埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2113|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 ( N7 n  i9 l( d+ x- A; _

+ r8 O$ M% ~$ b5 P: l6 s- U+ e. M+ x饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
( ?) g! M7 M0 y& e1 _0 ?0 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。
% g7 i' K# v. e* `$ Z9 |总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。. [; `& N* K9 f+ G: z: F
) A; G% q. _8 o# I( r, b
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
0 G% y% I0 k0 ?: ^! x5 i  p& i: k4 R
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选0 A, e2 V. s4 @

) ?: H3 q; H6 S! }; u, ~英文原信附后,大意如下:
; E+ L% a2 W+ i6 Z: ?. Y' Z
/ w  C; Y) u( K' K  B斐尔,
% f' o& F; k. T' D       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/ ~% U4 S3 [' T+ H
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。9 k/ K: n- \) b, }( H1 }
       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9 h3 y. A# p" t) ]6 A
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
, ?/ Z. {, L* q, 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。9 ~4 Z6 ?5 O7 ?: V
       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3 d( S9 M% l# G" }
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; P6 z0 h. D  K& I- O7 s
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 _7 p" S5 N# T6 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。1 W) j6 u# X( ^; [* }0 x8 c  W
       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: K5 E! p) O3 L* i  }
,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0 s$ u) i8 x; k6 O8 ~
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
' ]/ L. H0 j' h       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
. R6 |/ Q# j: m- u% {8 t! k& w7 P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$ F- N/ ]0 W* F+ e
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。3 L* P* S" O3 {0 k3 S. F
       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' Q* d7 Q% ~) y/ F
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( U, T% R5 C/ o3 U  K$ W! U3 V
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二8 q, r3 p+ \- u& ~5 ~- ^
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! S" w4 z6 C, G( W' z
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+ Q  J1 I& X- `( p* D+ {  ^
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! h* b/ _, a; K4 Z; D. \  G
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目9 M9 I1 G4 T& f# `( 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
+ L5 r: m- A2 j' ]录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
' [! D; a9 U7 m" o0 X! d2 h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/ o4 T: e1 D  l4 Y
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于: z3 }7 L7 w  v7 m' o* J# A
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
4 G! s: H1 h" Q同意见的专家。- G; [( X" ~5 `9 C. s: g5 Y( x6 F
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 B, b) U& c: b" n, B! e" 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- b0 F8 [& H! g/ j* Y
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% v9 x& e( r. T+ D6 y# D2 ~
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。! T; I+ K8 z6 s# t9 b( X# G
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)6 u9 n  O( N3 @, b( s! s; l8 W1 r
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/ C* b0 Y6 `, C7 p8 p7 n
《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
: [/ e& k# q4 q1 G$ K这些被Callaway忽略。
" D4 L& s6 s# E+ |! j- M$ f2 P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/ D" k, A+ ?3 w: U, 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9 o  B% e# \! y; p# f/ Y; ~" X$ e* u6 A
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
/ a6 S$ |) y3 H6 s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$ T5 ^3 f' E2 w6 H* N7 _/ f
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0 h7 b: z$ a, D% k" z
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 _" r2 U( S: ]$ ^6 ?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。; t) i% Q, w! P: Y' A# U7 p+ z) h3 p
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2 R$ m; T" p) e! ]
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
2 W& @0 F7 J$ S, w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
4 ]" L& R  x  i0 T# G+ i”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
: I! J" N7 d5 }, d& k# J0 H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/ ~% q% \" c) F9 K$ d; j, e
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
, l& H7 b) v& [( g* F2 [' }; v  b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
! ]$ e- N8 z6 f; o. i) a! J* ~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/ W. u* T# e; l9 \' Z
测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染
8 Q0 Q" G/ u4 s# i3 P+ \而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
/ E0 }* r! \% G! L- ~我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
0 v7 S3 p* o% o" ?2 w
  K  O6 T* `; o1 Q3 L+ f
: n3 h# z% K1 b5 X, Q$ a北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 a+ U# W8 x! {5 Y! c( ^
0 k, k  F$ j+ t0 J, b. \
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结/ g; ^: k0 A  q( |$ a2 L. h
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
; r% l3 ~  m- t' Z: X6 [# X" t' V附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见9 [3 k6 j& |1 H7 j7 w; e" c
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
! d" S2 K) K. k
( S# h) a5 A/ f7 k  F( v/ V( B2 b1 S0 }8 t: \4 K# D

