埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2247|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 2 i# H! _9 P0 P" K' g

% x/ ~0 q! O! r* \$ V( k( O# \饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
9 v$ U3 c8 x. t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。
, X8 @0 j5 m8 U7 p总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
& a. G% h6 b1 f) b+ q+ v
8 C3 h; H+ i. U6 e! @. b# h/ Fhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
% U5 m! p: ^' {( W# M
, w& i- Z" H, k; R* @1 ?2 u致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选3 H$ J/ A: q; a% h3 Q* a
/ T: H' |7 t! t% M
英文原信附后,大意如下:" Q4 k* b2 V! t. S5 c0 k
% k  H/ W5 s6 I- ^
斐尔,
; `* a0 R; Y0 b, k       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- n, X; J2 y: ]( u3 K0 Z
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
8 r8 P; A' X( i2 A3 K& A# |; ~       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
- w) @0 u: M4 S: E) S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6 w6 u: h9 `: k; J* k% z% F
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。( h6 H( G% Q! B& {  |% X- K
       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! O+ C% o+ k; U4 }5 l% ^9 W
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
: [0 Z/ [8 [( 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
; R% n. J: Z9 K/ ~5 V  J8 ~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 a, ~: c0 g) j' l
       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% h8 Z3 T3 C: L% H0 ~2 X9 }$ K6 ^
,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
3 r0 x) X& O: z( Z2 `- y: Q: ^”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
5 v# a3 c3 a  F, M) ]       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3 `3 X/ r0 Z8 V# c; I8 I6 H9 u3 E
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$ A, ^" m4 Q6 }. W: X7 ]
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
# c7 h( }( B( |8 }# h- C       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# F/ H. y3 s. x! G( B; C" c
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
: g/ |3 t0 B4 Z8 a  M# B0 ]. C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$ |) o# Z. [& y; ]0 d% F
快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前) L  i$ W) i: A, N& l8 y6 K8 M
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六3 {, Z' j* i3 l) e) v) U9 {
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$ e+ w- H( w0 j0 @3 K* F3 w: l. h
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* k8 l. v/ ]6 G8 Z$ a9 f
。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2 A# ^% {/ k+ R3 E* @+ [
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
5 G: E& M  }6 T( t& Q) 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
) X- _4 H4 L! q' |0 ^1 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
. s( P$ o* ~5 R8 E3 h# }' DWikipedia。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- d) p1 s. Q0 e  j3 `3 ^
同意见的专家。
. i) H8 i' s1 j0 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9 p  f9 B6 z$ M, X$ A+ K8 f& V3 T
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 w7 L2 K8 O5 a# T" q( t# 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
( q% S  L( x& d《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
2 i6 I6 H+ g2 W2 d, ^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)
( V( \: n3 ~1 y  J8 r5 M) k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
  L# i& t7 P" Z  \" K0 h《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& q7 `5 H: s, g
这些被Callaway忽略。! M7 s6 _# d" e
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& q+ Q- ]- q. J% K4 X
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
* [( ]& K5 M! B( S6 X- R( }% C教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。# O7 E* u' n9 ^
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
" N! W( v3 F8 m1 S% e# @. N: o2 x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
5 h& A8 u9 X' G8 _9 q& A- O4 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$ @# e) s- W, W
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 W, t0 _0 s& K8 t% m
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
3 [' R! g# j% @4 E7 Q+ f( [( t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
, Z$ O5 |) I8 c: f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
; Y5 X, l6 _) N( W. {. _5 b”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
: {. ~  C8 D- p5 D  l- Q) b7 s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  f5 |3 V: r5 S0 o+ a9 a
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
) X3 J! z& O9 Z# Q% Y& 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
  X' W8 a) A' a! s' x2 W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) b$ S. G. l, y% q$ P
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
  P9 u- ~' k- d1 i( @. b而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
2 j. M& D! I6 o! R& S: Z( f; Z1 W我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
+ R7 T+ v4 S/ N' p1 }% F8 ^; \' ~* L  k" T
/ y! ]3 T, `: r0 q- y0 \, c% }
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
) d( ?( {1 F1 n' ^
  y4 |. a- r- D. J8 g' O0 b附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
: ]9 ~7 p  A( l' i1 U3 P. z附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
8 q+ S0 q' c+ f8 R& ?+ k( D附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见: S- O1 p/ h" D% j7 B
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 l  x5 i2 B% S" c2 t2 A& D" x$ C: B, n, R2 p- |" x
4 X- |6 y( B# T+ `0 P# U8 M6 d

/ A0 {  s. z$ R. {, X# W原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
" o0 j) f% b% s! L: O+ L2 D) s1 hDear Phil,
( F6 M% Z$ g0 f       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s; ?  c( _- U$ Z1 m% w, y+ f# r
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 Y7 c4 i- M+ D# hhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: P; ^: V( P9 A" u% L' n5 v, uyou.
