埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2167|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 6 |' ]3 B: Z" D% S! d/ O

+ g, k( H0 O9 N& C' F6 j1 N饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* N! f+ @) v+ r+ s
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。7 ?5 M6 d' m( |
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
+ R% O+ B- ]) o& m5 u
% o' o! l6 x0 m1 {. T; Khttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: j3 H! s1 N( o
/ g  ?# D' R% {5 v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选: E9 S6 W+ w) I* N1 h/ q1 l

) V6 N) m; x* j英文原信附后,大意如下:7 ?  x, _) S6 E$ ]9 o6 |
3 T1 q3 w$ U, i) }, `% K) l
斐尔,1 F$ G) E; X( @8 o: q
       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
7 _1 Z, V0 z( I: gemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
$ X+ ~5 [" {  I8 H  t- Q! g       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
. M# e5 I! z  C# o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' q6 H3 C% n: D5 @) S' Y+ n
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。
$ G" J7 E: v2 b       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* b# H' ^. h( K9 M6 [
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3 U/ Q& t' j2 t2 Y9 P# b) 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
7 U/ B  c( j4 I' }/ Z  j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。
% h8 F2 J0 y7 M2 w. w. s* m4 O       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 {8 @/ o1 u% H
,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! ?+ y5 O1 I% ^
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
& H) i1 B! E) B; k  z+ h, r7 }       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2 S+ O$ f/ {% U6 V! _2 y1 R! W
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8 s' Q4 ?: x' e& {" |8 a" U
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; t$ x6 }4 g2 t8 s1 U4 ~% {
       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1 I5 n' Y& t5 I# `7 s, r0 J
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* M. k/ m2 m, J! S" B
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& U3 a" L( X# U/ W) {1 n% H
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
  d& x! |) s( w0 l. o+ W300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、六0 |. d7 [: |' e6 v$ p
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9 j& @/ V' x. f
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) `8 A: ~% s" e  s, I2 m
。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5 q# S9 K+ V9 I) t
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; R# j9 ?  i5 ?3 p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
0 l8 U7 ]5 T) O; m( P. y6 w1 X1》,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
! z# T9 t/ H, o: B( G( R  PWikipedia。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: o3 M  W+ B* I6 ~+ }6 h, Q
同意见的专家。9 @: G# ]1 w) l/ ?
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. l( _- X) P( M( z, O
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 F1 t/ @4 N1 k) b7 r& p
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9 O$ f. ~, C# {: |0 q2 k
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
$ u7 }( G' {7 _+ 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)
( w. T( i# [& r$ P3 g) d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0 _7 X9 u. j7 O6 D8 i" ~# 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 O( D# A% k' w! R0 y9 p2 i这些被Callaway忽略。
  U; {- E! P8 S( i, v( h( Q9 B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
+ f8 `+ S9 K. [" 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 V, Y8 |4 G' `  r- \( l7 I/ f教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 g( p) F; _( N. T5 b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" Z2 l0 d4 `- @2 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
. U9 z3 l% [6 _8 ^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
) E0 W- |* X$ _- l( @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。, v! b$ X; ?9 B) f2 j' H
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
, s) j) a( v. Q7 F% p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- ~- Q' i- t6 n" A( Y; L1 _
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
" o2 t& V8 a4 r8 H”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 f: @4 a3 A, }1 m2 W' J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! c- E' P( Q' V1 P3 {
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 y, [. }& @4 d1 P" Z( t
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  G& ]8 w: R. w; M( Y1 g
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3 I& M, m; C7 p- _3 _9 a, u
测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染) [5 _, i& k2 X0 t: I; r3 a
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: R0 C" ]6 o4 N! p0 Y我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
6 `1 V1 L% _. P5 h7 W
# F* e  w0 m7 @1 K: p; g# o1 O+ q& W3 S& q" {
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅; e1 u% ?) F5 i  x8 Y
3 ]% D7 Y2 ?3 M1 |
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 J. C" A# E: F- F' w5 f附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email2 l2 `' q; J- M: e6 W$ W
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
" r8 J- h# D/ i+ L& c  \% F附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 m0 Q4 @' I0 c& j  e9 f! y1 ?$ v8 Z7 l' y/ }
, v3 w# H! u% Q: L) ?

