埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2164|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
- K- o! @/ r8 p& t0 u8 n. T' s
8 |% w* u0 Q  g3 o$ r饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* F  }6 D1 P! C( s0 D" I
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。: W6 ^. m6 c/ }6 G( M+ s5 E. B4 S
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
# H: |* K8 R0 B" J
" D$ S) ]$ {8 U% Z8 Yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: W4 j2 I" _+ g8 P, S/ C! B, G7 M& c% N7 |! G6 b8 B  r& U  z/ `1 r6 A
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选' K* M; R+ x+ G1 e
% j: O( T) v$ ^/ J# o: y3 f, a
英文原信附后,大意如下:( h: {9 K! v$ }9 r; u
1 r2 O* W' j, f7 d
斐尔,
; F* ~  [" D' N& N1 d& |: z& [- u       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
4 h; Q9 F. o9 M4 D, A5 O  [$ _5 A) cemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
' E( J# f( k) W, \1 T       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, u' b' I0 a. L. ]
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' t) }) \7 A7 Y) u2 e: g1 m' U' w
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。$ P/ g" {- [8 O  u5 @9 E" \/ y
       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: b- H1 `: [: [
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 }' B- k5 K2 e' U$ a6 T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
, x- U! w- l+ E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。
: w7 R' ~2 d# G0 n7 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* x2 U2 a: D" E& X/ U# J- 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
% \% ^/ i3 U  O: z”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
" L7 W5 ~% ^) d0 ?       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
9 P: n% s" e( ]5 x# N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3 _4 M. Y( ]5 T" r: Q: ]2 w2 J
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
! P" M+ k5 b, \5 o6 U       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! U$ t4 E* b1 T4 S1 F
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混8 R7 F8 t. h+ L6 }5 Y+ Y
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
( G5 ]2 j" m5 [9 c/ F+ J快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前+ s# h' W/ K6 ]8 W# P) _' A- K
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
2 Y" t1 v1 q" g( l* g, p8 w3 X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
: n* d7 T, \: n( M7 L6 w5 ?' i+ A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+ A; S0 H+ s7 P/ |3 U
。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
, y3 r8 ?1 @, V- X. Y: y; u1 ^9 B录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ U+ I# D3 B; |9 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9 |) n( b5 \" a6 D8 S: ]
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
9 Q9 U" d9 W0 _* g. Z+ g3 jWikipedia。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
  W% {( z! F  G$ i6 `8 |$ q+ T/ s同意见的专家。
, `  k% ]8 H7 B1 k# z1 S1 r- u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. d! R0 }- {  H1 x0 c
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
' a9 Z" ]1 ]7 L% B  J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
( [1 }1 w; r, W9 P《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
( F& n' g7 M# S% _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)) E! e( u& _1 O4 A
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9 b! ^# i, x. F) 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% c! H. B. R1 @6 k' o
这些被Callaway忽略。3 x7 z7 b- x: E' m' }; U3 A
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
' g3 R3 _4 m2 P4 V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: @2 C4 L& [- b. A8 ^
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。5 g& b- V$ G" Z6 N/ {
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
- j6 b" M' o: v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
* @& D$ j" v6 `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4 Y8 n" o3 v, c. J5 D
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。: b+ `+ ]: A/ f! V3 R: D3 [$ V8 R
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
9 }6 M' G# S& J* ]: x7 g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6 R7 ~! M8 Y% G' H
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3 K* Y2 d) W8 a' x/ _7 T% R3 x8 X8 ~! c7 S
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。' s- l, Y( X; L5 U& j3 C5 f, m
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
) o! w2 s2 R8 c( T1 N9 [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5 M0 |1 D- p  m2 R; B$ V/ r3 f8 a9 p
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# m/ {1 d: K6 y; F5 K; X: w, r
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1 o! \* _' V0 d; `* T" |
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
/ @6 ?% D' b5 ?) H而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ U! }/ d" q+ a- `' Q4 B: C# \
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 p7 |& @& J# @
1 y7 M- [: l0 }

" }/ O2 {: T# c! u1 \( N) T' y北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅7 w0 S; C* W3 W& m  ?- F
. J7 c/ R; {. S
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结$ N4 O1 w0 i! v, p' p
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) x8 F! F+ M8 Q4 x
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
$ C! E& C: S" \; t- X/ b附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
, e2 o0 |2 |. ?