3 b" I) p+ F4 R2 q/ e       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, x! i7 a' H& U0 Ybrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
( b6 c& ~9 \, a4 [readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
1 a3 K# t. h0 `9 q) _* F' C$ vworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
9 M/ z8 d4 S; R! F4 }. Z1 Q/ |publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more  h1 w- L( r7 T8 F2 z
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news. P& X* N5 ^" e- U0 C
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
6 W2 h2 Y' ?- m# ^! l) H) C       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the4 r% u+ a8 ?  `0 N; H; l! @
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ R# k* y& M" i) ^5 V# Q7 ~
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 F: x6 S* o+ m4 o( @
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway2 R$ t/ s; g- U* j. i7 Y
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping  p% S9 m5 o: N0 _3 s3 b0 f: X
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal* k4 x9 E: v8 K8 @# b2 G% D  d
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,6 p+ ^) f" ?' d, o; `$ \7 n! V
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
+ j& k7 U% U  u: Eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news5 w4 x" a& i* Q* e! R
reporting.
4 s# f- z+ {1 I, y; V! Q       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have) q# ]9 d7 p4 q, U1 a
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
3 f3 H; V+ c9 \changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; v% |- \! |! ^/ @+ [4 V  I7 qsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A- W4 P# u' n/ z& `% b5 \- R1 ^
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 F* Z" E  C3 S6 i! v# G       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; I3 E% n4 X) Y* g) [
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
$ _$ s+ A2 m0 s( ?0 z- c, P5 g6 \) N3 O2 i8 mfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
' E* c+ c1 @3 X4 @% v+ z6 Imeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same: U# g- X  K: L( _# p
event for men, with the second fastest record.5 Q9 ?* R3 ]& ^$ o
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye9 }% x1 ?& M+ r! d$ g/ e
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
' U0 i6 }. r3 S/ X8 R; R& E" Gyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) `' ]% k0 g; M6 y. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
: q  d; C  B9 Q+ o. E/ @meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,* c& s  l' b- f$ i5 a
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than$ x2 W! V& {2 Z
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed0 n1 T/ G3 X: c! N* y+ g) R0 D' S
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 O: k) i, U# Uindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower- a% s: L/ T( ^% C: E) z
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 h; u. ~+ K3 N+ u4 R9 D3 L
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
; J' [9 j2 l' S( N) f$ S: `her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then, t' ~+ z& R. c2 C  P; N- w
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
3 k9 ~+ Q3 j9 N, v2 V- N3 Wproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
0 G- |- W+ y0 p/ Q9 r1 ~4 ?swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the) `! E# ~( K2 }8 J. Y. X( |
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& ^! ?) R8 s* s% I- f+ ]Callaway report.1 _) v! x6 J/ ]1 @1 ^# I* m  m) w
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more8 x+ r; b2 j' v! R$ C+ ]
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details& h4 V7 Q, N4 Q
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description5 J3 O2 k+ P3 M, G$ j* x: x
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been, ?/ u: K# t# A' W% r
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the7 e& s: X1 m/ H" M) H
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( Q: u, @" E9 K
publicly voiced different opinions.
, s! X) m( E/ R& C  Q& V( h# CYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD$ n' F2 \; o6 J: B
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
9 R; U7 H& g6 I  E9 DNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) T% W% S" C& V& Hpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
; R, K7 m! W9 w0 d7 x0 H# q$ Z) Iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
/ r- O6 ~. }6 m6 j. P% d0 o3 g9 Sof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
8 q, Z/ \5 W6 fThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
" k6 E4 j- u, r) o4 ]& q0 I  zthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
. u6 _+ z' U0 S* R* n9 Lhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
+ c3 q' }8 V& }! i- a) N2 R6 fAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that) Z+ A5 }7 h% W- H; _! T- A: C
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
1 P3 f1 J" U# a1 g) ksupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
4 [) p) }* l, UOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
! ]" J0 ^- |. A  q3 @many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# @/ @2 k- y+ T8 {+ ?6 I/ K
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
- W* l% R$ o5 x# X' Z5 t(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: k3 X5 U: r; t. d( A$ Dand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.6 o) ~7 [- ?/ g8 x
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* N7 p, m6 g# J9 ~+ d* `" K0 z! Oand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
9 g" y" S; q/ L( fDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
' u  l! j7 f3 e* s. J- o8 xNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and, }6 ?# R& t- G! Q4 v& f* _
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# v. D4 h- E% l* h; ]what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to% c4 o5 d+ L7 d0 Z, L( p5 u
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) W0 n# ], O( G; R  }7 EThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ B- j1 {; q+ P! Z* D+ b( W
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
8 h7 X$ B2 W% a! Kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather! F  O6 V: P- N% C+ g
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
+ }$ Y9 J' y/ P/ h/ ?( i$ m9 mthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
! Q/ z+ t; Y% wabout British supremacy.
