埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1944|回复: 9

高水平的驳斥

[复制链接]
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
发表于 2012-8-4 09:48 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
6 C: Z& K$ f$ p) b- C# b: k* q( p6 I) n; i6 u$ P: C
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
6 q% n1 L& J+ Y- }: \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。
; ?& J+ A* k1 u7 w总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
% ]  F6 {, n8 T# F& _7 `# F8 N; t2 J
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; _; H+ x# ]" E3 Z/ o+ F% [. T4 z! B: K
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
: d4 A* Z2 X' B, _. B3 `3 @+ v7 e8 V; @' X( n* G
英文原信附后,大意如下:
! f% r: e4 o( J2 t$ k) {' v1 g; A$ {) T
斐尔,' E0 `$ h9 f& \1 v2 ?3 d) K2 p
       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8 j7 r4 s0 H; e1 A  h+ q
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。* }/ s5 ^5 T; q- U( F) Q$ B
       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
) n4 F0 O$ ?8 s8 A* b6 ^# r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
) z: j2 c, R! O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。4 A! b7 y) r! A7 n
       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* |! f2 _" z$ z
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
0 K; J. ^+ h) d) j) Q% I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7 W9 \/ [4 \2 {+ ~
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。  }! C+ b& S. O% w/ j  ~
       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9 ]$ o+ V/ d. O3 ^" o
,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 _2 Z2 }' E$ s1 [4 f, Q, O: \
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
- |1 }8 ^% l( Q: ~5 c       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, s& {2 g1 m# e* X& 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! v2 C3 z2 }# x/ |; ]1 j
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。) |- M! m8 z: P
       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 F! P: n2 D' ?, i2011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
+ I* O" [' E- ?5 u/ e# J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" k: D6 d  G7 s4 {8 K
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8 u$ \; m/ a" [# T1 r
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
* ]  F+ }3 C  u" R" W" J' G$ a! H2 l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
1 B3 p* P8 c3 y1 x# ]( {0 {- a项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目* B/ u2 c, M3 e( y! e) X6 d
。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
" ]0 f. s& u0 c. e* Q) [录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ z9 ~% I& P3 k
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
. i, S! i4 U% U" L; {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
) [& f; u8 `& V3 S* |$ D; I/ MWikipedia。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
$ C5 \# \: n: C2 A- j" d同意见的专家。& v9 B+ P9 w1 L& a* b
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
$ I0 F& f3 Y: ]8 L5 P5 J- c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
) p4 r0 A; t4 O+ ?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3 c7 X1 l5 g. Z
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。5 C, w$ S" v- ]* z  {9 i
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)& r2 [' L) R1 Q2 Q9 `* Q
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
6 l3 Z4 B; h5 Q% _《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
! z7 `4 V7 q2 Z5 ^3 z/ }9 S这些被Callaway忽略。
  _& x) @% A9 K& E) f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
( }5 f5 X- \5 m; R$ C" c( I/ t- ?" \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
* ^' o7 c( o8 A/ D教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。+ M8 Q8 z# q5 f) d. f+ M0 L1 b# ~( e
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3 d; L; M; c; P5 `6 i; 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$ `5 P+ i( j, g5 n/ P+ [5 v
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
( A) R( X' d& j: P, U9 d9 T+ m+ ]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。2 J8 W7 N) C. b0 f
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
: K* {- X2 i3 f" `  H( u6 T  T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
/ C1 p5 }# b1 U代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问7 o& M2 B$ R" h, i& M
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
5 {6 k$ X* u) m9 K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5 d2 v8 {. h0 I/ ?0 m' M0 d) 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. M! E7 J" q$ ?( x0 @
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
! z4 M; m4 Y$ \* H% \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+ R! q( {! I! P/ M
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0 q, h& Z( R& ^/ P) P0 @0 p2 ~3 ~
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。& [& k+ M- C/ Q" H7 l8 {5 K
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。! h- G2 ~" R0 ^" V  `1 z9 K

. B* X% g: a& C! m/ A# c% b$ f% I: q9 D
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
9 c9 e6 ~: ~9 S9 W" S# N+ g: u) R% K, u" w  [+ q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结1 B. J' a4 Z; V1 ]: Y
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email2 X$ Z$ W* E& D( Y8 H
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见) a) F! ?$ M. e' Z+ x/ K3 `1 m3 \
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
, ^- G. U6 y+ H
- _3 t; t+ d  I% X" S) W% k3 S
9 g* K/ F4 A, p  W2 @& Y& x6 I- }; X  j" }# r# w) \
