埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2067|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 ! L) b$ @9 n5 b, S- {; N+ B

/ J: h  ~  l. T% x7 K* F% ~( P: \饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
) m' W' B5 y/ h/ P; |5 z就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。* _4 t$ J( W2 A. }1 ?8 W# F
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。3 Q) G7 a/ {. L2 B

8 O* N1 M& N8 _: B) G) qhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html" I* c5 R( T6 J3 e$ d. g

4 T7 k$ D& T. H( V致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选# B$ A. w; G0 L: s  I+ W7 X

; H& X( T7 ~6 X3 F7 U& y英文原信附后,大意如下:# a" D$ ^" m9 H& I- T* b

! l: _; j, B8 A( \* q3 Q7 A斐尔,
7 ~  t6 n/ Q; U7 k       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
  q7 J7 H3 m! S& t% [email的人里面小部分也给我来信。. x* a2 `  M  F  ~/ ^3 j( C
       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! R0 S; J. j: j$ V* H+ U1 A$ 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
  }8 H$ M( {/ t- 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。
0 D- _( Q" t; F$ W0 X6 }       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6 R1 o4 g4 z6 f
弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
9 \4 k7 Y8 J0 V; `6 E6 ]* x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/ g* f" m7 R# O; r  ^" Q" T2 B
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。
0 t5 Y9 }( @. i       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
( ^! \8 ~  Q* K& J,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
' z3 c/ y$ R+ F" ~- p3 `/ {”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( \( W, h+ j2 H; j8 D" V9 \       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 D4 Q/ ?3 e% {$ i. D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
% j: Y0 m. a. ^8 A! |,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- n  h" _: c% X, g+ m* m* @       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
# I# ~* g2 y' ?1 P9 K' h2011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' _% Y6 s6 B9 X
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
4 c/ U# i' S& ^1 g8 a4 w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" \7 }! J6 Y  q+ t. @
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
* @# Y# v- P* U' E7 q- a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
9 C' f( v% I2 P# v9 `/ L4 i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 @5 f# K( Z$ w。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
7 r$ r1 X6 b( v录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。2 s$ ^, S8 X1 G  D9 ]' h% m- V
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
& K0 [7 i6 ^, o+ O# X; W# A1》,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
: }2 Y& [6 v# ?0 @6 Z; }% ?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4 H  `3 K# d/ U
同意见的专家。
4 N& G+ ?" l! G. z, J2 t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9 b: ?0 o  P! ]) X9 p9 z+ 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3 H! b7 [3 e- m$ y" 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$ \  O: D' p0 Q3 O- }
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
$ J, y5 i2 R4 FCallaway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)
$ c8 \$ s: [, X! C( Y3 E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% p! x: D0 U& m( e6 N+ G
《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' J2 S2 r. t. ]( r- s/ E( r
这些被Callaway忽略。  c6 V2 \  C& H3 C/ x4 X
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, C7 z* {9 I' }7 Q5 A% a! C
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
- l9 T1 f* X$ q. B9 Y. H  p6 A: b教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. |4 X+ v4 U6 e0 q6 l
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& }2 w& P$ h0 A  v% 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3 h* ?" U# H5 {9 K
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& M5 C" j8 B7 j2 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。2 i% m) {/ P3 Z3 N- }
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% {' K5 u. w) g' ^3 X9 {+ Q! n, I
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
: B. K& f& R  e2 w8 M) N! k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
1 F! u+ H3 l7 [. H6 g”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( J9 P5 L5 B5 a5 o1 s: Q' w6 ?
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
2 F& Y& l" w- m7 I. \弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问3 j! U4 B% y8 m5 z6 Q6 U
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
" H0 j* f; A( _. l. a& W: ?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7 E$ M9 v% [5 ]& R) N
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9 F; S: \% {4 J2 ~
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。9 ~* S2 a7 `1 l! s$ |
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。; h6 I# x# {6 G9 D! ^

7 n! w0 @  Q! Q
1 m6 y5 s# |- u; w& X5 Y北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅- F; `: U& B* k+ k- s0 Y
2 B  ~, ]5 p  S( I. A6 Q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
, @  \4 R+ R5 a7 _3 [$ a) G5 t附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email* j- U# f& ?; t& M
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
+ m# Z  @  n5 l6 L" l. H1 T/ c* |附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见7 U' C7 X; l/ M, \# g) i( J' ~
4 y5 d' t+ O2 g7 U& L. x8 b

