9 V& i) U$ P( L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。
, p' x3 |4 j* F  N9 e4 j, g: n       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
% `& F1 N  t+ `# f! A! q,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
) ]1 }. \) {- M* \”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。2 u5 R' H( D. J2 ?, g/ ?% x
       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# Z5 B$ E2 m! W3 L* n9 `' T2 ~
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- V8 N5 f. C9 Y; I
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。% N7 a- u1 c1 B; J  r5 s$ u: x, h
       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
2 P* X5 X+ I! t. ]5 i3 ]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1 A  u& J/ u+ o, g
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
" h3 f$ O1 y: e$ g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+ i9 w5 i. i5 q
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
9 v% X" _; w: c; W, d, }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
4 j# A& ?- O  s. t( M0 H  y3 i& V/ C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
/ ]$ x* W) }. ^0 j。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! Y1 u* K$ ]" a" T$ K- w
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
. \( r7 ]$ U$ K. k5 {+ m# [, E4 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: L  D) _; ]; L4 n
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于8 Z- D) b* |4 k
Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不# l$ m" H7 z2 [6 k; N& Q
同意见的专家。" ?; A5 A& R% j5 }
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
& h% j  ^, h3 [. T+ B6 D( _/ S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
0 U) m1 M5 N8 h6 d' ^, C6 B" S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
5 C- N  \4 x' B! E8 L+ R+ I《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
' z6 k- j$ n8 _# pCallaway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)$ g1 Y+ ^' D/ y+ z8 C
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
5 y% I, p: {" E( x《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5 D4 i9 m6 I* L$ D0 J( m' F; W
这些被Callaway忽略。
8 e1 d# r$ ]( a' h5 B& A英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给2 Y, ]: h5 Z8 g  H4 C. B
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 B6 a' |8 s9 f+ m教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
/ {. n6 K. W' ^, S( h4 x3 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
1 K8 o/ u7 W9 T1 d5 V) e. {2 f( A  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
: N/ ]) R, f- p( p/ u* u9 j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" T0 H8 _* m/ p) I# P9 U
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。
. O- F( o" f7 ]2 E2 W% G5 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4 E4 H( ^1 K7 i) P
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7 q1 Y0 b& u+ `0 {3 B
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5 P3 M: Z. Q/ s! v9 b& z
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
, B, z# d) {- a6 N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
; ]- \$ e  Y: C. s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
9 ]! f, [! B" _. ^3 }# @! c, p5 F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! M8 P2 D% @) S1 g
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 ]' D8 A- t+ t
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$ Z" ^8 W4 r1 ]0 k
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ _1 j  `: {) \# x# s0 O
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: ^+ x3 V- R3 _: |9 q0 Q
# V8 w$ Z0 o% V' J" j

6 l+ O$ ?2 y, E# t1 D# l& u北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% M' r* `3 F4 w  j

, Z% T* R4 g$ e0 `附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
+ W' p2 A1 X1 H0 w0 V( s8 R- B4 d附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email3 ^$ _5 A0 d! {! |) F4 ^
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见- R( n; V) c7 z' R6 b. y7 k
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见5 Y7 a/ v0 F% z- n  ?