6 j- M0 \/ {& `: ~& t1 L原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)9 Z! G+ l8 w2 ^+ h: @
Dear Phil,
0 n8 m9 S0 A3 b' R4 C       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s9 s- w  v/ Q/ h
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
6 U' b0 r2 `5 w* G- h8 o7 W5 Jhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed- _3 t7 h" v! C8 I
you.2 Q1 i; v4 W) O7 D
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have) b% q+ Z0 ^. q. @' O5 p( i8 D
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
% d3 n; S1 D" R! F& y0 S& Kreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the5 I3 D3 t9 h6 A0 o  E2 B$ a
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature2 \6 \/ H9 X3 v: m+ J/ u3 c
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more- v  e) x, v8 {# |, _) z/ k
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
* M, S; {0 X* K* |5 b! e5 X+ Q" Epieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
  o! S, o6 V1 O# [: ^$ Z& u6 X8 Q       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
2 ]  g) }( `0 hworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a) Z8 z' }$ v  d0 w* ]7 z8 x; L
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish/ ]6 W  H. E$ `$ l" v
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway: U, M, S2 a0 o+ s' b0 l1 f/ Q4 p
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  H- v. O0 U- U& ~% P( N4 g& N. Pexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal; v. K$ G0 t4 x) `! ?1 d, p5 ^$ u
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
) n. v8 q) _* ^- c+ z  m" `( M5 Qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
; w- E; I5 O4 o. M- yto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
. I0 B9 u9 b7 V- _( `9 [/ _4 Zreporting.
9 J* ~0 d! R3 c+ I: M7 P       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
+ N9 M: c5 c3 Y/ @, X6 G: f7 z/ M; kalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by( }, l8 V9 H9 j; `. o" C
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 p+ p; s) G' {6 x* Vsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
8 }0 F3 G+ N/ E+ Q5 J' Rpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
& j3 z+ m' r- B) y, k$ a       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
3 c- i  E+ C9 J/ Y3 S# t* cmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
! c( K" O5 P% V! C: u1 ]faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
& k, A/ l& @0 B4 `meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same; ?: A3 `+ a% D9 ]4 |3 i
event for men, with the second fastest record.
; ]9 y* {. S3 Q4 M       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
" F7 \9 X, p$ N! m. M* Kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16  A- Q4 i) @7 K/ E8 x# P
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
6 F# r, L# s% D- t5 q2 ?+ E. ~: [. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4008 o$ c6 [  Z) h+ R
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
" v6 p, Q, y0 W* t% C5 ?' N, Q$ ]for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
1 J5 k! `2 H- ]! S6 oLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ D0 p* m8 Z! m: b0 r
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
, W5 P  B' z% L1 w# i% H; Cindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
! j+ l% N  x/ \9 x) a$ a" F1 ythan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than* `4 \+ @( C$ _
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was7 a5 K9 ~" Q  C' n5 U
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( i- b( \' z8 E8 x  X& ]
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “; @: c0 q8 b. b, [1 z! _9 B
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
+ [6 S1 T1 P. o  L# Tswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the' z5 T- Z" Y: ?+ q% U' N5 `- Z
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& s/ N0 Z9 _) ]  m) ICallaway report.
7 f5 e: J! y& j* z2 x3 F2 qThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more& }8 O" y  L) G8 D. ]. x  ^  p
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details' E7 Z% T1 N* ^) D% \& w
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 F, _4 s, E* X5 y* [of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been7 k0 a5 ?, H; H
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
# N; d# g+ ^" n$ ?; JWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: t: B! C, W3 _1 `. N# }
publicly voiced different opinions.
- C& Z9 L8 F( n. }, q/ H4 e( hYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD5 p' n  v, _. o" u- M
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature, |7 l" y# t9 [6 B) w$ N
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
2 T6 t4 i& A9 e" j0 k. Lpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
: T, v1 J1 V: T& ^8 c3 x9 {you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  [  D/ T+ x% e( x6 ?
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, F/ z. ?6 V* H7 `6 n- q: \There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) X0 D* g6 v7 A7 F3 i( j
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
8 m  D  a5 y5 m8 a, Ahave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 d1 J# ~) X  ~" ^Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
9 ~5 \' v8 `) x6 d! c8 ], U9 vthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
/ H+ f" z1 C! l* ksupported by facts neglected by Callaway.$ i, i) ]6 b. y( ~/ y
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" H0 O. H8 @( ?. ^& ymany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the! ~! @) _9 K3 t7 y
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
9 h& d  O+ H: h: h7 q0 `3 E5 u(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
& h9 h$ ~9 q% \6 r6 @# Y( gand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
* J' T8 p# D2 y" ]* k) y$ kThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science" T" b6 u( U, R- {7 \, H0 P! Q1 e
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
- ?6 y/ H& o/ p  jDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; g: K* W' G8 ?: [( H( y$ sNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and  U- e- i4 Q- G' {- n; A
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# u3 D0 Q1 d' M* }/ `. ?6 Hwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to# b3 ?/ z8 z# _7 T6 Z0 m1 p
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
4 t9 t! |# y* B# D4 R' r! F. zThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not2 S5 f, m2 O0 C# X' X1 B7 M' q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced% z* n3 Y6 r, v+ @$ f5 s6 H6 u
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
1 L* G# x- G# A9 Bfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that  C/ |2 ?7 W' t8 \& a6 d
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”6 q% c0 F1 N8 s8 m
about British supremacy.
! ]# O6 J, W; d7 ?; O6 zThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many: b( i: f& t9 z# ^! R
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
+ ?. z, z0 t% R/ q& W, n' iChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* {: h, E6 n( J3 g0 W2 Zour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 |0 ?  n2 a3 `4 NOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
, j  ]/ z$ i; d* D8 E# WYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of* o; m3 P2 }. J5 H" j
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests  Z( g. L" n3 f  X1 v" J
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,! n7 w- P# j" |% ~) V
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly. E. t! W5 B3 D9 F* z
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like! i3 [5 Y8 q* I1 U7 A
Nature." R% s1 F* s! b) F0 U+ K% n. x( a5 T
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
5 H0 ~* W6 m; }. Cthe Callaway report.
7 ]5 N6 r0 e6 `% A% Y# D5 D6 }/ f' {+ H9 c7 z6 G! i& I8 z9 ^8 K
Yi
6 x/ ]: O# M& R; F. g6 }2 O  ^* R$ I/ |! W. e# @# R& D
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
' |9 p, A5 _5 z7 k2 i- e5 C: ]Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
0 x. T# i' G3 LBeijing, China8 N  z+ x  Z' _% a: N1 \) I# c
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 - |$ V- P+ d9 w0 |2 x9 o' x
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
5 q4 c& Q6 {9 ~- m$ B8 a$ w
原文是公开信。6 n/ |- X) K8 B- ]6 L