3 v: v: J/ k. H' S) V+ {$ B6 h" N+ f2 m5 e# J& H, q, c( w
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
# }' X3 n" k! \+ _8 iDear Phil,  _+ n4 G: H: ?/ F" X5 c2 f4 m
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s# R, f) e( m, ~: W
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) m9 O8 q& m! |& R$ Dhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; m0 w1 T0 `4 o( Yyou.
* v. m4 a3 Z/ S       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have# o; H8 n0 E7 c* Z0 w- A
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
) v/ W2 r& r+ V4 r" t7 U- _" areaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
( d+ A. Y) E/ g; W3 }$ c3 Uworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
7 H8 h, C( k4 P5 L0 r, Vpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 Q% ]3 V) @9 u/ O4 p0 x. l
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
' U2 U- y8 ^3 S5 ?: ^7 a3 |0 ipieces much more than the regular Western news media would.0 `3 e6 q9 R2 {! x( x
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the9 M7 A+ q4 ^- ^9 G  {- G
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a3 ?( S( x7 @  ^# I, {
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
4 f+ {. X0 b. l, s. @+ B) Gthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
; d9 J4 G9 D$ q+ xdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping/ T8 g2 k" {. u
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
: ^1 F1 q- l; V2 T8 Y7 Gstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,, [0 h! w8 s  W1 O. J( e& v
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone! e% B# Q, x+ F1 P& g( f, w: d9 j
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news- I$ x* v& N8 L2 L
reporting.7 {8 ?/ J9 |% M
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
% H# J+ V& y7 `. r/ M3 Ualready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
- N: Y- P- W) S& Achanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 v' [. X' p2 r: Z9 s4 d" u
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A# s7 n4 \! Z( i' H  O
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 \/ {) A6 z2 I
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: }6 B/ Z, n  j. i2 [) G# ]6 K
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
4 E- O) {! G; o% Y# I# dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50! }  ?0 {8 M0 v& D. w0 r7 B/ G6 C
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
: _* d+ F3 S5 o9 S- C3 aevent for men, with the second fastest record.. k0 }9 i3 t5 d% `/ a
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye$ n9 H' X8 {6 q" R5 ?% H8 e
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
4 {5 i" p* ]4 v  t' q, T& Byear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" P9 o  O* X8 @) k. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
7 ?( e8 F. _8 P) I2 y* N3 @3 Y! imeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
! T: q$ C2 h0 X5 C, ~7 K+ {for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* p' `1 Z9 x6 K: P) u5 p0 }
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
4 y& E4 l( P, W3 V* o- @behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the9 }& Q& U5 a- b# V% v8 v
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower3 M6 _8 p1 [8 T7 ~# i' u% p' L2 o
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than) d$ v7 l) A9 T9 w
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was% E+ k& f" [9 w- a$ i' N
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 E: x  h7 ]/ d+ a$ T( Qhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
! P& H( d) U; A2 x# Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
4 z) J1 V& J8 h0 Nswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
) v6 n' T: j- F, f. R' C2 lteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
6 \8 _) W9 Y5 sCallaway report.9 u, v$ i! U3 {& A
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
' D. q2 K5 a' m" z9 S. Lunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
( |7 z% K( N% }% Uhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description7 A5 Z- d: I, o- @6 k! C# `
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been; W; H2 a- h" s* E+ H
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
+ O( u# P/ r1 h2 t6 S3 zWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
  \4 K& e7 Z+ _+ N$ tpublicly voiced different opinions.
. Z+ l  }; p, E' t6 H( U8 ]- iYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
; ^' ~4 G. m& c. y# J/ X7 K/ q: Mfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
7 j2 \8 s: z/ k2 p- u+ |" _0 pNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
6 V' w( D1 u$ ?* F, zpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds3 Y* A8 S" a  a; r6 L# j, w
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
% O& v0 f. M$ k. o9 h' Jof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: F" s7 T& i% T
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think$ C% J6 Q# p4 n' E9 Y
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
, k! [/ ^7 F5 Rhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as0 s; B2 `) ~0 A" e3 I/ V9 F
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that7 O% Y6 X. v' ^* s5 b  {0 n
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ H* A: `! c- w! X7 j
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& Z  I+ a+ s, }% \' u" r& b! jOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that  \4 e# z9 a6 |
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
! `0 ?* L$ y; I$ B" m2 E, C$ [3 }Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June! G% T. e8 V6 g0 @  j9 A, l
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she8 E* C+ W, Z  A& {- C) x
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.- l+ i) @9 L# Q5 j& n
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
# ]9 }& x. H9 yand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, s, ~6 r. U5 \. G
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
9 A# z' y  I. ]( }8 |% x, U/ w! f3 [Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and4 \& L/ N' Z2 f
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature. {0 l+ R3 k2 A+ D
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to1 b3 }% b: r/ f  J! p
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.7 x. A+ f; A6 A6 ]
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ b( Z, @5 P1 j/ l4 E( s' e' S
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced8 W" O. `& `9 c& p/ z% h7 p- Z
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
: h; `8 c$ G- U. p, ], tfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
& ^+ Z; c! f+ [. d4 B8 uthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”, Z. z" K2 _% r  J7 s
about British supremacy.
7 X4 }9 s+ y/ c' }3 S' M0 a0 T/ ^6 I0 t- VThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many6 }2 N: N3 h) A5 ~7 F
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
1 j# x  m+ H" D( X5 k; @* F% f7 bChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
  H" A5 k" A+ ~2 N8 G! Lour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London9 W# Y( W5 |8 H/ y! g3 d- S
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
3 B3 g" A0 X- r. J# _/ Z( y+ \Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) `2 f( n# C+ A- X4 K/ j! R+ _professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
/ I( c2 ~+ U7 f( kbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,0 T# D! L- W8 t: Q: F  W
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
; l& X: k" f  g0 J! ?) qpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like( }2 N1 X5 m9 m
Nature.3 I$ r1 i2 z; N2 k0 L# D, {
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance! d4 C4 I- i9 P: J% u9 W! h( Y
the Callaway report.; Z  H( D# T) C1 q9 ]# t2 T; V/ \2 q

