埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2004|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 `, b) H& L: m

* e' K! T8 p- E% b+ @饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。% m! S6 p1 N/ O( O$ A* H3 y: p2 u
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。5 f  @1 {6 |6 m, Z9 y: p4 I5 L, D% O
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。  w, R5 Q$ _( P) g5 V8 x

4 P# G! n6 X& k2 A# q3 M0 q; N0 Lhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 y- }: |& ^4 C$ e8 N) o

$ H6 B9 C( s1 ]4 V+ r5 {8 g# W% Q致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
" U& e; D4 j: ]# c' s  z4 |" h; \8 r" V- G$ q% W
英文原信附后,大意如下:8 A* v6 n  h0 f% A" T, _& N
- S  M- ~. N8 D
斐尔,
2 v4 Q, p* `5 p/ s       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
6 _, k# ?- ^: U  j! e2 X0 b' lemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。2 s- {4 g- h6 s" [$ D7 r% x) o
       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0 ]" h' C6 F: f/ ]% h: k
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
8 A; ?8 I: F5 Q( }) P. Y3 C能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。! s$ G& U, C2 f; O6 }9 O. t6 h! D
       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
  T% ~) d% @# n2 g8 A. r9 ^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& z. w. Q- L! v6 U" V
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9 Q) i! I: }& t
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。% ^% r7 }, B  V0 M# L, z+ ~5 s
       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
+ O3 p' J/ R; F8 Y6 o4 g2 C9 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
% d% }9 Q% K# o) E2 S& X”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
  K' d$ u7 o3 H4 j3 _: d       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
' K. P+ S1 F. K/ {1 h  c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
# {1 u+ s2 s3 |% g* t  o/ e,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
  B7 {8 Y+ H0 J" S       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  E8 k7 ?& {+ `* X
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
1 ^9 |, j* v/ N6 h1 c4 I8 I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
  R* L- O" o1 `% q* v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
  v0 O. a" `$ S300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, E9 X0 [: A* D, f
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
8 S2 Y! u0 U8 L. k; P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6 @; s5 d3 u+ P& L, l; W
。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1 S9 M3 L! }+ c. H3 [" ?7 j, G) M
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。9 q, R. R$ n% [4 M
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
* J8 C' E) i- s0 o1》,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8 f1 t/ z9 A1 \7 f. |7 ^
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
" ?* e. G/ t8 S! r8 J* n同意见的专家。
/ F: X4 D6 d; n7 n3 {5 q( D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
* Y! X  l, I7 G9 x. d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
! h. x6 `: u; @5 p3 I9 t1 F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 C0 j  A2 J4 O- ?# h' w《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
$ I2 ^& B* p0 c6 J+ _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)
( b" F7 F# k6 a4 B- z8 A7 C5 n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7 x& W' `$ k  G: }+ G
《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: s2 L1 }" j( Y0 F6 t4 k, A8 ?/ V( V
这些被Callaway忽略。
# T4 G4 o# i; [& q* ^$ u( ~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
; }0 U4 ]4 L0 q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 }, J% U# E# ]4 ]教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。" I' B) _. r3 M
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2 M. x& U& j7 C) [% @! N! D- l# q
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
# g: z9 W# ~0 n0 C# S/ I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8 }2 H$ E' g, J" O" z# C( _
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。( P1 H5 n1 U& H& A9 d  e
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 F5 {. H8 f; ?9 o8 Z5 `% V' o
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
& N" Y( S" N: E6 |5 ?$ E5 c, u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
9 b" }# F- d9 g1 }8 c) d* W% l* E”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( }! U) I. t6 x; U+ o: u
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
$ L: ~. O  g! Q8 H& Q- F+ |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. P; N+ m8 d$ D) y6 M
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
  G6 r* M  n. R& i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
  A  R( ^! L) m% Z/ R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* A+ O- r; {9 T7 `7 ~
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。; n- f  x$ V% q) I9 g
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 \& n, N- W, ~8 t9 M; K$ X# G2 }6 z9 {$ t- {( Q( ^6 d+ M
. L; S  c' ~9 \6 h2 L/ V0 {
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
% g* i6 f: B+ y& v, ?, y/ h9 Z+ A, t* i4 C/ [4 N
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
% O- ^, A2 `, w附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! N% c: o2 W+ V, e' B1 p/ e! w6 ?" X
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见0 Y' B; J9 z/ {6 e  x6 |: c
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见- i) x( [8 n# b. e5 ?

