埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1893|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
5 r8 r# }) ]" L5 K# G
1 b- N' E8 _  ?3 x饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。9 Y$ J! ^5 |+ P' [; X8 n( 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。
( @, q' a4 B1 a8 _3 g" q0 D" z总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 J- ]" @8 g  [1 P& |# e$ b3 O3 K% q
! j- b3 r, }. Y$ ]4 ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html* Q/ `" H8 H: {& k/ w' l% b0 ^* x
' B. z# `3 ]& c% y9 b  \$ f
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选+ A# O2 E* S) J! W* `# g+ s
! h3 z! O: Y5 b
英文原信附后,大意如下:
3 k: ^% H& l8 p  p
" h( J& c3 R2 s斐尔,3 l5 x% V# t. K9 L9 Y- U. w5 z
       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
  K& O0 r- H' b: E. Femail的人里面小部分也给我来信。, j; o; h* @! @6 B& i1 M
       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: z3 e- H4 T9 @7 k# i+ L+ g4 v
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
. E& I& P4 a9 y/ |. f1 }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。1 J% [0 ]& w1 X- a
       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
$ |+ o* r. v7 R8 N& }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. J+ D8 S; n  i9 i0 Y
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/ L" I; n5 y3 T9 ?
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。% z/ x/ x% t3 d# l/ ^
       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; c  Z& [& ^3 l/ Z: P7 y" c
,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
6 k, U$ H4 a9 K# T4 G$ }”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ r: [6 m4 U+ g       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$ g, H8 x9 u$ R' d$ T
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& o* H* N& m" V2 @
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 m' T2 l' B1 K, S7 N
       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& |: J, i+ I2 ]
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- Q0 m) f( e. f+ ~% {# k
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
+ Z6 F! O9 H; Q0 X5 x. `/ {4 ^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
/ t% x* e$ q4 g300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
- m4 F( ~+ T. ]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  |/ J: e9 k6 n  o; _3 S6 D- [" s
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& Q# X0 ]# R# p8 R6 F, ~0 Y
。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( @! b- W' o* A
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
7 y6 u9 @# N2 ]# [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% W3 o) d+ R1 d3 T% w& q% `6 `
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
! w! r! r3 P4 rWikipedia。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8 ]7 ~& Q/ U4 u1 ~, E0 M5 ^  v
同意见的专家。! ~- d9 x# }3 n1 L7 d
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6 Z, q5 t7 K, _! l
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
9 o0 A6 h- |# w1 g% c2 j  ~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, ~; F! h) m, E5 I+ e
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
+ u3 t* r% [; U( M; tCallaway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)
6 H$ @3 Y2 \1 l# Z2 e) B7 M  ~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
- {4 f! m$ E& v( d《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+ ]& r/ v% V) H  Z/ U3 G
这些被Callaway忽略。0 D) x7 h1 G- a% A. |2 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
0 X. m) ^  S2 p; X7 R! u/ H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
$ U4 j/ I8 }, F3 q+ x5 |教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。& {; T/ ?! L; B! Y6 C
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
/ F% Z! J4 Z+ ^5 D8 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
9 w& y6 m8 q; ~1 W& Q3 x, J& b6 I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
' {: {# U3 @( k; l) Q# }3 [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。
& \# s3 I2 {# [! Y' U" f2 R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 e# W2 O/ I' C
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
5 @9 f! [7 W& j3 ?( 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
: J: m1 D' L  U& {”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。6 k7 }: M1 r4 G' o& a/ T& ^
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+ |! U) P  J3 ^, Q; y1 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
) P6 a, Q3 j- F" v0 {! {6 V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
- W( `" K4 R% f! A, ?, B3 J4 ?9 @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9 ^6 c+ V2 W# `9 W
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
& g8 l! Z- Z, g, T% @而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。% u( U- _8 m0 w& S3 p
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
! C6 s' P5 m7 m7 }1 h* v: c5 v5 \* {
; _! o" l. s% {, f6 G
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅0 c$ G0 t8 ]8 O" w: _/ d7 L
" v3 i, r7 h) T5 d, u: F  n
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
1 k3 Z/ f  A! f2 S2 J0 J; }9 d附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email. y* e% F0 Y. W# ^6 G  e3 J/ V
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见8 b: h4 j# x5 v* C* ^4 x1 O1 G
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 q" |. e( f) Q8 F% @, a! h% S  q/ C; X

