埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2228|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
) B4 P% ]; Q. }$ g1 R( D2 h1 g1 u+ X8 f! C9 M# n1 k
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
2 h, r& L2 z% J7 W% i" y2 ^  b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。
4 l2 G! [. K) i! q3 F  ~总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 \6 K/ G3 f% _- y) Z; n% B0 W
7 g$ e( t& J- m5 f7 I
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
+ k1 R; L. W1 y$ f3 ?/ C. U  E6 f  l
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选9 n/ F! {) m3 u: l

' m/ K* |5 E2 H3 h3 X' b7 M: M% s英文原信附后,大意如下:
9 b, \9 q0 N9 H# l% {$ [' C5 _' D& p3 w  ^7 K  c, e
斐尔,. X3 U: B+ D9 L
       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
; C" P9 Y4 w4 W9 Femail的人里面小部分也给我来信。1 t. C0 ^$ j( S# e# Y& O! 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
, b& \5 o2 \: V8 S& m. 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
3 _7 [2 J5 J* i& 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。
0 @5 G- U) C2 [! }7 C       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8 g2 h2 D6 J8 X! A' ^! O
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 a1 f7 _: X6 Z7 H8 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* A9 z$ {+ N' y% m5 ?9 A' m
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。( Z2 x. S0 _4 G4 B7 D/ t
       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
+ p& L; E( f* I' c: W; [,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
9 s9 |! `* j/ `: F”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
, |2 @6 P3 C- u# \2 @( J4 c       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: o6 a: _0 I$ d! {2 V
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
+ ]( X8 {  g7 P3 r% s4 M,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
" l6 J$ `. R9 _% @" ]% t7 E       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于1 W/ Z5 |. S7 u( P  E7 ~" L5 W
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
- C$ @3 [& s9 M2 L2 s4 R+ D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
2 r) m+ g( P* I& U* H快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前
  w4 r0 R1 e# Y# x7 p8 t4 N& B300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% o! u$ J  q$ J& y( ^
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
+ L% r% V/ z2 F) a: `1 o: n- ^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
7 K5 R  x  n6 q- N。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" J( R( b4 _  d' I: |1 c
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
2 a. b( V% R% q/ E0 z# D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, P( ~  |. |9 B+ h6 r& ]$ x
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2 }( J3 M1 Y/ B& |6 c; ~
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9 Q  m. n4 C* h8 T: w9 N7 g
同意见的专家。
- ^2 f( U4 [4 Y3 R) f3 T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3 o- P* x' z" }3 c: G, S
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 Y- d7 C% q3 _* r- T6 m
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' X1 a, n# q6 U. \
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
2 {+ S# x! H9 ?9 [! O2 BCallaway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)
: n2 z5 Q7 _9 K5 }- E: ~8 N. p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: z: h( F, U$ x! P' \5 {/ ]
《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
  w, R0 P' O& ~# z0 s" j" s! n这些被Callaway忽略。
5 @% y$ |* n( U! ?, 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
, e! L8 D& `+ f+ o& I5 I& z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
! E( R4 @: H' U5 w! V" \教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。0 d* ~& K' K& l3 u) ?4 Y1 h* T
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; G- W7 g' ~1 z7 r% P/ 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
$ b( S- |* d+ v. i$ ?! y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
. V+ ^6 L' k5 |. s0 Q& B! n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。
" n4 }3 D* ?& K' r" t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
. j6 W1 M6 e2 e$ s! Y1 b6 Y1 j$ 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+ H7 D1 }1 W5 X+ y( w: r
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! a6 j. o+ }" X. I% k. X6 }5 ]' i
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。$ B; H# E0 A' t* F4 |
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1 U3 X# Z) _/ Z! {' w; D+ o
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* E' {5 W. \6 L) j
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) T3 J2 P: V% U8 P4 @, ^9 d+ ?
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  I; \9 K4 t1 w* ]2 i
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1 t2 |* \, ?( a2 w3 H
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: X$ f* z5 d6 C, ^/ z, m6 X我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
* C+ ^* o& o$ A, z' z' v: d8 Q1 K; q1 a( a" ]1 Z$ Q1 y3 w
' P: M! o0 i1 i! U& j# n
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅- q/ s7 X5 \* ~% I; l/ o) a$ c
1 K) T! Y& E# [6 @$ s3 G5 r
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 n+ F( v7 h6 T. R3 t- h附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
2 g( {9 u0 }' c- v3 j附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 M9 E4 l  J9 P附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见8 q9 P8 s6 Z! d$ f

