埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2057|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 * V5 G/ f) D0 F. D0 f5 h
) ]6 O- }/ o4 L$ v, E# s
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。9 @3 W) W6 ], u! ~/ S( G' F
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。
3 `( @- x) L4 Q6 j; J) L- k总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! N; x  H' M# F! u! f  J% T/ L, r% E8 p; [0 `
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: B! X% R& B; P% d( `$ d9 ]( }' L, ^
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
! V5 U3 b1 p9 T# j. t3 N
! v3 _" h9 o' X' f  C5 M英文原信附后,大意如下:
8 R; I: X6 \. A  L9 D* p' W- L: ?* s9 g6 s
斐尔,
) p8 U% c& X8 \7 j: Y5 ]3 w. W: ^/ S       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( Z: w( z3 ?6 u6 D* a% G
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
2 d; b2 S( q9 q7 d, X" B  k       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+ i5 B% _2 e3 B6 X* V) z
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: v, g* `8 |5 c! U
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。% k7 J# A4 h6 k
       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
2 Z. ~! {+ q' C* ]1 X" a" ^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& H. O8 h/ l  Y% ~, R
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5 T5 l  D4 [; Y  v  q1 ^
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。' ?- ~5 W  z7 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
3 i' _& t) ]" L& E- ?& 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9 r/ V; F7 e9 _: s/ d
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
8 Y/ A" P+ {& [+ {       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
& M" I5 f, x  G+ i. L7 R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: r& ?; m, [% Q% w
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
( s2 g  u5 F% G# {' Y/ Q+ c2 f, @4 v       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( x: x5 u0 h+ \6 Z+ ?2 L+ y  L
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
5 |7 y6 H! N5 k, l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
; b, {! o2 G  ?: x- D' @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* i1 G7 o) Q$ b, [+ F& m
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 P8 t" L! {8 Z! x2 p6 V* `) O2 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* ^8 p5 J) J' A8 P7 s, 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9 H# [/ G8 w5 K. L" u1 x* D$ o3 ^9 K
。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
2 ]( {8 _9 }; y' ?. h- L1 @录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; Q% ~. C6 p( O) f7 z还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件2 i. n6 z8 v8 c0 \0 U- y
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! L( _9 j9 `. ^- H, \$ m& |8 `/ n
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
- p# |  P) `* l8 e8 o同意见的专家。
/ ]" o! _( o$ W; H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/ T' n+ ?& ]6 l3 i% G6 N
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
* u7 s  `4 I  L, t! h; t' 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) q; v: R  t( e
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。1 ^/ z+ j4 Q4 P+ X
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)3 d' d& L* r, R0 x/ R+ J  D
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
9 @) u6 ^1 m5 G1 R) h$ K6 {0 }《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- t7 n0 t& j, C) v4 U: k
这些被Callaway忽略。
6 w0 G/ y5 _' R# M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7 w1 g3 S; [+ }5 H# P  r) n9 I
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% a7 N, Q, `% t6 b  s/ N% v
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
/ ^# ^& U% S% U! B; Q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
" Z1 Z  z: G) R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
$ L- v* [7 D5 W% ]: M. X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
1 U5 u2 \7 y) d- m) |) H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。" Y+ C. u; u# B. @
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
. @) s8 ]0 B* j$ j- G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
1 n3 y. M$ Q2 v( 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
$ d( X' ]7 E8 H" h( n+ q”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
0 b4 @" T: c' h/ Z  g# 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' j/ r: I' ?0 T2 ^4 c# [. v5 g
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7 O) x6 _/ @. |1 v6 X3 g% p
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* |) X& V, X9 c1 A) r) \
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
: n3 R# ?& o- M; Y3 f测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染
8 \% M( C  \$ z- h6 p7 r而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: C" c$ C5 b1 H* @
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 o, j/ O+ ?+ j' ]# C
6 u' K- U* i. U# C6 r1 c, I. `- r; ?6 K$ k) h. r* Q
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
( Y: V8 `  x* W: C' A- L5 e1 z' L9 n" M# ]1 z
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结! Y1 X" Q* t/ k8 p, h
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email" K! m' P6 ~! H6 q4 }% t
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见7 X1 l5 M7 j3 s
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见4 @4 F: j" N% k
# M* n( M; U& `: @/ Y% }* \6 y
8 d0 z/ B3 U2 Z, G4 m
' v/ L, O: j% t6 K+ l& ~
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& U( o+ z3 `9 s8 }) I( @
Dear Phil,
( L7 l, ?0 h0 A- g2 ]       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
8 m6 e# ?7 Y) j& A! Y- l% Xreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
* W$ y+ T0 }, a. q# Ohours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
) K5 G. E; U4 Y' U. Z) f! E; Cyou.2 D( q8 J4 [8 h& v, L9 I
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( J5 e$ L# k1 T' R  P+ Q; c2 Rbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese- d% F$ g9 ]& T( J2 `
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the/ {. }: ]8 c1 }# o" s
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature/ }1 n5 X. m0 P- K* m
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
7 T$ a* [, y+ G) ?seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news8 ?4 Q! D! o( [! l7 N
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
# F" M& A+ p, U: m, y3 V+ h       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the0 i; ?' R; y6 v4 y+ o
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
$ W/ P# n; o) i- }5 y0 L3 Hnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish. T# L, v' F# ~5 R
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
) S) m& U1 _/ x0 d, `, `3 jdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping5 y2 ^. b9 T3 U( \8 I: Y
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
8 e# D1 `% B& R6 I  L* |standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; O. U5 C% P5 |& j( M4 S
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone/ o( E( t: P$ L9 ]8 H
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news4 m- L2 [6 c: V9 X& L3 U8 @
reporting.