; a" ]3 ^5 i# UYi
7 A9 L& d" C8 F: j
/ v  U0 g$ t; E* J* Z( R/ a0 JYi Rao, Ph.D.
% x. a. }2 K4 l- F; |0 nProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
9 f, q4 k6 S$ yBeijing, China
$ i) e) o# g+ {9 d( 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
/ O; m) _2 U' F" {6 F原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

# u5 L/ Q4 o- a原文是公开信。
" n6 x* E- m5 Z3 T. [* s7 b
" `2 f+ i& N5 [! e! g; V. f8 M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
2 ]- G6 @9 B* _1 B原文是公开信。4 r$ `) \+ O9 m

3 ^$ S7 ?7 g1 X$ I. E* {0 \. {小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

, `% H0 E& g4 L5 ~; k$ M谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
# E2 r& V1 q) T3 ~如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。% A8 g. Q, d" g# `$ J
/ Q% ~7 M' _, Z0 E
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html2 D6 k# q1 K# D7 |7 q5 ?7 o  _

/ r% K& _" w# h& D- WFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: I- v2 {2 e* o  P

. @* Q/ V0 L# k- D/ QIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself$ H4 A, e! I* P9 U, r6 ~8 J
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 e5 |. u' X* V* \
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" N5 U- W3 m6 s5 D
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the, o3 q& X: D( O9 ^5 U
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
3 a* B6 M# J/ r4 q$ g0 G9 Spopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ F9 n7 v7 }2 P% A- C% r5 @7 Z" L3 E
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
* p5 P- N4 \. \$ l0 K+ Kwhich they blatantly failed to do.* s8 h/ c9 E" f& i4 v$ t