% i# h4 q' T4 k; g* Q! P! m/ x+ D3 [

2 f% P; X; ]; h+ i+ G原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)9 b- O' @/ p, V) ?
Dear Phil,
/ Y  U% c" J# x( s& ?# d       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" j' `6 _9 G9 z9 i9 R
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20; V! C: Q; D  x  W( t9 p" _# K
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
( \, X5 Z) K: w; ?( i3 U9 myou.% c& _6 W3 {5 H7 ]: c: N
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
1 b( F. i( t+ Ibrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese( m7 `) Z+ f* L& Y4 y( }
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
) Y4 ~1 j- x$ U, n) U3 \6 q) n8 rworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature) g, O' f. e, ?/ l: u5 k0 w7 j
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more, A0 {! `* n9 a( k
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news7 Z7 G- V8 P: V2 H1 }. ^
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
" l% [, h0 b0 k       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' F( s6 V4 R% Z0 \; |$ ?
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a# P8 O" |9 S, ?1 Y  m7 s" ?
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish" b8 }  |; ]1 n) r% R
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 r+ e5 z- v6 l  e/ y5 s, x! n; a' Tdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping1 h9 Z1 X' a( v* q' i
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 a2 X! Q0 h/ nstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
' l) H- \" t  I. |; N4 Q" R& w5 mand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone8 I  s8 e! l0 t  e( g& }
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news8 e: Z8 v5 k+ }$ D6 `+ {( w
reporting.  Z* d% o* O4 _+ Q0 m
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
6 C: P* U7 u5 qalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
4 ^1 t3 |7 ?# e% ^changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
- c& ]( y# |. o8 c; i3 o* qsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
* a' l3 a$ q0 U2 \4 i/ f% _presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
- [( K0 F- u8 H( L5 k       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 I1 e1 W/ c" T) G) Dmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ E! f4 `; t' o3 G: }2 V
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
2 Q" ?) u7 z- U  m* R* G. ?% {meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same9 q/ _: I7 F% V( x4 `) r
event for men, with the second fastest record.
7 z- n* }& L& V4 K: q* S3 Y       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye4 c. y( L+ m; f+ U
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
' H4 \! B2 L/ y: Z  C" kyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
: i9 A& \/ V. u1 e+ Y4 d. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4000 ~" p, f% {! U- I; }
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,9 Z' V% K. K) _/ W) a
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
' D' k1 i# ]# q" v* bLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
# U4 t* ~) U9 R) W+ rbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 C/ y" f; G4 @individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( G) e6 C: ]9 ^
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
6 I8 I" U! G: n) D* R2 mthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was. t( L( g- z2 Y; \
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then& P; W6 G  C" B- y8 j
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “% g  U$ [" f0 L3 J" h5 j
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) a' C# F: b4 ]5 v4 d" M
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# C* b8 Z8 d0 |teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
, @; s# g) T! C0 S0 eCallaway report.1 `; U! F& C5 o3 T! g' X
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
, q$ U1 n% j! k/ d, Qunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details! y8 I: E0 l: R* w! ?( H  m
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ @1 _3 c8 b! P& Q5 Z2 i
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 d) G, M( F5 ]( U' k
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the$ N0 Z' h6 r9 N& \6 S" @8 Y
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
5 s6 q0 K1 b+ d" s5 y& ]publicly voiced different opinions.1 _6 J  c5 P; q4 G4 u" s
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ S' y- G  @3 u* B
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature. U7 X% R0 D0 l  s- o
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' R+ \$ I8 l  F. c- Q2 ~) }
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
7 x- y% s! K+ [5 hyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy1 y3 P6 x8 p2 n" n4 \# I" _
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.' X" m2 S" l  L+ [
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
: c5 C0 e2 J9 `  n) Z2 mthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They/ S3 ~# u+ [1 N5 g. p* |
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
9 u7 t; B4 q$ c. q9 A( tAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
) @2 `; Q) t6 f9 p$ T' _the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
' i+ J" z* |' qsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
* K; K, O; @, W7 V& {: ~One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that5 Y7 G: j1 A1 K3 ]3 w
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
' l) r2 i  T! ]/ N6 p" @$ t$ JChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
( ^, T- T8 j2 p8 X(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she4 ^# `$ n' i0 H  F0 c
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ [2 ?- \" A$ B* f; kThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
; O  P0 V6 f5 s) Z7 g$ w7 {% R; Dand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and4 R' e) k: |) n, O2 D% U) \! ~
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.& Z  [% g* Z  p4 p
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
9 V/ t7 g  i- s( Y, g. Kobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature' T/ ^' W) i: Y
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 H9 S; P( \) L& I% _repair the damage caused by your news reporters./ a* M7 n) [6 q5 m2 m- D
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not1 `  ]6 {. C, S! K
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
2 ~% m2 d+ j3 p% }us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 y$ t% |+ I7 ?! ^/ j* I3 I. Dfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 E( R" e  N8 t$ K
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
* `5 I7 q6 N) k( L. N( L, Rabout British supremacy.
