埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2061|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 " |0 t/ ]4 h3 W
+ f' G- N) m( }% J
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! w& {- S% s% @4 k+ }" i% 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。2 F' g! ?" |" g4 J. K) V/ q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。& R4 m, }& R9 f1 a9 t
( L3 C  V0 x" Z% f3 x. g" L  Z  C
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html( `1 f4 g& i9 A

6 Z% J& E0 U% a# N/ R$ D& z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
1 ]6 K; i! D5 B) x8 b9 l7 p
8 ?5 i4 M. K( o" y% S8 l: G- z英文原信附后,大意如下:
7 }' [6 c- J. E+ ^  `1 {/ `2 Y" ?9 I
斐尔,) y. }6 D' j3 q9 _) M% ?
       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3 g! A6 x7 c: p9 G
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
- H% Y! a2 |  J7 ~. u* h       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7 \0 q" t; @( E- Y$ X4 R1 j
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2 a; C- I& F1 n8 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。' j) a0 i, b# E5 K: r
       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 y5 o6 O! Z+ B( c; Q7 r, V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
: k5 r& c3 p4 ~" _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
7 a7 [7 H# o+ {# r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。
3 h% e4 u9 D- [8 \& p* x6 v       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
: x0 U7 y/ c) M$ g) q' M,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$ Z* T% X/ c+ T. |3 j* i" ~: V
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。" H& G$ O5 ]; }
       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% l0 V" j# _* T% J; T' X
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; c/ c7 ^- A* n# |2 N. W' q8 J
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。! V( Y1 ~& |# z' x$ |: C4 G
       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$ [! q1 p& C/ M2 B, M
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) ?+ Y7 ^6 D  O' B: a
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
+ C4 m' H4 O! ^6 c6 r# C! q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
2 @" z. ?1 A5 V7 A1 p% w7 x2 \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
: E1 N, H* u1 C8 o/ |! N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- o8 t& _9 a' i7 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
/ h) s+ p* {, S。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: K/ O$ W- C+ v' {' z# [" {. d4 E
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。  w4 Q7 T- B- X) r+ D& v7 }; Z
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
- S# W+ G* c( j/ U( K1》,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 d/ q; O7 B% R% x8 S
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7 l+ S  K' W9 v* p( Q% d
同意见的专家。
- _% U6 s; O0 Z4 R/ z& |! m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. S2 e0 F  R0 i4 ~8 h
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
, _, o( ]0 k$ J& ?- m5 g* Y. x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
/ Y: b5 C, ]* P% |7 j《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
; z! S0 A8 Y% aCallaway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)
; _% k- g  V/ R1 O* p; O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# @8 F2 }% y: B5 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- ]9 k( A( g( |1 x4 h9 r! b8 d' z
这些被Callaway忽略。
2 @, O9 Z+ a. H% A' a( t) V; T$ `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3 s, w/ ^# T0 j7 m
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% r2 j" Y% e# e, h  S2 A! Q3 I
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 h' O, d/ x3 ^$ D2 l! 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
; i# V7 e  R, i9 U/ J% A: u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
4 L5 U8 e3 E6 T" Y! ^; ]5 q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
! y  Y. w8 A8 T% q3 f8 B9 y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。9 t5 B; Y5 ~$ G) f! E+ w: T7 X5 z
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6 C" p: y7 z' C7 q. x9 e. I3 V
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0 a4 y4 f6 P+ i$ I- B6 N
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
1 w+ w6 _8 I. I8 }# O9 G”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
$ @! w: Q; h4 [1 q, F' {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" E1 }# u* l; Q3 d7 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6 `0 x! n3 T+ E- C5 T4 w
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
! Z/ O- _2 c, ^- P! z. @+ a* }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! C* c# o6 P) `& F: L. c1 d
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* }- F1 p8 r, ^: ~; K  _
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ t* z4 y$ s- j2 d我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。* L0 U8 \* k' d; h8 a$ U

- j8 A* S& l/ `- T' I* ^7 ^$ w2 v6 E1 L3 m; n) I& I! o7 M% V
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
7 i0 Y9 K" U3 i4 L, V7 l  d" n  h; I# H: C8 D" X! h( a0 l
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结0 O) u! H: W6 U- j$ [
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
# {8 z( f' t) z7 Z0 X* N附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见5 g: d; j0 n( s, f) P* p
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见+ \1 Q* M" m% |+ C( U0 S( b- e

