埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1895|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 v, V% w, y3 V9 B- D1 |0 Y4 r. K! F' E$ t5 v
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
) M8 `3 f% e; t, I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。
5 b" y4 P$ }0 u. h$ f总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。  Q. C0 m8 c0 F3 e4 i

: b3 n- C8 C* x% n3 z3 ghttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html0 q' b/ b# z6 L% s
8 G: e' j5 N( S0 w
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
( r8 l% K1 e& i
5 Y* p5 d  S. W5 e3 ?) R7 r英文原信附后,大意如下:: W1 e6 [. g! a1 u

" Q) o5 z* d' D) M( J斐尔,
6 U! I! R! a6 i2 t& I$ M  B       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
6 s% `8 V3 d- Demail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
5 T4 y1 \, b" 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
- ]- B/ Z- z) L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
, w7 v4 `7 k; q! I0 |' J6 W7 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。
0 s' U0 r* H* h: F/ t' h6 S       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
* ]: l3 o2 k4 m3 r; 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
- b# G6 ]! g# u  @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  C9 A( \7 O+ A+ p
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。7 T2 t  c. ]9 b
       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7 N) s  ?& j6 g
,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1 i% ?5 ?9 ?- s
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
  l3 U# m. D: C# O- w       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
- v0 l* k5 c4 o! o& I比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快$ d$ O7 W; ^2 h; J9 M" C+ _
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. z% I, h' ?) C: g2 R& Q) A
       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6 \/ T/ w# G/ 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 D. E6 g  Q$ e  C9 P3 z, }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
) `  ?) H- 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$ p9 {4 l% N; c) V' [
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、六3 t/ e: o, _" I- v
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 E: @" I" d. d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
& r7 C% ~! `3 M" e7 c。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
. j- b* Q! A0 W( }' U; k# f4 z录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。6 n6 h  \" Q) S( l, O+ j# Y
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
! x* _/ H# Q$ P9 `4 W' _' D1》,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6 R0 n3 }, [, b4 `9 Z( n; l
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6 U5 @# N& s% C) w
同意见的专家。
$ t1 [6 ^: i$ o. ~5 \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
) a7 v( Q2 s3 G" D. [! q. R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
% [4 m. v4 Q) P1 {7 I2 L4 d7 C* @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- A1 j2 s6 {: ]
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。& r  k4 W; M4 I% l$ w" o, u
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)
: j; j, h, v3 {6 X) Y" j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
7 S/ n  t# U% E' R《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
6 B% J+ E) a( }这些被Callaway忽略。
; e  J; B! J) G* d: T1 C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
& N3 Z; D' t( {英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
$ @8 J9 K4 k2 w: Y! I教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
& C5 [2 x8 U$ o5 B- D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) t9 C- C1 r2 N$ k' q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: R7 Y7 y9 J, o; m3 n& b6 B' m% a) c
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! @. f6 Q% K1 w. C
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。& p5 I6 S8 D2 Z2 i6 K6 o( @  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
' E" M4 C- X+ X( }$ S. o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
' v9 h0 K' i1 N) G3 a& \1 U! Q代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问7 n2 g  \6 |* N' `$ E. q) @
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。# E, Z) D7 |3 q0 Y+ X0 w' l, X
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- V# Q. v; D1 u3 d
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  _$ [! E) @" y
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
7 @" a& Q6 k& @4 F5 X# V9 C& 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
) Y) G7 l) S! s6 s6 j1 _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& a8 ?* C  ^2 W6 _
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
3 Y4 ^0 n9 S' S  r$ m6 @我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 H2 J$ d/ C) u2 `5 U