3 P, S# o! q3 o; \/ H7 P% T  |The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many) v4 n3 G& a$ O' t- x
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; j* Y4 w5 Q8 H' C
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 |, ^; X6 M5 d5 j, ^6 u
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London+ c1 `0 N- {4 [
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases./ }; j( V9 v( m3 q
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
4 w( s3 \; r6 G/ oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests/ W. n2 K) {6 w
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
0 B  e4 q! @+ U2 t. g  s4 g) zit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
& |+ B4 g! @1 y  C: l0 z# ~% N; vpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
1 U: y  X+ k! X% W- |  hNature.
6 o7 E- r: l5 iI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
1 b6 `0 P: W" [' M8 rthe Callaway report." D+ Z6 W' O0 N2 ^. r3 _1 K0 ~

+ R9 \+ M& }( K7 V" i; tYi
2 S( P; i' R1 Z
- s/ n) k2 {5 z8 x+ I, ~Yi Rao, Ph.D.: }: k% \+ Z# v5 O- Z  [
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
8 q: ~7 x! g; A1 X. g5 {: Y3 z6 oBeijing, China' W- R+ M4 i, W* ^4 _
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!!!
大型搬家
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
3 `- o( U# a- B- [9 I$ C原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
5 p* \; w- F8 R$ z' Z
原文是公开信。
/ l3 S0 l& a: R9 z
: N1 ~2 q( g7 x6 J8 @( A8 ]1 _2 ^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
- B- ]1 ~! l% T9 U原文是公开信。+ [/ M4 l/ o8 v7 O: }, K: A' h6 B
5 R' }9 ]( ]7 Z# B" u4 K" }% ~1 _  `
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
7 j; W& K8 g1 V+ S! ^0 P
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, a8 |6 Y8 w3 g& [6 n: D
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ _6 x$ }1 ~- S6 ~6 y$ p5 k- _( D* A# A/ T& x$ t% {
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& }2 k6 b5 i6 d, Z3 ], L

7 K/ I" l/ e) k9 XFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
  r! U5 m; c3 R9 E
7 L. q0 F, T8 S" M: O5 V  DIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
! ?/ \6 r: I* A, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 y# c7 Y4 V+ D" M* z" b6 P+ Tmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
! i+ H! D- r4 s3 s# Cis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the  _4 e0 v2 G/ k( s9 t0 J# c
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general' q4 V: l2 E2 k2 ?
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
+ m/ @3 h8 w9 f' hshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
6 |( z4 W4 X8 G8 X, s+ r' @& E7 dwhich they blatantly failed to do.
; a$ U! Y/ R  r5 E4 D3 W
/ s+ w* D0 v  `First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her+ n, Q9 {! c' X- G, R$ s
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
7 u2 v! b. M- f  ]8 V& s2 L& D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “# r& K) B, `. D; {7 \$ h
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous9 {3 z7 T! ?) u. U# x
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
" }: `4 p4 H' G* h, bimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the8 ?0 N/ q8 P( _) ~2 [) u( T7 T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to& e- m6 }3 d3 j( G) V0 ?
be treated as 7 s.