4 T+ w3 q3 n" X$ u( Y% I
* @. z; M# [; C3 C+ _4 F9 t9 l/ L8 \7 M. R4 s: J) m9 A
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
- Z- E: ~5 M* ?1 a6 y7 mDear Phil,
( ^/ g3 Z0 F$ l6 b. J       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
0 |" s6 Q* |& `8 e6 f) }report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, U, _$ w- v0 }7 A! R
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed$ V: ^9 v: |& W) A* H' }, {& ?
you.
& [$ R8 l/ @3 [. H) ]- j       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have3 Q3 W9 C' `1 Z8 M  g4 s0 U
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese; V  ]+ Y! p2 x6 V8 V! B
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the7 I: X' o$ p3 q$ z' k2 |# \% `
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature) w0 A; J  A  I+ ^2 c$ H
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
% \) V6 ]( n$ {+ P( |/ @seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
$ F1 x$ u0 |$ C; ]8 Upieces much more than the regular Western news media would.# `9 N" k- R5 J- ~8 M! M% k
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
# E, Q# |( x3 `worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a+ _, ~1 ^& p. Z- a2 b
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 k6 Z) x6 J, S4 Q
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
7 e3 P3 G* x2 g8 C$ F6 e+ m; Vdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
8 p" I: ]% j/ xexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal  R: Z! P, X3 q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
/ \5 g6 {$ i! O5 Fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone  x( n  n3 X$ c
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' [4 `2 N2 l& N# B; g' e2 J& s& d3 Kreporting.
# G% O/ {4 x2 I; i) G; q/ j       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
' s: p4 G5 c* ^6 e" Halready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
8 e: B. N/ i/ n+ U  Cchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in0 C& [" w$ A5 t/ t5 \/ L
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A7 r& ?9 l! `2 U2 k, I' t. n0 @. q
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.: ~% N( ]: T# v: x9 [1 P
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem* D5 O# ?5 _) G1 I. |; O
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds, `5 f7 z' p8 {
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ M$ s4 z5 c% L7 |8 _5 _  f& Xmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
! Z, P3 z: ^0 x% p& cevent for men, with the second fastest record.: c: ?; |8 y1 T( ~# M( C
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye# y/ f$ k3 o& j
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 164 k( D  l1 T" N6 d, \" Y. E# C
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record0 n* J% @+ c4 t+ p
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
4 z$ k0 p. @$ h6 b5 n7 Xmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,6 l% Q% Y+ A1 Y  M- a4 k7 Y: k* w  I
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
2 I6 V3 n9 j/ W8 r: ]$ e6 I7 @  RLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
4 X5 b; R) Z( D/ g! ybehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the. C/ n; \8 r# w
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower6 A6 B. _& l8 {2 g, X+ P& e1 I
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
  n$ D2 \* @; v* gthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
4 j  d/ P; ~% q2 g; l" r, ^5 cher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then& W# c$ }( d$ D% B7 A* R
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# G# v; o5 y: ^; H9 d/ i2 U4 ^problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( A! \& [# O8 Mswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
  ^0 S% h% |4 Rteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the/ h+ ?" {- r/ f% I
Callaway report.0 u& q0 R( o2 F- Z
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more9 {8 T  M! ]* |  x3 o* _$ B$ u
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
5 m* @  f, i& X/ Qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
, T3 J: F: O( I: N  P4 V& b& e( E* R# }of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
& s6 E& B% q! S9 W" d( dbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
8 S) C) f0 E% b, ]Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
! l3 ~( o  E" f' bpublicly voiced different opinions.- }* }, c6 m& `9 U, S
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD, k) |+ I1 H3 ~& g& X) N4 s
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature9 W, u5 p7 ?2 v3 `
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' t$ z3 n" x2 ?, d
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds% p6 x, i. x( Z+ ]+ ]
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; [( }! Z5 F7 A, Y8 u# Aof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.% g7 l2 w% W% K$ j
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
5 v0 T+ k+ r0 xthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They* q9 _8 R/ I: N. ~2 c( }4 `
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
* a/ x7 F& ^, c" ^+ Q' s# \: Z# L* o+ HAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
" a) h% E8 G. c; T2 C( Sthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was0 U; O* `: [% s6 @* A- F& m6 Y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
) t  X7 K+ `- D3 L! ]2 X4 UOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
- S9 p' [0 C6 O$ [7 emany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the! ^! M  F) R  x# T) |7 g6 L+ k
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
3 {* Y0 j' G% P/ _(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she1 a. a, U' N. T) e/ l( I
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
' u# \2 u( F7 \& V8 \0 H  C9 M; S: g/ \The British have a good international image, partly because of your science1 e) V! X# _$ h& v/ t' v# w& A  c$ P
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
: H% i* Z2 z  }/ x$ HDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
9 |6 Q$ ?) o8 T1 ?% Z1 b0 ONature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
, w3 E2 B% U/ p' Iobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( e4 {' m2 h, c5 n0 E5 y5 h
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 N: n+ ~5 E# i7 a) Hrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.: C0 o5 A% f- o9 Q" Z
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
+ ]3 C% n2 P2 d7 |6 p% w/ Q5 Hshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
5 J$ Q+ P9 |& W+ J$ Eus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
% b' v7 c8 U7 b- E/ d/ g( nfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
& Y0 u% o% Z) w0 R7 Kthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
, ~: d! a' Z0 ?8 g8 aabout British supremacy.
: f. ]3 G$ x" V! }1 t* H3 d' ~The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many' `! t) i+ @2 ]" S$ D) T
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more0 a' u! P* {/ |4 \: ~" @
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
3 n% h# [- U# a: u7 R+ ~5 N( f( f; _our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London3 l1 G) l& w: Q7 m1 N* g$ s+ q1 o
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
3 g# z  d/ X0 z1 y( ]7 F% AYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of( F: }! [/ l3 V$ J
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ w! G( y1 z6 {  _
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
9 N( h& @' F' N3 g. lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
; o7 H& o1 L$ A" {/ K4 i5 I1 `publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like: W4 \; m! M8 ~) m
Nature.
) a: x5 _# |% z+ R: a$ VI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 ~  w% I, w) I* \
the Callaway report.
8 \  M5 v  \1 Y8 D) l8 f, C  G! Y# u0 _# G
Yi
, ]6 g8 g  g  v$ x! l+ x# Q2 t
% h" ]7 {% S0 |* MYi Rao, Ph.D.  Q8 E# s! j+ A
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! w6 y4 r; t5 i  G
Beijing, China
( t  {* z$ |" C- E4 R5 v% 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·········
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
* O$ F* S: S5 j8 d原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

