埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2016|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
5 i! |+ V7 V5 U1 ~$ L3 l7 D) Y/ V- k' S% T- f) I3 A) u
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
0 h. l5 C& Z3 s* a+ ]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。
' B. E6 W* `3 w/ q" @: [& Z总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
' K/ r. c9 {2 @7 ~5 K5 Z+ \" o  e& c. B5 z' [% h' @2 Y
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html( G$ W/ I* }. U1 O/ u

% `( i, {' X6 Q( ~致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ V3 M2 F  u$ G; _
5 ]9 m4 Q& r1 c英文原信附后,大意如下:
7 U- O4 B: |2 X: j3 @, }* o" s: C8 d3 Y8 h7 z1 K
斐尔,
" |; u- ?$ i' D. 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1 F( n1 n- b" @: ]
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
( j1 s; K& |! z& T' ?7 J) z9 m$ 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, @) @/ f# N0 Y& @0 D$ u" i2 d. Q
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
' x2 ^1 @, V- d* m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。
2 m# Y9 U4 h( w7 w8 C* j3 Z6 q       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
/ r# c2 I) U5 F8 C. _7 R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
9 ~; ?. Z8 X5 ^! U5 A3 x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
  y- A2 L6 i$ K8 g' Y! G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。
5 u" I% O. Q' _* K, E' I       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
9 s$ v( O; y  I9 ]9 F,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. m+ L1 n7 `. o9 n6 [. u
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
, P2 ]9 u: H7 F6 F       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; N% u1 Z* S0 K! N! 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
, O3 y( v/ R3 x) P) x, r,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
5 R2 y9 [; k! Q, {       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
9 t0 d+ A) o+ @+ N2011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, x2 Z& G9 b- Z* Q
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 p  Z- X1 K# S- b5 `
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) a: Q4 ~$ j4 T4 v8 U1 P1 N3 V300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) e: A) C3 e# m1 X7 ~+ L$ R: O+ X' C2 b8 f
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱4 C5 @; G. L6 I6 _/ P
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目) f+ `* {& ]. _: S8 [
。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3 d: W# Z7 W, i( R7 Z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; Y. ?, P) _! s$ `
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
% Q) o: O0 _* q& C( `8 F8 J1》,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 \4 {3 V" C% s. O- p$ QWikipedia。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& N6 V4 ^+ K( j6 j$ \) F
同意见的专家。( D6 }! l- E6 @6 G* Z0 x6 Z
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
# e" J6 A. U/ V: r2 V  k, u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 n% X& l! O9 @- 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
! t6 p. J# _% c2 R《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 q& W9 U5 F: E" e+ M2 |
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)
* f- q! G! @+ x1 u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- t) u! `' g5 W6 c7 J9 K# K! a
《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3 }, ^, t" {1 {
这些被Callaway忽略。
2 l; F/ d- }, s$ i, l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7 s3 K8 c/ ~6 J; N  K; b
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$ }* p, S6 S! {6 s( u9 k
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。0 I/ p, H8 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
1 Y4 D6 E$ A0 A$ B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! ^) t* R+ r6 s) }
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
! w: I% G- [2 c, G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。( g  u3 s$ `; q) h. y3 K1 o2 j& F, z
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
: O/ D& M3 U$ j. l* I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
2 N! ^* ~2 {3 A) W/ a  R$ M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
( H. `; o& F0 K. F9 l”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 J2 n( Y7 G9 z) e; s; p4 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
( M  l9 p8 n% a9 ~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% x. O- F) @9 C( |) E
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
9 K) ?( ^5 v' p5 D. }( o$ p7 w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: _# Z8 Y& g. h+ t( n& y! M
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
/ G* b3 d8 v$ K) _  H0 k9 I! s而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。9 o9 J0 ~3 v  u
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
% e& j8 u. j. n6 }
+ u* @" C" u4 {$ u
! j( @, V  o9 |( ^北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 G6 K4 a/ v+ P+ V) q
, G  d2 `9 a7 |: ]' g5 L
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' x. |5 v% a+ J* f  q: p0 p附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email2 H9 H. b. l. I$ G" Z1 L  n% n( X
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见2 ~6 i- ]7 u+ e4 `6 j! B* |
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见2 O9 D; \: S* B7 w1 y/ R0 T
$ {) f! S2 z. O; t; m0 x) e