; \( O" y( t/ [2 j0 K: D5 s原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& ^: e; S  U" v" w4 ^
Dear Phil," Y2 V* q# T4 K4 E. n+ a) x
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" @& ^2 q8 U0 }0 m  Creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20; ^) r0 C; z( M, l( E
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed2 S/ J0 v2 o0 e7 w  F: y. X  Y
you.
# T4 J. \" |* J- a6 O       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
3 R' ~) [* l* m/ {0 hbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; F" n: i% ^+ b. C* areaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
, [$ K; h4 }: L$ N2 pworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
' b! p1 x: J9 h: C9 j$ `( jpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
& ^: |- s1 o3 Y2 B* y( v0 i, M+ _seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: j. D1 B: N; C1 w% Q9 F
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. m/ \9 ~+ R& _( l" k
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the9 q* M' s# y* J; {3 o* y$ h
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" b+ {; `& S' Y/ Jnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
5 [' E2 N9 I: v  Ithat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 _9 u) w$ e9 w: ldid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping( \4 a8 n2 `* C+ N
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal( n/ m7 X4 i- w/ i; ?- [; X, Q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
4 y  [) H" J# a0 b8 d& Fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
8 m- U0 \. F! q) r- S7 {  }2 ]to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
/ n5 C$ L3 a) ^* E8 x# |reporting.
, J" u1 e4 j# t$ _5 ?+ W       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have  a  \0 p: Q4 z$ S! [1 Q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by4 W0 d( E% G, o  A' r2 r
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
" Y; ?  c$ r6 f- @( isports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 Z9 S- |* W% s) Npresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 I$ j) ]) y' O- K) F+ V       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ T% Q( S: \; R" C2 E, Pmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
2 e; }$ `- d/ f2 q7 h1 m9 d, }! o. Dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50" l0 V" w7 ^% ]2 r: A
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same' u# w# s6 `* T; D8 z& z! n
event for men, with the second fastest record.
* w$ P' S! ?9 J       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
, B/ P! G  N6 P/ c* Zwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 168 B; m2 O$ s' ~. k; L( Z) o8 x
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 s3 y( R0 O, O/ {* T$ [
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 X/ F4 g( s: @+ ]3 X- G# S
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,- W: y; v2 [8 B, W/ M
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
0 Z, O& e4 W9 z, mLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
0 d) s" `2 U5 q, Q5 W4 N2 T: E4 Fbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 Y4 F/ q- {* P+ L! i
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
% X( b5 p4 z/ H1 O' S/ Mthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
6 u* Y2 [( m/ l1 l: Vthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
% L4 H, }. ?4 _5 A: Rher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then' d( @5 o" z& t) b4 F
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
% r: ^3 E- `5 y- z$ ^problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
) f% A3 `, Z* M: aswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the6 F' W8 P" k- j" R% ~) `% X- y
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
5 S9 V* H! d) z3 |! \Callaway report.
0 O1 M" X, I+ ]2 y5 F. NThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more! b5 u8 `1 v, [8 r
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details) G& Y' ]" \. K" x/ G- L' M# L; \6 W
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description* N2 J6 s- X/ j
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
, x& Y( Q+ R1 U0 lbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
' z5 p" q! q) `) L" Z% y% Z0 vWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& U! S/ K' q' J( ?( J  m
publicly voiced different opinions.; V" y2 z/ m6 P# i2 j
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
, r8 C# t5 x- r: i5 X" |from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature4 Z8 I+ k8 B2 `& o# W7 y; f
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent, x: c+ ^7 T* @9 A0 e& _
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
- d4 e) `* o1 B7 j2 D/ Fyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
* E) S' y* V3 J* H; ^" h5 Oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue." X. ^1 Z' {( I. l, @2 p8 h
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! L; T8 v1 L1 r, O  D, E( B# e" ^, ethat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They+ E% c& r0 ^* G8 z6 d+ b0 j/ |
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
0 K0 @2 O  a# ?6 r) ]Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that5 o; i7 U  O6 f6 E! D% Z- {
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
" Y6 F: q& u( B0 s- u5 P7 f2 K; Isupported by facts neglected by Callaway.4 v' ^, W/ A+ @/ I8 r  r
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that, B8 J3 D* m, W3 G8 G
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the8 w4 g( a3 d9 ?' v. S4 `7 D
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
! m( ^3 N, S3 S' Q0 I" X/ `(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
- B& l2 X3 A9 g0 G% |1 \and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.. F2 ?) y; `1 Q8 L
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science% m$ D. R; U* r: W# R
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
9 ]. O; j9 l1 J4 c, d1 A7 vDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world., `/ D$ v6 R" ]0 [: z. ~. c( r
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and0 y& c3 r! u( N; U- }/ E, F6 |  i# o
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
. t2 N, p7 _7 O' v3 W9 ywhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 T+ }1 ^# W! h1 \repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
& Y$ n" B9 t* z4 b( aThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ @) V" B: Z3 n
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
9 ]5 ?4 ]2 n  H. B' [8 vus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather( X" n: M! _- z( ?$ }
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that, p$ k/ ^0 [( C3 F* D0 T0 r, e
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
$ z2 J2 q' o0 h# Eabout British supremacy.7 A6 |0 M9 j7 |4 C1 ~+ l: l) D% Q
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
% Z. K3 s9 F6 N+ T' @# \unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
& [  F. O/ [9 a( s# H2 aChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by$ t" r; c  s* I/ b- n
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London7 u1 \! @: {6 A9 |- g% ]7 p' L. W/ c
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
$ H$ U, x9 z; Y. @% PYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: J1 N, y: `  U5 X4 I! V3 T# `
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
0 R$ k2 m8 C5 b% Dbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, M5 C; N. P+ @: j  x! Oit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
. d! D) H/ s3 _( g4 s, d/ y; G$ hpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
* ~$ `$ c; n; c7 U& J# fNature.# W  t/ @7 L: x& b' O- K
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance$ m4 J, p0 N1 K9 W
the Callaway report.  \: q: [1 p" g. x
2 W$ ~' U# A0 n3 v' `' }& A' s; {
Yi, j% A3 ^  l. B2 {, h  W

