埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2158|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 , f* i0 A1 ^& {) n# }7 x' @

! ?3 k+ P: v# c) A/ U, A饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! e8 F3 B) i, c: c5 y4 C  u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。
6 W. X, C8 p  n$ z总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
  f! l. H5 w; g' k" `# z# n. M, Y2 g# y5 e: l/ K& Q9 v
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ l9 s3 Y" s8 e
( c6 f+ u7 w" @. H; I$ X+ h
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ Y1 j5 l  \4 Q3 o7 a3 U
( r: H! X5 D7 H( `+ e0 r英文原信附后,大意如下:
% m/ R' d  ]" _( V2 m# N8 W7 G9 d0 Q
斐尔,
5 _) v9 {0 t5 E/ a; i6 E       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
" O' q8 ?3 Y' c# semail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
, _" b+ q. ]- \7 }4 \. y' x       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% b9 k; a- Q! x8 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# [: ~& V3 g) S4 b3 s+ R) k
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。
( K0 B0 O6 _8 J/ l" Z' g       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' X3 i: l4 {; K; c; L' ~
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
) g1 ?* u! b& N/ ^' Z- a* ~4 `+ b1 l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
) E$ P! g4 g% u5 o, y) ^& {  {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。
/ e  b' g  k6 d. E       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
+ d% Y* Z. b7 S  D0 H. s,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' r$ B* v* t* d+ `5 K' y
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 i3 N6 X2 c+ W, ]/ @2 U       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
* N6 u- C2 o6 F. a+ h% r# 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
* g# i* Y  P0 V9 _" l  l,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 T- K. v* a7 H
       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于" P. u% A' N2 U; ^( P
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+ H: v2 [" [( V! 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: X. `4 l0 u' U4 J- F
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
; ~* k$ r4 R5 e. p300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
" s5 q: b4 C  H2 m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
* ]% O% y$ J; g3 g4 e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
, p, k; K2 T2 _# N9 S% S$ X( ]。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 ^% K& s% Y5 T5 U( s/ m录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
4 f& I  B$ b8 |7 W  d7 q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
7 X: o& H3 t* ^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% @- C8 [- S. @, F: _. [
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
0 t3 k# l) h  s& J同意见的专家。& t- [2 V& C+ _# x. b" ~% v7 |
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
$ X; N. L( p% s# M: E+ ?2 m7 k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 U4 y$ I4 A3 ]$ w: 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 G: i. q* x6 o0 m! P% q
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
) d# F$ K' p/ c! UCallaway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)
) N( ^) R; W5 W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
+ {/ Q( o! n3 ?6 M+ _0 l《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  X0 v3 w( p8 }2 R2 Q. t9 [
这些被Callaway忽略。0 a. O- \/ i  z. z% W, E
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4 }  c: ?- H9 K8 ?& t2 u
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  T" E6 ~4 ^' K+ P
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
& i* G) ~2 m( e* I- g& h: I8 N$ }: r$ J0 {0 p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, `' m0 F0 i- J- E
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) w) \' @6 U. 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
  G; X: T! N8 Y' m2 D* i- a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。" F  g, H; }  S$ s/ d3 p- W
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
1 d" v' X' Y9 F& Q) d* B  d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
: H' n* y* n- W5 T/ ?/ j( H# O6 ]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
9 I4 }; Y( n5 S' f; V. N”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: `+ T1 F$ f( x! o
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
9 j2 V6 X4 E" W6 \; [$ @( N' q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
5 J  d# G" N8 q7 U! K. m5 l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6 {/ u4 A1 {" W1 D
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4 t6 D: K# d. f) u) `
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- p% g7 f- d; q
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
7 |$ y; Z. M" H, ~3 e5 v+ K+ Q我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: Q. ?' ]$ t2 Z  g
( m6 v3 X! H3 o

, @* a2 x3 i& ^+ V& N- `. @2 |* |北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
, P* o& \, C- ?3 D
7 Q* F' S+ Z: C附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
& H. @! e+ W: q$ V2 z2 [附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
9 N0 A/ S* G9 Y0 o8 U: ^/ s' u附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见* j3 `$ J: x4 m6 T, y6 D
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# _& E- l) P2 T; d  I5 {6 c7 {
7 U5 Y# `8 s2 f; Z7 l& d: g/ }( F2 c
3 B2 [/ V9 ^( y  J" @* `$ V9 r
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)" N& j8 t6 X" `3 M1 t8 S3 A  s
Dear Phil,! b+ X6 X9 `' L$ [  v. }
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
' c0 l) @/ z7 s+ x4 N( C6 M7 H4 Areport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20$ L+ n9 I" e* D
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed; n! m( E$ y* T. h6 `! {
you.