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)8 O1 o8 @/ d9 f4 k7 b6 u3 i
Dear Phil,
% }( X& e/ j3 b5 m2 p       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( g; }# R$ v4 G6 q7 t% Dreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 200 H& z8 m! [: W# C8 ^# d
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed; C  z" t8 _% l8 C
you.: q+ u7 Q3 f, U! B3 \9 M& O
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
8 s+ J, N5 n0 F2 _brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' q+ o+ @5 }4 v$ c; E$ ]9 S& j
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
/ y+ y  ?# j/ t6 N! T# H+ G3 Zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
( `% S2 u/ L3 R+ npublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
+ z4 r- Q& j" Q$ k% C% }seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 ?0 {  E% c! Y& k) _
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.! W1 Q# n4 L6 m8 [
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
6 ]% r8 o' i4 [worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a7 l9 o8 y9 t9 l/ h7 I' b
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: p" m! H, z3 s) ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 {: [4 G- G' w- c' x
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping2 h' h0 Q8 b% d7 U+ b5 G. o% o4 v
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal7 Y8 d9 y; o* ?$ t8 Y
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,+ e0 [. W+ E4 Z4 p: j  v. B4 b. E) @
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 }; Y) r: d# ]3 u1 W
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
: ~( b4 M8 U. l$ n2 u6 [reporting.( [' i) f+ t+ e8 y) U
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! T% I4 }4 D# c' ]already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
+ O3 d! \1 x* Z8 v, X0 `; }$ ochanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
, N6 b* w% r7 x0 U$ [3 N+ jsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
! }6 h0 {( O+ z3 i5 {presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.2 Z& s( z5 p" r# c3 Y+ B- K, Z
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem* `( Y6 {* _% p( c- k) w3 ^% I$ \6 ^" _
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
0 h! @3 G2 @9 W$ j" ifaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
9 G! j) x! F9 [" x  U! M$ U5 ^: `meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
9 }! J, s4 r; vevent for men, with the second fastest record.
9 Y9 U% ?3 c; a3 J       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
( ]6 \2 K) I- y) H1 [; `was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
7 e( {+ C5 U6 Q5 r! y  A0 Jyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record5 K. ~# G/ U5 M7 A/ b% c' O* Q
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
" ]) l& X, B' D3 U2 E8 y- l' Kmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,4 n- K8 t2 }+ G7 K4 ^
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than: J- K& y7 ^8 Y% }
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed! N, |+ {2 u  I- g( F
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
/ N# n* C$ L- n3 M; G- Jindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower* a! {& b: W1 ?$ t+ |! ]% j4 \
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than9 v' Y( A; s$ P: [# j' ^! c1 a8 S
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 [  l; Y1 D. S$ I6 |8 g# P$ i
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
. t: g; f5 v8 v+ B2 ]# Dhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
2 z3 k; |: X0 h; \$ G& ^problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
, y; Z5 K: P8 S$ o8 _: sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
) I4 q( v. p) b' [7 F4 steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the9 x) g# U; ?6 _8 @* E
Callaway report.' v3 n. J, i( m
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more( V: x; w& X0 N* B4 G
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
' y" Y, Q8 {3 g$ bhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
( A" |" ~* A! H: |  }$ }2 p" Tof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
' w( s8 \  H  K1 ]# r, n4 Ibetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 r! Z% ?- y7 c: h1 c( x
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
5 V9 E/ R* f$ @9 bpublicly voiced different opinions.
; t/ u# O' o( S% Z3 e! [You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! A) z# c1 j8 X) c1 Q. j
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
; d* }8 g, m% D6 D. |$ @. e0 w# JNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
5 A; P  L+ T& N9 u3 ?# g& p& ^postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
  z% R# j* M7 ?* yyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
  L- R1 _- ?; [& Gof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.  U4 c1 ]4 @- L+ A  Z( d- X, u
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
6 E: M9 t1 q8 |+ N3 q) Y6 T. w: Pthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
  r/ }# E- k' ~have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 H& O0 O% _# F% z5 ?. q7 Z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
+ J3 T0 r6 N. s% u6 U9 U0 ~the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was7 u' C8 w- E; I/ U
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.3 |- j6 c# A8 k4 _: g# G) V2 ~! z
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. i; {9 j) ^3 W, T8 A- j& a% |  Kmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