1 T" i2 d+ O3 P! g8 a4 `/ B5 E7 ~0 l& t! U4 v- N  B1 F
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 m  N2 [& Y1 N+ e# Z  x, vDear Phil,
, X7 x5 o+ r! Y, Q2 f       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s7 Q3 }0 S* `' U3 Y4 E" W; n
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 P4 B( u, n/ U% Xhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
2 w1 n, d- q7 ~+ m- Uyou.
' @; Z* Q7 a% s" M       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
' `0 }3 g9 _3 A! h$ k& vbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese  o9 d% u0 Q1 L1 B
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
& C0 q0 i/ z$ a7 u( F& m2 v. tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature( I" @8 J0 E, J1 }$ R6 W
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
8 O  ]2 l/ p! {- {2 O' Sseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news, t. {6 B; p) L
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
, ^4 }4 |3 j: ?( l) t2 ^0 A       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
# |+ N5 W  y) g+ ~worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
, e& Y: }" |' Knegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish! x1 f. ?: w* [, H
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
  j# B& u& s# }' n1 R5 edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping; Y* _7 s) x" c( o: A
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal" v" V/ ^! J6 B: x" ]
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,' x9 \# }5 [: I8 h$ }2 g2 ^8 [. U8 S
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone. j( X! n9 `# f  G& `8 ]+ \4 N
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
# K- W) {$ u, K) y" j/ Preporting.( U1 B# V0 k5 z8 H3 k
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
2 ?! z/ O) X* a( x  `0 T6 ~already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by: @* D4 F7 a! C  X
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 w$ x/ z. K0 V
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ D% g7 p. V+ G- c; npresumption of cheating has changed to doubts./ a- {( u% J* {5 a" Z6 }! p
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 u. V1 g7 G7 A- h/ Q% f1 gmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
& V- V1 \# }0 G3 T6 tfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50  P: `! u6 m5 |0 [% [$ h' q
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same" L% Q2 n+ T6 r/ r( F0 }
event for men, with the second fastest record.
, `( Z* n3 w2 c* l3 ?       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
: v9 U6 l! ]) ?$ k2 m: Mwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 162 Q0 [7 {+ x5 p4 k
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 j+ P# \. o3 Y+ K. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. }; }1 O0 G, N/ r# Mmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
( e2 y5 f, O* j" j3 i6 Ffor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than$ M" m8 P. v, D8 E' {7 A( m( Z
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed4 F3 v0 `5 x. P8 P% N* u* I( Z
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
$ _( H7 K, e/ Q6 Bindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
! F0 b: b7 V- u9 g. B( d. [$ tthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than$ f& l: b, [$ @2 w
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
9 p" ^2 o, ?* G3 ^  h8 a0 I& b6 Xher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
4 q5 I. ~) [: }- t( E3 lhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “! |* C6 x- {" `. P9 k8 F( c" n( B7 B
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
, t! q. [6 G% p: f4 dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the! A, Y  N5 o9 |0 t: p2 i
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the9 y% A4 h, w, w- j! O
Callaway report.8 H9 E& `5 z2 {1 q5 ?1 q/ M+ @2 w
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more) r5 U, ]! z) G1 e/ O' R
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ m) [8 n. T7 }. M( @here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' I0 }) g* U( {- M+ K) Xof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been& @( f6 C' a; b+ b. R/ ?% s
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
1 [! ]# |4 u9 u! LWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had0 f% {# {# S5 F: n. D
publicly voiced different opinions.
2 M. c3 f5 W+ AYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD4 r5 L1 f! Y7 r4 e+ c# s; K
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
( a( i0 p/ s6 f, f) q4 yNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' R6 {! ?% m. r4 I9 I+ Y! [
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
2 K: F6 c6 p! U' ~you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy% G% B) V& z( B8 j& w0 ^& X! `
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.& g8 u3 D$ j9 k" _; A2 e
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
9 z" O; A0 F8 w7 v0 cthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They5 M9 E; _0 k1 R
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as& y3 e+ }( E- R1 ]$ f' z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
0 k3 c: C  D; d9 {& `the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was  i) X* Q! L0 T2 ^" m* B% y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
7 u+ F- ]% @0 Q9 qOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that" f% N9 I) j+ a- w
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the7 u- O/ P4 }# ~, h
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
/ j) U  p  m, L4 n, ?9 Q* L( J(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
  s8 w" m# {* f5 Vand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.9 F$ N, |8 g# Q# p& t; e- t' H4 k5 y6 z
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
$ L  {1 B/ g6 b' Xand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
$ J, U& P+ v  L% B  A; ]Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
1 Z+ v1 C2 ^; q/ g) f' aNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
2 I' q: @* O. robjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- ]3 M6 `9 `4 w; D) c' ?what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
' J' w: A! p; yrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
# x, _* |7 u% }( w6 b: ZThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not7 N0 k6 e( I+ l  B3 c# H
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
- a" g$ y' W9 s# u1 f- m: {us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather0 ]2 k) U; J2 v& f
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
! L; ?" k8 G2 zthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”) n4 G  a% @4 t3 }) s- ]
about British supremacy.
* ~  c& v9 t. AThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) J5 C2 l  Y$ y* y3 B6 S$ j3 ^unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more$ B7 h$ {  x# ~! ]- w$ z
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by" |! ^0 r# ~, {* M, t6 `
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 o7 }5 \$ z% z  c" u, POlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
+ G  r0 Z, s5 F3 G6 sYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
$ u" U5 O6 Q, \2 A( vprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests& r7 p2 q! C: J4 Z5 b& |
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
+ j+ S  O. {  a' b: c9 E4 bit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
% `4 j. [. \3 G/ opublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like0 P8 m" B3 ~3 i! d. i0 t
Nature.2 O7 y  h( s1 `* F  f) p- F
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
9 h& \+ Q* y+ k- A% I0 p5 bthe Callaway report.
+ K; E1 z  q( u5 U6 s/ A* g/ b2 w; p( Y- _
Yi
4 ]# p! _) T; l3 N# L+ I: I) ~5 T6 Z' T' p4 ~2 d5 E
Yi Rao, Ph.D.. Q" n  H  Y" }$ r! |6 J+ s
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
1 _' c/ K  H0 [2 |. Z2 dBeijing, China, X+ D, u4 L9 s; e; A2 G. R
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
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?
理袁律师事务所
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
+ R- o+ f% X& Z; K7 g原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