' s) |+ q2 m5 ]" x. }" C1 P1 F! r+ Q8 O: q1 v( ?
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
& S$ S2 _9 ]) Q" ]" a% D$ u# {- s
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
0 ]9 c  A( w! z0 V- p0 z附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
  ]! R  `* T2 L3 J- U# e附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
! V# F% J) a/ [+ B, g附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) p/ v# {* y  i" y; A& l
1 X9 |: _( e) M
& P9 j- F8 c; k& i; `. O
+ |8 |! _: @$ d+ e8 L( `* F
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ U7 w3 @+ F' Y& g+ I
Dear Phil,7 p! L$ d' D$ D4 T  _. |
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
1 o5 v8 M! P( E" {4 M# l' S$ Lreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 [. k$ ^. q4 b/ `8 y
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
3 X/ v( Y- Z% z- @1 r( g7 M! pyou.* v* f, x' @1 l) P
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
# W& j: e: h. U0 Tbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
0 W* N! S0 |: F2 B3 R9 v& ]( A! xreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
" ]1 @/ n2 ]' O7 L; S4 N3 Iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature( |0 P1 ]! ^6 Y$ C
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 L( I/ h5 \7 F
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news6 l# B$ W2 K: [. w& H
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.8 N/ f8 t4 U2 |5 Q: P  n3 }2 X
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
) W" b9 k, R, O7 }, J+ _worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
+ I6 G' u2 g5 W6 [# d  i+ tnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
" x+ m  I% W) z) ]& Nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
  D1 q5 P5 W* J1 Z2 Q  ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
+ B% a  |. p. q/ a$ g5 Y; k& Lexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal7 l. h8 Q3 }, N5 H
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,5 A7 y3 @% I9 ?7 v9 g
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
) r8 y" B( X9 N. l& u( t- Eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 {/ P* x+ C- b  n6 C, }' I
reporting.
/ Q6 u9 c, g; }' T% N: Y& {       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
% V, \& X6 ~' Halready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by) r  n$ H0 b4 A5 ^0 `9 F
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
# _8 P; b" n! g+ M) U$ e" Osports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
) B# n( @& H; \presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  J) w: q- W7 k) e5 _) \8 {       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
: t+ }6 `$ f  A5 Amore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
1 V  o, H- G$ d9 Q5 i, p, Rfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50/ y5 p$ d2 X6 x; i4 S& U
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
0 U% ?8 F3 Q  j7 e9 aevent for men, with the second fastest record.
$ N' c5 T8 }- ]6 S8 `1 w       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 j7 J; v% c' Q- c' v( jwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 168 D7 t" z8 r) H" e! f. `, i5 j
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
* F0 t# I! _1 X- i8 G! N. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 d, z8 p' @; X* w
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,. t6 N6 Q) ~# p
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) H; {6 O) j! fLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
' h1 ^: r# S' P1 J% f8 k# m7 `behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
) s* k  M: z6 W2 Bindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower. C! {% V! Y; U: g6 e
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
2 x( G5 C; v0 u6 ^those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
% b: j- m& b0 D; gher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
  [! P( ^3 g$ J9 e% S& F4 ]he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
% t* [' V4 U! S6 C% M3 hproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
# j7 p7 ~5 `. s8 cswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the5 E  O9 i# L' a. m7 |
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the4 W' A0 }7 J( p, |% v! y# W. m
Callaway report.) ~$ w$ y: m2 Y% J0 M' w! G
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 A, T  U* J. A+ q1 n% H1 ]understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 e) g/ j' p# _/ N" B" S8 C5 fhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
+ w. ^  j0 _% u( d8 q1 Hof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
* c/ u; `% F( M* D, Bbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 M# P  z2 x7 CWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
7 ]- ~6 e. ^2 Z- f, G4 ^publicly voiced different opinions.
5 B' c* x- ]* T4 tYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD; T* h, G: B) [& n* O, v1 [
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature8 ]( o& T2 P7 o
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) w8 @. g! |3 x( ~postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
0 Z8 x5 g, n- a( e% o/ F$ Fyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
. O8 }# p4 l3 hof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: F. D3 C% m% J; X0 v2 D
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
% G! B# D+ A: [; V0 kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 w6 n) Q+ W4 Q1 [7 y) C9 Khave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
9 o* {2 ~6 A/ N' n. U3 L/ G3 ^Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
" L# R: Z" y+ r7 }0 j- Sthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 n; `: T- z+ \" |) u, ~
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
: ^, n: F$ p( E. b$ R4 JOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
7 J& h4 }# _2 ~7 A! \' \many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
# f" O) }( x/ A7 v8 T& @Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 Q0 i5 k/ `: |3 N: M! ]
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she) q3 |4 s$ {) e' u+ _# o
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.1 |' L. `  x# }) G- R
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
( ]! m- b0 ?+ |: J1 t8 Q4 Land your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
' q# m5 j9 O0 p8 C' TDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.  O+ |: U& v8 }! i1 N: F
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and: D0 m, e1 i4 s/ {
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; V: I5 b$ Z* A( hwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" c, @9 E( C, a1 I8 t1 C9 C' qrepair the damage caused by your news reporters., x8 Z9 I' y" i/ r: d1 E! R3 S
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not) E( ?  A' G1 p; P
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
! s  e$ Y! n+ x4 a" K2 \9 Kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather$ ?7 j: E1 W% f
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that7 v: j- r0 _5 h% v" u) k" i
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”" [: f& m5 ~5 [0 F+ a2 \
about British supremacy.
8 ]' s5 G; S) Z! N& d# i7 p, T+ N- WThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) z6 b9 ~# E0 R# m8 g/ Uunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more% y1 X1 y& h4 N) U  M
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, O* L4 ?+ W* zour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London! s, }% m. K1 j* b1 W$ \9 G* n
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.- i( d) C; F/ E# z! k$ j0 s
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
& Z% B  w7 y. c! O, _6 tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
+ n' ~) z' s: b. |' gbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,; A( O. r8 b# m$ R+ A+ z9 }8 U
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
0 o" X+ s+ d& V: y9 z8 J" K- h- Gpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like- c2 Z  ~* e1 C" p5 O/ H
Nature.
+ B  X, ]3 o5 z2 R$ m7 GI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance  t) f1 }. m; d; H+ P" p. U
the Callaway report.8 r4 {. i' j. {! `: ?7 h
# m( v  \$ Z4 |
Yi
1 {& ~6 i6 Q( V
9 E! {  _, _. d) _/ \Yi Rao, Ph.D.
) l, ~" L" I. C% E' g; ~' AProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ P: R  x. a: R" F3 J
Beijing, China1 y" l. M$ i! A+ g3 ]9 b
理袁律师事务所
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
7 s# Q7 k* J/ j, P- r9 J1 y8 V5 E原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

