埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1889|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
+ u# b3 d& H3 C: E# j# l+ p& s! l
2 {/ v  y: ^9 ^1 V8 p饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。. v7 Z+ K8 x4 a& o8 Y- e& B
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。
# t$ C' I0 ^* \8 o总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。  T- Q. l  [8 N
& s, N9 p9 _0 |" r
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html9 s1 W4 s2 L$ Z2 J1 V4 Z" u
2 r* Z2 m. S+ G* w
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选* _( l" `4 b$ K1 d' B# S1 j
5 |8 V3 X. F' A; N' J
英文原信附后,大意如下:4 r5 m6 x8 b; W# ]
* f  W( M5 q8 w, j) D2 f* F
斐尔,
% S8 c9 ~$ u- E$ w( [+ v" b0 f) C       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! P8 y5 N6 y; B* k' m5 H
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
' `1 b  z2 _6 M" j/ \       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5 T# @5 x$ F1 k" s  |& c8 |/ `: X
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
. `$ N$ i( W" S; Y$ c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。
6 f; j  H1 F0 l       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
6 N1 E) l+ m+ ^' ]% ~7 K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
' ]7 B2 V# A0 {; 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0 ]: A& m1 W) K6 _) B+ |" ?
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。) K  @9 R& E; s4 M) 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# V) X" a% O0 H7 x: X9 e- ?; e
,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
: _$ L1 I5 p* G2 a# O( F”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; e$ a5 D3 A2 d9 W" l( t       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) S; l( ~1 H3 ?7 Z1 D# Q& 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
* r; s9 T1 R, O" E,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. n' d5 \0 a2 R& d
       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  I3 r* b9 p: ^- S5 d( Y
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
1 s# v, Z  h0 P5 Q" m7 w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
# F6 y( [5 n6 G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5 R: t8 t8 X7 j" C
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% \. l, q5 v8 l4 I+ t/ c
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* m2 U/ I! _/ ]( M  z8 n) [1 C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' B4 y5 t$ i, L, I$ F* {! 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
( [: A/ Q7 u+ M0 e2 j% b( r. c1 r录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; X  b. P8 F' a2 v* L+ E9 J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$ u2 y. s* `. @$ K' k
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( \1 f7 v: s& e* C9 ^  {( H
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- W3 L+ L" ~0 c! y9 {2 y
同意见的专家。1 Q, g6 ?7 F/ W, y
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2 J2 u( {1 Z* @
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
1 V0 s" V4 w5 H; O4 E9 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2 q! H0 `: H$ ~& Y2 `1 d) A
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。9 f4 i2 R5 c) w* b/ D2 q2 ^4 d) p
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)
; U2 m4 c, E5 M/ I, A! ^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  R( D2 q& S* M2 }
《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3 g& `9 Q- ~; U% r& |) ]
这些被Callaway忽略。
4 N1 ]1 S: f; e: A5 ^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: R6 d! Q1 I$ c- [( g* r
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
/ @7 o3 o' C, c  x3 N3 _$ H教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
, l0 Z$ g/ }7 M: B( H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
7 F( s8 O+ [3 Z. g' W, A7 A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  `" D7 E' [* y) v' 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0 ^0 g+ Y& K) x+ f
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。4 x0 h7 e3 k' G
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 s* v, w  Y" u4 p- S# A7 m
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
, ~3 f1 l# j& @! j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
! F+ q+ n/ j' p/ j3 P9 Y6 W- b”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, N* u  \/ c% H: {3 c% n
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( B% Y/ M% B
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
2 I; ?: J* X& i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( t* }; L: R4 D5 E# E) C
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 A- y$ G9 [6 k, S$ l0 T) {7 j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+ V# P4 V  v. R6 b2 F
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
- l- k) E: c4 \- _. B9 I( b我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。; c% @3 `# q$ ]" }$ z+ O

! H- |  q* r% E' F0 V; x. K+ F5 d, m. q& I/ h( R9 a$ Q
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) u, P  \; i5 S  K8 s
1 l" G0 g" z: M1 H( y/ X5 R
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
# @" @# k# M+ t+ D  Y3 C附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
! n- z; p( a, g! U附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
, l$ r5 a& s9 _. F) f附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
; J/ [: D" e, E7 ^# k
# k/ h* _8 v- e; B2 z" E" T  t+ b/ }6 e& C0 u6 z

1 l5 n* z2 a4 y% _, q8 `2 a' g原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ O7 r* X/ i7 _  t  ~- I
Dear Phil,
$ W+ S0 w/ ~9 b       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s3 |3 A  I, W& f( g: E% L
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
# k& Z' ?3 u, {( ]6 hhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
. x: V, m7 R- d5 \you.
