埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2204|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 & e8 l' }6 ^" B: {

+ F6 H3 ~9 Q# d4 K4 ~: g$ b饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。/ ~  D  K( r9 P: S3 C$ n
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。5 a' U+ `) r' i* G) G+ D
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! `! _3 L' ?) z5 s' j2 P
* F6 x4 N# Q0 b- @+ |! Whttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
$ l7 e& r2 V* M7 M$ a7 O! m6 _1 Y
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
: A1 e$ i0 O$ w8 A8 p/ F) K
9 p( @5 e" ]# F8 K英文原信附后,大意如下:
9 F# J. [; n9 ^8 ]6 F! x: k! B' N( ^9 q7 H
斐尔,
4 C: k# r7 B& ^- i3 V7 w, {# b       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/ c2 W5 e) m' ]/ X. c- u
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。% q. Y$ s) j5 t2 m+ ]
       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1 ]7 h) F% S5 I8 ~. I
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$ R2 i0 R: q& b6 V
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。
# }  w  O( ]. k, D; P       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
" Z/ ?" j  `  G, s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
- N' u  @( s; x$ J# N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 \! s+ C. J3 D$ ]! E. U  c% p7 a责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。( O( c$ O$ `# f- c" M& n& A! E' {
       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
3 s" r& w/ X2 l" `! |( s,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问! D& S$ i% I- h. h2 m/ x1 J
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
$ u! Z9 H1 Q' v. 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
" Y1 ]" x) E" a" ~5 }  |6 m8 d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4 u% ^. Q4 P- A' C/ P3 n1 |
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; g, o) [, p% A% }; z
       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: `& C' c( z+ t- h. Z
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$ o- x$ S" P* c5 m- a* S7 ?
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
& S% d- S9 c. r, I& R, m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
. ^) z9 h1 T0 Y0 u& H* `% Z300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
6 M( a" \; `" F1 k9 L4 w5 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
% ?& f9 e! N& _2 J8 h& L% \" ?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
- I* V& w& D- `0 b1 v) D7 l3 C5 |。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
+ m& e, P8 E1 v$ V, j. s' g! _3 D, Y录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
, @0 ]5 V" U  O7 R: i还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件1 C3 V/ Q) l' ]# n0 U
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
6 ^$ z5 S' d: \$ A( |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 U/ `6 c+ @4 h! K! A1 W. e! H
同意见的专家。
) S! U# p2 N0 l$ z& 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
* D! x! R* j2 G- _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
! E+ T4 B9 M  P* C2 H% B- Y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
2 P, `5 w2 a2 n3 v1 [& N《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" l6 n+ x; o! ?+ h7 iCallaway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 k4 L# y( K# z9 _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
* H! ?% O( Z2 x1 r; M# d& a: I《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
# v. M5 S5 \4 C  A) g这些被Callaway忽略。
/ w1 y8 q2 |0 n5 B: p4 _  e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
5 v  T0 F9 O% u0 p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8 p1 k' l- z! Y& P: a+ a
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。( X3 C  ]4 B/ S5 q, j, @5 _0 w# ^
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/ n) i9 h2 f+ n" 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1 w4 U" L1 B3 C& z# q8 h: 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
6 e% v1 ^" G! ]# y3 @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。" Y' K0 f$ X& @- R9 K
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! x) W3 f+ \1 D8 d9 r
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
& X# l7 ?& X1 h, T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
" t4 {0 O4 r0 Q3 \* u; Y1 i; C: P”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
" k8 E) R. Q% V& I5 i4 M; Y/ X) \1 N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
4 R  W7 u7 E: ?: m6 r8 f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- @- E3 g1 _6 A& p* J. H
题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁3 y) G# b" v" j. d1 J0 g
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 e3 q1 Z0 F3 x1 v6 H# O  f
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 H! W$ C8 Y6 _4 {0 g5 o而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ @8 w; R0 H0 O% _1 I
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。0 _7 b8 _4 }* W1 _( m( a

6 m; A" l; f# o. N, Y5 b/ t* A/ o) t8 `
, U) m$ C/ s( |3 R( X# E/ z北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& k# U# M1 @2 l) ?
( O) B; M) Z2 E6 T
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
+ I+ t, M# Q' b% q' A; B- P4 i附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email1 K* p4 Y& @0 M1 ?