1 [0 m! F5 N5 {. a" S# VYi Rao, Ph.D.* X, h% t: b5 I0 I5 h% L
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences7 b% i, H5 b* P# ?$ ^" X/ M
Beijing, China
6 O* G: K7 J% V- W4 O: H" u0 z
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 1 T7 c* u% P# Y4 U0 @' h
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
! U* D9 I* ?+ D* B
原文是公开信。
& G( s% L- R0 Q) U5 M3 z/ F/ W; v# {$ {# K# T2 a  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
  E: M' J* n6 y! b5 X0 \原文是公开信。  G4 N. Q; s$ s% U

' R; I6 z& H% H. A. k$ w- M5 y5 n小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

% ?5 C2 K- C. z  b; N3 O; _$ 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
$ @$ q; Y% v! w3 O! G5 }如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。4 D! |8 ?: d- M

5 K; i: {6 D% w9 z% A6 Ehttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
4 v. M8 ?4 t4 T) g# B/ @2 M! B& F- O  h. a! U/ n6 _" U
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania5 e! h- P1 c4 o% l% C1 a3 I
# X3 H1 J6 U; \. N# X' E
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself1 |& A- I9 H1 _! c
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 o$ D) i: P( _$ x3 {' E9 @magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- p$ R; }6 O& C/ W6 wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
$ ]" I# _6 \4 s8 y0 o4 xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 C# D7 B& j. z. X# |( _+ b/ ~( E% s
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 f9 n* Q8 Z, b, u) R% d0 u7 J! b- v2 Mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,0 r" |) R! q  a/ r
which they blatantly failed to do./ E: z1 S* M& B
& I% V6 O5 ?! a$ [' c& r
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her! {6 D5 S8 e6 Q) p9 b
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in. s5 z! w) d% j" Z
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 w: V9 r5 n; P+ N7 N) l0 Wanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous, d+ o- `! `! _  K7 X) R2 v
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* p. v$ Z) m1 Y! M+ oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: o) G- q% `, s) O0 L: W3 \" y
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 L! h2 E( y( t) d* g$ N" D
be treated as 7 s.
& B2 O* D  R' ]6 ~# G* I, g0 I4 N, g% j
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is6 B1 b4 q$ P9 b; g* z5 l( W
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem: K: ~& m! P- x; ~1 f3 Q! ~
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.9 ?. Y# L# t$ ]
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4009 z/ L6 o4 q. L6 I, r1 ~) J4 z- C
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 a: R2 J+ Z( `9 F$ k$ V
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" o* i: P- G/ {
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
. d1 X: Q- H) C7 A1 c1 Qpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# U5 ^7 \5 {4 H' {, |based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& r1 X9 D, y  B/ o9 o/ k. B  w/ N  ?$ d: h
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 K, Q" n" h$ U3 E5 C8 `3 ~2 b# C
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; _, M% l, h1 p: i! @. v- v6 f5 jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so- w" I9 n2 v  e, g3 d5 G
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) d$ T' _5 {1 m8 G) J, H' N4 levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ d) B2 V* O1 X3 i9 L9 V5 H; U
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World9 f5 `) u2 D! y% h3 U
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
$ c1 C3 I) l# p9 \topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 w0 m% b+ K- |/ b2 o
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 {: |! I0 d& E9 B% X
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# s  Q, w# ~  a; [# n+ U' mstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ b/ n) r" f( K& A( ^' }
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. K, m# g* D" _7 ?, ffaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
" F" c! c- x' k; f( v6 Y9 M% J' waside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 D5 a& ^0 x9 O4 G! Q7 W4 `9 Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.  B: b, z. W6 U2 T1 W" F
8 d' o7 m; P0 v3 \" G
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' y. A4 J/ C' q$ F" E
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
& S; w$ }0 ?; j" E" E2 p6 a( js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' A! `2 c% q- D3 W