. [9 A5 p, i! V( A       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have4 u1 u4 \6 S7 ?" y! {+ U
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
8 l' I8 v, `6 o) C1 R) E8 u# V. mreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the. V2 A# F5 X  P
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature9 T- a0 A: g0 G/ [$ A
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more- m; Q' C+ t' j+ U. a& R
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news$ W: _5 T4 a& b+ m5 Z# Q* E
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
2 a  T4 n7 c( W" e% Y" P       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
1 W7 S5 u( d4 `+ t! y' xworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
) r" U' y5 `7 k: w: _$ nnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish# e9 A# Y- m- }# W0 E3 n
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway! l8 S+ v6 e+ f- G& y& q9 Q
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 q8 T# E, U8 x1 T- _) wexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal* |8 A, n1 [: k1 h! X
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
; B% t# |9 @% @2 ^" \and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# a% E: z. O/ _
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news6 O1 Q7 w% p' C( g, B
reporting., f  B! {% t: m' ^
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, Y* G1 p" ~2 C% B
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by" W6 ~6 J* b2 m. A( `/ V
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
) g8 z/ Z  H5 O4 ^2 ?! Ssports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
* N  A: C5 `0 gpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.; y1 Z% n" t  Y: n
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem# |/ l2 A$ L( m' C5 [' N& e
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds! a+ }* Q" h; \) i# `9 E
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50' \) M  S% X9 v; w' ^3 E7 e' R
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
: f# a  A8 b3 fevent for men, with the second fastest record.( @& s4 j+ d2 W  }4 d6 u7 S
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye* A" w" {+ A' J- j' b* z
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16: R* N7 ]( h; v8 s$ M; ?. I
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record8 O7 |2 z9 c( O4 v' ^
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400% l- w/ L5 z4 w1 W5 n: U
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,; l# I3 C3 }+ h4 a0 w! r
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than# X/ Q, H) Z* s
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed4 W& ?" @% g2 f) l. A! l
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 k  L; @" V4 h& y. r+ F
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
# T" ~1 y: B& m. A( m6 h' fthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
- S. D" O9 U/ ithose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
7 ]6 @. V: `% o" Zher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then* m- {9 A0 w5 \) \$ a4 H8 O4 y
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 Z$ h: U" E$ D' i% X
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
! O6 O9 _3 F' |swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the; N; p6 z' p; }) r" b- B
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the$ F3 k0 Z8 i& l# R& b5 t; m
Callaway report.  q& C/ Y- [& I5 v/ t6 L
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 p( q1 T, J* @) K2 Aunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ c/ N: U: {* v6 ~9 |# chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description7 f, \, w2 L# o2 e- z
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
% g# r: O! o4 @5 v) ~& F* R+ b9 ~better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
7 R! F0 V- n% aWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
: G+ ]. u- A2 u/ opublicly voiced different opinions.
. u1 h$ q4 }7 A  T1 Y( m( Z* f$ u9 xYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD- Q3 _0 F4 \+ o" q. g, N0 A9 C
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature" R; ~% h: s, j$ W
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent6 s9 o9 s9 G/ T% l$ a1 K( F
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ W& C" ~; w" D* y: z# kyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
$ P0 c, L& X% d, a6 M0 @of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
: g! R2 I7 Z3 b! m. Z# b  @There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think3 L! I1 y0 Q# r$ K6 G" ?# b
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ r- ]0 ~2 G! c3 B  ahave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as' |  y, `8 U  g4 M; S4 j% U' e
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that4 a/ Q$ z7 `6 h$ O$ s
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
+ |, G# b( U0 b( jsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.) E8 Q% o' m% o% o
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
; A$ s6 G7 s! Z2 Dmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the- D/ r4 H! I/ m, y! R
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June4 k: Z& ?- ^% k5 l( Q7 O2 o
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
; d9 d8 Z; N+ U! P( `and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.0 K; A8 _* L- l. W& c6 u, V6 N' `- `
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science5 L4 h5 t7 T, D7 ^' v/ i7 g: g1 {% ]  ?