/ d3 V  P: k0 [' M. q1 u' |6 _       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
/ z$ x; @8 H' i( {- yalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 H! W. s. C  H- N: ?* j! ichanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in1 t' \! b7 }7 M: X* B
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
8 z6 N1 M" L4 W2 k$ [( c0 @3 Upresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.# f. P4 a& {0 Q8 {: P4 i8 b' _
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem9 K4 M; S/ b( W) b: e: \
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds- D1 C3 q, H2 ~7 f+ E# d/ {- A
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
+ p$ }5 l6 @2 p& d- Wmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
5 n7 z) U8 r; |2 y2 t  ~event for men, with the second fastest record.
: A. \9 |+ w; f: d: m- ]$ A" U       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye, O4 G" @- Q/ p9 ]  |
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 167 C! N# S- V' T5 P7 [3 e& o
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
+ ~' j% f% w% `1 v& B. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, z, h  ^$ a8 z' m0 }9 ~5 y$ K1 Y- n" K
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,: N* N5 ~" g' o/ b: J
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
# `; C2 P8 e5 O& m. c' ]Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed3 \3 w% W. o1 b* B. v, F+ x9 [$ f
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& n; z" @' [! `( \; g' @% Nindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
2 l) p) r6 \$ E  f- dthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than. U2 B- b5 D4 @: L' K- E
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
, ~5 O$ |1 r( ?. r& aher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. i) B, }' z( C. T; n
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “/ @9 t8 [9 t$ @/ T0 o/ z
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other4 E+ y# d8 Z; M: ?) p3 S
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
  J8 u/ F6 C, A5 Xteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
. i! i" Z/ V2 l: TCallaway report.# _' m, Y9 l: ^, c0 d
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more( I5 Y. @: F" w& }6 `0 o
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
5 `& P4 w7 ^8 Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description3 {" P; X$ S+ J
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
' O9 V. L, s( ~9 B% E" {3 xbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the+ e+ H6 ^8 @) K4 Q/ k8 ?! I0 j
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
: M" I4 |7 B* r2 m; z5 u% apublicly voiced different opinions.6 J% s, o% J2 o5 ]; Y/ i
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 P4 L7 e  U4 p, D
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
: I# ]5 z0 D4 Y8 s0 x# pNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
& k; i* P4 ?# Y( }1 y. T- f& I! [postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds2 v  F2 H* A9 ^
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 n  y. ~  W6 g: }) J! n) ^' B6 M
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.+ j% y/ k0 _4 J% w  X8 Y; M- a1 A
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
$ }% M$ E5 r! `1 s1 l4 Ythat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They! A5 z' N0 {# P) v4 X
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
& Y4 ^/ B3 ]; y! |8 dAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that% i* ~4 H0 I; |+ A0 X
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was. m# f2 L8 ?- e$ q# w9 i9 H; a6 J
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.1 A2 u9 T% L% p. h1 _) N
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
4 q" f2 k& d2 p+ f& O4 M8 B0 u* lmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
& v& G% A( e0 ^( b6 D8 n7 a& g' V4 bChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June2 z8 x& t% d* a( d# n7 o* D
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
. i$ k& a! F; V% [/ s5 wand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.: z- M/ x/ C/ T" G4 w  A
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science+ g$ p$ h$ y3 M* V0 \
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; v( f' T; Z. }$ A' g4 c4 g
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.) p( ~0 g6 z8 N: H* q$ a! {
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and- \- i- e) d+ P3 G# E, S9 {5 @
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# B$ {& w7 j9 c, g1 e# e* @  ?1 ywhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to9 {. {, K; h8 V& g
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
3 u; L# Q; ]$ R- t! _' {( O! `The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
! R# l6 R* d3 K, ]/ \# j# eshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 |- s: D, Q/ I! w3 Z9 u
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather7 F' D9 y) v. c2 W; H
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that: }, N+ ]& [( f% M7 T( V+ F* g. b