/ b. ^7 p% ?& G: W) p0 y. g1 c- J" K( M, T; h
4 f+ |( t  D& A. S! Y; M( i" x' Q6 e
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
7 |0 ~: K/ I9 nDear Phil,) e+ C* n  V4 @" g# z! S
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" V6 h5 M" l' Y6 T
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
9 A- s9 \1 O, thours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
5 R! ^7 h  i- Q) E4 Nyou.
# r% E( }* K  F8 \       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; C0 E3 A! H8 Abrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese5 K9 K) U/ {% p/ Q5 E$ {2 F+ f
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; o5 S3 i7 ^& \2 q, m! p/ ?
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature; P- n  S9 P0 N
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
) T3 K# T0 I* n3 Y, e* Sseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
0 a8 v- }/ [1 bpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
& @5 t: T% \$ {" t       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the1 o- I' U1 v. E" @6 @2 A' S
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a# d" {- q  l0 L: B( T# ]
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish0 n7 @- v/ j' N* A# t  C
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway9 x5 x& N. T0 S8 w  h
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
, ?5 c$ {2 `. A# S3 |# ~' j! Aexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) r& k  `' k+ e* b: ]! Kstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,  l4 y2 Q" ^) H- p
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# z& t* S4 b$ K  p
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news' f9 p( g" e  Z+ ]$ K9 C& E
reporting.
) r& R  w% Y2 K       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have# n0 `3 L9 [9 ]# {0 k/ I: }
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by; E+ ~2 i- I/ f1 d
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
  H0 }2 u) C. q4 ?sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A# p" @  [1 z" ^/ ^$ D  @+ A0 v
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.) ^6 s0 ]& ]/ m- r5 V. U: g4 u
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: @2 K4 g- K: w% e* {
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
) r2 W( L1 s  I- r1 |8 _$ [8 i" rfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50$ j& g+ r9 c: E" p4 |, b* @- ?* Y8 a
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same7 G* s) e% l0 Q, X& E2 U7 D
event for men, with the second fastest record.
* G; _9 P; M' ~+ Q# N$ c       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
" D9 Y6 q$ U6 B$ p9 \5 ?was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
2 x; x% f$ A2 s1 Dyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record' p* u6 M* ]( \
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
, g. ^- r5 n. F3 ]: kmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,' _4 I: s. C6 _
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
( E% _/ q2 j( ~Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed# l5 _  m% B- A6 b. C. `; r: n
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
1 l/ ]* ]! V; f1 v& K! Hindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 r2 @! P6 j4 m" B+ t
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
/ K, m; e! C: Dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was7 K  ^  R/ |1 R% }( a% w
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 E2 @% v1 T# s' ~' `
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “1 K. W9 ^1 y( ?- i2 j
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other2 S& [4 \8 T( t* v: N) `
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the8 x: K3 G! v8 b' T0 k' O
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the: b9 a7 A+ v9 H
Callaway report.
0 Z5 C5 u% B/ K( ^4 w) a( EThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more" Y6 M. u' Z6 v+ `$ V, a; \# L
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ {4 d5 C; U$ s; s7 \here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description. r8 M; w1 h2 \  C
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been5 J; D) x( s/ n3 o( d
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the2 ~. c# Z- a2 }, P/ A6 ^7 ^
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
' E: T/ T) Z8 K* X4 w# Zpublicly voiced different opinions.' h9 G( f( H3 x, {* t* O4 k; b- _$ g
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
$ J8 f6 L+ d" s5 ~from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature% ~: s/ V% c: [
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent  r& ?3 r3 g% ~% N3 I" u0 p
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds/ L! D2 e5 o) q" C& S
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy/ a0 Y5 H# \$ H  Q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
# q; u; h7 t+ V) Q+ [. GThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think- @. |8 W- h1 ?$ m- |, c" N" @
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 b/ G2 k+ d+ J1 ^* u
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
3 ~3 C; t: Z: R* X2 TAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that+ ]3 R1 c. q3 @! u; p; ^
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was+ U5 r# F- w' i- s. \% W
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.# [! I7 a# T9 [. J' `: T
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
8 j- v4 T1 j! Emany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the1 Z, @7 g: w* w" g9 {
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
  @7 w6 Y+ M7 p$ d+ G* R(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 ]  N) N8 q9 H- c! I# r; v$ O/ jand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
; Q, S4 l! L& a$ i. j0 O3 g* b8 e+ ]* {The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
$ R1 U$ }+ o, D$ Aand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
( ^* x% n" h9 h5 f/ _+ MDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. z$ X% G2 j- ^9 s' pNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and/ J) F" \) |4 Y4 B: \) s- \
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
: r) k* R; r( f4 w5 ?9 vwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
. W1 U- A3 i; d6 Q4 Crepair the damage caused by your news reporters.  u* N! U9 d, T( w% n9 \" n
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
5 s8 [% h8 X* y% w" a* ]show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
$ P9 G9 Q% ~# Z# Dus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather' G/ K) [& t( D2 e) b) y3 f
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that, W- u! j* x4 m# a; B+ I4 c
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
' v/ i/ M+ I7 H1 s  Aabout British supremacy.# l+ w( ~7 d( H0 R! H3 h, c8 f
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many3 O7 [# w6 h! D7 U' B8 W9 S' M' c
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
" D; L3 H4 E! n  q3 u( |( mChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by2 P9 G) G7 x% ?/ {; P& v
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London& ]% [( o  L( o. c
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.1 @$ D9 @) ^6 }) p( T# B6 x
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
' \6 j) `7 Y% H0 s2 k& Pprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
# i; }, y- K7 a, ?/ ~: jbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,( B2 J4 ^, u2 z
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
% Z* S/ V* R3 N, S: spublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ z2 u1 a- Q/ j
Nature." |: K4 N: z4 W6 e/ i. g
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
: y; \2 B5 u+ ]7 i2 _the Callaway report.% w$ a1 ~! O: G9 g