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见  G+ _( v) Y; q$ z% A
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
' L1 g1 M6 e5 q% O0 `* H
$ f! y, U: L( K$ \  W, G3 J, I- `1 M- U; i0 H7 B$ C% D
1 C. W! {2 i- N' q
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)8 Z$ k: `0 ~0 [1 n. _2 p
Dear Phil,- S5 j( j4 h0 i, @# a
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
0 [, O$ r/ Z7 n6 D8 s3 ~report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
  G" a% ^& R9 uhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed) v, C% f4 u* X
you.
2 U, j" k8 h4 b9 B+ Z/ R       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have' X4 M( O, T, V* w/ A
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese6 S+ `. g: y/ G' }; C8 ]% W
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the3 n- m& S; `7 {0 L/ E9 o
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# J* |7 ^* v+ p+ \" P3 `
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more* m$ k/ G5 A4 o' E; g% ^. ^
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: ~3 Q  W8 j7 M
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
6 a% k: c, @- [! a1 J) m7 q       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
& c0 C! o! i6 E, B) e, Oworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a/ u  Y* L1 b, G2 X, M) E
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish) o) }5 S/ k1 a  [5 m
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway3 u+ o# Z. ~" j# m
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping: ^) F- G- w! t# s
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ N0 j" L4 }6 l8 c2 k6 e+ Hstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,, u0 |( d) r" m( y
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 M3 T, w/ }( W
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 R& O$ A6 [# c  m/ M* Ureporting.0 X& j' e7 j9 O/ i2 ~" o$ F. D
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
& G! _* l2 O% ^4 m) d7 e6 ?already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by" I* n- A. M$ f5 u
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
* B2 b5 U: O0 isports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A. f0 g" |' c8 M* Q$ b
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  h% r8 |9 A  g( \) Q& M3 l       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
$ l! O0 E1 M: P$ D! r( M! G1 D( Pmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds  g7 r0 Q3 r' }* B2 t3 M
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 507 T/ r: A* S4 m7 X/ z" b; k' Q
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ \7 y# }4 w5 R( \6 `' B1 zevent for men, with the second fastest record.
0 @5 f- O& b1 m       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
" B. d( f1 M$ a+ h; P4 Z5 S! zwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16: F4 T+ G4 g, A
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record) s  `4 Y1 a) _  h  Z& v1 n
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
9 [0 r6 G  `! H$ J- H) imeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
1 f# _/ ], S5 w1 G4 |$ [for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
; y; A# `0 J1 X; U, x$ o" yLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
. ?- ?; [4 E$ x" g& Pbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
! E9 Y. r! K9 n" l" L' ~- N. Mindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
& \" c$ t' y6 `8 kthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
7 _2 \9 i5 Y8 J3 ^/ g1 V4 ?/ q, ithose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
4 U5 o/ q0 x0 }; n" Kher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
8 w  L. \6 T3 Q) ~2 P& mhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “  Z# k2 c5 t2 k1 b' h
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( D$ v: l$ d- `swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the. f0 z: r2 k6 i) P$ A  n
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) _8 L+ Y" H: e; i7 x5 y! [
Callaway report.* p9 z, o( K1 Y' E
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more* ~) Y3 O+ ]! [/ K: e; L
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
5 f( K% z  q0 n( ?here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ G" N9 e2 H- C; ~
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been$ m4 ?" F7 D! c1 F1 {
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the  [% n' }5 U. N8 c# ?- W
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& |0 a- R9 ?/ u6 Z5 m% }3 d
publicly voiced different opinions.
3 J1 Z" Z) ^, {# HYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD5 s  K* |4 L7 c) ?: i: T, e2 o9 u
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
# g8 ?7 w% v- [: ~/ pNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
6 p& V, o: r7 }5 dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds3 j3 C5 A) G2 t# v9 C+ |
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy' M* x% S! G- R/ h# c# F
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
* L, z- f4 j- u  uThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think7 d+ u  u( |* D5 g% L) U% ]- B* w
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 r' R9 `9 y/ _& x. Y, `# v
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as" W: z/ v/ L  K# n
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that. e4 M; q4 R% O  v
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
0 l% R0 f. n# I( y: Q( Z3 V- Q5 Q2 Ssupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
) {& r3 B% Q0 G, t" C( K& u$ [( cOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that) x4 ~1 T. U; d5 R
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the( W9 d+ ~2 y; e  _1 S, ^7 f
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June# c$ x- p" C1 O# F8 q& ~9 n! R
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she5 y) A5 `/ Z- y$ o. Y  a3 X
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
( V  r1 [6 W2 e! }9 s+ f8 vThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
) D+ G- K- L: Hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and8 ~$ t& A( u- X, z! u
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
- ~( n6 N! B% i/ D+ hNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and( U6 S/ Y7 }1 E$ T3 s
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
8 i% K# R. m/ ^: ]what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
; k9 v7 o0 Z1 f; b7 Vrepair the damage caused by your news reporters./ n# a. M4 G1 m7 R. U
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' C9 T4 W- ]2 p- t
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced' u' e  M, t; ]! H5 {$ U
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
5 t  J5 C* w6 M" [fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that7 U4 M9 y+ j# U5 `/ {7 k3 N+ a
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 u3 E( z8 L2 F3 t% }
about British supremacy.