  Y. D& x" V% Z  U2 ^& 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 8 z3 q! k$ B, z) n) I
原文是公开信。
0 f* ]5 {' V. h: D$ e% L( r% \$ F, y1 r+ s9 N- R8 b  M, Q8 R$ |- H
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
. _& K( S# o/ j- R: Z, D# Z/ }
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
4 Q5 ?/ p( x0 o! V0 C如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 i: j* `5 B' x- W2 Z/ \
: ~6 V2 ^: S: v) v
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& V4 f4 Y0 E) \

8 m! t6 Q: ~4 ]& LFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania) U+ r4 _5 e: Z/ S% e( v2 I

7 ^' @3 H" k) ~+ a9 q" m7 UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" u7 x7 L2 l+ H) E3 d
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. n& P' V% p: o8 }magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
* K% @+ }/ m6 dis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: n! y$ W! a/ Nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ G* y( F9 F0 t7 f7 N8 q* ?. rpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors- ?* }9 z: V# J( R7 t5 C2 s
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
* V* L$ t% K* {1 Q  c0 V3 iwhich they blatantly failed to do.
; ^+ E3 V% M2 J9 U# L2 w: C. G
& L* N% P. Z) C, w% o8 ^: K4 y6 T/ qFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her' X! N3 g% H9 H$ H
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in( ~8 @6 k/ n3 @" o% }
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
% \6 i6 e1 F- sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous" M/ q9 l9 I' ^" T  o8 r
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 q% {. l+ j2 n( L& c+ V/ n$ simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the# s# G, h$ v4 v1 l7 @2 q
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to+ z; h1 z& W+ P6 O! l
be treated as 7 s.
  I' y0 i% i. W, R8 Y2 Q  c) Y1 j5 e5 `& E
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is& F+ J) Q! x# u6 m
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem6 a/ X. c8 ^  |! E* O; `0 ?
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# n1 |% O! d' E! I( H: T5 ~
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4004 G5 v# @* ^3 t0 J# n) n7 K) u
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 g/ E) B$ V" g, n
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
3 B. T8 K& E4 r! N) S# Helite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and1 ]* M8 ]; `$ ~% p" W7 {' e2 x1 m
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' ?1 f2 e& N) Q1 g2 U
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ i& n0 S$ \' W5 L" H5 {. \3 s1 U7 m, P6 l  E5 s9 Y) ]! ?
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 S9 W: ]' s% E6 v  {  a' U) h: m
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ A. ^7 G  N8 d# p( @  _0 ^8 Tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ d# b) g6 O5 Z0 r# phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
# w% C! J7 z2 W/ v- u2 X7 E7 I* d2 S; z  uevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 `5 x$ K* S8 m$ |5 ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
7 Q' U0 |# p; h) |6 p9 K; dFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 E" H0 B2 ~) {5 l& y* X
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( ^7 @( ^6 Y# y- k8 W( S
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle  L5 G3 v0 S# J/ {: g8 d
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
* `  e4 |" ]8 j2 tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 u( s' ~) ^7 e$ Gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam1 H) p3 }: l1 n* K8 W2 y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' f  d/ m  G: u1 S9 u8 ?
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# q- H, {  L* \: [
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 D7 {+ u0 `/ l9 I$ O

