埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2257|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
' T. |% w2 N3 ?0 G2 L2 K
0 T' T, z. i) ^  Y5 ]饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( ^$ N" w; ^# q& L: O9 [- K
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 n  S# {7 h4 ~* X8 L
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。7 Y& G. g  }2 p, C% w
6 D4 I" s2 j+ u8 @% I
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
$ j; {6 n1 c; A& w& b+ _( `6 Z8 e1 u' B5 R" c0 s
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选# @* G- }& {# d& Z, g) p3 k

9 o+ F+ W7 p2 {9 _- L英文原信附后,大意如下:5 _- P8 ^* A/ F2 \' v

% b& l. s3 [6 ]/ R9 h斐尔,
# A4 U! b! i) O9 w; h/ t  `. z2 T) f       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  \0 @4 W% X8 _/ ^
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。2 c0 q; F# Y. ?6 R% ^3 ~
       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
: Y1 V1 _9 u% j) V8 I) H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
' E  N. ]/ @) f% q  N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。- h4 [3 }, ]5 M  e/ i7 j
       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
, x6 J; K3 T7 M  S3 g9 b( L1 W弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
0 _$ Z' b0 ]9 m) I. b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 W3 o/ G* a1 m, h# f7 h
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。8 w8 e6 c! O) @7 v
       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( z) W: ?$ i' J. o7 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( k' a  t7 t/ b; ]
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 w" h6 M7 M; F. b$ {       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
) t  L9 a1 U: r1 n& K' ]; g) m. y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% t* i3 U  R2 X, u. ?. b# Q
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 v: n4 J5 ?$ a2 D: w       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% W( f; f4 R% J9 B* 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
) Q2 o3 x0 ?/ d7 z) M- l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
; q' `6 r7 K1 A0 }3 i' K2 c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! B' e  j; d9 K8 N; 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
, ~- |5 D" n% H) C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# a. L  C' O+ D6 Q
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
  b; @8 q1 b; D' U# A+ h。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# `( c( W; ~# W
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。$ Y+ \% C) o% Y0 J+ F0 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 G) s4 t3 a' ~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
( o/ {3 u* F1 e& E- ?& \# [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
$ |8 m" `# `6 M9 u% {$ d8 n同意见的专家。
) Z# X& V/ f- D  p9 b# R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) W- H& o6 Z2 |( c! N8 m
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# S' n" ~5 b4 d' [3 C
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4 h3 A- ~. y; T+ C1 F
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
+ W) h4 N- I' sCallaway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)
# B3 ~+ u6 W, ]5 @6 b6 s! s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
: G' Q' e# t% n' i% }$ t《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4 r) P; j8 T% v$ }
这些被Callaway忽略。5 Y/ O0 g2 N- Z  y
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* w" O+ [+ o: ?# r& r5 Y
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
6 J" ?: X' H# e9 E0 d+ }教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. W6 s' ?4 Q) H; F4 p; `
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/ Z9 m& x6 Z  p, X
学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学
, R6 c1 F( [- t7 _: Z6 m# o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
/ }% ~2 a5 w1 F7 B% F今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。
9 v8 Q4 A3 g- f0 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 T% l6 L: _3 m6 p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
' T2 z2 m/ b+ m: q+ T5 p- e. s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
4 `' c7 y* q3 Z. c0 b8 U" x”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 N$ z: g" M! M# y  v" 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0 z0 n6 w( Q, I- ^
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- B9 p/ ~4 Z6 _& `+ }
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" Z& p, `) @7 q* H6 V* k
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
/ `% h, O, o; R* k8 D5 N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! i" D2 Z5 S! m- n, K- w8 @
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。) p+ u' G" K7 H3 n) ]
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 M, p) @3 v0 _  u( b9 Q& t  f6 ]0 v0 o

0 P: j$ @8 f, v4 O5 l' _北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
! f' y0 }9 Y; p  n4 Y/ X5 Y* }. f2 \, P
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
2 L2 ?8 @/ e, m- z: b: \9 q附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
: D  i$ c* z" I- L& g: z附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
$ v$ R: R$ R( O' q附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见' w6 o, k; H% n+ n5 M

