埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2264|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
" J% q' R- z& u- H" q$ v1 k! O7 x( X7 U, H5 Z9 O1 f4 E
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* G6 _  n# G2 s% X
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。
  a7 {5 L6 F1 ~) w& J, h6 b9 s' D总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) ]1 R" P9 P) l& _# O: k( V( Z# C# {* S% `* U; [/ a% s4 ^
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html  h: T6 l% K1 `5 Z
' n2 ~  n* `; C0 M" g  Q
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
' d' F8 W8 T5 ?& Q
* l$ R$ A! M' \- _: q英文原信附后,大意如下:2 D2 A4 w# z1 ?1 [
4 Y; L; x4 p  l) _- n* m
斐尔,
$ t1 f( |5 A* Z7 P: |. c       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: t  b4 B! q& |5 W9 Y6 E6 B
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。  V! A# h, z" w2 O8 @( B) ]
       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
) o+ N( L: S( b# }7 t7 f& Y$ C* z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
; G' D8 L. L* O& |; d. b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。
3 Y. N6 Z% `6 m' ?" [       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# w0 O+ u/ m% f
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, d- K1 ^- F+ K0 Z. C
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
1 `  S6 l8 O+ C3 @: A/ ?7 O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。
3 e& }+ T( K0 ~: i5 y3 F: W2 Y) S       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# x: o6 m/ Z) E, J
,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( U: G' ~) s$ u4 r; ^% L" \# }1 E. i
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
. |& v7 V( H$ p( R& u       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
& x' Q; g( L$ w) ~9 V+ T* J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
$ n6 a0 b; m5 l0 V; t,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。  Z, i  D2 x9 T( R9 a6 n' Y: A
       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
, A5 y# |2 I& K4 |& u5 l2011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- d9 R( ?+ [# q- z/ U7 p$ ^
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
$ C) o* ?4 C& W( ~: ^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- M  h# N& ^7 O, u0 z
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* K7 \  \, B. ]& l0 @) p* I: X
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱) ]  _8 E( H/ [. D8 a! X
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) c0 b8 J& m* S# C/ b1 |# K% F
。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% V! `/ v, \+ g
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。- h, \3 `1 i9 v9 u
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, Y1 V$ a$ m" o# E1》,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  X# n9 {5 ^5 ]7 A, n7 e# 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
3 K( S8 y6 M2 f, `同意见的专家。
( G1 C, E4 ^+ y% j: N9 G8 }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1 j$ b! t0 e4 W0 ~
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
, e1 M: l& W; h9 u/ c! d3 l# @9 T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  Y2 \% B& P' {% N- P0 s9 o) q& A
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。- B/ r* j" i' c6 {5 n6 B$ K
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)
1 O* V$ d1 C! C6 [4 T6 m6 S$ 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
+ W7 T) c$ x6 l5 H4 Q7 J# R5 C2 ]《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
( Y* ?1 ~: [( Y7 T这些被Callaway忽略。9 s6 a1 k6 W: v, n- ]0 [
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
  V% T; ~- h: A. r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% c. N. B! @9 |. w9 ?/ Z' y8 f
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
+ z3 @2 T' }: |4 e  n- @* E4 u7 @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
; J& x' V, E; |. a) E& V2 f( J$ Y& z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
( B9 ~/ ?& H) v, y3 E( W/ Q- j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! P# t/ M$ V4 w  G4 u6 c7 v
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。  H$ N$ O! X  m. N, \
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2 u$ ~+ e  W- _. `1 X+ g
香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年- n) y, b5 C3 U) D+ |
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& Y+ l; G4 W+ w: d3 H
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 V5 ~7 l, I& q& b; g1 q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
3 s1 Q+ s2 |( }% q' 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4 k1 t% o' x( G5 l6 T% H1 H4 f) m- b
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5 p/ M( q6 ?4 |! c& e# o3 N% h
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次
1 s. u! |9 u. x) I3 r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  R- W, f/ a2 _: A
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* P( z3 H# ], }9 r3 z/ z, u我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
/ Q% \8 F. `$ t* l) N; ]: ]2 O0 R1 q% X; q! u; ^
1 N) x) ^% l9 _. ^8 A5 p/ J
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
7 b9 p1 f# g) M' `3 p
! c; ?2 N7 J1 q( R0 g8 q7 O9 W附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结; i4 B6 e# \( F, C) i
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
5 `7 q6 n0 {; s附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
+ {2 q5 V+ F4 }0 w  ?附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见( C2 @* O: u1 h$ R8 q/ r: c7 b
' i0 A+ K8 @) b$ v  r
9 ~2 q: R' z* ~: Q& L. ?