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
! d) F+ k2 |, G5 A) }$ v, [Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.$ U! y! ~4 u( K
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
1 x: [! n  T* e' L# sobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature% t, Z/ Y, l1 g4 h0 c9 n& x
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to. B% c! c$ @' G0 N; ]/ }
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.9 {( m* y9 B2 H; y% ^; s
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not# [. O( E1 F3 f( v
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
, [7 X* r0 y4 r( [8 s  Q! L7 Rus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather. q8 z) n( e# c: Z: ~
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that& t3 w0 z8 l( K/ x8 |8 L
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 G9 G1 `: Z: I4 W, q
about British supremacy.
# h. U- S1 `' [( M" o9 rThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
" E0 N6 x3 H4 dunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more# u) i. E& }1 |1 X; e+ x
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by1 u. i0 h0 C+ I
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 L5 W1 a3 z2 k, R0 EOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
5 E; n3 p7 v- |. c6 X% B% iYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of3 \2 E8 z' L0 j) v
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests+ i& q0 D' R0 y/ I- G
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,9 H2 A) s! \, n
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly' `) Y6 H: G9 g: w# E
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like9 ^0 c% M# Q6 |, ?+ Y7 f
Nature.0 x# n$ p  {" C  J& _. U' f
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance6 T/ f$ m2 g& q  [+ `
the Callaway report.
9 V) X4 Q9 U- M, u4 ~* d, D" i+ |. y
Yi
* A: ^7 z9 _' a& o. y5 e# c2 _& }8 ^+ G5 y  S% P0 c# y
Yi Rao, Ph.D.5 s# y' d! i" Q) S
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' c7 R1 P0 S$ p4 ]+ t$ bBeijing, China3 G( g" s  ~) O4 ^% G& A8 S( i
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·········
理袁律师事务所
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
" j0 _0 n' I4 x- ?$ y5 m) M9 S, |  U原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

. b0 w& u  _- N原文是公开信。4 F6 y9 |% `- L4 f% B# H! C

8 |* c+ S5 D+ X: I+ l) [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 3 n$ e6 ^% K6 B) t  `4 Y- {9 }" f! q/ B
原文是公开信。
4 F8 S; F* p% w1 e# e! i1 T' F5 l4 X# ^8 R/ |
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

; h$ x7 X- f8 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
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
$ g8 d6 T( p. [/ b. O如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
2 E/ ^( k( E; p$ W" g& q
+ u3 U$ z1 i+ K# N: G7 d1 xhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
7 _8 i7 i4 \3 ^0 E7 a) w( N$ l' ~6 j6 e# K; z
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! }0 v! ?/ J& |9 z9 B& b8 _& p& N) T0 n
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" q! x, G' Y7 R; }1 W
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
, l0 G' M2 d' |) ]* N4 U! _magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
2 ^9 @: g- _3 Y7 T7 |! l3 g3 p- d$ _is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 _9 c& ]) b: h8 U( o( `
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: r; O+ P' |( L3 K7 ~, C0 o+ N; Z
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors  v% \6 M  F7 `& X( X
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- c+ {! y; U+ O" \; t. E. V0 Z0 l0 K4 @4 [
which they blatantly failed to do.
( a' R9 m* h4 C( t6 l( t, S, l4 ?2 |1 Y6 R5 w. i
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ A3 ]8 X5 G$ t- R1 }% J) @Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 D8 T3 M7 z  Q+ L& {! L2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “. e. a$ R( z$ N1 j" d4 X
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 ~7 R7 `* ~- @* S: z7 epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an* L$ V( `7 I% a" D/ E4 t
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the* m3 @* ]& M  O( s- u* H
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to. s' y$ X: m( _( E* k+ k( X
be treated as 7 s.