" g( a5 B5 I- W; c9 `" k2 y       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
% {$ _7 ~6 p3 fbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese9 E" l- t+ [5 X  }# |/ p. }" m
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the/ g$ [% M8 B) y/ V9 ^
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature" i0 e* h+ X$ c
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more( k1 b4 B5 g. p% d6 u" a
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news! j7 M" u/ G1 ^% z! Q
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
: k" z* w0 @3 `       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
- ^0 _: P  |- P; {2 m5 nworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
  ^) h" r! U2 Knegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
6 r5 o) C. w4 {- \, q  Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 `  v/ y' L) w" L  A/ n7 U0 X' s
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping* _& Y/ o! H( s: e1 r
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
% i7 m& g) c2 istandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
; P! s* U0 N- P+ V' g1 ~2 Xand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone; u, L' o+ C( M5 n- w
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
3 `$ X9 z# u! u. treporting.' X, x8 X+ N4 @7 E0 T2 C
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; |/ j, a6 \& ~3 Ialready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by0 T" P& \" f8 F
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in; |: @  l  R: a7 ?0 F
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A! \# y* p/ W7 M1 f: _: e
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.$ s" t  c9 ^& b  r9 W. `
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem$ F: k7 q  E% a7 ?2 _8 V$ S
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
* c1 T1 g6 H: p: L* lfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 502 @6 N& b4 C4 D# r  ^/ L
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same- |. B9 K0 c% a- X
event for men, with the second fastest record.
8 X8 y7 J+ E0 b! U( {) J  g* e! M       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye: d$ ~8 q4 @$ A. V9 [8 w% G: ?/ x/ B
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16, Q5 |, Z1 [% O0 {
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record2 Y5 D, W) J" D4 X+ ]
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400* y# d- ^1 V( ]# U
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
5 K0 K' m2 Y+ |% R# f# x& G1 Jfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 F; v% A1 \6 |" \) YLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
; l; K1 X( l. m; x& P8 n! Cbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
* ~8 o6 D7 P. ?1 e+ q8 h6 }individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
- W( F& X, j. J) Tthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
9 s, E' q2 W7 q1 d: a2 Z& G6 h; [those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
- G3 \: h0 d- U) g/ Q3 Oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then+ x& M. S7 F, s* J. Z! c! e" B' h
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “2 ^; Z9 f  T, D) v
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other: p" T- u( n5 M; H
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
- Y4 {/ \$ v5 }* _0 f2 N1 V; O5 n! `* tteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the# P7 B$ f& b7 R+ p/ o
Callaway report.* }7 w8 m# O) B2 D
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more* [$ V" e. E$ T$ ]9 N# a: s
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details+ ?& I" k8 o3 B, ^+ w# k! _$ ?
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description0 s! E4 Z2 z4 a! A
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been$ c% V  R) [0 v4 w. O  c  L
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
6 i! S" y  k' a: XWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ N' i& ]) |4 T' J6 s3 D4 s! ]- h2 O3 C" Qpublicly voiced different opinions.8 x3 C4 D+ o; b
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD7 s( A( P5 h8 `6 Y% n8 q
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' j( L0 h1 Z  _- Q$ W6 g3 e
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
6 Z) h, w& j, Z. g4 M3 W, Ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ e' _; r6 N9 c6 m9 Ayou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
  b/ f% {* I/ E9 @of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* V6 g& z, r8 P
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think5 a( C; d* Z! B' R" {# n* R0 R% D
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
, l, a! `* M3 y# n6 Shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
: n4 H9 s( [; N" v0 m  L9 TAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
( R/ o6 L# ?% uthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was' A( u3 Q. h. J* u3 b
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.& g- v' c9 c4 T2 [
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that3 n' }9 X  ~" K, H/ ?* W- L, t1 A
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, b7 V- ^# R# B+ G! aChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June- Q* k2 l; |; Y0 l; F- G+ O$ ]  K$ |
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
9 Q* @  M  u$ n7 k+ dand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
1 H" E( M) g3 |5 y+ Z: H7 Y! ]The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
$ H  R2 A3 t- Uand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
% o. s% y( _$ C9 F; ADarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.! W$ J8 t9 S) R& D8 b
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 l4 ]& H# q# Z* O
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature) j1 G0 }' J, d; n
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to  @" [/ d: v( o9 P" p7 R! z* r/ e0 x5 y
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
6 t& L5 g' Y( EThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
9 u, ?/ h4 l5 D! kshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced. x6 l9 w& m7 g" d! _
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: o3 c8 }0 T3 v- l  b+ T. d; h
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that& ~) \3 s9 W( G1 |4 j7 s
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”+ _' R. c6 i) x3 l1 I
about British supremacy.