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: G# ^& v& @) I7 Y2 z1 f8 \# x9 ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# N- I! e# m0 F% E5 `& X2 l2 b' a
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
$ z: g& S1 Y( i- I2 f- q- Iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
* j8 ?- f7 K5 l1 A% j* alogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 J! K. q/ q0 n) U$ X& Q
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 D# R$ c9 C# W% r3 t: ~works.
$ Z( p) }0 x1 o  J6 P7 T6 r' a6 W# S' M/ Z5 b0 o; `9 w! R
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) w# j" D: `2 k! R  kimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: l6 E% E' v4 w7 x. M% bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. j) U7 |5 }. J) T  r
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific* ^& X. R9 U& w$ b
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
9 m* }2 b- b: K5 L$ i5 yreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" g2 K% m- e, y. V0 P9 k7 ccannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 h4 Q3 t+ {/ j# t( u( M% A
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works4 z5 G0 Z3 w3 {/ G
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
0 d% z5 ]$ f$ M' E, T3 i8 ?1 Fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 }  ~1 W8 j7 R! y
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! x/ L/ `0 _, z: D  i, }wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
6 h" U6 B8 S8 i) Ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
+ g' i! `; g& }1 [7 @% U7 V2 y+ U" W  ?' Qpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 Y+ I8 D0 w7 c& |use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation5 i* K9 u# Z% Q+ V8 Q) l  e
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
0 S! H2 N' @& u7 A+ P6 w$ Tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
. c: N- f% k5 h7 p1 b4 |: Cbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 S8 O$ s4 [* V/ q- F! h
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 L' d: O; W& a. x4 J+ {has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a  f; z4 I; V' {# v  W4 f
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) U) q5 S4 Y% R! g
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 e& ]% G& ~# y; M% {, w: V, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 @: h# v2 o4 B8 s6 |) Gprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ {5 N  _; b4 D2 e; Hathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight) B; R# Z8 M4 W. d. ?
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?; Z, ^3 H& s  ~  N+ v
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! {) P: E2 [" W# H  Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 @& z: w. z  e
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.9 C% ?4 R6 q  B
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
# m5 z4 C  A2 C0 [$ Y; j3 m1 n: c3 m: ?5 {, Z+ z8 P
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
0 K6 L1 F) y, _( j6 n4 R# ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 d5 _' c9 a+ |( C1 P/ \
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 U7 @& U6 U5 ]0 s4 h7 Y% y. lOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London  p  C% |5 l5 V' R/ W0 e8 X$ l: P
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
( @) o5 Q  J  z9 y8 g. ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
& ?* y5 h. r  d0 c+ \* a2 X0 |games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
) I' R+ z% ~" x  j. t2 q) ahave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a4 Y. Y7 }4 [) J4 J1 ?
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 {7 L- ?8 t' j9 H: xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
5 {! g$ U3 Z$ K2 y1 ~1 {. T& z# n, X
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did () x( S+ p& l  |: l) ^- B
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
6 t9 Y6 R1 C  l# S0 o( r+ t% }suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; N, T1 }0 T+ p: N& ^0 J
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" v$ R& O3 S! c2 f/ `" Rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your" o' h1 U! f0 u: w, O
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
, j4 q4 z$ U: c6 s) Fexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your3 g- }. p  u. _  c- \& O
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal% G- ?( y5 ^; q  Z1 z: W, q9 \9 \
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 x9 t! _! \! v7 K- @; l/ freporting 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, 2026-3-31 16:06 , Processed in 0.116832 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