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
3 W0 k) J6 Y. _$ Vabout British supremacy.
% _& C* G1 C0 U" z1 mThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many, f2 s$ E$ U% C( D& g3 G
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more+ {( V" p- M9 Y( y
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
- |$ ?6 c! E( X& Mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
  X: C& U( l! d1 C7 B5 e/ wOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.# N5 Y" S' Z4 _- V
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of" G& A" |! q% f. m/ `0 H
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests5 j% Q- s) e' [& X" L
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
$ }+ h5 u1 V. V$ h; `; sit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
) x- j- A4 p4 m8 Y, x- k1 _publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
( x  Y  Y" c7 u# D& _4 PNature.1 v7 K! X9 i8 Z8 o$ ]7 l
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
" I' L1 v7 A+ Z1 Jthe Callaway report.& J# Q5 s5 z" p: O5 n
" `1 ]% a# G* ?7 b
Yi1 |. B/ h$ u! x- f+ R

/ Q; o3 u# O1 d4 e# B7 x, dYi Rao, Ph.D.5 M( H% Y) F/ w1 i, X3 s; U
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences- @5 R3 m0 [; h
Beijing, China
, x/ P. C0 z- t- R" 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!!!
理袁律师事务所
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
) I/ K" Y5 D5 H' a; _) h* O- i原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
; Y, o! h3 Z6 v# T
原文是公开信。
* m& S. U* ]0 W7 c7 U2 g% D3 `) V. e( \* a
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
5 B5 k0 v; _( w7 ~- ?原文是公开信。
1 q1 W- p; |% }8 N. r: C- ]
; {; I: L! x( A# c. n3 i! f- H小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
5 e4 P; g2 P$ v/ Y8 r
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
7 M4 ]* J$ b& e8 o4 \) s4 G: d$ j如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' {, T+ \4 I: ?% t
2 @1 [+ Z# a. w; Lhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
- V$ Y/ y8 ]" ]8 {7 l0 u3 k$ L, w3 X2 B+ i  s, o
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: w1 P) S! E3 A* s$ v: a7 M* t- V

& X) o4 B% V: J& W' d+ Q, [" f0 v0 xIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ S& I  u* p5 m' z0 s& g, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( G7 w3 _7 \# m5 D. H) ~magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) m' E+ i  C5 s, f1 a) U* ?
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the# ^; p" _, T- G- ]) d4 |. U
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
5 J" A& |* t$ p* p: Apopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; }. `" q8 W3 A% h% F+ V6 Q1 m  ]
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,9 m- K% s% {6 J2 t3 R4 e/ V8 X
which they blatantly failed to do.$ b" Q) K; O) i* V7 V* o  I/ b8 Y* g. @
% B9 S7 G3 Y9 z* Y5 y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ l; F- }8 ?% b* L" T# u* B6 `Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
: J/ F: f. k4 s' w: P8 [! |2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
) w3 K/ r1 y. S' s7 j( s3 Aanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous$ C. B! e+ M. C# T; [- c
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
0 _8 C1 r) a" `2 {improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; f( M# g3 F: n5 cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
1 u& v) j/ V8 o4 ibe treated as 7 s.