/ b0 O: m, b8 y* @/ D0 SYi
, L* D+ k$ N4 d/ z6 w/ t9 |
/ N( g9 {7 ~6 bYi Rao, Ph.D.
7 T; a3 R5 s+ F0 o/ D$ aProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences" V& w2 p$ M; T
Beijing, China& I+ D5 N2 T* P8 G9 B+ }
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
3 H% }7 ~1 w7 u原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

8 r: E' E8 ?4 w) X: [* V  u' c' E" ~原文是公开信。, K* L4 R: W) s
% ^! c9 d' H% R
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 # i  L% k5 Z/ W5 q  G
原文是公开信。
1 ~7 I& B2 `& B/ B9 E8 Z+ p; U. e7 M0 G" |+ F8 ~/ ^
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 i& Q1 t+ E9 E; y, {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
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG. \+ {$ h, C- `- \
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。, q  N% ~& S/ I- x

( z% Y) w+ l1 whttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html; C- ~9 r- _7 I

9 D6 A. c! v. g- N/ ]6 l, IFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
; T3 Q3 w1 B7 r# e" A, {& e' Z$ X& A
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ M: z$ O3 z3 g7 `6 ~, b% r( G" T, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science# q4 h; f/ C3 T3 `8 K3 l' k& S& M
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- p" i/ U% I) M; x! }7 K* i4 }* Ris not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
& s" R6 C, {' Z# X6 z0 C6 V- R- [scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. B$ I8 n( `+ T5 p/ I
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 Q) @8 [7 V. |! P& f# J# U* W3 L2 J
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 t$ ~' {) f, @+ T1 Z) w
which they blatantly failed to do.( B* H% X! o$ R) n8 e$ O" A2 M
, i2 I5 L+ q& F7 f  R1 Z0 V" a
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her, p. Y# v8 W7 G: o% J
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in4 p6 q( R- Z: X% i' K# w
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ g& S- A; q) i' W+ F
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
3 l+ s( }9 G9 `personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
2 |, G3 b5 r  }* V  Q4 Z$ K7 Wimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# i" ~0 o2 l) B: Ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
! v2 G0 ~4 p0 l+ f( @+ k: |be treated as 7 s.
# \: G- a* i6 X+ E' m" F$ m& {  @+ Q! V6 c
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is: M# F2 H( B; _( O$ {  k( T
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem4 }( j8 s! u- f( F- X) \( E
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
3 f. X3 c9 T4 x$ e, |An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4003 l/ j' ], j/ r
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! k7 C; Q: t# v9 O6 V9 a. y: \- m
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an& J: d7 c, c! _+ Z) T
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ Q5 D2 a1 m( b5 ^4 c3 P
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 n7 K5 Y: q3 O9 B6 ]% F6 Vbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
) E8 ?" P5 m. {- S& g/ m4 n. }9 ?6 e4 F. ?+ i, S( D# Z! t& s
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! @1 c$ L/ g# O- K7 Q! k/ T
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ F* d* P3 Q+ i% s& V
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so# U, K8 P# C5 a2 w
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: `9 {" o5 x' L- V, Y' m7 }' T
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s6 W: k" `) q5 v" z) j; D
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* [% M* `5 ?9 m7 n1 g+ f* UFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
$ N1 `* T7 g) Y) Xtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' n2 v+ g0 T& a6 V
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle! g4 \! S. ~' T1 x) u$ ?: |
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ F) w% K3 ~: c( n7 ^3 L' d3 Istrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds* J' z( U4 W0 l) M8 j6 M2 \! m+ L! X( d
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam6 r. m( o7 T* f
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 y0 P: q% D7 @- U( V; Z
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ N+ Y  b: K5 f* W1 r. wimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.( U* D( _5 o8 `* t: u
; i- \( z6 Y$ M/ C+ ~( Q" J
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- L% {# w9 T$ h' ]7 _four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
9 u' s- Z( S+ x! t& ]s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