$ O7 D. L! j3 g* W8 F
9 d9 b7 q* E% M- @$ E
  W/ _1 F/ e3 h4 p  C9 ^- X原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)% H% b! b  q9 k2 q) R! O
Dear Phil,7 {$ l7 C, G7 p. n) R; r& L; ?3 K+ k6 n
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s9 a1 q4 ~5 t/ K3 v$ |% e* f) v2 d
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) b2 v6 `" N, R/ {- m5 p6 ahours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* i) l% D. n4 e; n- nyou.. E! w7 Z' ~( h+ Z2 Y1 ?# x: H
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( E% m+ O6 l7 f* V0 b; A: Gbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese. f1 e. b" v5 m& k& H; d
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
3 O1 y& {% }" J, K5 Q$ m  ?. p, Nworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
1 c+ B7 k0 r1 ~. P9 p" Q- ypublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more: a& U5 ]4 z4 N* S: N: U9 z
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news' m& X0 V! x+ j& C0 O
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: ]( K! s5 m) i/ K% P
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" Z8 E8 r8 M- Q: d; Y- R
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
( P4 u6 A, ?1 |5 @9 o' P5 p2 ]negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 x' L5 f! }) i: H: c$ o5 i- a* T
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway4 c% R4 l  j; F( C/ T/ j$ R
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
, U1 a- r" M1 |& x  e: V% ]explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ `+ A' N3 [' P# s
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
$ m5 I& R& ?- o( r9 O* ^and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
- j) o: r& R9 R- Q4 O( }; W* Pto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news2 D9 ~7 r# l: K9 v8 v; `
reporting.9 @# H" g( }- Z! s7 c+ \4 N
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have: [/ m, r" u. H4 ~
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by3 m1 r! o" f( [1 O3 c' @/ W* a2 M+ k
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
# E! U3 K& o( t' U4 M) B: K2 psports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A" ?3 A* O- V1 S/ K- l
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  J9 t8 ]% ^: i5 H' ^% u       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem2 V" Q! H" h: [" @$ ~2 X& F$ k2 v# C  x+ E
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds- g1 h/ g6 P, S! L
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
; K0 @. o+ K( e  V; J" Pmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same; [; t0 |# @- Q
event for men, with the second fastest record.& }5 o" v. C0 q! K7 c4 ], ]
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
0 W" @! ]8 e/ M) Jwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 161 w6 i  [" O& W' r9 n1 `  e
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record9 K2 Y( c1 N+ ?7 C3 z: y( B
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, A, ^* R, h9 b* C  e# |; n
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
( k7 |  s$ i$ \for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than! M& i. ?5 Q" F* Z! J) G/ T
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
5 ^3 |  d/ j. B& |behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
/ S& z  C, J7 u" f% L$ P  Bindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
; k" F' B; G7 i7 ]/ F, @/ G. vthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than  G) K2 S3 P- Z& i
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
" f4 A( c) N8 |0 e( [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
1 M0 b  l# g0 G+ jhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “. W/ A, V1 q, @
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
9 t4 \+ I' e$ f6 v+ K  Y+ d9 p( Eswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
% E1 d. t6 U% q2 i: lteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) v  ^. `$ D' I" S
Callaway report.5 C) Y* Y  y, d9 Q$ z1 v' I
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 j/ M+ l$ E  k0 _
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ g$ ]$ @) p2 O5 Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description  Y; L' n0 @4 _+ D
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
8 r* ]( d  A  K' y$ P  v3 M$ X7 mbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the8 C8 K/ F: Y! A9 v/ N( A
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: {& T/ U: C8 q, V
publicly voiced different opinions.
: H+ Q0 t: D! Y" C# Y  r# dYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD- H' S# ~. F3 s) U
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
% L# R5 f1 X0 v/ O/ E: tNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent! j6 c1 v; _  u
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
; E% I7 G3 ~8 t0 K+ v, K* w$ dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy' r+ w" z6 v3 e& u
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: T5 x6 T% a) q# V4 {
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
, L3 g' V% f- d$ Wthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
8 g3 A+ ?  L" l- |) M, N% [  Phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
+ K; l' _# @, R% _& z0 L4 w6 wAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
6 n3 H0 H# V; J) athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was3 S) |  e% {1 k
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
! }4 r( I& Z4 z$ U) _One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. h$ O6 Z1 r% {4 [many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ s; @9 W  D8 ^+ @
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June% i; ]- P$ ?  l5 q: B. i
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
, n, n; Z" S' h  K( }and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting." o& o6 C- Q* X- [' m
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
1 Y, z( J+ |' s' z, A( w, Yand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
1 @" U9 v/ C( T/ |1 j1 w/ U$ ^% SDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.8 v1 ], q  B9 }: l
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
! }! @2 b! R. @* `objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
) y1 A3 R6 b  P( l4 ^. q7 R  N+ g2 o+ Fwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
$ X0 C) s2 f& m' Q& rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
' S! l6 ?3 P! K6 p% [. A4 O; `1 }The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
* @# I" k+ Y: H% P( u+ oshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
0 L& {" q# N4 Q+ ]# `us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
1 ~) ]1 ~) x3 y7 B# q  yfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that4 U4 }8 {  Y5 c- C) O& `( f. f
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”% v& [: d! }, i4 I
about British supremacy.! V7 I. j2 q# k, k& J& y
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many. m5 n# h* p: d! m' D' ?
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more# U6 i8 G( @/ H, e
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by# [& V& y5 r8 T8 f5 ]& S: X8 F
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London% o4 O% N9 X# J' s
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases." Y. u+ v/ c9 q$ B
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
( \, r, A* J1 p' o+ ~professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests# G  ^5 @" f& @+ |( @- n
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
& a$ v1 H) q% \% `; e, git is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly3 }8 Q9 _  S) x. b- X9 ]. l" @
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! R2 d# o. A- V0 B. RNature.0 n5 p% s  R% x/ S$ M
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
& Z1 F* y, R/ p+ b+ I# T* I& K' Lthe Callaway report.
/ K7 o* ]* }, R6 C9 a# o. a- U1 @( J- ]; s
Yi
/ D2 X- Z1 i2 b9 h7 V$ F: i& f+ M1 `5 |* I4 ?/ S/ Q
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
# t) s8 p! w7 {9 E" [1 N1 e2 VProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences6 V, K7 C# L. f+ ^! B% Q
Beijing, China
# B# B6 U+ J/ ]+ B, K$ G
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 " [; @/ ]) v- F$ f: `$ y, v# t
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
3 N4 h+ {/ |' V  E) o& y4 S8 V
原文是公开信。0 Z6 X" D# M% z- f+ `, x
  S/ z8 B: \$ ]( {' @+ T
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
2 o# @) G# J2 i8 O3 Z) P/ z% m3 x原文是公开信。
2 S, r9 P/ c& J3 p$ [
5 u1 {* s$ F8 e9 W+ @小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