; Y/ L, k8 A2 R$ T: p* y( DThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many# [; h% E& a1 M, N: Z
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more, B+ _/ T  P' z3 Q. O
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
+ {1 U6 ]3 h. @  Iour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
' t$ P' o, U! Q  _4 W$ h( qOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
  I4 g8 B9 P! N% x: ?Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
" w% [4 }$ K, [) S$ \. i: A$ D; J' Pprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests& ?. k4 l, }! q  N
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,6 ^- @+ f4 C9 s: @
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
2 t! P; |) S8 d! e) T" f+ ~) ~publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
6 g6 A- e7 |9 _3 Z2 WNature.
! D2 O4 `, R& g3 g' ?1 e1 pI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance6 u# R/ I: Z6 q& g, ]  ~
the Callaway report.
& f: {! F1 D9 o4 @( U" W% g2 \; ]  X* Z' j6 n
Yi5 B; r$ t+ G) |: a, s
  F- f2 L0 H; q" t
Yi Rao, Ph.D.. B/ [& K$ P7 `; ^' E; |1 g
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences# k" \6 f- [0 [' C
Beijing, China$ \# Q8 S( o9 e8 Z, Z, o/ X
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。
大型搬家
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 $ p) j: O- f0 @
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

+ c" Y& \& M+ X原文是公开信。
: S5 U" R1 m! h  B5 f5 w! S3 H& }0 i' j  P' E
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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 p. s# U) c6 _5 ~2 }
原文是公开信。& S; U2 p  j( L) e0 u% q

/ C: S+ F( H  I9 h1 I小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
) E2 `! I8 D+ r  ^0 d7 m* F
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG/ {* @. L) e* D% _( S
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 x" ?3 ^* V/ u* U/ ]! ?9 g  ?) d" X7 V: j0 b  P
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
& g4 {( }6 F0 [5 W% n9 u. k
! I3 s0 G( h  p  AFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
+ ]- Q/ {$ i7 |
% N. o/ B; e/ UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
1 q, g3 _! r5 T8 M, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 w- I- @7 D; umagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
2 i* n6 q- n+ r; nis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
, r: }3 g0 L$ c" Z1 ~9 w4 fscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 W3 l# b9 l4 G+ h
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors- ^2 D# Z5 e& }+ a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# O4 Q6 i" p" i3 d. y3 owhich they blatantly failed to do.
* _; {% w# ]7 Q" i
: b1 {6 C3 @6 \# B) ?: rFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her2 |5 Z( x; d/ Q
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ a+ w( X* v% V- d
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
! F4 X! k* y# y7 r+ nanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
. X1 M2 N% V* S8 _* O  ]9 Ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
+ n2 j+ n* S7 F0 Q3 f5 i" Iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
1 {7 d; V& b& Y1 E5 t% b9 l4 Edifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
, B1 a+ p! e. ~" B! P3 }be treated as 7 s.
8 k: i7 L/ j3 d+ g' \/ o  _& ?) y8 O+ T( n' m: S6 F! f
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 t# B( p( c4 R' d' p0 ~
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem; r  L% G" G8 R; S6 Q# `! d; s1 {
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.7 Q: s* O8 N5 a0 a* |$ @9 C
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400  M6 p/ l8 ~3 I" _4 i9 M% \
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.$ z1 W3 d! d0 G1 ?9 v+ m- E( Z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
/ `( l& R2 t( S: }; x$ {9 d# ?6 ]" Yelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 b0 T( o$ g/ D: c* Opersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
1 c2 V) `- f% e( Sbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 f* P* t3 O: w9 X: k/ i+ o. n5 O1 N( J/ q; h1 U7 t2 u
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook/ }- ]  j) U2 c. _/ s
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 D, E" l, |/ j8 k0 y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. |9 [7 Q3 }! P* T$ A. H5 `: rhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) g/ Q9 X$ {9 Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: _9 ~, Y" A' h/ z* ibest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World% u6 j" Q. p# x+ g
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
3 v2 e7 K4 a6 Q8 ~topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other  Z9 R' Q$ ]# W, T: i8 i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 C4 C0 t" m6 h: U6 x
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
7 Q, X% k: L$ [& b( @% S0 x1 estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 n8 u, g% X& x! E( Zfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
/ v3 f- Z0 W; }$ R. b! @faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting- B$ [% |9 d% ]' V  g. `3 V
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that  X, }, K# V8 J5 @8 b8 u; ?