5 A( v' r4 ^7 I( k* g( g' k
7 @4 Z7 ~/ \7 N) M9 T3 _# P5 M
9 o0 C: Q) P2 Q5 p9 i原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
( @+ @0 e5 F2 h3 ^1 RDear Phil,
% b% A* `. p" ~& p       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
8 e8 s' x- i5 ~  O* Sreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 `0 N+ P9 E- g6 `- c/ B1 f, E) x3 Mhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed' h4 u: y" {( u
you.
5 }, ?/ ]$ v' H% @5 P" U       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
9 r4 R9 @* [2 C) Q3 K( Gbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese4 h7 {1 u$ t" K/ t7 N
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
( L# D8 z; m* ], q1 Lworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature* h* v! r  G5 Y; a8 M
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more3 o! U& A' }$ d
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news* e2 d' p4 G5 M, u
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
# c# C. L8 ~! W       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the0 |4 V* s3 d  ~" V; `
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a: W% M$ L' F2 L, }' d* j8 f" V; _
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! X7 Q) }: [( n* s" Ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway/ K- I+ W, z4 d& S( {6 `
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
; j7 ^& K7 I2 d# h' z6 R0 hexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
; h8 b( ^2 E) L) g# x9 ostandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,) _, j, C) v- c# U  c, k
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone0 a  u3 c! D& y8 L$ a) [
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 y* i* z  ~9 u9 A, h* f; oreporting.
9 l" w) D, [9 j! q. Y3 u, Z% y       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have0 a, Z1 W, _0 F- |( M5 q2 {
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
% j, p" Y& W' Gchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in( X$ H2 q( x& r; @4 S. g( s
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
6 H! g7 g% B9 A& o3 _presumption of cheating has changed to doubts." Z+ w  V. p1 }- j
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
( e9 r$ S# \" D+ @% Cmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ K8 d5 V! i& n0 F& f3 f/ |! `
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50) ~' T2 Q# \- `- m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same% R/ u  X$ }6 {; R9 U& O
event for men, with the second fastest record.3 ~) O+ G" J4 f
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
$ Q( @* e% d2 ~was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 165 v, W8 V6 A) @7 g5 G6 O
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
% i5 F" F- H2 C0 v. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
% P2 J  ~2 M: y2 K3 p3 jmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
6 z2 X- C5 b! g( V3 P1 l' ~for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than  W( Y+ w/ s. ]8 R; S8 X
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed& y' N) |0 {4 w" G, d# K
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the+ [" W3 c% y1 `+ a( l: I
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower6 m  \4 W; G& Z& S9 O3 s# I
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
% w- W5 Q, H" r) B" Z; T( pthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 U$ f/ ~; e# D: G
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
; x. A( c% l- ?6 e% i7 k: `: o* Uhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “7 R: _, \0 ]  W: l4 E; N6 r
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other- v! m4 B! q$ Y) u
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the' B% z" x: ^' L
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the$ {/ J( E& W, X; d
Callaway report./ H. E( ~* c+ ?& I. q2 y6 Z
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
/ n8 B7 j4 z1 M# Qunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
# x0 u$ b' t: @* T5 ~4 Chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
% A5 v2 f) U3 J8 x- a# Q% ~; Nof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been0 i" O! r2 Y, _3 \
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the- J9 }+ v- j) M0 d  ^
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
& ?$ k& O, @( ?4 G; r5 |publicly voiced different opinions.3 _6 B2 r2 J- f5 b  s
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
' o) v& k( l. h' R, ufrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
0 I( p  n& X% K* d' h+ q3 X8 s# rNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) T* d9 \4 ~( v; h7 o1 @. R* Opostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
- P+ ^$ m! `! Z+ n5 f% qyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  g3 I2 Q+ A. A5 l; A
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.- q. I4 j7 r- P
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 `1 ]% T7 t4 K# ^9 Wthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
7 f# i6 X. c. ~! z6 phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 \! J1 h8 B0 j! H& r/ Z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that5 {  R4 U1 W8 M" ^6 `
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was% U: Y, l; q! `: n. G" m; y$ U0 D
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
5 g% [0 t" B% b0 i& X0 [% [  X' M& w- u) |One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ T4 P; u& }$ ~$ j
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the% H  t1 p. y7 N5 Z1 q! D4 q
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June# [7 }8 a& ?- t* G
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 B/ ^9 n5 ]( i" m" Y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
7 A4 [- o& Y& e# BThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science& @8 O, C8 n: n8 ?9 k- t5 v) O5 w
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and  r/ \  Q+ V9 w2 V3 @
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
+ k9 {2 H: [1 `7 m4 _' t  yNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and8 A0 n6 V- \+ r2 E, A
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature  `" s- s( ?# D+ @' d9 y' V
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to5 l: ~! t/ m9 ^# t
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.: [. T% Q" m* e4 a) r) {  P8 m
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 b" V& O8 K, dshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced% ~5 \3 A6 X9 N9 T' H: s( ]
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather+ \& g1 n% e8 J& ^( ]
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that& z! h# K/ B# R
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
$ j/ H' h2 K" g& ^# Labout British supremacy.
  Y  T9 t7 N1 A. KThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many* |4 r) X+ I- X: T" K! i. f& g' w
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, R, C1 N& G9 n9 W( T8 mChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by# j* O3 g: U$ q+ E1 N: d. r; z; |
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London5 c- G4 n" w, H  c. Q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.  U6 K2 ?& B- R
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: B4 C) i7 Y/ z
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
1 |, m! P$ ]0 Nbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- O7 P, S1 G- q/ X9 o; r' m  s: Dit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ D- K. e, n3 f5 y" q) s* E  X
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
& C0 f( r4 o4 i; m; _9 Q" d/ JNature.
: J% h0 r* f' B+ hI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance9 ~( c9 @! t9 p9 r$ O/ b( w9 J: K
the Callaway report.
5 V5 \! r% r) \
0 O+ m; T1 n$ I! Q+ uYi
: \# V2 I7 J  B0 I+ P3 {, `, P6 _) ?* B. Y1 m! n0 x0 w3 e) R
Yi Rao, Ph.D.3 ]7 s, a4 s8 [6 R9 j7 X
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences& g/ Y6 A5 b: H0 b$ ]7 x
Beijing, China
8 O4 u8 X' P3 L" J' ]. n% `  j
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 . ^5 Z. d2 F: a& M! G( T& I1 b
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

