埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1899|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 * E2 z4 k# O( m  E

/ B0 _/ q1 @) L  \& [. R/ V/ p* S饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。' I% u( ?- Q+ ^  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。
  z+ m3 ~% q/ {4 p- Z; |4 A6 D总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
: L8 t+ U6 x+ q: m/ a; K* U# F) l. W9 k# m4 Y3 G
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; Z* v( |: K' f+ B5 p6 i. p6 b
0 l: D7 [. Z2 T4 u7 H7 q! f4 |致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ t+ e. g  v5 P4 E1 F5 D0 P
* X, v6 C& M$ l$ u. T英文原信附后,大意如下:" `$ O7 F( c+ v7 H3 s. U

. K0 r8 _+ \1 y斐尔,
* i+ G- b& W+ A$ V6 l9 U) 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2 J* v4 Z7 C' j5 Y
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。5 ]& o9 u9 L5 I5 |+ r" y+ q
       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
4 t& D/ W  ]" q9 q6 ?  N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% x% P$ v* ]  n3 F2 N; k+ G
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。
6 P$ O2 m9 G+ N* \9 I       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
0 M# l& M0 V1 U0 l# @/ q3 [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
# L7 {+ B# @1 e9 [$ q: 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' v, I8 F9 j$ @; [, A
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。  L6 O$ j3 @) c1 N7 u
       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6 E+ y4 v( v% q1 s
,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
% F, |; h! X: G, h4 J+ j% d7 B”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。1 N' f4 K2 z: o& P" _
       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
6 n3 b# j9 ?6 C$ p: g/ U- L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/ Z* y5 _) [( j: P1 |; {
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; `' c4 N( E- o
       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
3 t) l+ H) E4 p9 B7 J2011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$ p" e3 v8 X" S4 t
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
' m; v5 N  V0 r* {& t$ Y3 A9 r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6 {0 v6 A' t7 B. U% ~- _# y. c
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
& j3 w5 M5 b$ L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
/ y. v$ N( k6 h7 C  M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
1 a; V* ?# B# E* S。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记
8 i1 M5 _3 u2 Q& i录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。% E. P8 L; c; b4 B
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1 t! b! r* n5 P0 ]
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% L- @% c* x4 g5 G
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: d9 R' |4 k8 O- B! k  T
同意见的专家。
' V9 d9 ?9 j( X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+ m0 @! A* `8 |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
7 ?2 Q) i) Q2 x: 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
( V- H) f! z  D. r# \. y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。0 P% C* j) {1 `
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)
3 h/ o* r' W  c" C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
$ F1 Q! K& Z: s: {0 I# Y《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
. i) k% `, w  \( m这些被Callaway忽略。
, m) M8 i2 Y& I# T4 d5 S% }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' f2 e. m2 O+ \$ L- I% ~# _
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* X. E- i8 N/ Y3 @/ |" ~
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
( A- X  f5 w7 k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* m) R3 H3 a6 q& w. T; n
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
2 S& n8 u0 X, Q4 c% ]: ^+ p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
. R# f1 z; P6 b5 N  n; 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。
2 B2 @+ x; z0 ?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$ h# b& R9 v# y/ y1 P, t1 g! R" Q
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
! E) n" ~  ?+ K9 H% K  V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
  V; N4 ?7 k- i( I+ P2 y4 r5 z”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。. J( ]$ K, ?! q! w4 F' M3 O2 ^# z3 a
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
* Q1 m$ t, _2 ~/ Q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
- O+ G; Y7 t7 c( @4 q( S" Z% Q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3 ^- B, n9 l! n8 s
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9 c, e2 x( l9 k9 L8 L/ g6 @0 I8 s
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- l8 O$ G: C9 Y' i9 ?% u1 h
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。3 c+ p4 O6 u9 H/ `
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
) v8 M! |8 j3 g
. c1 m- n+ U" h! \' R% }7 T6 b) Y* o7 |: g- S& ?" s
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% B8 @% i0 m& ~