8 W; w9 S& l, ?3 Y* d  B& Z/ i" L6 Y( e+ s
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is$ t5 W% N, Y; U7 Y! k" y7 S( m
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem1 d' f. {2 B% G; g% z% \' B* c
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
  H7 w6 E: m( L( ^An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400& }0 ]0 |* J, C
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16., R: p' P5 \0 l# @2 Z( g
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" x$ Y  X$ T3 r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 f. G! M" }, T1 r% m6 Y: C
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 h/ b- ~" x. E  J( Q: w) H( l" f
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
" h: g' L  ^% B
3 d' [" `' L; X: B. [Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 y9 F4 Z, h4 M" |' n4 K, b
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; y7 Z+ x7 l2 g7 g, u* pthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ A. R3 a- [0 C
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- c* |. k* }7 b5 Z5 }- e
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" z2 h* F0 R$ a$ K7 O
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
& Q" ]+ ~" L) J! ~+ QFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 {$ j2 U. H5 P9 k! P- p/ atopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 B) d1 t1 ~) t
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
# w& X( m% u8 S; V7 \" W2 [( h, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) O' i8 ?1 _2 f  K) N5 _3 [strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 `4 Q# S% ^: u. z: n2 q
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 S. \3 r$ E' L6 t; ^% K( h1 k. pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: r0 i& x, Q6 c$ r3 y+ k
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 u# Z) q* `- [, ~0 Z1 i/ ~& K
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ B& r) N, @4 |3 a, r( v- |
* `8 X. `4 d7 r& a/ RFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are8 u( @& |& |* n5 E; v  |9 g
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; N1 ^9 H# S: p- ?
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
) w' h1 q8 ]- g/ i# D), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns- a. g/ c+ S8 l' b& Y; B8 i9 h9 M
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 W; ]% v& {3 J8 b
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 a' V" y) I" |1 w
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ m7 L2 f* M9 J8 k, ]1 elogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; ]4 d9 w2 y4 m# w+ N" D: mevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science6 O; `3 d& m# d
works.
0 N9 y( r4 f) P" |( I* l+ ~
" b, h: }0 c* H+ v; bFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and" w: c9 d; Q0 Q- I5 y3 m
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this/ ]$ O* S$ Z( B0 Y7 v, [
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that6 Y0 F' l2 H7 u0 [. a2 l
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
; e+ F4 |( |/ o* ~* i0 o2 e9 zpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ k- L9 }( ]( }# Vreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One) R2 k4 V2 L1 O/ C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* @# F, N$ I- Y* O  u
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works5 A" r  k( |1 ]1 g: O: Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
, |6 B9 e9 `" |3 U4 B: wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is) t; {4 k/ Y+ M, G2 A2 r5 y- U* W
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
* r7 l9 @0 {% |, bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
+ ~+ |  M8 B1 V( m2 F0 hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& W% _0 j) m3 |7 xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- S5 o& r2 i5 f9 t, Iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation$ Z1 C0 V- f3 G6 B* t# m
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are' K$ d" F5 p1 |6 e: v/ b; e3 f7 _
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 h5 v; u) ^& l9 F4 s% Nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 T3 R5 s  d, F' @& |6 V
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 T  C4 h# B, Q9 h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a9 k1 B& M9 ?. z( r
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:. \) }6 B3 I+ i4 a' `  B/ f
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
2 `8 {! k! ?& j3 i; D$ C- _, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! |0 q% c9 q& I; m4 F* |' U2 O/ sprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% i8 I4 l- q" \% Y9 l% H5 s; d
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
: g& u" E; V1 q# Nchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- L  G  J+ u) G: R* G
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( O% l7 `6 \+ v6 @# uagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for" h/ D' r' m4 |1 W1 v% M6 T
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
% x  t: B- y) b2 VInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! I! v+ g9 y- O& g& K- b4 R
. q! S4 p% g4 U6 _
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 p! d* F/ O5 b2 q) J8 v* s/ e
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention/ e) n* c; {% `9 ?0 v1 [
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for: W7 v6 m% l+ B; |7 c/ [
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London  Z6 A; a, B* Q6 @' D
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for1 s. Y. _, C/ v) ?& t
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic2 H" a$ j" [; c7 B5 ^* y
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope' E' q$ M3 i; p& Q, U9 |
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a0 V. D! C' ?9 k( P# m
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& V# ]% L+ p- S& x* f4 k# C
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
# y6 h, k6 m$ C
, p7 i0 a- L% G( ~Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (+ N' F' c# ]6 U1 v( P
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
5 Q  x' L* m! S# Y/ xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ l# ]% S7 H- w" I; K" ususpected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 L% y; P; h+ }1 s  fall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
; p  M* [2 V' Y0 v+ d* p  J+ R# Qinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
% O& K# V8 e7 E+ @5 V9 n, q, _explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your$ N" Z$ h/ y  k1 }- \- a
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal2 f6 k  `9 a" C- f5 V3 b% `* w/ q
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
: V. f7 W4 z/ l* ~) treporting 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, 2025-12-14 17:49 , Processed in 0.257606 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