, a5 q+ r2 J$ v& r5 FFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her6 B8 Z: I7 c/ s, K% ?2 f
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- `0 e/ S; W+ V8 F2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “# r% T3 z/ @/ A
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
. b6 M: R; w. `7 i5 Z. U* Z7 V* Fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ k! `9 g' K+ h* n& W. Rimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the1 A# d/ W' u+ Y# e0 n5 Z1 r3 ]: E
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
4 _, |: V, F' T+ ~+ `be treated as 7 s.  C8 i, c* M( `& g: j1 |; P
$ f1 Q- H0 L  I/ x
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
% E* A" F0 `4 Z  U2 p. I" r; P+ Xstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem9 W8 ~' R7 e# A) Y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
  l# S1 x/ L; L# \5 n% l3 uAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 I- L4 l$ P2 q8 h' L! E-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." M$ [7 }# F$ o4 C- e
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
5 W, d- f! ?, [9 @; t% N( H5 R1 j" Xelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
3 @4 J  u. Z/ D* `9 ]. w! Jpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' T. a; t4 L) K7 _
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 r9 V: Y7 j3 T
- O7 O( s8 G+ c
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
9 e) E. G$ i+ p; g% h0 |* b' vexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ ]+ G- M6 H" l' B+ b/ }; m4 [the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. R4 z* R' M) F  l' u4 i( Yhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later8 v4 }. ]: E* ]6 P
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s5 U# V# c# F7 h" ]. e+ Y
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# O% Y6 _0 B1 C: c' B# }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
: N" h! h5 s. G) Wtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other% \7 I& [! t# G3 \, O
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle1 P1 X' `3 p2 B9 B' F3 l) B* H
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this: O" e& ]2 Y0 @1 I8 o
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds3 J2 P' ^3 E$ }* x8 Q! p+ ]
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
% ^' S( R2 J+ V" U2 A% a* l5 ~( Hfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 T- r9 v; M9 F$ h* L& K
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 q* D: H& l$ Z% ~$ w3 d) ]
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; F/ F/ [" `, l
: e+ p, V  p5 gFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ r) B  U- R4 G1 ~+ h& _* m% @; H; Qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
& \$ C" _6 Q* b* v1 zs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
, q2 ^$ U9 n5 z% E), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* P; K/ F, i. Y
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
4 _# |& E- T1 _) b& s3 GLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 J- b4 w3 R" v& `. Eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 N6 S' N1 ?$ r; G0 f" L4 W
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" C2 Y* a. f7 L9 _every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science9 M4 w! ?9 z. G- ]3 t' J! G
works.
0 a5 T! `0 I, d+ |  [2 {; t- k0 j1 j5 u5 _) j8 U
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! x( n$ G" \/ ~3 e1 Y' z* X( H
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this+ |; `0 U1 X* r* d' B7 v; x' }2 R
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 U$ `5 C) ^4 N! A# `% K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- ]/ g& o# ?3 O' ~) [" s9 Qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
: r, f) \# k1 f2 j* {. m. Y- Rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; _9 s! E) X6 U0 m( }- tcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
- U4 e5 \8 ^& U; B2 u7 idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: K7 b5 D4 z( Q5 V
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* W; e2 Z: \! g- g" M4 r# m
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 {: [$ C7 N" L! I! ^
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ T) ~( H+ ?* P; @0 n1 H
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 l. q' e& t! V. c, z" Aadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: n% l* a% f3 A  C9 g
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
: F/ R4 E1 ^) l0 g/ h9 I; \5 nuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
3 x4 ]$ e* f. [, ]9 i3 T' U. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
0 G& p2 ?* c0 ^5 Fdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may9 M) @5 w5 A) g, ^4 I  r" P
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a+ Q9 r6 a! j/ t. W
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye9 f& i( `! A* p! {
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- D9 b3 @/ ]4 N( U* {+ x8 f5 v/ I, Y
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:5 c3 F5 ~( s4 \# q
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. C4 v7 a% K6 p8 H4 b
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is# W' h! W9 q) \2 [  K- s2 ^
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an# ?* `& U- @# ~" _4 {
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( P* e: U) G/ |7 `$ y: u/ [
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?, H  l! H& Z5 }$ A! [+ n
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 m# b" @: B1 Y- r2 k) ?agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 S7 @$ \- T, M5 I+ [
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 R" r4 x( S- A7 J+ j. h
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
; Y9 d6 d6 e* m9 F' o$ H
7 P) ^- u/ U5 A9 W. U+ y$ s' h9 _Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 z8 b& x) c! k" g( k% n
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention; q- f3 t' R2 P: I
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for) Z% J9 H5 l4 }5 x; S9 y, D
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
$ a- p: N8 O% N- l/ w$ n: LOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for7 O) n' @+ r8 l0 N1 m3 p) c2 ?
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 Y) ?4 a9 N7 y5 s; D2 K+ c& lgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope9 b, t; `0 i) [) G; J1 ]) h6 c. ]. Q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 o  j9 R' S9 ]0 b7 N
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 a& e2 R. N3 d$ O# mpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 X1 ?% R! m. \; ]
& N  Q7 N8 P2 [* H( y7 ?. [Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 e4 U; d" a7 X" [+ tintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too; r3 W. N  F, i+ {
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
2 U4 q! M& J6 Q9 R$ M1 Y9 ~* Asuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; }, @1 J8 {: W/ ~8 Z5 Tall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 [8 q. q5 `, \* [/ o
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,0 R3 }" c' c) t7 W6 @
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
* M& G4 V4 G8 p# ]( S5 y6 Hargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, c$ |2 Q$ v& V% `* nsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& e  C' X2 T: Z- [- y, P) g
reporting should be done.
大型搬家
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-2-24 22:01 , Processed in 0.170764 second(s), 21 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