. U- x2 y. W# o' h* C原文是公开信。4 m7 ?# S1 f/ @6 J2 M, k6 ~

, R9 o  p7 G$ Y4 F4 Q6 X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 \! X7 o7 f6 ], D! E- X5 b原文是公开信。& g/ }' k- q3 ~' g9 P  J
! c1 g* x, n" o. V) _
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
5 r2 m2 ?; [9 D: q) e& i
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
/ U$ D. @5 O6 }. V& W$ }2 @- W2 k如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。) \* w  n, H- p. Q

) ?( M* Y/ C5 M5 F1 y5 Lhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" w  Z. E4 w% E% Z

, c2 K" T  A9 B& GFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
$ }) W6 R0 i$ a4 K2 N/ x& z8 `/ L7 O5 M6 ]: ]
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" ^% J$ `& T6 q1 p9 \% t, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
9 D3 ?: P: c4 z' Amagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this# e$ F6 O; j: c' n1 x
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the, m1 F8 u7 z, @" Q- H3 s
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
4 D2 U4 V+ u+ l7 F# D" w1 lpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
0 I9 f4 n& a' V5 \should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
5 z/ C+ `* Q' l' h0 bwhich they blatantly failed to do.
6 d5 v0 H$ r9 ?- s! ]* z7 F7 o4 u& d8 H3 n7 |; }, w0 z
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 f9 X' K5 q3 k: ?# v
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in# s/ H6 l# J" q* B- Z$ Z
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
; Y& j0 T. V8 I/ R- Uanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& k0 G" I; E$ ]. w9 v; xpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
& c" `+ M, r3 i4 Himprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ o& R" s4 r2 {: O$ Cdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
( [2 e3 Z* R5 M) r: F! Z/ H8 Ibe treated as 7 s.* ]' W$ N3 K) W/ |0 H+ m
" {6 O- P/ ]' f% ~  k; m
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
. X5 r7 p% B8 |7 ?8 l9 `4 Mstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem" ?6 r  u. g! M" U! i# X5 k1 ~
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, y) V" h9 J8 n: M) J0 j* MAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, C& h! D& H% o
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." A+ I/ _+ R/ u. ?  \
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: g$ O( o: h  `5 `0 _
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) n) ^0 m: j1 Z8 ~' ~7 L7 h$ E
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! o6 s4 M6 f, F0 [. a' P2 n/ J
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% `- d) S9 W7 y9 g$ n; Q
5 b) a7 F; |  O9 UThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* {6 C* m. f* }0 ~  R. R& Wexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 U4 e3 r% @; U  R+ T4 C0 T* u! ?7 B+ c8 Tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
$ h4 g+ o4 i3 F; Qhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ U1 e' R2 B2 ], N7 {. E. x
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# v+ M9 x/ m+ k+ D& I' d% \best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* X7 h7 `" E! Y
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 J0 A0 w4 c2 \* G) i
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
, K; o  y4 S! ]% i8 n' U# _; Ahand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle0 T7 k) C. G5 ~  ^! I2 e% o
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this+ X$ I( L# {1 Y& q7 o- ~" o- M8 M
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 }7 ?' U& ]7 c8 P
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( N' ]" L) s/ H/ H
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; _9 B3 l. Z9 `aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# r7 I" }" W0 W
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
) P$ k( a- V: n$ B9 a, c
: D. L4 q# l4 _( L$ EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
  S& T7 V, c3 [four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 b/ }% R5 d; o8 ?s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' X% O' R* E5 J. E! t2 t) `3 _), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns! S: q: c1 S4 E4 p$ t; U
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ J5 l9 K- w+ M1 g& ?2 z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 e, c; o/ X/ o- y3 A: O; M