- O2 `& A- m" v: |3 Y原文是公开信。
: d, E% s1 U+ s+ \+ F0 l" i* J- v, d6 l/ e  ?4 {$ L  O! e
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 . y  M9 A- w3 ], s8 l, N
原文是公开信。& F. M1 z1 }9 c' c3 E' e
9 z8 ^4 Q: k* A0 b
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

. y5 \2 R, l5 D; N+ 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. f2 X6 s% ^- t( L* v8 s
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 ^$ Y8 {' o# T! ?9 O5 R
4 t3 P' b. Y6 K* R0 i% }
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
4 d0 Q5 ^* ^- Z6 @7 i$ \# v: I0 z0 _; S
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania' W5 l! Z# K# {5 D2 a7 I

( W- ^, e% a# Q* J' E* ~6 T& jIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 G5 V5 g- K& |1 K+ x: p  K* k, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 W5 G4 _/ X. k% V
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ Z9 K2 z+ N4 f( O$ K$ _* yis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 R& E/ ^# V8 V5 P& P& V
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 c8 M4 q- C7 C1 L( {populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors2 Z  S2 m, J3 {- D1 n0 o
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# m, X2 @- h# u/ q4 x4 s1 U( e
which they blatantly failed to do.5 x6 `! h4 @( {0 y1 a( t! b
1 I/ T1 V! }* X' z9 p
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
1 @% j4 v/ `3 a- IOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in; M# D- I" B1 g9 t3 O& W: F
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 C* y# Q! d& Y) H1 l- f$ S1 G
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: t# d. }1 k' l) o/ ?2 Epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an0 p3 u- j6 |7 W  }4 O) q
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
+ h6 Y; O6 `6 y0 S6 ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* l' t0 S# N: e. b+ d0 m3 ?be treated as 7 s.
" `, a( S" L6 B$ G* A+ e  d9 K+ e: p
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is1 {4 y. f3 E0 R1 A! U+ }: _" N4 p) a6 V
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem0 C* r* }+ n) O/ {2 V
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 O2 x* J) `- U
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ {/ h" l9 H5 L  c
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." H. ]  i- ]. l
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
& h( A' z) x7 m3 y; y' Delite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" I. N* m4 O! n" Z" p2 d: L; I
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
4 D) d# ]3 |% I6 ^based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ z, l7 y1 \* b: A0 T, C. Q- }& M. J  b
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ B6 w) r! l7 a$ Y: e2 ~% u- K! y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ a6 [9 P! Z* p* M2 u( `3 wthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& Y4 f: o5 ?* M  e: e' z; g# ohe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later, S8 F* q3 _/ g
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
# e) d; z; x- z8 s# y' r0 ?: \best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. G; Z: V: I) c! D0 F$ J0 W
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another, p2 m  l" ?2 m( b; A  t( ?
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
) f/ M+ m, Y/ E7 T+ o) O  }+ qhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) \; @2 b# K# G4 c; ]) [
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this8 `- {* s$ z) x! f9 j
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
! |2 v: M1 q* h8 ^# q6 m# A$ t% t6 i+ cfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam9 t; x3 I" G4 \! k" B. a) J
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. I" Y) k$ O$ {$ S( x- [& ^
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. S8 ^% w0 c( d0 [5 I$ V& v- qimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.$ e; C+ p0 r4 M