' K. \7 _. O; H1 z- d
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)6 h" J# E! t0 c3 m9 ?! B6 e* G
Dear Phil,
7 G% X0 j0 J( q0 \- O$ W       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ w# P1 L! D2 N7 B
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
% k6 h$ y) {) _" P4 u# h' P/ fhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# g! |/ x' s# |, f- v$ @  C, A
you.* g1 K1 x( L& m# q
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 G9 s( ^5 L2 A% T" x3 C
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese# k/ p( [# [% @4 V
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the$ K3 W, T  T5 f9 c: _7 N5 I+ C3 p
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
0 A: w0 _' M. c! f/ U& r8 cpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. d7 B8 o7 X. ^0 _; F' Nseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
! y4 c7 q/ d8 J5 vpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. b/ Q! W+ s, i0 w* @# e4 N
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the3 l+ v8 V0 t" o% N, q0 u1 @
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a! g2 `' `3 W7 E
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish2 _: ^$ k7 x/ c  t9 ]
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway) k1 z( d* t1 W) v5 H4 B! ~
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping+ o/ k7 `& q4 X: Z- N9 U
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
% G4 r$ A2 v* xstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,0 C* i3 B& X4 W* t5 W
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
, G' Q9 x  X$ Q- }9 {" r/ ]to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news+ i# k& G: D8 B: @! x
reporting.& x( S7 E5 F4 }) K: Y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have+ U- a" F- O! R, b" T
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
1 F0 @4 L! n9 x. |1 W3 ]changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in/ J1 Y7 Y8 Q! ^' n1 f; B: i
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A7 t/ G; j9 V" n4 c! H
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.8 V5 G; m" j2 i
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
, Z  v/ z1 X1 K* Y# I# nmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
7 i8 v+ F( F9 s' ^8 p  pfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 509 k: m: W; x; e% J& r
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same" _, J0 n; E7 H
event for men, with the second fastest record.
" E6 d- d1 Q2 z( o9 W0 \       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye* Q* a/ }  a! i: a$ `7 {- J
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 165 i' E" H1 l; n9 j( |
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) w% h4 E' {5 N, `: E+ `2 ~5 p. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 s2 Q9 R- q5 _) v) N# \meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,9 f) e7 n" t+ V6 S+ F
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than9 V/ m) o3 \- L1 X* }6 R
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
% l! P/ L) j% X- I7 Ibehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
6 ~  v. w: p3 @! A% p3 F; s  Cindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
7 O, O2 I& W$ A1 ~8 Xthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than& s) B2 {0 v/ c& d2 x9 Q, v+ }
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was* Y% T& i2 j! v2 d' V2 L; d& \
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. M5 c2 c0 ~. z" I$ V
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
- D5 q  M" q# ]problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
# O! A' L- y, X$ Xswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the+ S7 s2 B0 m- Z# I; _8 N0 k+ j
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
4 g5 p) q/ e6 M- `3 J4 u0 PCallaway report.
& ~8 G7 {! I, z( n, ^# M- \There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 P. c: X% W% i- i5 i- w# ]. I8 T! ~  kunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 m0 @+ c6 E- V4 d, ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description  R# E) c( I: s8 f+ L' t
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
) P: T$ L1 X9 Z! Y3 k, `better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
# N; Y6 z* Y3 T' q8 x: vWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had4 Q( m  O% E' b# a! e, O
publicly voiced different opinions.