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it3 p; }: A  C" l% U; m9 h
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
1 a: }7 x& Z) s) x3 jevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science( w; P4 e+ d2 q1 S8 j4 G9 z
works.1 a1 C1 L% O3 h- N: `+ v3 u
! o" m7 B; ^' r- L* Q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' u5 Q0 y, B! m/ Iimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 E9 j+ Y2 [+ j3 w+ fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that5 a4 {( B" x. G% [+ h3 n- p
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
8 l1 Z- R' f3 u; r' e7 kpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 X  q+ v2 N( E7 C% A, O! _reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One! n( @, }; m$ Y- s& k6 e
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
! }! ~* w$ t4 w/ fdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 [4 H7 R3 {6 W4 L3 O, q0 y
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample3 Q0 O' S" E9 b# \" M' B9 X
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, \. a2 X  r- E* `( l
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
; u$ {  z1 ~- Lwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) d9 a0 Z: S  Y: B% n" Zadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, [  O9 M( S( `! h) hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
3 q% G" ?1 v# ~9 n' a$ b$ juse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
. }4 E5 b! W3 ?: d5 Z2 A+ z, x. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are+ d$ P- y, n# n9 e* V0 q2 ~! u8 {# ~
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may4 v1 U) [) u0 o. L2 D
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 @( [2 ^! y6 Y7 W7 E8 M
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye. q1 F" `5 L# l' I
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a, A" P# }+ |' ^, D
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:( b# w. Q2 p& h+ v; e0 T" W. i
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect5 K1 I+ c% t% b5 [# ]% U2 U0 n: Q
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is$ c- I0 _1 ^. Y: T. O0 ~3 C8 g
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. O. Z" y4 c: f1 J7 A5 C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, |/ a6 n4 C' C. ^+ K" r9 h% X( Jchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 W# Y7 q6 i/ v0 }$ k, |! d4 r. \
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ H7 D/ k  B  ~- ]agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for  O4 O8 M7 E9 k0 z5 A) K+ b
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 b$ n5 d9 v. {$ T
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
% D7 V  E% J( l# R5 ?  \
; J% q0 c+ B* u4 R. G3 x5 nSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' x; [0 w( h6 C  Z  M: j& V6 Z
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* M  a* u9 g& C% U
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
$ l/ j5 @( \- M6 Z9 lOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London- O( I8 D1 y' M6 T2 c# a& H
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 ]5 h" i" X$ i* t
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 W" k1 d# @4 c5 {* Ngames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
: z" F$ l& _% g. P" Ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a( }; W& x$ z6 V, Q5 |+ d" D5 W
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this: P; x9 l- `% ]0 l/ C) m% S
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye./ D, c( {/ ^! o

) ~( M8 C7 [2 }' f) e% g9 u$ HOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: o. @0 _# E5 A; H9 n, yintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
2 P- w$ B% O% C$ n1 V2 }9 psuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a, G' Y1 U; n" ]" g% |
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 S9 T  |9 a! |" B, J
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% v, h) m- H  A- e  R$ j, x) r" minterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 F. s: ~3 C0 Nexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your0 d2 z7 u) [$ N+ z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal) w9 m: U3 s) \6 c7 j6 V
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 A# d. h! f& e/ T6 Zreporting 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, 2025-12-18 07:57 , Processed in 0.172482 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