8 H0 u9 B; X$ E- a附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结( x. D0 w7 @0 k' d5 ?/ {
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
6 {$ y. R$ Y$ U- R% ?" t5 z" r& h附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
& _; d1 s4 t/ ^附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
% K" g% u* w; w/ [: B" ?  p. @- v$ ^3 _9 }8 L4 {; a5 Q
1 i2 ^1 l( O2 k$ `
6 E; l& ~  E$ Y) K/ o$ G
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ @) F/ U2 I' }0 L
Dear Phil,4 v# U/ x6 B! d' C/ v2 Z
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s, R4 _( N7 Z+ [8 E! z+ \) K% d5 O
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 202 n8 u/ P8 M+ J6 E) G- q
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; c. `- e8 ^6 |# P: }/ u. ^3 U, s* Cyou.
8 N" S# N% k4 t4 R       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have8 C+ x% b( l2 x; e9 [
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese% s5 H5 x1 \2 M# u" L
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the( M& s3 N  |5 l. t& {, Y
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature) E. D0 |$ s% k2 M; i1 W' \$ B+ Q
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more, q4 S$ K- Q# k9 D7 H" l" A
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news1 s& K6 {& X2 a0 w' ^9 p1 ^: X
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.$ c4 s$ s2 v7 s- r. U
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
8 I2 t, U; A, ]7 m" u" bworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
$ s1 `$ R- G  cnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- y3 {% U- j) z" [3 _that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway2 `9 W5 E2 E4 c6 Z
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
7 o& b) W& s' i0 E3 u& ]1 i" eexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal3 v8 m4 n0 ]! s9 @: [1 A* P
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,, D& y5 \  K& ]( k# V7 E
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone! w9 q$ l% `+ U4 W) P- g
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' C9 x2 [: t! v9 D1 G$ treporting.
$ @" o8 J2 b6 \% b       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
7 [3 q- l; m3 [already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by. `2 b* W6 B8 W9 i  q
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in1 o* l) v( Z1 O3 Y  k( L7 ]) X6 X
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A2 ~8 b$ b3 o- o7 {
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* j9 i7 Z4 h" w       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem2 B. J+ J/ z$ S4 Q2 N
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
( F, w4 j8 ~0 m7 r2 Z& t+ r  k3 ]faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
: {6 H5 @# y# O0 [. P% P, Fmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
# R6 Y5 u2 J( y; q2 H8 w) f6 levent for men, with the second fastest record.
. R1 @" @* ?0 q1 c       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
3 ~7 \) Q0 a4 g1 z1 i" F2 f* v! }was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 164 I: L2 z6 C4 S4 M  g
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
3 [+ f! i- S% }$ \- q8 D6 m. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
% L4 t8 d! F$ }: n6 Tmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
) _( @5 t9 Y! l  j4 efor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than$ D  l: z6 l% x% p3 g* Y  f
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
/ j1 f, H5 M6 m% pbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the0 T2 K, j$ ^/ ~3 }" c$ ^* s2 O
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
% x. C; d4 c" }( x' Wthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
4 e) N2 m6 m) @; U4 j5 X: [/ wthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
* W+ m! s8 x  X/ t8 Rher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
' @6 H  D5 y% a5 phe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# v, B! [! O+ r  o9 Cproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other, L2 ^* n7 |6 V# Y. o9 m
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
0 f  k  e. R5 Q! s& G  m! mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
' N- L0 `. H8 A' b( Y8 UCallaway report.' v1 p+ w! D( P% C
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
* `" F4 {, B( p( N; Xunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details+ S6 @( V( m/ W  V: s
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# U' A3 Q  d# y6 Cof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 I. {+ S, D$ Y1 |/ K
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
1 e; F3 [6 j8 JWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had1 X5 T9 y3 W2 [% ^+ p+ L. E
publicly voiced different opinions.- ~; x# j1 f7 [. e9 Q* |
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
' M1 N. F/ }* bfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature1 m( M8 ?) m6 O! j
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent* J$ H. y! N: ]) M
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds5 W/ r9 l# N, P
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy+ R0 F7 [; F% Y0 m2 R! J4 n  r( X
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
5 o! S! A) l; _7 h. i3 XThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) I$ T7 E& Q7 J" P3 I9 M
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
+ U& K7 i6 N* ]" G5 W8 I; Shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as6 Q$ H6 i! T% y0 i* @* ]' w
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that6 Z/ p  Y# c$ P9 m/ h
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was; E% }! H; @7 ~" A  }" Y( o
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
9 ^" m# n: g/ WOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ ?. ~. j/ x% D. G+ m
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# K- T# m, h" p% g& x: q
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June4 e7 R( }8 v* H4 R- r
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
& \* x* y, m. C8 j- Uand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.; i- E& C( ]% m2 s2 F) C% N0 {/ m
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science# Q+ O* p$ O  c) ]
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
( p, l) b! x; l0 S! g$ ^7 FDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.$ P6 c2 A% V( \8 Z$ p
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and8 x0 ^& {- q5 @7 u8 {
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
% z; u3 _- v! w$ Q8 }what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to6 S( M" m$ g4 {6 Y) V& L
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.4 k7 g. D& ]: {, V8 F9 J+ L: q: _
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not3 y+ N$ S7 T3 g) }# n
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
" m5 \) r, R* o7 k; l. ?2 N  D! zus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 h) g& `5 p3 D$ F
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that% Y& w& |( S9 n
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”( r- x  u! F2 c. S" U( h: c4 n2 ]
about British supremacy.( d9 _4 f8 E, @; z% M
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many" d3 m( X3 H, V& J
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, E4 @, y% a5 E" q! C5 ^Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
7 d6 y1 B" X8 tour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( N: ^, V: p# w7 R
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ x  J0 A6 y( b: j5 k& U1 {
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
5 I7 R$ r% B2 O2 M4 ?0 fprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
0 E- s% k" r* {. g/ d. ebefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ y0 l8 O9 O4 n) }% W
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
' H) |& j8 L' I2 w( j! Opublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
- v6 h# n3 u  F) ]4 [0 v% DNature.7 U. H  r+ @) P5 @5 H6 m
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance) z$ U- R! a# P- d
the Callaway report.
( a0 T) N" t4 }9 i9 z# w5 A3 E  K7 x9 B0 A7 r$ L
Yi' t& o  D5 n& [, p0 X2 x