3 u% Q+ |! [& K- DYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD4 U* |. y" O7 ^& F/ ]
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature6 D& A8 b2 X* Y: |  E
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
  N/ _% `3 A( V6 H$ t" h, {! L- Xpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
# M3 N# P' S8 B3 S$ nyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
. f- j! z/ i4 o" |# oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
$ g. h) K4 j; X1 F; e; Z1 _There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
. I7 n1 F6 j1 C+ j0 W' Ithat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They% ]; c- U- \' d4 r
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
5 [) M4 \" b! r2 |" Z6 J( BAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
) z, r* M  P, f$ {- q5 \: B2 {the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
$ A/ H% L0 R" s* Xsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.# m. |" O% j3 D8 \/ _# f( u8 Z
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that! }9 q/ X0 q4 s4 J. \
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the4 X& p: x0 o. C/ {4 \+ d
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
. _- }" B' v- V& K4 h/ K6 W6 A(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she" {6 k. U* Z/ S2 R- f
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! l" v& V3 N2 S+ H8 Q" ~The British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ l$ h% ~2 Q+ `6 ]8 M' ^
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and6 _4 `. `9 c# T+ |) c
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
# ?5 _2 k  _) pNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
, h8 n, q4 a+ y7 Dobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
0 b! A3 r4 t8 Zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to, l8 l2 `& {2 v# j0 e
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.! D! c2 v7 d! N2 Y, Q, h7 B
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
5 Q+ k. H/ E4 J& V! q4 T, jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 G7 q* z, w7 f& r5 Z9 ?us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: `; R1 ~- k" t' R; a
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that6 P2 ^2 M0 Z% o5 O+ H+ S- J7 i
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
+ Q6 a- J2 [, M+ P6 }: w: nabout British supremacy.& a) I, L/ [8 S4 _7 U. `  B
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many2 B$ B2 S! f7 Q) g
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
/ R6 T1 M0 ^2 `  ~- R* j( L4 }Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by8 u, e( `( b7 c4 l: a
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( u7 \; l4 t; `1 ^
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
) X/ t+ S1 f( T$ C/ l  e1 _! tYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
+ {, m0 e( Y& o8 {, ?& {: ^! b# rprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests1 ?% q5 _, I( V& r1 E! o0 h0 [# y0 l
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, V( j8 j5 _1 C! r8 tit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly- S$ z$ P- @( \+ D0 h" m
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
4 f: A6 ~, |% R3 j* XNature." v! L$ Q3 h. Z
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
, \+ A& v- \1 x2 w9 R( J# j& zthe Callaway report.
1 f( `4 R  r! S
& ^  a! A/ O$ W, e  I# [0 R9 qYi
/ K0 k3 k: a6 ?$ E% {. M* T* B: P! z# o: V* ?8 W- U
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
, \* X+ T$ ]( m2 pProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
- N1 C' f) f& l$ K+ O8 d) PBeijing, China3 n6 M4 L  \1 @4 K+ U) t  o
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 7 V. g# b9 o5 Y5 I0 r  V- \
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
( O+ y1 C; J2 J& c9 o4 X8 i1 e
原文是公开信。6 B8 r, I% u3 Q/ ^6 R/ P

$ ~& m! Y' z9 H  \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 6 o% b3 d; R6 n/ y" J4 H+ V
原文是公开信。
! h' l3 X3 G, T+ h; A+ A! t" h3 d0 G+ h# P% E
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

$ s5 b' y3 ~' ]' {( ~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
9 ^# _% }* r: A$ c如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 A: |5 w) w: R9 t: T

5 I$ s" v1 {7 \" l) }( ?: k; [http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html1 k; Z/ L; q0 b; ?: w

) d' A7 Q. K5 c; x+ X- H1 lFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
: C+ b/ v* i* B! _: g$ z; j
. q9 v! ^5 i9 @4 Q# HIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. [# S, E2 d2 b' G& F* w
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
" O' {( _* F; v- ^' I* @$ Z9 Y3 imagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
. Q/ E& V% g7 A, v# f( B: w9 Nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# J6 G( z( T7 ]) sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* R# O4 B! K# \4 t% I7 d
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
) `( H5 ?. G8 Y  b) Qshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ h$ G# L/ }% F) p$ }# W
which they blatantly failed to do.# Z, i2 f" E3 b$ B( h
; L: l- U9 V8 ^, C' B
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her2 n4 p% v* S- D! b
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" y4 b4 @$ U1 N' ]2 [+ u
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- s2 T3 C3 ?, ~# T  x4 Ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous' p; ^" N+ z' ?. T& E% ]( c! C" {' I
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: l. e7 d. {+ [' F" I3 j4 timprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the  z) `  z# |5 |9 N4 ]8 m% C