0 D0 p% v& H$ rThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many8 ], O+ y+ j* O' T
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more9 l0 K7 @/ R& p' @( ?7 S4 T( }
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
; l2 T. Z8 V1 O" |$ J0 _our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
+ u- h0 L+ }; e4 c" EOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.: }9 @3 U8 K; l
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of7 `3 ^0 O4 V) ^: N6 s$ q3 g9 I
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests, x/ k) h0 F# g+ S0 }
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,2 z2 l/ {% O- l7 j+ v" m
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
1 b/ y, g# E+ R, kpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like8 X" Z, M/ D% \( i- G3 n* l+ b; G: E" e
Nature.
- b( P: S  p8 I* [( _9 A" v# ~I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance- |( {/ Y* R  y* D2 {& E
the Callaway report.  t7 F9 |& u8 t/ i8 V
3 H% n. h6 x" y
Yi
* o0 f5 j8 \' G1 Y, a; K+ D+ e1 k) |5 Z# {  l
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
* X8 ~+ i! x6 G- n: GProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences  z4 W: v0 D0 a5 B7 J/ E
Beijing, China3 j/ A2 Q7 h9 k/ a: ], T$ a1 V
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 * f. U- k, E0 `, h) r3 w0 b
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
' |. c: \* M" q# @% C; R" G, P
原文是公开信。
1 b  s, N, y9 v9 f4 @# q2 B# x) @: r8 c+ W8 B6 I$ R' Z/ G
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
* d, S5 t! h2 l* p! h2 u原文是公开信。' e7 P7 R0 B; ?- h

5 L5 N9 b9 F6 l小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

+ ^0 f+ `2 q' h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
9 I$ W0 m3 e" L- J/ O' ~3 e. p如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
; _" \$ V4 \5 t" N' T/ n& [" r2 v% k; G* W5 y5 i6 Q* p4 A, E( z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
9 ^5 F# x' B$ r2 d1 B: s5 X5 h. `  k8 N. L2 O$ s" ]+ ~
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
( h# U8 X3 {1 L! S
+ ]5 `. e" D! ^2 w1 z: F5 HIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself4 n7 |0 o$ o0 m, e+ @
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science7 G$ M8 k# E, Z  M( G' |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this- P4 b* g' q6 [# D4 Z
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' c! S  m' _( b* xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: s% f! K0 F1 S, i/ ipopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors' `% B& U' E) V
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,9 \0 H! {/ r. ^7 j. x" F9 O0 l
which they blatantly failed to do.9 ^$ {* R( K0 W2 r2 p0 r

$ G3 |& l$ K+ SFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 W4 |* j4 H* f' y: L8 s: W, _Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 s. ]% V; {9 J' P; L& K" L
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
! B& D4 J2 ~9 r' G; L6 g9 Lanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous  V# S* K2 z" c/ f, l' h
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 S# ~2 A" k0 C9 \+ [! v; g+ cimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 e+ P2 h; [( {: s5 K; kdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to, e5 X0 B. [9 |/ \9 _9 \8 |  n* S
be treated as 7 s.( D1 g% ?0 Z$ r; T0 Q
( [: D: d, e0 B- ^8 a/ i
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
1 P" Y, T9 \9 F; ?still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* U6 [( G, E# \, Kimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, M+ i0 e. f' V4 E9 X; a7 oAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; x8 G# L6 c: t# G/ r8 H-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
0 R/ T. K2 Z9 Z% [4 GFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an# ]0 T7 X  E1 ^3 d7 z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and  u& S3 [7 j6 h3 x6 M! u
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, S0 h4 @" v/ rbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
: w4 f2 X  c& b# }, Z0 d% y, P+ R6 v* A
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 E$ P: ^8 r: B* M# }; C
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in$ }. N( M6 M" e- ^% n, \3 d% y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* J1 F! d& M. The chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; O+ p8 ~* c+ t* i+ g/ {
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& ]! ~4 w5 `( e+ @7 b7 s& }( _best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
9 g, j+ x4 W2 [  w8 l/ B! CFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another. |' B$ y, X* R: N
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. J8 A0 U/ \- ~6 T) q9 r
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle# Z2 k4 t; l) D, K
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& f$ V' [3 z$ Q+ Y4 Tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( @/ `( }3 k. H( r; r: }4 Z: bfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
5 I0 |1 X' t/ Z9 ~3 V; m% ffaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 A+ S+ e/ a9 }9 g