% c" `! ]/ p; r* k4 F7 O% Y原文是公开信。. G& I! u  d4 |

0 v" m. F! @: Y$ P% q/ l# Z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+ s! ]* Q5 K% z; w; U
原文是公开信。
) ^' E" v1 v3 s
0 T/ Q, }% ^0 X: G2 S3 D& M小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
) H( E  A. H/ }$ n8 g
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
, o8 _# Y4 m8 M如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。) j- z) ^: [' Z4 q2 ~' k
% v7 Z% D6 H6 B. c8 `% i( Y
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
, i; T: k1 |- j2 s( x) ?% P0 C& E" q0 e
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 u- |5 L" M# T- D/ \
9 I- h9 N9 J1 W7 G
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself2 O" a3 ~) M$ Y5 F, s0 R
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 ~3 u. t4 k8 t: V. G- {
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
% d4 G( q- b1 v% T7 e9 F' Fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the! k* L4 f  @) L6 M' c) c* @7 J, r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: D( S3 n3 g" M1 c
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
1 o" P' u$ f- O+ [' s/ n! bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# m+ a/ r% m* `2 w
which they blatantly failed to do.; y& }' N8 B' R5 _; F) ~

/ Q" G, t8 H2 _2 I+ \4 D# hFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her7 H$ o3 J. I' g3 {. O: o
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
  l, a, ]. l5 T. x# N2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
" i' `! |$ R7 k8 @; L) qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 `' E: L- Y$ n* M7 e/ g& _  n0 {personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
! N! h7 X3 N1 ~0 P' c% C- pimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) O8 H: n8 J. G8 Y" t1 l! l" o. T" Adifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ }- L- D7 Q# V- b9 b
be treated as 7 s.& _, T& o+ O3 H: X8 s# M& W, y( T
+ y# M4 q+ ?+ V0 J. N
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ G- J$ K+ ^! Z. j1 ustill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem1 J% j" B$ _) c  U' \
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
7 O/ R4 |0 s' l8 KAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400( |$ \  e0 j' A2 y
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
2 E7 O! j0 b. s4 W4 B; a+ kFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
+ e# ~$ f3 B# lelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 I# G" w* M! \persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”/ y& w; q0 t+ e7 {0 D9 y+ W! s
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
4 Z! d+ F- R& ^8 [5 W0 H# K' M9 f2 P" B5 t9 [
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* y) d+ K' l# J1 g* t2 y3 X
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in) |: p# L& l" f* b& h4 a4 o( J
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! P8 ^3 b9 a. j  c5 _- d
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
( h0 D& c8 J0 ^% s/ |. i1 S- F' ]events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* S, \/ u- {8 D7 u
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World: F5 b- w& @  ~$ w; s5 V4 {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! Z3 K$ F2 q' B% Z& S$ R% x0 p
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' O# _  J6 N2 h- v3 D( ~" s' T
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
8 @7 v$ Q& a& I, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this" N) l  p8 ]9 p, T5 {2 c
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds" P& c# }) n2 N" `9 j
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam+ I" }" ~0 s2 E& K
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting5 @+ C2 M! L! |9 N( u& j
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
4 D* R, @$ }( [1 D+ Fimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
) P  ~: o, A. u# ]# s
( H# V3 N% w( b  I! g7 wFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ C' W. H' q: w8 `3 [four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 W6 i7 @1 w, I! P2 I  X8 q' ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
4 ?& M9 F( D1 a+ R9 ^, r* s8 T/ g), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 D  ~( a0 L+ F
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,, ^* p; n) g. N' X) ~