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
2 O) J- L$ z7 H8 hbe treated as 7 s., I  s) i, j$ ?

* a: a* ~- ~% X& v3 VSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is0 e& A( \0 U9 z4 u  }+ W% a
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem: X  M4 p6 d. y3 |, \
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
( F& `3 x% C7 \+ B( p5 ?" N7 MAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400) o% ?, R' e7 \7 A' g) N# l
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
/ k( Z- W9 o4 z  p7 X2 QFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
& ^% N# }) Y4 |5 [elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and' X- k5 i* Z: K! R$ F
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# G8 E' _5 s9 a& J0 o( G# Xbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ m- n# i3 E+ C1 _0 a% `; ^
% X4 d2 l& W* F  Z8 x3 H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* Z2 ]6 k2 h9 y5 zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in8 ?/ H9 \7 M$ X6 G
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& D, {) ]; ^* n: K4 F0 Ghe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
1 V# Q7 o; _) O5 bevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
0 N* b9 O; B0 X2 x) ?  Jbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 ?- t$ w4 L% l& y  H4 Q
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another+ G7 E4 @' C, o% Y, M) m& ?* ]# D
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
! ~+ Y8 u5 O9 r& l" ~hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle5 w* E6 U% q* w. ?! }9 B% e8 w
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this# \) L- _* ]4 R/ G
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 G9 h2 s! F' e: C# W/ mfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
/ p) H+ m) Q5 X9 `7 v6 [faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting, Q- c% P4 V. a" p
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 y* f5 ?: t3 V" M  iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; q8 t- g8 X, L) ^; ^4 G. |
/ a$ q+ ]: j6 x+ `- a( T" r! n
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ A% k6 H$ l4 Q7 P/ j
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
# V0 J  t. S: V8 Y# [9 Ls) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s  C% {/ i# Q# ^* Y! w  ~% c. R' j5 S
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" {4 W+ i& v: d0 ]" n2 G; o2 Z  Iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 p& B6 S8 p8 M5 \8 K; jLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind. n7 P, y. ]4 `2 o
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 b) R1 U9 @& T* ylogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
' `5 D* J, m! q  m& E( f0 t% aevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science$ s3 Q! D5 o! b7 Y% ?" @$ g
works.
4 l  Q7 w' S0 x1 h9 G3 r/ U( @8 r, d, @3 a! v- i
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' j4 m: p& V* v+ Limplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! c5 B, S' ?6 Y- a
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
5 g3 V7 ]4 j* X5 Dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific0 u5 u8 Q& d% f5 E9 |
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, j- M* W' j' P# ]0 Sreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- \& X5 z& z7 S- D; Icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
" [$ Y! S) H# D% L, \1 q, L* u& edemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- U# ]& r& y1 q  _
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: q* a* ^1 p' y* |- Z- h: eis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 D: @- _: |, W$ M* T) wcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
/ Q" F3 l  z4 C3 uwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) U1 x9 _* O% g
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
  d$ G6 b2 X8 A" ~& o, rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not  J4 ^( ^; n- T8 z4 Y* Q& N! S
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
. U6 T/ C) E1 s  w7 _2 S. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
+ m9 D2 h, ~# n( ]& b" Q2 rdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) r3 G" f2 |) U  P3 u
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, D$ e0 C9 e4 W' ?. y8 g* u( p2 Whearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye) m7 P8 O, j" z0 r# [# N
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 h; g! }5 W, Q  ^' b! X) Odrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:3 a" M$ X8 P- b6 g% g) @
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 }3 {5 C1 T- g: m4 r' V$ g, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is( A- D* I! w. k' D/ \
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
9 C3 a3 X6 O7 d  zathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& F2 k7 `9 v# h$ {chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?& S+ h+ H7 _6 F- Y, j4 G
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 z6 y6 h9 x: m6 ~/ ~! ?
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for) p: K, m; b/ s
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% H! f1 ?% n0 o; p2 k
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 ?( b( }# x7 |0 X7 |. ]4 Q1 I( J* i( o2 x4 \
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# x( Y6 D; t2 H- B  Xcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
% i1 }% K# \2 J5 A. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
) c8 H! n. E. Y" r9 J7 k8 Q, u' COlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London! a$ u( w7 _$ e
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
  m3 F* J, q/ K# v! H! pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. j$ T) _$ t' q. D! X, D' V, I0 U
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
3 I) ?6 {6 Z/ w: u- n& |/ Q# @: lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
( T  I* ~( |  W2 H$ q- yplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 l, Q; N6 L0 Spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
  g% u# W# O* c. `4 S: \
+ q) e- A- z) M1 v" \- w9 I5 QOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' K: y, \8 \  `1 p5 i. Eintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too' G% K* P, ]; x
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; c& r) H( O% C8 @
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# e# H9 g; m8 X9 P/ ]$ m# ~
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your: P: r' H* S5 I
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% s3 @# V  }  v: A
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your! |1 p' J& k5 w0 q6 l- Q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' b: q6 u8 E, `1 n8 q4 {
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or8 m; o- X! c) v
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, 2026-4-24 00:55 , Processed in 0.161866 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