' y: _: _" n3 b  T+ W! Z9 AFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" m% _. U5 T! H( |
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 c& f' w8 f8 q  I8 O- Us) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
. ?; z+ o' y% m8 O" X- i& F7 V) W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns3 c: s' w- \2 _: ]: [% ~
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," H/ _4 O3 s) j4 N. f
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind% v( T) [7 @1 r3 r' [
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
& ^! l; d# k1 Slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in7 O6 y; `& o0 ]* R& S% z
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
3 R2 c; S: ^; ^! Sworks.0 p0 u8 D$ E5 d: \

3 R$ w/ {4 x, \! SFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 B6 H+ p6 r+ C9 S0 G' h) A
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 @4 u0 `0 D6 N' t
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that  V$ c% A0 W* b% E+ r" q( {$ d
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
8 M% b7 V% ^7 ]+ }9 h5 Xpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# Y# K* b  O0 L" F# n' h
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; F1 O. L; k0 g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& q0 [. H* H* g5 \: S7 cdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
2 H/ C7 U5 M! q( E6 W9 x) dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ q" b% F  t8 G% ]5 ris found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is! F" f2 O. ^$ n4 A& p% W2 H
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ k+ P" A! [0 d  s& t0 ^4 \% `, k
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ o% e: v1 K+ ]* C  o' Y. H& ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
- v7 w/ A2 ]4 S  m3 i; n: Jpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not5 s; N7 I1 r* O) }/ h
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
) I5 N" v  e5 M, W3 E" A$ b; L* E; H. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are$ Q- ~" B* E! u3 `* u5 b% A8 j
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 P. S7 {/ G5 |6 K. C5 o2 B* ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& [2 @- K+ U8 c! u+ J6 `( o. j. A
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, D( N9 C3 {8 ]: q8 Y' w
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
( f/ a5 p5 a! i8 F5 B- rdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:/ G1 W9 Y1 h/ z8 Y; t
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 u+ e$ T* I( p# I8 w; x, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is- f4 X/ s9 V8 m
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. E8 S9 H! f# v# m. c9 z& c
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
8 X  X4 }0 }) J6 K. Jchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
7 [6 ?4 B, i! XLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 y8 _* C) n% f  w, w8 j0 @( eagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
5 i3 L5 W& D6 m3 p! m" W2 b. Meight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.* p$ ^: k2 Q7 u+ f% w% m* ~4 R' [7 W
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
# z  |$ f5 |& V1 }
4 K" Q& o& L. [& l, RSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 A& b' x7 x7 I. Wcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention- h# a+ C0 ?, w$ J, y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for$ a# f# U% Q/ ^& v
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
' l2 r/ B5 e0 o( q/ E& f7 rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
' I7 |3 ^1 _5 l% N1 jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
- x0 J6 g2 g- B5 r2 ^: Fgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
3 C3 ]6 f8 d) ?; I/ F; N% p& X9 uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 }5 S' Y. U1 \  Zplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# _1 o7 U* K8 j2 d
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ M  V; G. Z5 x. W

' v( @% L* ~+ q& j( tOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did () k$ w+ D9 c: o  N9 c6 G! r
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too. r- R/ t  K8 }6 n; S. J
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
9 O# [7 W, @0 w8 y; }$ |" ?suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
  A! ^1 |( p% `, q+ zall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
3 C" d9 R! r& C$ H8 Z6 b$ }# R$ ainterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ o# z. }. o, v! J$ iexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; j0 g# Y1 l; q7 @; H6 bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 S, p$ t; C3 ~0 Q
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 C$ }/ q8 p+ B  n& B
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!
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, 2026-3-10 03:04 , Processed in 0.266511 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