1 J! a7 {9 y/ Z* m$ D& UChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 ?2 v  U4 q. M) k) ?
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she2 @+ o2 j3 \( Q& B0 ~
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
) v" p& t% x% M, z3 TThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
% x9 }  M! u) g; S/ x" ?2 Y% band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* b( f$ U1 G0 M, r- T' R8 `$ ]
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
, I: K' I9 V1 r' YNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and4 Q/ [. J# x  p& ?- K+ |" }
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature' z) y, j4 R4 P# b9 d  F/ J
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
$ h) {/ {; S& ]) Y" trepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
/ D: v& T6 \& c; `1 hThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not1 v3 {/ Z, p4 @: V+ o
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
/ H1 P4 k7 z# D' H: @# Dus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
! t' o8 `/ L9 o2 G" G5 a$ Xfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
0 a* y' Q) @& f' Q7 D' W# pthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
& E. p  t9 U. i- ^9 Rabout British supremacy.
1 P. I: B/ M' G$ h! hThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
/ ^. }: C4 S- x- v$ B6 Aunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more0 }4 i" f  a9 {4 t3 M% F0 c0 u
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by. L& n. @  P( h1 n& d, ?
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
! H, ^( n1 _. ^, ]2 v" _7 sOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.# f. {; ?/ ?) B6 o5 [/ q
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of6 e2 x# k' J: N# V8 ~4 ?1 G9 g
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests( M/ r' U7 G3 R: ?) g/ G  B
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ c- H1 @- r+ H) a) Z
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly$ p4 j% }% U/ ~, Y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
5 u& ]8 f! f7 E, \9 P: K0 ?Nature.
% d- n2 t# u' `' X" VI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
+ m" K5 O, J$ d/ W5 [the Callaway report.
$ U% x; `: j7 k! Q5 R2 R
+ v" f6 Q& ?) GYi3 M" t- m$ G6 F# ]* B! ]
7 J" }" y8 _9 L4 w3 c8 r5 i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.; c. M7 V. Z& ?! |! v; \2 @9 H0 L
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
0 ~: `% j5 X' D3 G6 F- r$ @2 _+ g' DBeijing, China
! P5 F6 _8 l  K3 ~" i5 F
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
. t5 s4 T# a: Z* o* t1 e原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
! v/ Z/ U8 A! P8 s( G" ?5 U, H3 v1 ~
原文是公开信。
- G4 q/ x9 O! X8 ^/ X3 A3 I7 i: C/ D, E9 J2 ~
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 6 t# |! ?& }* m. i( _/ H* e
原文是公开信。  J; J' ~: c' r
6 _3 x7 d0 v: M3 p9 Z( e
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
# l& r6 Q  A' r) a) l
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
. ^3 v+ U$ b% q* q+ _如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
. t$ m0 `) }: M5 z- F1 {. d4 o. A( x' S7 f  \' i
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: u4 F. _- Q/ \" ~4 o9 v: E$ H2 F

7 B3 {6 _5 N" l* B" C& L& m# g, z6 rFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
) D; e1 |0 w0 ^) r5 A( w6 l) i: J2 E9 Y/ Z+ j
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 _9 c# r& S- c0 ]8 `8 _8 G, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. Q6 B1 N" @( j; g
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ o1 h# {9 m% b/ V
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ f0 d% f: F& wscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
& M, M3 Y' V4 I  a* V7 k  ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors8 X" M* {6 }* `) j
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, ?% R2 F0 v7 r" `+ V+ [which they blatantly failed to do.
) G5 W4 z' r' X" `8 P0 F+ }* X' g9 v- f: [! n4 t: K+ o' @: Z9 \
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ O% D: y# P' `. pOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in# e+ ?8 g- g" G$ {( h8 u, M1 X
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" s- ?( e' I9 f7 W7 l8 f* P
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
+ [1 g7 \- B8 M1 b# w9 E' q& ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 U: _% M0 |6 m4 i
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# ~, {2 B0 D3 j% H% Qdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
, ^% l% f# x: Dbe treated as 7 s.