9 T/ ^( k/ C7 @! ^The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many* n5 D7 W* @6 u. V2 G
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
5 r6 ]) f/ U9 J5 i* mChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by" L3 F  C, Q) _- d0 b% s6 m
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
5 Q. ?% h+ a% L$ R2 j' S: ~Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.) G( w. g# Y( G& b2 X
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of9 _9 p, p/ r0 a& w) G) A; ]
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, W* j2 m( c6 w3 D7 d/ b; S9 ubefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
& V9 o" A9 k! ?+ X3 Bit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly0 q, ^7 l. k9 o. z* n7 k" F
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like# k- }2 `. y2 F2 z* Z  }% b
Nature.
- H: U) f3 [& y7 }5 ^. C% LI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance1 |8 x: T  p' O7 r2 v# G
the Callaway report.* a5 @- d8 @" C) P

7 B: U4 V: E1 K8 I) lYi
5 @% C3 M; K9 Z% ?1 B2 h* @3 S1 W. h5 C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.5 T$ B+ Y) [) y
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
5 C; H; o2 I# X2 b8 c/ D$ \: SBeijing, China" ~/ ?3 K0 p2 g! w! Z
大型搬家
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18 ( R) K; \, u/ h$ U
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
$ g: q7 o, y/ v. ]
原文是公开信。
2 \" e  u3 H  @, x
5 J& Z0 I  [/ z4 ^9 \0 T9 \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 1 j( O4 A! X2 C+ b# k5 g
原文是公开信。
0 S. Z% {3 g9 ]7 ^1 ]
- [; I# c' M) f5 u. L小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
, c- f6 U' l$ w7 b. B$ Q
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" L) s: H5 C- \
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
( J3 Y7 M) G2 ?: a% w8 A! k+ `' k+ G& m' Z$ Z2 w9 z. z1 P9 H
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
5 L) x5 k  X! V" X1 x1 _% M1 u$ j* ?" y
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 L) m$ ?* J+ x- W4 x$ {$ i! M- Q% I
" k: L! o  e; y' [* c# R; B$ D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 A+ }! T% B/ I: V3 x/ m/ g' P, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ t  r% u2 h- N" @
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 s; X5 t5 B+ X' xis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" n5 g' Z3 P2 H" x% Bscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general# W7 X& @! x1 P  [
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' ^) u: m) V% K# h( yshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," v' F( u0 {! z: J1 u) ?
which they blatantly failed to do.7 J3 _( e9 y0 A5 p4 I$ @0 P3 D* m
. [+ o+ d6 e- c
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) s# g( b% z  h( a. VOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in6 {/ F8 \8 _/ o' \6 f
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
  j# L1 ~" P+ C/ aanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
* I; Q  c- Z) B/ Z( Z0 ?personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, i' u8 w) ?9 l/ Z+ h9 D
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
3 e& I" ~  f$ h8 d- a" t. B# ldifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) z& O. P" i! P3 |9 U/ v4 Pbe treated as 7 s.% U/ k' B  W8 S' b

+ x' b& G' r+ JSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) w1 l" h( ]! p* _( A
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 B$ O8 s+ x) k* B7 e
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
( F! a3 M  U$ R6 U1 ~An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ h$ W5 W2 e4 j. L, y( l8 T* G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! P! i0 l6 Z7 i+ i- n
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
& A) x4 ]* |1 d2 e% relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and: ~* {! f  W# V
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 C' d0 r) p: q& Z" abased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- {& R. H1 q. Z3 A* E8 \0 v' q+ w+ E8 U' I; p7 ?