" V$ ?# a2 d. D& h3 e
% ?1 m: d8 g; y3 H
: p( j) H) X  S# h' w( W  s原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)5 V# F. T& B1 P0 k# n  V
Dear Phil,
' W( z, c1 N, N4 X       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s! ^. I: q4 d3 S* D
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
+ x. X6 D- n. ^9 v4 i% {! S) xhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 Y6 p. Y/ Z# J; V+ K4 ?5 W: [+ _4 E4 ?you.
5 s! c5 u2 g, z# G( s3 C       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have# F7 w, N+ h+ V6 @
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese0 N' f' W0 w% o, N. c
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
! ?% z" ~1 M! ]0 i( u7 |9 P' Lworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
  Q9 t3 A' Z2 rpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
; A. L5 R7 P( K7 Wseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
  S, e2 F: k# m" I- E! R. Opieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
+ Y( t7 I9 ~' Q7 ]       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" U; N5 ~* a! I$ n% {4 H- v, y
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
: M2 l+ e9 ^- \" B+ F6 enegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
# |- e6 l0 e+ H6 K* ~# Z$ ~that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway; W0 l# J- }, ^, C% z, k
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
! L% c$ Y' i- E5 _4 {/ f& Rexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
$ n& Q7 \5 Q: O/ G/ ostandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
  p' l/ O8 ~1 j7 Cand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
( v; X# C8 a, `! P! H* [" Zto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
6 L* h, h1 A6 A9 B$ _reporting.
3 k+ m3 f' A; K3 H+ K       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have& @0 h9 M0 x' B) T
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
# S9 W# a9 p4 v! T+ v8 tchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
1 C9 {3 I. g$ Y  ~/ \sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A6 I4 o$ _' R; J4 X- V
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
1 Z0 i( R1 f$ h! l2 A       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
8 ]/ R9 W2 f2 R) J$ e  mmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds; Y4 X" E, W, E0 M0 n8 J  o
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
% J8 ?2 |+ l& {meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ W3 [& e6 ^( P5 m' L2 p& T( e
event for men, with the second fastest record.
2 d" `2 M  V9 P2 j       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; l9 n. V, T5 ]$ ~" n/ S
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 161 G& E  d) |4 K0 |, f
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
# h* \" v# S8 X) X$ x9 G5 F. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ u0 y  f; P, Q. o7 y) x7 Lmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,/ R0 a0 l! u7 K2 F6 h
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
7 N- ?* R, }. u# cLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed  n% n' |+ f( O
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the: R5 c4 @* y4 S" A, c' v' [
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower2 A' G2 O$ W% h' O! i- Y5 t
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. {. a! C& Z- K* {( G6 ethose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
& m3 B; z  ?" r. `. Iher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- J; l) B1 ~: O0 {2 W* s/ ]% Nhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
; W* `( ^4 Z- l+ K: Lproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( w* e4 v6 N* a8 \3 z; g; T2 {swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
9 y4 N' M) |+ m/ y  S6 M3 Qteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
8 z6 ]& f" B& J+ QCallaway report.
; x. M( ?2 h; y! e* p2 b" KThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more% f( `) W6 L' z3 ]; H, D
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
- Q- P+ e/ g3 j! a" `here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
* M: v; J0 m: Z3 c$ x" B; d2 [; ]; U8 }of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been% K) w: k% s/ T
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the" t! c) g! k  f* K/ p
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had1 e8 a6 z0 z9 ~# l- C3 y* E3 l
publicly voiced different opinions.
0 ]8 X) ^7 k: Q. C9 ]You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD3 r  @) g( }$ q& m2 E+ [3 k/ a' B
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature, f7 h4 V  H% E# a: ?$ T
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent# N. F. T8 V/ i# F& Z* \7 B
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
; z" g/ W" {- M/ n! uyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy- ^- o9 k* U* b+ |3 r; H" F. @* @
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ N0 l  E3 E; i( U% n( c, iThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
* C# k9 v- c$ B3 X  ?that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
6 O1 h9 V0 K, I3 m2 Shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
9 s: k" ]# z" M/ k7 x2 K6 M- eAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 u* ^1 }5 x" k! r# q: Q. jthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was- q7 |( D7 F! d
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
" S" c9 M/ O3 _. d2 W8 Z+ k/ d7 ROne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% Q$ h, _2 U, s7 l" C) T8 dmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
2 K4 z8 T  B7 z" d% T% ?Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June. {( I. T( A3 x1 A
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she  u* J; S8 g/ |
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  D) n# w. `0 _3 D: i& a& P  W
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
( R7 `; v3 m; ^3 r  Tand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and+ x; t5 v6 F4 b8 i% ^3 A
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.$ q' }- f$ W! O1 I6 c$ I. ^6 }
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
8 b. a2 W1 ^# Z' t0 x& c% `3 bobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
6 a/ Z! X4 w! O, ^what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
) [3 a* U( E! P6 P) G! M, orepair the damage caused by your news reporters.  y$ E, ^1 V' q0 V" Q- @* x
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 N2 l" A( o, b$ _: [. [! ~. s- tshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced2 i4 i4 C+ I$ A' p, D( ]0 J( y
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 p! f5 n9 s4 V6 n
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
* l/ ?6 N( b! o! n4 A* ~* V5 Ithis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”% u' A  L4 V. s: j
about British supremacy.0 Z/ z4 f  T, Y0 s; j" z! b1 _' F
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
4 c- X! u, k+ e' T0 s+ d. wunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, j5 a6 t3 g: c# g, v" `Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by; @  v$ s) f1 f6 h
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
9 w' ~0 ~$ d% o, J* ?4 DOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.3 H! j/ h* b  A+ U
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
; m6 k) G% o: Y$ j4 x$ Oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
; A1 _( S/ ^: o3 Z( O8 I# B; dbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
( v2 m6 i8 }5 E9 {/ lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ r' }- @% @) H  h" m$ Q) `2 H7 M, P4 z  ?
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like7 U+ l" W- N2 K5 p# L, _
Nature.( `8 O3 j0 Z9 D8 k9 J$ M. A
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
' i* @' c6 t2 V) l  @the Callaway report.) j" p& x, P8 r