4 J3 W6 U. n5 X; ]% B3 Z5 W
8 M' F, X9 H1 j9 b& W: S原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)7 I0 h! n0 R: l  Q
Dear Phil,
. ]) t. b  d) e" H       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& t7 I/ p, V6 y; Z9 g: d: O
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) F  a! W+ c' t, n4 F+ X0 zhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed! z; p. a- b1 j5 F+ Z
you.4 O! l" z' u" a7 ]; p9 T: l
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
0 _6 y6 X9 h- \# abrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese* H* ~3 Y, Z) M! ^' h& N, `
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the" R- f$ V7 ]6 [5 |
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
0 _7 W* J" T3 t0 Y9 {/ zpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
, l* G, f9 Q# u5 Y% f- F1 J. p; Useriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
" w+ j4 E% H: Q# _, X" C- w& }pieces much more than the regular Western news media would., `- H8 \; ^  e5 {3 g3 E
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the. I7 b8 k& o; y! p9 }
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a6 k% p2 m6 [1 K; M, E5 l; E
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
, l* @- I# z, Dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 P: q, c2 g) Y9 @; N: v4 Udid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping0 P% a# O% w% v, N; o0 M
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal& w/ g: f9 P& o
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; p  g! K4 b0 D/ r$ Q1 L2 u& B) T$ {
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
5 C$ X' v3 w( z3 n0 \( A. a  Tto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news/ q3 \% S! m+ ^& w, J9 V
reporting.' @0 T4 X% U) R' U; w+ Y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
' u& E6 h/ R/ H0 v2 Z( B/ Jalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by; Y  A2 n% `$ Q1 y
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
3 H$ U& Q/ A. z6 C2 m3 x; h5 zsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
9 D9 b/ s8 L. B) j7 V& bpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.* ]$ G2 l$ D' {# c# \+ ]3 {
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
! `5 q5 r; T# J% w0 h2 ^5 _more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
* @9 H5 P. b+ ~faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
8 G; d% k" z7 g! D6 Cmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same/ ~3 B" H0 O" E2 V& \5 s
event for men, with the second fastest record.
! g2 n0 `  N7 U' W' c( a- Q       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
! w4 I/ g4 s+ a5 f8 Vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
" N- A5 V% F5 x! r0 Tyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
( W$ Y4 c2 Y, X# Q- i  H1 E. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400* ~' w: g& C" V8 U2 }( ~
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,& t& w! R! m: w+ e9 t" g( T* F
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; l6 B& n7 B* S' y; `; ^; ?1 s) W9 T& |
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
; j- s6 w, A  D2 rbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the; T* }) c4 s4 o
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower# U3 p, K/ S) q7 h5 n1 O
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
, r2 x1 }3 t, F" [those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was& j6 r! b. v& {4 R
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 C, j5 a0 k% ~
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
+ O" }& X. o( N1 l- Mproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
. O/ a: f, C+ ]swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
' g" a0 d) n# K0 e; \& L5 q- Vteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the5 r5 L5 J% E$ |8 W% U
Callaway report.% d' m! Q3 B0 k% f
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more5 k$ \" W  z$ z/ `1 q6 @
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
7 o$ A" C2 r/ N- ^& N! F! T2 [9 |here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
$ q9 h- o# x3 ~" Lof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been5 M3 _9 m- W" ]! a% h
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the6 p) D; T/ R# W) A, F0 w
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had5 t% t9 Z/ a7 o4 q9 o. b( P" r
publicly voiced different opinions.
" m# v& m! K% jYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD& ?' s9 C4 q, I: u
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ Z5 q- }' n& c' H% z* GNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
- p3 b* B- s5 J0 dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
0 O+ P7 ]7 C7 O3 w) H4 iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
5 g* }- j, ?" y; B( b6 M2 lof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
% N4 i, c2 ]; g8 j1 X4 PThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
3 h/ \- Y* \6 h, \! {that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 n5 Q  @5 k3 w1 J6 |( o( {
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as% c) R6 k' u  L- R
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that, w* C4 f; ?) ~# e: {5 L4 E
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
- ^7 l1 v  q5 L5 x$ I% g; psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.% v0 c' \6 k  G$ m: ]
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that# T2 [3 x2 @; K9 S2 V
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the' o$ M1 o5 Q9 a+ N5 H
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
5 r# S2 r. k: m; Q& y7 v(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she* u& V& t9 o7 g) p1 M
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
. ?7 J2 ~+ y7 hThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
' ?$ `8 u6 s8 g+ eand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( h* M8 g$ i* t  T+ {
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
0 z: l1 {& S& p6 B  U2 xNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and# D. J/ Z, U& M  {
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# C/ }+ N) Y5 {what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
% f4 T: S( ?; rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
# H; g/ X9 l4 g2 |- q. T- rThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
3 F! n* G1 S) |  V# m) kshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced( Q. O& U3 m7 K+ _# u! e
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather9 C8 Z& i5 d7 S6 d* u# q
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
% g" l! V2 q( P% Y$ Y' H. {, Jthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”, Y/ }9 Z" r" r; ?5 C& `
about British supremacy.2 U$ L# k7 @. o! C
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many" j, N& A- O2 \; o
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
3 A  B* ~$ A6 K! Z0 O4 BChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
  S* _5 p- E" I' E8 S) dour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
1 S$ G! j. S6 f+ C, ^# ~$ }$ [' aOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.6 q$ B+ `% y8 J- `% s# P0 }
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) g; N0 E0 @+ O! Jprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
1 R7 ]2 ^* |) k+ Fbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. j$ E  r7 x5 g4 \( g% q/ G1 h0 }$ Uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
7 K3 j2 O1 x2 c2 O1 ]6 Jpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like3 v0 H$ J7 h$ D0 y5 ~7 b5 ]- [
Nature.( u) C. q+ S$ C
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance  z3 a3 x2 |) d4 A: ~
the Callaway report.
- m% ~) e: b" c2 f' I
2 [3 |. Z1 Z* L- r/ c0 b2 hYi
' Z% A' u6 S7 R7 M# v
2 W' G" R7 K2 b6 _% E- BYi Rao, Ph.D.# w. S% {# w4 l  N( x& a& b
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
/ ?: Q/ o; g, \Beijing, China& U8 m1 a9 f; F& K7 I
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
, G+ j- m" @, c) x# i- e( _原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