# N0 v) U" n& }$ F3 c- O2 v原文是公开信。3 `6 b" w# a" }
. _. f5 J9 y8 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
6 m$ I/ o4 C, t& t+ [原文是公开信。  P; x' C- F, b# z
3 p# M9 r6 a. Z& z
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
/ t, A) T9 ^2 `/ {/ R1 j: N
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
" p* c' B. \2 }9 q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ s$ E8 P) a1 ]0 d* A0 A" s* |+ V9 f  H4 M- a9 b; q" }4 }
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
; w5 j8 A" [# }$ A( A0 H- v
* N3 _7 y- |% K! C- KFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& r/ ~* I4 Q) X5 t5 H

" h2 E$ l7 K! _$ j2 vIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
+ [( E. y; M. e9 q3 O3 g: D, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ N0 q6 y1 `& @$ x( x3 J, m; `
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% W0 k/ ~7 l+ H
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" h9 x/ t; f6 i+ A8 Z# Oscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
& t4 F" ~% A. l$ G1 H! bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors! z$ V1 X2 ?( y  r) `3 `
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ A9 p3 X4 h/ M* Xwhich they blatantly failed to do.
" f3 K7 X# U) h6 A. x( G7 s! ~# R: o5 g/ S$ Q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
# _5 l% K9 k# B$ [) f0 V0 M( ZOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
3 Z& i4 _; J7 S$ @/ `* ]# E: z. P2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “3 @  ]: h1 V) [, Y1 @% o8 W
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
# {- m* [0 H6 |personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
9 \' z7 y- ^1 r! O( ^' Kimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
& W. a8 B2 Q5 g# C3 hdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 J' _- O. V6 o; ^' X& W0 _
be treated as 7 s.+ ~6 y2 x1 d/ Z0 j
* |! s; K6 {. p* U4 \- M+ T8 t
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- w6 e* [6 T' \2 y5 astill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% s  B; A1 e4 T' y: t9 Y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.+ K& _- o5 z5 B. \$ p! }# m: D7 G
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
" |' I! [7 @9 a+ p- B6 I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
0 W. }) H% `8 W: I' W0 Q  jFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
6 H3 I+ {4 b( }$ M& oelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
; p9 J' `; w" {1 a$ [. Apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”: d5 {. c' i7 w, V- f8 O2 ~# F! v
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! v& M) d7 x; {8 L& d& m! D1 r0 X