4 ^7 F# P7 v3 F# D- I) _# Y4 K7 G; |4 c4 Q5 d' [  J7 n0 I
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 U4 V5 o) K/ O7 r3 g, _& f6 t0 Sstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* {$ {- j3 B  w9 R8 w' pimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 ]& t$ s! K6 e3 m/ S7 v. m! s. q
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& M5 s. f1 g: ~8 y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.* ]- N0 X$ [4 t3 ~
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ A4 l: Y0 r: A" ^* W; A; x
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and  }4 Q) `0 T' Z& M6 o  f
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
) |. \8 d, s$ C. ~: Z3 x1 rbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! n) [: `+ H$ \. E

& H8 U5 ~. {+ E0 RThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook% G' e* A" m5 r" w* F) W4 n* V
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in, r: j. @: j4 n0 ~/ Y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
5 A- m" ?1 o% ?- k0 Xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later' j0 E% X2 [$ G! P' r7 I; Z) ?$ t
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
7 m0 T' C4 v- e' D) p( \; Gbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
. I2 |) T) I( j& E; g9 UFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 w% U) P, D! h4 r9 ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
- }% z% V% S* o2 @hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
$ P, L" ^/ [! @: n+ x/ B; e5 z" f, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- |/ U, c! R# bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
* d, b8 {, R6 e: C6 `, {4 O$ p( \faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. Y6 L+ W8 s/ `3 h
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
' b# C0 R  |* K3 Y. waside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that) T  f  N7 z+ l, G) q3 J! u8 m& G& O0 q1 Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ T( g+ E: x7 u& T) `; Q7 }
- v. l$ d* l- i0 D* e/ l1 [8 Q: b
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
) W' t) m6 s; S& F5 n& L% \* b& X+ }four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 K6 e% }9 }" z! q2 Z+ e
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ [4 k3 k, ~* S" o
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% s9 ~, s" s+ `9 H" Bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,/ e# s& F$ w$ `$ M# t' `* l$ T
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
2 D+ _! |2 b' D$ [- {* L5 [of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% r0 }  P, q8 G" a/ ylogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in4 v% v. \4 u/ y+ a
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! J2 `' ~9 o2 t  t/ N# [% qworks.
3 c$ q: d/ n/ N3 R2 I) e: E
8 S9 ]( c1 u) u  Y$ WFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) @# v  H2 |. a+ j8 n  Q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this- v0 u: W+ g# Y! w9 {9 F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
# ]# J+ h  W& G$ ^4 W# lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific3 |- e+ [" c  T2 I: _1 b/ Q5 o3 ?
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 T5 r# p! W9 X3 u9 }' Mreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
2 X  r5 S6 z0 O" k. L  ocannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to4 K, m1 v4 G6 u# X
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works3 p8 c5 d) s! n
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample- w) O, Z% q+ C% r
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
7 A' L' L# X9 lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he1 Y1 W' G; _( z% o# X1 f: K6 o5 v
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 {$ }2 _( X$ Q) {+ Y0 I5 T" n  a6 F( P9 oadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 C% Z% q4 c# K/ Apast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not2 g$ h  v8 n! P2 W# s
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* v0 q" \/ {/ `7 k2 v- l
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are( e- G6 K- [( C9 {; a' B5 Q  h# X
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ y5 p* B  z) x) V- |: @4 C
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: _+ T  w; f' |" K& ~
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye' D: s* p5 r; `  B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 I8 q' k8 W: F4 {* U+ A" C8 qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ M( }4 b: i  |. }
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
. B# D& u5 H" @* P9 @, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is* n: U7 L- A+ O' n$ k
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
' c! S8 j, k. A8 U" I# Iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 y3 L2 E' q: B# l1 E2 rchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
4 j; j; ]: a8 E! \" DLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ s. D9 n/ a6 j% z8 }, bagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 a. A+ q+ q) @1 `* k7 r0 {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
  ?. ^: w) @! gInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
* w9 D) `- `  r7 O$ N! Q6 _2 [# w* v2 @/ `
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-/ G- Z& n( r$ Q1 m  F
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
4 @) B  N+ ~/ {: _. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 K. X4 r4 w/ |' B8 `3 ]
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; k$ U* f! V* |; R$ ?4 f: J) Q; l6 Q: j
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- k, a5 j( P0 I- s2 i4 _
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
- A" Y; f3 r) |" m+ Sgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
6 G+ T% d. K0 U* a- k5 ghave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 K* m+ h8 T! d/ G( Y% x9 N
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this4 v1 a. p" t5 L" \7 `
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; Q! }  l  d. w7 F6 S
# f/ k2 k( _, ]- _* j: B5 T' rOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 V; H! x- a! X* ^/ H; `' `intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 e  w6 i8 G$ b$ g8 f4 h
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 {. D6 I( Z8 x( ]  Q% a1 s
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 |& g2 I: ^$ J2 j) r5 Eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your! D7 Z" X" }7 }9 x2 r
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* g2 N2 w# }& I% v; e1 v; L0 k
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" @* n8 \2 `. y3 _2 {argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( R" W3 j& V4 D& y/ l' u) |$ e
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
2 y3 Y5 S# B0 K: ~/ Q( Wreporting 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, 2026-4-19 12:08 , Processed in 0.171138 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