: t$ n9 l9 E7 F- A: dFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( j/ g, e/ \( B" o( Wfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
  z4 F: Z- P, Z' i" ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
" f  E6 v, g) [4 ]), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ d9 i/ l" N3 B1 lout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 ^3 i+ P$ a( @0 Q) p- J* I
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 c5 c" E4 x% Z- m0 \& ?2 wof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it8 J! @' r* R' K# V1 Q. R. I- m
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
: B! X/ U; o  R( O" H4 C) _) Aevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! P( c, w3 z3 F0 l* y3 \$ R0 X. I
works.: s  j' ^+ x8 T: Y' e! X1 g, R- j# E0 R

0 b: N( r- a2 g5 FFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
. p4 |4 a3 v, e  h9 Kimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this- a8 f& J: I. t' M% I$ K5 b! l& B& F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that- P1 E& p6 b6 r
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ J& p/ m4 k: R6 [4 r. n
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 r5 |  L  Y* {( lreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! u: c# G5 h  v! s" Z, V1 d# @" C" Jcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 V6 _. v; S% _7 Q+ j0 r
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 Z/ E  W5 T: w& A
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 z: Z& h' e( _" b+ k# Uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is8 R( H. P' q0 g! ]
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
/ x7 L: }2 J$ p; I9 B: R# pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) }/ {5 v8 r1 j& u
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( K. s8 G; c. G9 l  g; s
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not. n0 F1 ?* p# h8 P" }# L; c6 n
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( n5 r* N* R1 z$ g, ~$ a% j* i
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are# t! S1 C/ a8 r" ^
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may  \+ {$ ]# b9 K) f. J6 I
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a9 A  h% o7 Q3 {8 |2 i
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. `4 O* Y' b) B1 Q$ Ahas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
: i' J. t7 U) t( O: Y' X$ s7 Pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
; I! [% d7 R, D1 j& q! e/ r2 w  mother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ t9 o6 d8 G$ L4 ?3 P/ o1 M, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is2 g5 O3 N% N: \- U8 k, U
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% Q7 k: |" q# Iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
2 G- G% j; e- y+ m9 X' J# ]/ bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& ~  V/ H2 y( r- _6 ELet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& [" K6 Y% M3 j. K- o" h8 n
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for0 P$ e$ l$ _! b, ]0 h2 Q0 Z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.7 E" H1 _0 q; z* @/ a- z3 \0 A, Y$ |
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 \) F) h8 Z& e  q6 B* x) S. j% T9 C& k6 J- H3 g9 g1 J/ g0 H
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-8 _2 o- ~% T/ P
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention) \+ P7 r- R  b4 M, x+ m
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 @; m2 P! x: Q
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
0 v8 w0 L/ X8 @6 p. a" xOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
' x) s7 j2 X3 D$ fdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic* X* B: h6 T) J
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
3 b" \6 a6 c9 shave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
# N/ `* a. U# vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this3 G# N1 {- n& {) O% P3 G0 l/ Q* K
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.% C2 ?5 |0 @. @' N: s
' l" P% o. T6 w% [" Q1 S4 f
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (7 ?. {% U2 M! `
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ _9 {& \/ Z, e6 M1 k% U/ ^" N5 fsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 ^" C, \( c3 [) N2 p" \3 |, U
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
$ B: Q% E6 H+ W6 y/ k0 rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 v3 x" ]2 w/ B; i7 [interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 q8 j- Y/ p! |! p* N! Z& K
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
& U: g7 z* b) f( Gargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
( d2 m. u9 k- X/ T: |" ]! e" ysuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or4 O6 C5 |6 b. P. U
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, 2026-2-22 21:12 , Processed in 0.185248 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