5 O  e% o7 g4 ]; m) y
. ^" U5 l$ o" t5 C! y4 x2 }* ySecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is; K4 K2 G6 u, ~" p( K4 R7 v* U
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem. N- t2 Z4 A" o3 N- j' g. K
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
0 I1 c" M# p" d! W  u- QAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400: D" O: Q0 c+ o' |
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& M% ]% d# ?% [0 a8 a/ xFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
  e& I9 F2 u$ Eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% L/ J0 [5 f9 }1 a
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 L1 `) `. q( y1 Bbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.( P. V. x" H  E9 t  \# f# p7 T
! n& A8 }% f/ ?3 k
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
) L' k- f1 M  c, _9 Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 V! D  d/ k# i. _
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* d6 |$ W5 {2 v& y1 V' _' Qhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later$ p  N; J0 I8 L5 g  R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
' w% M0 y0 i& Ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
% ~* W! D) {# \+ _5 d4 L+ zFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 A! v5 X1 |) ]topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( T/ m+ T1 r1 P6 C' {5 N% L6 ?  |
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
( w& G, ^2 r' @2 |: G, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this& f+ P4 P9 Y- B( f( U9 V7 C% h
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. {* F, g0 U1 f
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
4 o8 b( j3 F+ R) i& b* E# m3 Efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 _- q; _3 e' R/ p1 z; _3 b0 aaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that0 g8 Y! d5 q) B7 G, \
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.1 [# g3 d) T; Y  }, B$ B1 M& W

  g; S) L+ V' U/ @) RFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
6 l9 z9 {9 x, mfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
" ?# [, W7 O- V: Ls) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s2 N9 ?$ j5 y! S
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- d3 ~6 c4 B6 Q/ A$ u7 `out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,/ _3 C& n! F( D6 F
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
' m' ~1 |! q  V; x- E; b5 uof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it- R! y( M' F0 d% [. m
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) J# T6 u# H+ {  V, bevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
9 ]/ u1 b, `; [1 v, |- E- [works.3 k6 W8 {* L* U# u

- ~" O  M  Q. j1 PFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, i% ?2 A# ?8 M; F+ n
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this0 S1 [% j+ E1 x9 p. y& w) Q4 A
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that8 X! ^3 E3 ?2 }- x2 {
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
& E2 G3 i' a2 c4 S8 Q3 w  E0 [. Bpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and" J$ X, m( w- S; S9 j' D
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ h. p/ ~: |$ c- k) w# Q0 Hcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ Y1 a5 U8 Y( r/ M/ N6 _
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works$ E/ z# j2 D+ K+ d+ G2 y
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ |7 F$ |* O+ G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; Q7 n: ^2 E0 u
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
0 X# ^  S, E+ K  u7 Xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
! S% ?& E% @8 W' F& Q. Badvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the1 d9 T1 @0 G) K
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 H6 `4 A; h' V( X
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
8 L. D7 F& y. w* ]9 e. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 M& l0 h2 ]9 k
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* o+ o5 n: }1 \$ f9 W
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# Q* f+ X1 H8 W. j# Y$ Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 M6 W6 f# o' C2 {
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a0 \0 Z# S2 z. r" p* c& }" y
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ {" H( A& A1 @other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 H8 G  s2 D7 o* X6 i! K& L9 w
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 E9 g1 p" }: S& h* \! J0 `2 x8 V
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
7 W3 D. u% ]8 d0 M/ E# D/ gathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
1 G1 a8 J% J( |8 e3 ?! \0 Pchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
, j: M. @9 s& Z! q8 j  yLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
* g- c  Q. W+ wagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
  v% w* Z* v9 Z3 e9 xeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
$ k" z. g; [9 ?# W2 aInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
9 T5 B& S  W5 l; ]) X( c( d+ [9 ~3 U6 d4 H" l
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-$ t0 o- V* Q8 z# d7 c- Y
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention& R. a* y# n/ q! Z9 v3 o
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. @$ j7 s9 j' F$ n6 Z' kOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London, {6 M, p8 k2 Q/ E) o$ y" p3 m
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" s% R4 M$ @9 ldoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; _% s3 V& ]5 n+ L& N7 K% W$ ]
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope+ Q! v, u6 h! D4 g1 z# z* B* x) _; S, v
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a; k# ~; R1 E; v. i# l
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
8 e1 g: x0 u) Lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.( ~( I) `2 f7 j+ B$ B" a1 M
# j# D9 M: q' [0 I& n* W( x
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ Z' j8 G3 \  F3 Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too  ~0 t/ [8 Z& a) H
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a: P( o9 Z" S3 k" _
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
: l5 a/ W0 p7 L- u' Eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your" z# h# q3 o' J1 h" p
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
6 V5 v) Z5 x7 j2 w4 C" _/ oexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- c% |8 H! r" x  _1 W
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, G4 Y$ E; B$ _# Qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
5 t; q" i4 j. I3 nreporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-1-19 09:12 , Processed in 0.203962 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