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 Q8 h) f5 W6 ?: W9 t# K! ?% J. k' N% M! U, m
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
: J+ R2 H) _' `9 V& K* B& Yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
' a, C- _7 H& E: {+ {) bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
* n: m. L0 ^+ N4 m3 T6 M), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: i# t# b5 B( ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,$ T! O( E) j" x2 A( g& f5 l+ }
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* B  Y1 }; m! {; R& L* Q' T4 Wof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' B1 c7 @) a- z) |. q4 b
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: M# p6 A3 ^8 O' n1 J7 @, _
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science) K) B- C7 b5 u( ?4 u" [5 X% k
works.
: w" M; y# A7 M/ M( y1 ?  b$ [4 v0 M; l
2 Z+ b* Q& f& P  u0 T( DFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 z8 E& d' Q4 U* x. ~
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
. @" U9 z- Q5 I' Okind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that) E  ~( h" }3 v0 K' X
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! n) T5 E0 x# l6 Lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and9 L( ]0 D+ T: x
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One+ i0 c2 Z) I, f% e
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; Z- v! P8 }9 |, i/ ^5 A, G( \6 |demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
5 h) `% V5 t  m6 Kto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
4 V4 t8 T* S2 L8 y% |is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
& p% t( n7 S$ L2 T/ v1 m& Qcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
8 }6 r/ @; e2 O3 J1 ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 {' L) L. m0 q2 S) S8 U8 uadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& X4 y8 L% S2 f- c; m0 y
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
8 u% M4 N/ t. v. Z) h, A9 Cuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
% F& k; O( S1 m- Y0 B0 Y+ D. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; U4 q: @  ~* q: B8 V& [  J: x
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
% J0 k4 Z2 H9 i; @be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. l1 V3 |6 D6 u. ]" u
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye; i1 ~7 M1 p# B; v5 |
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& z$ c/ a- ~$ Vdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* ?7 ]% H. }% N6 {3 p
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: a3 I; w- V  ~. w. ?
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is7 Z3 x% i& k( \  A4 T
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
" }* Z7 [# a( ^athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight/ Q5 j! N6 O* B+ O3 C9 F
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 \; c7 E! Y1 S) g+ |8 O) ~- a
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping  ~' E$ v9 x5 k+ q& R6 J! m" u( {
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 ]4 u  j4 u0 G$ o; E
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 Q+ c  [  Y* {. R; K7 X9 p
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
3 B$ r- C' y) K6 f3 W( R! d5 ^! R/ ?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* b: m  H' I! B8 U1 F4 [competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
( A, ?; C. A# m" {  e. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 ^, B2 z1 k0 D$ X- l8 M' U
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; O2 T7 j4 L9 x  ^6 U9 @( b
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for6 b3 l& I0 J1 k& V' I
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: u) L1 @! O. k" `2 W$ l! n
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope( C/ ^1 N9 Z9 G' l: g% k2 v
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ ?! z; X" D: f6 r' @/ l: F- M
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, T; h4 [4 G. D  o' Lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.1 U' t8 b2 }2 b7 Z

# E. _$ u3 {; N: ~& i/ C1 I* DOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: S( w/ G5 b; ]0 n. |intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 e, K/ q2 V' _% M1 Z7 {. F, y
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! C: e9 e* m1 }suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
8 e- b- ]# r' [- Vall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
" N& L7 r2 {6 y, Finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
3 E4 h7 O/ v, ~" H! J. J/ ~explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 L! f9 K1 F& C8 `% ~# ?( R; A# iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
' i& p1 k7 Y1 u' [- p3 fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or" v* r. F1 _# r" \+ ~- `: X
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, 2026-4-11 00:15 , Processed in 0.265995 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