2 ^& S0 ?, [* N: k3 {) WYi Rao, Ph.D.4 X/ _- }+ [# h& y, T6 P
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 j* y7 A1 o- N1 i  o( n: X
Beijing, China. _$ x0 @0 W) x. m8 h
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 ' `. c& K* B# M! y' b
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
/ x6 W8 I$ e  k4 G) x- K# S5 t
原文是公开信。
' @; e+ h: k! \" j# w+ N8 e- [; Z9 v; d0 k: x0 W. w( f$ C
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 + P4 M- l1 _  C) n
原文是公开信。
/ D) k6 A4 Y& b- U; Y
; N: }, V  R' a' z  e# u小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

  F; t  f6 P( L: f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( s; }& G" W/ H如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 R: h4 t" x  P( i% h1 H) I1 J6 @& q& U

" a- b5 z- ^2 r" v" W) Y3 X; Qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html! v0 E0 u( j# ~# z- l5 ]& H
  S- y  t3 }3 O3 x; v, o
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania* J9 Y6 [4 @8 P

" c  E+ U; W/ k" k, J7 QIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself7 o" O5 l7 t& c  |7 `
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science9 g, s+ h; j' Y/ [  j' o
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
; u: |' T6 K2 ]is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the5 t* O: K, X3 Y" e
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general8 B1 Y& x0 v" K
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
& c' W4 H* [7 n; tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
$ B* s$ U  Y+ v, }( ~: i  qwhich they blatantly failed to do.6 I, m5 t" _! @5 u6 Y5 _: Z