; h8 N$ f/ K! |  M" V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
" V  Y& \, I  k. ]: E8 J$ o$ [* \如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。7 q1 U, X$ H/ B: O- N- q
6 O7 z/ D+ g; n$ _3 Q7 \# N
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html) ^& ?- U' J8 ~8 S6 M& r7 h, {

7 l: N  B% Z) l! YFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ Q4 v" `. b; N! L/ Y& X( S$ o* ^. z9 N. i
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 ?2 c$ P8 i# C- d/ I* R, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
; z  l  h# L/ G: K* E& Fmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
. t$ S+ W7 c& P9 d8 Cis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the) L/ u1 ~; d, K0 k8 m- o
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ M( f+ X+ i- w9 U
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 S7 X# `1 j$ Q9 ~' v; I
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! }( `, s0 C+ {# Y# i8 y
which they blatantly failed to do.
' T) d6 G2 ?% ~9 ]% V  R+ u/ q5 c% Y
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her" \2 r% h! F3 ?& {" w* K/ S+ C- C
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
0 N! Y- o1 @/ y7 \" v' i, V' _6 x2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
2 b) U( F: q4 w: F* x; hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% ]# u- \4 y6 c! C/ X
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 [0 j# F& t! P% t, F- C
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the& n. h; @$ V" u7 T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
1 }. g! r5 C  I; S3 ube treated as 7 s.  ^9 @8 i) J4 B7 V
$ n5 Q" [( \' |% f2 h. H( I7 t
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
7 ~9 l1 I5 f1 l5 Cstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& K6 f; I! H& h7 {! p
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.4 a8 h5 a" F" L3 v  G! W
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400" J5 V/ @$ D  W2 V# `- k
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
; `! U" ]6 V9 s; k: ?2 lFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
  F/ {, D' v: P& jelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and( m+ C- |" J/ Y, t4 g
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”+ t% ?4 z5 w1 w2 k6 z$ C5 p
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 }" Q* S2 B0 f3 K' M
# G3 Z3 n& [3 X* T0 \% c4 d0 K5 YThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
- W2 M* o& S% iexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in: Y6 z1 B( v& E! z9 m+ q3 X' `
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 g1 w4 }' a. b, {he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
- z  Q8 N- L; m! M  }+ fevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s) s, o8 D* D5 u+ ?3 `7 h
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
$ O0 s! W- x6 }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another' u1 G" l! M9 v" a  ~: x
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 I) `) e; ^! h2 {" d  T7 Xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
0 z' t7 ]5 P" B4 [  p, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
7 f- R4 N* z- Y) jstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds! ^0 _; ]- }( s1 H" j5 S
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam* W1 l% ~* E6 Z4 x$ O5 _
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 [! l, @$ v/ o2 p" {5 L, U4 u* |
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that( M# e/ ?# e6 I
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
) E* m& q* |6 `; ]1 G" E$ h* g( d+ M4 ?% y( H: B
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. b0 g4 \5 A( N6 a$ f8 x  jfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.934 r+ T3 r$ u5 K/ H% d) L
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 M/ L1 F$ y1 Z5 E
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
, _4 c, p9 y3 ^. |3 U1 vout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,/ p& p8 f- N- s
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 b2 f# F* F* T3 c( Lof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" ]* Y  [* l2 Ilogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 P: E8 [2 n4 d$ pevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" Q$ A+ U4 u: B  Y- u* q9 F
works.; V9 x+ I/ l  J# T% C