5 g( ?$ i0 b# u* q! S! t: ]原文是公开信。
" y9 ]; j/ @4 e
3 j# i. f2 V; i+ v, U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 " v# k$ Y: v9 v. |
原文是公开信。
6 \5 ?$ r8 o1 v6 T& E- D9 u3 x1 Q( {' ~% f* I
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

" J; F  e7 ~% L8 Y谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG; |, g9 B9 L  m' X& y6 s& Y( G
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
, F" ?8 t3 P2 J8 C( X# C
, {$ a% m2 k3 I, @http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" b  H4 t# a) z/ z  E1 y$ V

+ l: j6 \8 B5 ^4 I! q9 _FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
( o% n9 R2 v" N, n- q1 p2 e4 z' n, @$ c0 ?2 P  @4 G" u2 }# X
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" f% u+ f0 J$ m6 R, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science% D5 s6 C8 x- e
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this( W: D- H7 Y& b' D6 b
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the1 h7 I+ x: y7 K0 h+ |! a' n# ?
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. M$ |* t1 A5 w5 i& }
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors: W7 x3 Q& ?) C' |- s& N
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,) {) p1 O& q% J/ a9 D- @
which they blatantly failed to do.2 R5 m! e! q* e2 p9 {8 B; ]( y7 x& f
  G- t1 C' x" A$ y' b4 b1 {$ ^# ~
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
* |0 j, o) N  `" pOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in4 c! X2 P* c3 o) s4 ]. y
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 h- Y6 S8 P6 p) O: [7 m" M# Ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 u) d' D9 @6 ppersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an0 \  q; M  ~: V# `4 o5 ?$ p* I. ?
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ j+ f  L. K" `/ E& S
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
6 v! D2 v. m& W0 t, kbe treated as 7 s.) Y' B* p/ z5 b" ]
3 J' \; ~# h$ L9 g& U/ l  S
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
  ]& x+ y/ w' H8 h* z  ?still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem- T% T& o! d8 c; V  i3 G% G/ i
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." D/ G8 o/ }& g6 r5 l/ H! Q. X/ z- E
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! w4 Y4 S; m8 c3 g$ O4 V
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" ?- W5 K: O9 u% b$ P+ X. f1 @For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
8 r5 X. }1 ?5 @- I8 z# [+ j3 jelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
, w6 N3 L- `% n" g. Cpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
3 l5 h( z  Q0 n9 z- a/ E- ?9 x4 jbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ c4 c' F# t2 T( \