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
4 U' w: d: Y. L! r. pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% K# J# K: O6 @& E, F

7 a/ @4 W- x. C+ I& P" H  R/ a# {Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" L0 \$ ]% p, p3 N7 Y6 z' Z! c* I& U: X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 a8 {* g% c, \. Fs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# p" n9 F6 Z* \+ `+ ]- u. w0 I), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 Y# O  ~7 L& t/ `out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) [* _2 Q% L/ t: [0 ^Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
" H7 B2 }& _. P0 X! Dof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 n. N* _: D7 O7 q* Z3 zlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" R6 |" V8 S7 Q1 p0 i; S8 V
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science1 J0 v$ G/ S. T9 ]
works.0 d& B: ^- t: y+ e5 O$ M
$ R& r, ?. `$ H+ _  ~9 l9 v) W' n
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! c1 Y- G0 p, d  U8 y' {9 [# b/ B) Vimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ J% t9 P% V" c7 [7 m! A9 P3 W1 ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that8 u* S; P6 a0 J
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific0 l) e! @+ d( A, f
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) Z2 O' Q) R  _9 p' h' `1 v, A) Q# jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One6 H$ y; T, D" K8 S
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& I7 p, N  r( S* Rdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works& K. D) n" M2 k8 Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample9 q' I1 n/ p8 P$ j  [
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is5 t! v9 R- ]8 u: O0 v; ~4 f
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! B* L$ P  E( ?' C, d4 p, ?$ P' r# `wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
  j9 q5 N" a. U3 h: B' }3 Madvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 S$ ?; u! |! F6 \5 ~- I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
0 m- X, T# K; t* U8 Zuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation5 `& a' \8 q5 Z7 F# m
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
7 h, n' M: L: x) N1 rdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 r0 i8 r. F. M; z1 t1 ebe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a' E) Y- z: g0 c2 M. L- W% Z* z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
4 I+ E2 B" P) h- V( @" _has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
( i7 i5 \. T! U8 i- g9 idrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: D, D/ H- g+ h' n8 gother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& E+ d% H, e4 c  r7 N& ]+ n, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is$ ?7 m4 K7 u. m" j- ~
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 x/ X' A; _3 [
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight2 H- N" `9 p" C- W7 Z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 `/ @: p% {# w0 e* L# Q* _  l
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# q. e* `  W5 Y# r+ {+ Q% oagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 x+ n# v' \* k  m/ }) @eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: V; {& |* e; l4 X5 nInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 o% D" D7 q) ~6 ~$ q& Y. H; J# o# ~5 z0 w/ L/ P0 ~  T- K' g$ K
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; [  W* s2 t' R: _0 Zcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 b3 d0 q+ h& e  M
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. W3 Y2 v6 ~' @1 jOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
3 @; e) k+ \$ ?  ZOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
2 e1 s5 D1 n5 \+ ?doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic# c+ V/ `4 q$ w( a2 J
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
5 R" n% G- y+ G) ~" {3 {5 lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a# z) w. Q! n( G) f6 V. z- ~
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
7 X, ?' o( y# D: ~  _) ypossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
% V: f6 z/ u1 Y: l, `% I8 |4 a! Z" v) K
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 C3 b9 N! e- ~" b0 k( pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too! P- N! o& p. ^' R. P
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 U5 d  v# s* E. S+ C
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 g: Y* K; ^0 X3 `  ^1 e* iall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
# K( G! d) D: V2 Ointerpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
  v4 h7 R) l. a8 c5 d! K/ r5 Uexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" E) u# q7 X; B7 Wargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ A1 X6 N& y: _/ B& X8 p$ T
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' s- D& H  s' O2 P# ]: greporting 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, 2026-3-27 23:33 , Processed in 0.164241 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