+ k9 Q/ j* o$ F2 E! PFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
3 ~+ ?  T  a! F5 zimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! s5 N) N% R- ], f+ u9 u2 H1 jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
( P) `. i6 d/ S* v, O; {4 bstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) K- }8 [/ Z  [+ bpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and9 k* _' N. o" P/ V& ?3 L
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One3 E$ `( U0 j/ u0 P: @/ c/ g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to, j1 g  r4 E6 o, j1 P2 Y. S9 I1 r' ?
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
( {/ N' e" ]+ Ito a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample- d( f4 M( e' A3 }. \
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 ]' M9 X" l3 d" h/ }+ wcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ w7 J3 a1 t. ]9 Y8 }
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
* I  S8 `7 e* ]( t# z9 f1 zadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the. i, I+ w0 ]1 _! V& i! v9 z
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ N& n& D8 A5 Y, F
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation0 K4 p9 u) ^4 O8 _# x2 W0 ?
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are7 Y. Y4 X2 G9 {/ k
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ M0 i! l: ?( l
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
' n/ g& e; p; |/ k( [# g/ Mhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ h  T4 p% t  M: @
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a3 K% q1 U4 M% t, O6 ^6 h( g* K
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' }* Q; P: Z6 Cother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# W$ V7 y8 X- S5 i# c, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& L  O' L  g. _# N
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ R# Y# l7 Y6 H. S
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight5 m0 w8 C! _- p; L7 ~, j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 l& t0 z# n7 RLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ {' }( L/ \: P; a
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 d( D5 V4 X3 k8 V
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ }  O; s: `; e3 B9 P
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?/ h4 c; D* _( \$ u1 K3 \& @
! M/ ^$ N! g. \3 r, i
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 m/ X2 g% V) e: zcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention% \8 A6 S+ m& H* Y6 _  R$ ?* L; W
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 t. q1 Z9 t( v4 Q/ t$ c- x
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
" K' S2 ^/ J% aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for" b; \! t0 l  e! o0 y  E7 u6 f, Z
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* `) T+ W: L- ?: N( G1 Y* n" ~games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
9 t" y/ y4 @# M% ]- h/ {have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
+ {; n3 U0 b( S0 j6 n+ mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; }/ n8 l; A& J% O! _. Fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 E- g: }( ]' r6 h
# v$ _! q0 o! I7 E' b
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (, {3 X8 K  t3 E, t
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too5 p5 \! q1 m6 s  p& V! X0 P' t9 L
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; c6 }- c2 c' {; ?6 ^! z7 y. t: a
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
/ `4 h, b& c6 k, Qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
  F7 o0 \1 C- u% qinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
7 z- K+ X- s3 C0 L, u; r4 _  l- ^explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your2 p) A1 F8 G! i& o: B7 Q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 b% v& S% D6 m0 ^7 S" f( T
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or2 o: ^9 D7 J+ F- W4 _, U- O- B1 s
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, 2026-4-22 17:03 , Processed in 0.122359 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