% g3 }3 `% m: j7 ^3 d) K( e# NThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- ?9 w5 }3 i- k  v4 x( L
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 x  q; R! |; n6 A1 ?8 g5 y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 v) H: t7 f+ s1 {# [( P- ~he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
& p$ L, f7 r$ uevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& }, h( q7 r3 ?1 h5 O3 G; }best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ o  l  h% p! x7 v/ a& U8 n/ g
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 q! Y2 T; _. A- ~; V3 Itopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
, j, t- s9 B2 m6 w0 A4 {1 m; Hhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle( J6 b% N$ Y6 b, |3 s
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
, v: d+ j0 e! t$ f# Y9 y4 dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 F9 I8 Y, _) u% xfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam: l+ X* U* {+ K* I4 A
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting8 N( d7 r* M/ O9 ^( b
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% v# u: r; [( V' |, [
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ I' a0 S; X: I2 i0 M  F1 K) M+ ]- U( [
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
9 W4 r" Q0 j( W2 gfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 p5 U2 _2 a5 Ws) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: s+ B! |6 H$ E( ?5 Q* }), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns. n' G" |+ J4 @5 E1 s& f
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. I2 E4 Z3 t# s' z' O+ E: h0 V0 u
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind/ {  i9 a. B& S! d. C' U: b
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ K" j7 J' ]( z; C; r0 ~& klogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 ]. M: e1 R0 J5 [every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science& ]  [- J$ ?: M4 ]
works./ h# C9 N! h: i1 ~1 W

! U4 d7 ~" V9 Z) s1 UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
# Z7 Y9 O5 Z8 y* J0 C; Fimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! P9 G! ]6 s8 Tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that: C% q2 a+ r$ L' r  s, e4 K& W
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
2 k% w$ Z2 G% c2 p/ x7 Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ ~. n" P4 h* k" u1 S) \, q& h" treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One  z. K, t" V  q7 K- }/ D" ^( `
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
# T9 H  X' Z9 S$ k6 v9 j  P' |$ tdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works$ j  g4 Y# o$ H* G
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
* f5 L) j# P1 a$ A: U+ yis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is' d% m2 }2 t5 L" K
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& b! q. N8 {/ p( ~7 [0 S
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 |  c8 l& Y0 P; [9 P/ r5 ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
5 H4 y, e: G- |past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 j4 o; z) {/ V+ l  Nuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 B2 v, L% \' \+ V; t. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 _% d, u, d' \% l' b+ X" \* z
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may6 I! F5 N# S' r& F. D' I: m
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
( \( R% ~, x  ]' \% h+ |/ Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# X+ y0 c$ ~$ Y( m  U1 |has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a' M( r# q1 C" U# l# r: [4 w* q
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
% k- u: F. Q3 x: o! l4 P, }5 N. eother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
' a6 {& @- j1 |, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is% ~* F$ ~5 ^2 ~3 t5 }! @4 e, _
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
5 K- X$ q, p2 {( eathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
  x$ Z$ f2 x) U5 n+ \chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?  h* B: j+ e9 q5 Y9 P. c
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping) c6 r: D% D$ r% n! S/ i
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 I  o& N3 _  leight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- T0 v# w) ~  U3 s# G
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
- `. G: l- r8 \' f5 B6 V- z' Q% p: m4 f4 Y1 H! I, `
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 I- M) F0 u" D& L0 i% Z) m. ~* ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention0 g$ }3 Z  A8 r1 ^- k
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" k  K/ W- U" u  y/ q$ aOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% j4 C7 [" t5 W# w* H" U' cOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for- k3 B% t" B) m3 l* \' p7 N  v; n! D- F
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 ]9 I" D& j" n# H3 n& Ngames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope- s' }+ Z" N. ~: D
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 {8 w+ Y# @  l2 D6 T, v0 I
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this! m1 h/ |" ~/ c) o5 `% T
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; v' j- P  q1 m! w. S2 T4 k  ?; W: g" P- ]6 o2 s( F4 D
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (0 p9 K9 j) F2 W9 }" D0 m% j
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
6 R% s4 R, I- C8 \suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a* v* f5 k7 _* D0 \" H
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 g, d) S8 Q( h3 u7 f
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& H; J; q( L% J! f- b% s5 S7 ?interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,' ]; f" t" d" r9 v4 W' }. t6 [
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
  N8 `# G; }/ |+ u. x+ O& Oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ h4 d) C0 k5 n6 p2 H3 K5 R* _
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
, V% _' k. F' b) B. Xreporting should be done.
大型搬家
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-2-10 15:03 , Processed in 0.134332 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