8 e9 B* \" n0 x; Y7 B1 h$ WFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
7 v% m1 q5 Q# b2 n7 Z: l. W3 `; \Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' ]' X  ~1 z$ m- A
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 r0 j" I; h3 L7 _6 eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous. C1 x2 A, ^7 u4 T- }! e, C
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! v& r; C. U& u; `
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 M9 Y/ a* a$ U3 ndifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
: P' `+ a- Q6 m$ jbe treated as 7 s.
/ t4 F5 c9 Y; Z* |$ e3 y6 c3 c! E7 j5 D  h4 e8 i
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 Q3 Z% ?" r. f/ h6 qstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem! |  [4 z0 ^' Z6 g7 C! i
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& |( \+ D: Y4 x9 M0 ~: x- z9 BAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 r' \2 j8 U5 I8 E$ b8 ?-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: j9 S, w) B. }) a" Q9 @
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
8 o" _& K) T- p! S. n4 T, z: \6 E3 Xelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and1 M$ Z* U( k, c
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
8 Q. m& j' @$ A( vbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.' G7 r( U1 J7 |) i5 b
* W- h4 i5 F2 X: ]# n: r
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
6 l7 M; S$ q; D; [/ o% \" uexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
3 ~2 a9 T2 ~6 j, k  \the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so+ Z4 U& x6 P. C* T% S( u
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later* F9 u5 ]6 s# f
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s3 l/ c3 ^: ]' @7 i0 c
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! e9 c2 v7 q% W. Q9 o
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another4 y; f2 p1 P+ r1 }, N, t
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other% c: H( V; {2 q( L# Z4 H/ k$ h
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle: W, h( x7 U7 u2 ~  c' d
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
' K$ H; e, p" b( Nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
/ f% m8 \. F: O1 }' ]$ n+ _* Pfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. b0 A, Y( X5 r' `) h) |
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, Z6 ~+ x% p7 K$ A2 Daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that0 k' s* r- A" u. ?9 |
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
+ P2 V* j8 c. B% ]! V
! t0 M3 ^  N! J1 R8 iFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ A0 r3 z4 B6 u; l) nfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 s" C: v8 b! T$ s# Ys) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s$ I* G. o& H0 Z( B; T' f2 {/ y
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 e: j5 h& _9 m/ S4 H$ y: R- ?2 R1 c
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
# E: d: S, D* Z6 n0 Y5 D: FLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind% y' D# A" w& b2 D5 d5 i; O
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 f, P0 [, ]5 w) t5 V
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in6 U- [1 ?" j* ~6 m# V( I
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
/ z1 \& `( w) m, ]  Kworks.' {( U1 v; w+ _9 j( l4 _. h

. Z8 I6 ?' E& }& r% \Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
& C7 o; ?  I/ ^* K3 ?: J9 {5 Vimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this% }" D0 `" h$ Y2 {
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ [! R% ]5 x! [7 c8 K# G
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific' s8 |! a) |' j- y
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
' g+ l/ ^, A9 W2 _+ @% A& B$ treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, Q1 C% p. J3 o- e* `cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 Y3 i( x# W6 n1 o2 g
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 i2 z6 l9 R1 |
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample1 B2 M! r" L/ R& J
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is! u3 N" h9 H, W8 X- u# m, O# l5 q2 @& @
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
+ o4 U3 |- o# s5 A" Q1 D( Y3 V- ^wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 p; m' Z0 E; ^$ t0 `; [
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the' Q8 N) S) [& {/ Y
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
2 L5 y( p; a6 g) }4 uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation- q$ X5 Y; o: E! K% A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are" G) `" h) S6 C* f
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may/ ?# A/ H* E' c
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
  e9 x# X/ G# i2 P2 s, qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# |  M9 J9 o9 |6 p$ I
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a6 b5 H- q+ `( Z; z; e
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:& I5 |  H9 e5 O" N' ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) z* S1 c: j+ M+ B0 j. K, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
2 {$ Q  x+ d0 b; V- @0 w( Xprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an- t( U4 ]+ C( b9 g) J- {/ m
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
8 w. H5 h: Q' n; N4 f8 ^chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ G+ v5 L$ w. [- BLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 b: n3 i& T- w0 J$ R* |+ pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! ^7 j/ K) T; a9 A8 A  Zeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.  m& ^* {8 M, j* v5 l0 R% ]
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* I$ `# }& u" k7 [2 D

0 N8 _+ ~1 `1 q; R0 h* MSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 l' Z. B% G5 y: K: qcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; h. [  W* I- x9 Y5 r) T" t. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
& y2 v$ s$ Y& i! ^0 P  T/ E: `* b2 rOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, O0 ]( `1 ]( J' f$ s: o: a$ T; aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for, ?* S7 _, X/ {3 N. w+ Q
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 w! i1 \, ]1 \+ Q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
/ L9 h  i- f+ }6 h  `' Y& Jhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) C: E  C+ F' ~9 Z) f# p6 t" Qplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# }' [; w4 s) N" W5 Gpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
  N' r; W, S+ R1 e0 O0 g1 C
/ F# `+ a2 h5 XOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
! V5 m% k+ A  R2 n4 u3 [8 z- W) z5 Z- Y% ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
* B$ t! c/ T* Asuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a) E. j) |; [$ g
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
5 _6 E. M8 l) L  P; w8 V- {all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- m7 F: ^0 D6 Z7 A% P  T0 W( E" A0 Q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,! `0 V$ [4 z/ Y+ {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
  J2 s5 B. k' ?: d2 A2 p- Margument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal/ M+ L3 M6 w5 \5 K( G
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or5 I& R( n* u( L* d; F! n
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, 2025-12-22 12:26 , Processed in 0.167747 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