; g5 l- F! j5 M$ M0 DYi- T" u# t. t( N! d: f2 Y

% W8 D* M$ O0 ?8 yYi Rao, Ph.D.$ |" x5 @' W1 D1 I( P0 E' e0 ^( c
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences- S- f& m/ f3 d
Beijing, China+ l$ S! v1 w) r" x  W: I% P
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
# a5 r; E- ]& i, q原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

+ W* O. S  O3 T/ B' c6 J原文是公开信。" m5 y/ R. D( C7 m( q7 c: V+ {

% _2 r6 i, ]9 w7 I) v# L1 u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
9 ^$ U, j& k6 y; z0 \* _5 N6 y原文是公开信。; P# ]1 S& ^/ D# u; i7 \. v, J5 @8 H

5 Y, j$ B; ]9 B. S- `" c( A0 s小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

8 o4 w; X8 ~9 P- A! t谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
理袁律师事务所
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. `: Q3 `! d1 n; r5 N
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
! G' y8 C: O0 E8 b0 A$ K& L! Y+ r4 a; E& o5 h/ r, b
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html$ |7 ]: D0 B8 H. i  r
; G, i* y" t7 `: O" L% d/ j; h
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania* i: Y: _  {1 ^) k: |

! N% @6 v0 D, Z* aIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 c* T" ?( a" x' k9 R2 n, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. v$ E& t2 v, {! dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this- N/ u- @6 i5 H. t0 U8 O% X8 r
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: U( `6 F6 i1 {- Z
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
! h2 d; \" v; s+ V- R% H  X- }populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
5 |3 I5 l3 k! ~' t7 U! qshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 Y' X9 y( i$ Q8 W: t( H
which they blatantly failed to do.6 Z$ u, g8 u' o
6 ~5 j% N3 `2 f/ ~& G+ ]
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her4 q0 Y9 X$ N9 y# ^
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in0 i% O' M; a/ ~0 i1 L
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “3 m, f9 n, D( c, z! y, P
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 p& r+ N& U' u% e" @/ ?8 ]personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
8 q; u3 z5 ~) }* x2 a/ Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 Q7 _* C) [# ?( \difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ \* y4 u0 F) d7 N" Kbe treated as 7 s.5 {' d. K  o( w/ i; T
' n9 B" c, s+ D8 x. B# N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ [' t% c9 t* j$ Ostill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
- B# y0 K4 _$ t! w/ _impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 S4 H8 I. U$ W) s! |3 E& t3 |/ vAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 Y# y  [7 V4 H! B/ Y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 H8 W* E" p* s8 Q9 l0 `7 N# R
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an  Q" `: p$ v. c  W5 A) H2 f( X
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ @# L" `/ z4 a$ J
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”3 |2 V+ d8 v0 K" k
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound., `" x  F$ h, c2 i8 a