5 p* C; q6 i# Y: o2 v. U0 m5 LThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. Q( D" x& @3 q! _' p+ C
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 _. F' N0 |, x* S9 A. ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so: x" n7 q+ Z3 Q0 Q4 R3 s
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) q  u& x2 i: A0 D5 W7 ]events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
, j, ?2 f' }; }8 @/ S6 B9 Pbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World% C, p" Y' @3 l1 S' P4 x$ Z
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another1 m+ ^% O! w7 L
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other1 w# ^& @+ B! n- d
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle2 I  q0 c. I; j- }  q' j/ Q
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 _' j+ W9 s& f, U. }( lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds, T# n/ S2 `+ i$ r
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 ?/ P9 p" J- t! a. f& kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
& p" W) X1 e6 {5 T/ d0 kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 F) I9 x2 f, ?9 iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 ~3 A- Z3 m7 _! h4 k. d9 ~3 ]0 d' Q+ k* T
- ]: f$ r! v* s  @3 r3 }Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ o; w; ~" b0 U4 o( h  |7 M
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93, E$ y" Z# k% a# q" z
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s; x$ F: B; m+ n+ g
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns  i2 W0 `, ?/ h- h4 \
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,  }& M, T. ?% l% k9 n
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; y5 i& B7 z" _
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
, o: p: M% u5 Z( h5 u" ylogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" E$ ]0 |: D) S% t1 N+ s7 pevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) P3 f, K  I" P& eworks.9 X3 O+ W  E6 I. C2 g& K- G

4 v, R& F, I: b  G5 _' ^Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' L7 a! K% `) D9 \3 A  j) h4 p& vimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
. v4 o$ \, H( [* E% ?9 \kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that: S. b9 R; `6 D5 x6 a8 G
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 u. I0 [) ?) J5 Q1 j  [papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
9 c# h' }. E7 J! ^9 n8 ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- z7 Z: ^0 W( M: y0 n3 D) w. B) Y' y% F* V, xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; G9 Q% ^; r  }! O% \/ c8 zdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
9 J+ s* S7 n0 g( a7 Q; Nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample; @* P" q" s2 K$ T! v# \
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 X, r& U. [& j* i* ~0 W! gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! m! L& S, ^3 _6 ^1 k' e" S0 cwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
. ]5 ~3 \2 D5 i9 radvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the6 h# J1 A2 f* a4 J
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
' r7 ?$ S  S0 P5 r! B) |/ _use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
- e0 r" ?8 ~7 u4 F  U4 A& U. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 z* q( f+ A. a' A/ {+ E
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may8 c/ Y( s3 c- ]
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 Y. v$ n7 J3 q; I9 K5 r) ?1 hhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye- t- S6 r1 A$ O* t7 Q8 P
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& V- M( g3 v7 E4 F4 V; z% q7 W9 Y* V
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* L$ n3 K% S! q* S' D
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
( n* P& S& a; ?3 L9 s6 c  y, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
. z$ }. N9 w' A7 {! h" n0 Oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an/ l+ b" u2 u! s& }2 O# h5 }
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight( Q- d, H0 h* l* s; j0 X7 z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 N2 D3 ^' D8 g" X1 Q# q, LLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! Z. @/ k1 _% F4 s& p' r& o5 h- T0 S* e9 E
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for, U3 d$ A) ?; C) g; S& G& G' w
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 h9 ?) D$ G( A
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?# {0 e3 M6 K* R( o* h

9 `) J6 E( K$ {- N8 I; n3 `9 gSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
" Y! f8 k9 ^" D0 y6 pcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention) P( c% i9 O1 w% [; N
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& [! v" P4 k3 b2 v1 x) R, P
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
6 J/ R! Z$ B9 I4 BOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for7 j# H6 n8 B; F* h
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ \7 @5 r8 f, }8 l4 egames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
" L0 b$ l4 \' ^have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
4 z8 _) y2 t/ s3 G! S1 ?player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this. H  |, q7 t; ?( `; Q" _1 q
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.: D5 R& _) f9 A# ]1 n" {5 u

7 s& V6 @7 i. \+ A+ M0 bOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 C% X7 |3 M; ?& y0 |intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
% k$ N+ N, v( P) w/ Rsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ c0 H" D7 N8 n! j9 C% P6 P+ B
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 P' S+ F7 i. `# i, n  c  N  k% ?
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 B3 R# d, v# ?3 A( Q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
2 m% m4 S7 m! q9 O% }: M0 P9 D5 dexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- @: s' d1 ?2 q% E! p2 P
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 h& s1 c$ C% `, K$ a* c
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or$ a7 i7 K0 S$ @0 n; S% Z
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!
大型搬家
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, 2025-12-17 16:41 , Processed in 0.180855 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