& h# E5 w/ q# |+ e
! a( C8 O, p. I2 FSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" k; h  ]- d* q( y# q, Z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
# b3 G& U- j  v1 r. m( ]impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
; [# P) U- V( S4 QAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4009 j/ s: C( s+ X" \2 j$ m6 k. _
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.6 M% p$ R# w6 n+ A4 M
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an$ A, D( e. ?" B6 c, A$ @7 b, j* }
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
$ G# w+ |! i- T8 `# N, Ipersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
1 u8 W4 I/ r& dbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ J" t9 u0 W8 `  p0 i3 M/ h
: W! n* b, a+ H+ _6 o5 k. a) ^& n
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 U# j" u7 D, B, x# f
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in: j, ]# }' |8 e3 l
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so) _/ N5 }; y0 R9 j  a) y, h# f
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later. w5 Q% h. I9 G. m, K
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
1 D; [' L$ e3 Y9 S/ b8 Mbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
: F$ G/ q) M/ r) y& {* X8 `Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
- g+ p5 l& S( [8 Rtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 t- d/ N. A) K5 W, [( uhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle1 \& A6 B- c7 k% _2 D
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this5 O1 i' k1 V' g
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( i. h& S' G. K% r4 d9 y# ?$ x" Xfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
4 Z! T- }2 A1 t9 S; f( x2 Tfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 W" a2 G5 p% P: j1 b8 faside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
; y" t) L6 N, S- {2 q' [implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.6 `. H+ u) g2 B

3 E2 t3 U: y# C1 }Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
6 N1 i+ J1 ~5 Z! D( ~6 W# Rfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
& f5 v) b4 O: e* T& R5 W* o* {8 g4 ^s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
) a# t% ~& g( {9 `) h5 p) S; I- @), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. @1 o# A. }! t, s( H( wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
6 y3 r! L+ ]4 z+ MLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
9 H' U, i. J7 ]7 C% ]8 ^of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 w/ m. s6 m/ ?" B, a
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* j6 V7 @4 n% v* E, h8 i$ J; Uevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science/ W& l; g  ]9 M$ D/ z, |( T7 o* ]; ~
works.9 |4 p# r. V; s7 S- K

: S7 ]9 m* `; a- DFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
4 z' ~3 X/ c9 q* A# ~, kimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! d& Y0 e2 q1 m0 F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( s( A1 ]! l5 s/ sstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; \+ y) k4 \2 |3 j5 [
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
' ^8 l% z* N! J( f+ Jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 s. d. l4 |1 {* x) ]  Wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ ~) z4 _* O$ R  D1 a8 O  c
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
4 R0 ^* Q9 c) ?3 A5 B" x8 Ito a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
7 K' b( S- d' y6 lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
5 x$ x# s. J, `crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& a* H/ F+ f7 P) @' z& xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' L% U( H+ p' T+ z5 m
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: V9 }$ h& t# N) u! {8 o
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not' J1 B8 w5 E3 _5 r' m
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation4 u; l8 p4 K, _
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are2 A4 F0 g0 k; B
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
* q7 ^' [% _' Q6 ?, I0 w$ `be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a# V( P% f/ M6 g) |
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% J& ?$ E* ], C7 e# h$ Y
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a/ X. ^3 F' ~+ C( Y  i+ x
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- ]. a( ?8 ?/ O5 l  S! Yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect$ m# F, }2 z' i2 s
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
& E2 X" S% h! I* \5 W5 Zprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
) a$ }: u# g  M. Q9 t' Wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 i7 R) b1 j- A9 ~# ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
5 o* _0 h+ ?' wLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
5 g. ~9 E- Y* p/ V5 d. J2 lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
( Z2 A6 L# }# h9 Ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
( D0 x! U" K% q9 J1 m/ S/ I. }" _/ \Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. R+ r7 g4 I/ d
; B% c8 Y: o3 w1 x* S2 b
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* b4 K: v& p, h9 i( N1 `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 n' \+ N. s7 C: A: D2 ]" A: M6 d
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
& g3 D+ Q; ~' L6 X0 l" h6 KOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 f5 F+ E  W  u: s
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for1 K, M+ m' ]- X/ e2 t7 Q% d0 U, `
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 @! J* G2 v- O" V: e! g. [games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope$ U, X, r& V6 d
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a# h1 U, B5 w) j7 S5 q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
! e6 ^, T- x2 i& w" ~possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' ]+ o/ O2 I+ W$ Z
/ K0 ~8 @  I0 A, j' i0 p; ?2 ?Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 F6 R5 c3 }* C3 u5 sintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
- X9 u* [0 a- c! y. L; Osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 \2 C9 o* P* s5 }' }4 @) r, M: r
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ F, ]8 b0 i$ j$ b9 P5 }: j' Z
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- x, N5 E( C; B1 R( S" `' a/ iinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,! v& T6 D/ e" e4 r+ a+ r- C' F+ [6 ]
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your( m2 P( P5 p3 z% q0 V
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 v; o& T! ~6 p" i
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
  W1 {: f8 B1 u8 r) preporting should be done.
理袁律师事务所
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, 2026-2-21 05:49 , Processed in 0.117189 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