: |( O4 H. b1 _& n% LThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
- r4 Z, m( [- {) {" s9 b( Rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in" |, O  J; Z1 x5 O. Z$ f6 C
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so% O! h+ q* [2 O+ F( T  ]
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 W+ ?, B1 n/ nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s; ?1 n: }( G% s0 Q
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
" `. y( Y% b. h, ~; c2 t# Z1 xFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
& L! c+ ~' s  \" Ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other0 |5 h8 N+ S5 u3 d7 i8 ^/ v
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle5 K/ v  t9 B* j* d" d# f
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this4 |) D- m, g, P+ e3 r! M% W
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 ^% d) B( U8 ^  c( v0 X# z3 cfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 }1 H; I$ Z/ W" i- y+ l8 s, P# f* Lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting7 A0 _& J" _. G
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ M3 ^( Q6 u& r, f; rimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." _$ I9 u) k) D; C1 O" h; G) W
; Y1 N9 j7 A2 Q3 g- i
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ {# `, K, D# a: ~
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 b1 n' N! O6 z+ l; R* n8 b3 ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
% e8 `. C) j/ B! |$ K( v( _), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns2 Z, D6 `" Q9 ?. y0 P- T% V
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,$ c$ [3 f1 u9 u" E6 @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind  _& M" E% j+ ^# H  M
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
- T# s& `' n1 O8 l2 G6 Q7 [' Rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in  g# g6 ?3 t9 v6 f8 j
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science. o) z3 p, \1 R7 M" Y1 b
works.
# M, {( ?' u' f' d4 v2 X  h! L+ q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
$ H( x2 ^5 e  K3 C* T$ Yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" ]) Q& X6 {8 F: G# l
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
  J$ a9 W) x; G2 ^+ v% D6 l' n6 Gstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 M  n; O) I5 J! l# hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
& B! j4 @4 s6 u% @+ Lreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
+ ]9 @3 c( \5 H& k7 Q5 Hcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* o! H* s! ^1 ]0 ~2 _4 o
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
4 \& D7 V( a: y8 n8 tto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 w5 i4 J* S  G. _" ^is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is7 J$ C, X6 b) L% s
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 J$ H3 _+ U$ y8 d& j; ywrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: F& u; ^2 G! ?1 C/ d0 N/ a1 g3 R$ u
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 m( g* W7 B  L$ j
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
+ _+ }1 [9 N- M3 t8 {; S+ I" R- Luse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 S2 d- m4 j. ^. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 B0 z/ n9 L' K5 E) Z2 i8 p6 qdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may% A1 R5 |7 E( A7 _0 _: M
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
) a/ L  ]7 }9 V- O4 d; `, ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
/ a8 J% [3 [& _+ Q0 V+ x8 u) bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
7 H  {9 n1 c6 o$ gdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 o( j( C% Z5 t2 w* v, Q! N5 o( T( G
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 a2 L8 v  e; y% y" q5 x; V
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, k# o1 l1 l* x# K
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: y* C# @7 v- p  U6 T/ y9 Yathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 T$ `  i. B$ U! ?. G9 ~/ Y
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 w. x: w2 h/ `
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( B" l6 d) C! w, _# s3 y0 n$ ~agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
) v3 d+ H$ X& B4 C/ Eeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
/ y) K" c/ ~6 fInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?1 ?1 @/ H" O( F1 h7 ~

% b* s( N5 Y. ?: ^Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
7 C6 f& t: H3 _# M; K- L" Acompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
9 n' Y" f! p. ], h# C# E# ~. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, h8 [& i1 s4 u  K7 `Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
3 [( f, x/ }: Z/ B1 HOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
( P6 b. q3 P# z" ~doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic% G; i* q, Z  D" _: x
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope9 ]. k0 S: _7 _: D* x
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- q6 g, t, ]7 S7 a& J' p( ?
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this- a* E3 K8 A3 }# y# H6 s
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 r5 t. Q+ @0 j4 O& v3 W

( B  @. S9 G  z" a8 [7 F8 ROver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ s5 V6 P: a% s5 P# xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: D8 Y" y, ~9 p. K9 K
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 B5 K2 Z7 y4 M4 a
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide% g/ _3 D  U7 P& p
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( }) S; ]$ U: u$ G  iinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 V4 A$ J# U, ^' c4 k; a: A
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% s( _1 F4 _' F0 s" e+ Eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' r5 V, u, |. S) f' r1 a
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or# ~: N" X: l; M9 _5 O
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, 2025-12-15 06:05 , Processed in 0.197566 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