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 u* w9 p  Z/ u/ _+ {4 fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
( [$ y& K' `& `8 a1 ^0 Zlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in8 u6 a5 j! w8 U. w& g
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science) k( d. p- E* @$ k6 U
works.8 Y3 V: r. E! \

% @' g. V- `7 F. |; F' rFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 N, A2 o& x% ]1 W) O  fimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
3 @  a; G! M5 U. x2 G' Gkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that# E2 F! I( i# c5 X1 G- j. b0 `4 L
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
" W) G( f  f" O1 Z! J0 g7 W8 Upapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and5 Q$ o4 o: e* V: Y0 E" q* @
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
0 }+ A4 S  b& m. c% Rcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 R* L" V; D9 I. N0 ?& F
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works5 R% g4 |  S# h( k
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) `3 w4 P- u5 X* g- N" y3 Y* b
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is( C$ D" S! p: o5 o
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
; W5 d0 r. O4 |, E3 F' owrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
; j/ Y+ @6 ~8 A5 t; U" ?advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 v8 C8 A" G' K- j. b; R& cpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 V0 i9 X& j  T! M( G, y7 {
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
# M- F& b; r0 D. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 k/ E5 W/ ]  Y2 h
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may8 y& N; j7 K1 Z0 R5 {9 P
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 [. W4 P* Q7 h3 n) t
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 T8 N; G( c% B2 q% `
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
) Q/ |% l& J( a3 ddrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ J) f3 C8 U. I' A, i
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- M! c/ {' R) l. k' j& t1 l6 M( q4 d, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ E% _% a# D2 Y5 ~* mprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
7 s0 {: @! W" n# \5 r+ Hathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight9 a" a& Z! }" q( w2 }, C
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) @: Y  K, P7 l3 ?Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
3 e" a( X/ r9 C' Hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
) C# v$ X) P8 ?/ [7 T9 Oeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% g9 Y* s' ~7 m; X0 }
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?% n; B: n7 ^( `3 y& u8 |& ]5 J4 t
3 e! S& I$ t7 e! u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% E' `* m' Q7 ?
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 v: k6 X* q5 l0 T7 Z) G; ~! o. H8 b
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. w- o1 \8 y1 W, H8 y; ~Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London4 T' m; X5 _  I
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ \4 U" Q' j) y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 B" o$ C; ?; z$ J3 Ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope4 s, {- g3 ~7 ?
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a( D" I0 t6 D0 L1 Y* I$ O# a
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% |' S3 G9 [( h9 I+ apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.% S9 l/ h( X7 g3 H% l, T  _1 a

  n; S, i, N7 B: N$ rOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: X% f& ^2 H) K1 Q6 s4 Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 I6 ?3 `$ y' |/ Q, g
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& i( ~. k0 U( Z+ j1 p/ @. m6 H: bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 ~7 W! [6 w: N0 f! Dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your/ u. t% k. b# a/ u, Q6 d; \5 e
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
% ~8 Q1 m" i+ w/ r! Wexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
/ k! h6 p8 d: a, B+ D- iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! a  q/ @) g# {* ?9 vsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; U- l* H$ q! U" _4 X0 mreporting 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, 2026-4-14 02:07 , Processed in 0.210913 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