! ^( H3 N4 b2 M+ U; [/ \5 k7 d9 \), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns% |" ~9 p+ Y. A
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
- a6 i* e( U6 W. `$ MLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 }# c& j& p! Q- jof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 O$ l, W3 `! D  W3 s( Clogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) m! T: l2 `0 r( H( t# A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science9 L2 `4 ?9 S8 w1 ^2 W8 `
works." o( s+ U! P4 ^8 i
! h2 K* r8 v3 T9 N! K8 P+ I3 X
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 L% f5 S3 U6 J4 }6 K5 T: |
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 F& @% n8 @! _kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that- W7 h- p- a/ G& X3 y
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 J! X# R- t2 }: ~
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, H/ y1 e- v# oreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
* C8 b% Z6 }1 O' C6 m6 Bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to# h& @% N" K, L* V
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- c" B. W& ~* T: w
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample/ @4 `! j2 w$ s  T* X* l- n
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
4 F6 ]0 A( j$ s, n' O3 `crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
4 w! R$ z% @. M/ ?/ H: ]9 ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 G$ U8 ?7 ]8 ~9 a" \5 p
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the" Y1 S; D4 m" \
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 \8 x: d, [! S7 k- x# l9 J& m
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ u9 n- \) b# n+ M- _/ P" e1 M" n. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
4 X7 x: V# C" Y9 N8 I, odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may+ S! `0 z" x% {2 N
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ A5 m  P: l6 X: l6 P9 Mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
: q5 p3 |: c' W! ehas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 H7 r# M6 \9 j, _( S: i7 X( Fdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:: g7 r- ^8 \3 l: S1 |0 n3 a6 I
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
  d% J/ `2 I" A7 `! N, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is  J5 y" _5 a  q) ^0 U* Q
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ A" A% F2 e5 S" Q0 X4 }, @athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
1 l0 |- z5 X2 H: Z5 kchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 t2 \5 H9 x3 e2 ?# ]/ O2 l+ E* c
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ O3 ]/ M: V, \+ q, e9 }agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 M+ t8 F% A8 l1 H. A' C: qeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- p1 s& m5 R6 T% l% \
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?- u  j" }2 O0 [9 b9 i" L1 S( ?
7 [: Y- C* G+ M6 X
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
4 i0 }' i( b" v3 R; e3 K0 `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
8 ?" _, }: D5 s# j- P9 C. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for" V4 J$ u; o4 o+ c
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London. J% O% G4 K! F, d
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
0 |- d  y1 O1 y$ hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 U4 W# }' a! Vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
- O7 M! [3 M# H) o; Phave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
4 G* s# A4 S3 dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) a, U/ F. ?4 Z; O0 I3 z
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
& R" p* D% Q4 q( g8 e( c# U5 s( Y: `: D
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did ($ b2 s) q& m9 j- A2 J3 s, r$ Q" |
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 E$ k; ^' u- W& k8 A5 d) N
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a+ [( K; {) N' k, g$ o
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide& x# C+ O+ r/ e
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ o; j/ O  G4 l9 F
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. G: @2 k1 s: \3 Z' _# |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your( L! X% f& S4 S7 M3 ?
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& @& g5 c' x- V3 G$ I' O8 z; B6 @such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
. j' _0 R  T+ w% ^+ P! I8 |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, 2026-2-8 14:37 , Processed in 0.198622 second(s), 21 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