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
5 U) o$ ~+ x( wexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ ?. x$ B' F( A4 C  j* X! qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" c+ H( Q0 L; P5 {5 u- W$ ^5 L& B
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
( S% d$ k, k6 p9 z# mevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s6 P) X8 F) C- M- n% v8 P: K" b
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World( G5 D: P# V% |4 W0 e2 ?
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 i+ S6 }9 x5 q9 r2 Qtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! v# c4 v0 ^' R) Nhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
2 E% Z8 y# T; w6 a2 p% i6 |3 o# ~7 G, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this% ?$ l% R0 M0 v, Q1 d
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
9 `. _' ^- J, t+ D! H, yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam/ _5 b$ i+ x: t8 k. S( R$ F3 W9 \
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting2 j2 _+ K' m3 \" H
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
0 @4 L& S! X0 @implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.2 Q: H$ h( E3 H7 m# E

" t: i4 l7 S1 C$ e! w5 KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
7 s6 t8 j: Q6 H, C7 yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! L4 K+ s5 n" [1 O' J
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 ^$ [$ l/ D3 x3 v$ y) \* y), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
, Q) n0 V4 i/ bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& Y: f2 Z" d" r. ZLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind. W$ D& s/ N+ ~, `2 t& a
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
; f+ g; v% b% j% K7 |$ v# qlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ q; p  \( L, q) j. G# l
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) D& U5 W1 {2 W# xworks.
7 _  @0 R3 G" F$ I, A+ H8 o7 u) w6 \  \8 Y& d4 ^
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and+ p" ^- c* m& |0 {! u+ G- g6 W
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' f4 N, I9 J/ A+ p- O
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that9 E" w  r; |+ v+ d9 P, Z
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) ^6 e: ?/ K; J, z* S( Wpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 i+ v% N+ k, K& F: i/ @$ J; [; A
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* @- t( @" O: t" [/ J% f
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to) }: ~" @9 n" U6 k6 n' s9 z9 [
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' E7 t8 E- Y% M& j5 i- y3 v& ?# R
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ A7 |  j- Y( I$ K% u7 Q. `6 Uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is' T# N4 c4 j0 V% q) e1 y) C* ~
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
* o7 s5 M; b) {$ Bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly7 z8 `6 k  n' @, p# r! J/ T# L4 W2 X
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 }2 G# v9 u; B* h) F: xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
; O4 |" [1 q% `; }% Wuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( t; n* M2 y* r$ N
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 M7 o( d9 R; X8 c9 gdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! f5 j4 O- o4 @/ ybe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a6 |2 q. V( p8 o3 r; H. N
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye  p( a2 S3 I  H- o0 }
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
6 O% F" l. l" C' r8 t" mdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
% b! Y9 \9 i/ P) A5 ?other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
! k. l3 d# k2 ?; B* K% J" Q, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is) ~2 |* Q; P' |" |5 V
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& Z+ Y9 K' O/ d: d$ }/ W5 }) X5 V
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- y3 K3 \" X& v1 b
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?+ [  x6 a1 J" s/ D  u% |) n  E, A
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
" u4 z' Q' n1 M0 y* N! i3 yagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 O' n; r# V4 z# n  u8 T1 L. beight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
8 S2 w: D, J/ A( g' ^! iInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
1 T( q5 ~& g6 L
8 E3 y$ r9 m2 m2 ISixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ V7 }' h/ \' Gcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
+ r9 K7 J$ }' L- q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ l  X! d1 c1 }+ ?& S9 V3 EOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London" N4 b- H: C4 w6 N* y/ R* U
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for* K7 J7 u" O  E7 Z: A3 B
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' E6 _4 z& |# }! ~6 W4 g' {
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope0 ^0 L$ G" ?% B- B( Z6 D/ I5 ?
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
$ ]0 d3 A& X& _3 _player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, O) @( Q# f8 i. npossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 W% w! K6 W0 _$ T7 w- W
" Y7 y+ r! M/ h; g
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (" v0 c4 Q6 h$ P, m  X& A9 e
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 e5 a! j' m, V) R# B/ }
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a+ A9 y! d, p# A' N9 a: p: |- u
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide) o  k, |8 r' H
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
  S* A+ Z& j; Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- O& T4 C( @- s, w1 H  ?
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
. H/ [) @/ E- c  [argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 H8 `# H7 a5 h9 j3 ^0 V
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ o0 _$ B" H# E* E0 Rreporting 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, 2026-3-30 11:58 , Processed in 0.232841 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