埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2268|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 C; L0 G- P4 Y3 B: E  B# s" d4 [# q
; q" l  h  G5 L) I  X7 L
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( \" {& r' }5 o* a- Y
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。" p7 q# n5 j2 r4 z! [
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。" L) i  @' e/ m" ^/ ^
. w& S" J7 C4 c& {8 p
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
3 f) V9 F+ u! ~6 A( [- L9 v' k: E2 \9 K8 o% g: ^
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
  p' P5 N& o$ X- l  d6 y% O( P9 y* }& B& c; ?5 I
英文原信附后,大意如下:
9 Z& z, ^; b" ~# m- b1 {3 H# O# {1 Z9 F
斐尔,* R3 _; X' G+ [9 s, v6 }1 T
       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4 ]8 s3 G) ^0 n1 C: ?5 c) g3 Z9 V
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。( J& Z7 ~+ N% j# z& |
       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; S  u- y3 G' K0 t
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% k  S' F, @8 N+ K1 ~3 @
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。
- t" ], c3 J% e3 l+ e3 K) 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
! R$ ?8 d3 w0 ?  C" ]/ 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
( d9 A7 f: X  \3 y0 s0 q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2 r1 N- Z9 q, C8 K& m+ P: F$ U
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。
& A- a" W5 w% U       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
; M. t* I9 J* _; L, r" N: J; B6 R,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% i# U& z9 O( m. c0 A  g. ?
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。& k& `: R$ d, `
       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3 z  k; b4 s% i; 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
9 Y# o$ L# Y& A+ Y9 T3 w" d,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
9 i8 x& i& z, w+ A' o       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
7 B# l, z- u: p. b4 R2011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
7 }  J. F7 ]; {# C& @' E合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二8 \$ [* m. S2 x) S0 y& ?* c3 o5 l
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
# `! I  l" 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. ~4 i$ q( T& p9 ~4 c% |9 v
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5 e2 x" S/ l7 t- c5 l9 n
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目
9 j& E9 K# S: d; O+ G。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
1 T, {% D8 K+ F5 F: ?* w录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。# s0 w8 L, W$ T/ 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
7 B$ `/ a. X& V$ w$ Q1》,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% J; g3 V; R1 Q/ j  w( u: l
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) V/ G( E- n0 I; D
同意见的专家。
. U: X8 Z, N* [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) y' Z: e" G& g) c- |1 i& g3 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
! W* N' p# h! U$ p) l/ |) u" A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
9 G, F5 _/ J9 |$ C  d+ D2 i: f《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" B: t4 v5 S: z* Y0 I3 u  O& tCallaway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)6 O( s4 G6 y1 @* M
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4 o/ N: B& ?% t7 ^1 Q5 z" B* q* q. e
《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- k: s3 D8 ?) ?+ n" w% |2 H! J
这些被Callaway忽略。1 ^+ j0 ?& d2 r2 E0 t% w( g* N
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' F8 F2 ~2 Q; l! |8 L) i) W' |# D; u" o
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" X7 u' Q2 _  ^" r% T
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。$ J3 o1 h) M3 M" X' ]
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  V  u: g, T5 Q- Y7 E: b& m8 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
% N! m, H( p$ I/ z) [. |1 C2 O1 _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
! M1 r1 I% e% p0 ~' k7 }$ Q* ~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。
- u- I: {: _" T3 i# ^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. R9 m4 O$ f- @
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3 S, J( S% ?" \8 q* {: _( O
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- S0 b: s, ?* Q  C- L, Y7 r
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 L9 @* E$ b1 p2 f( 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
/ M3 C) c& m/ `6 Z" |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
: p0 i6 o/ l" q5 D1 w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
( P; u2 O$ ]4 R5 I5 F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
( W! }' A& M! d- }) C) i测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染4 o7 Z+ M# ?0 x+ a$ z
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
& W. F6 e* {9 a$ _/ z1 ]# e我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。+ v+ T  _# o' ^8 J* r

9 ^' A+ k6 ?- z. @8 L, `2 R1 R7 U- l- H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
* q& O4 ?2 X/ E4 @7 Z) o; p3 p! Y# Q! V4 R1 \9 v
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' W1 B6 @7 C- k/ ~" u; S附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email6 ]9 P9 Q; w! F; m
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 X% H- A0 ~  G6 L附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
7 E8 l6 |# p- B/ F; X' h7 R; Z% N
+ }% j& k! f* a+ l( c  Y$ b

! l) X$ [3 j* d! O' }原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
% i& H3 r/ F0 l) I6 Z2 ~Dear Phil,
5 G5 q( T* ]* H4 Q! v       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
' D2 |: N7 j' breport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
; F/ \" C; h6 i0 Rhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' t( r. V' F( l! I. Tyou.! d: ?2 ~; y1 a' C; _
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have3 J& v$ t; h  l& I& W
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese% ~6 Y4 @/ O9 g, u2 z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the7 ]2 L4 V! s1 ]* Y
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 H$ }" Z; U/ R, I( D
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more7 L; J8 P1 k$ }: a/ ~
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news2 D+ S5 |/ n$ M8 U9 c: k
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
5 q; L* B9 H. [3 F& Z+ k' z: }       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
) ^& [/ D2 u$ Sworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
1 }% ?# i! R! B0 lnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
( e. y# @2 D8 N% p4 D2 _that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
+ I4 O, L# q1 l7 z: D, Jdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
0 Z6 j& O. P1 h5 x: @8 }  P* }2 Yexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
5 X) m. `% @9 m1 T7 G7 E* [6 }standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,$ j+ x! e& w) \+ N: l! A
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
- E' ]; K; ]( p0 E: z+ Hto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 b* x! b# }/ Q2 l
reporting.
" u  g+ Z+ B0 l! H' e4 x4 t       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have: @  o& y# [  G0 v; i4 Y
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by; [2 t* D* X6 C8 P! q! \: {3 h
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in* @+ T, N% N0 R2 K" E2 D
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A% u! b  g2 {* y
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  u' T: `, i/ y+ Z5 q       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem6 u7 J+ u- k/ P
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds8 J8 C6 w8 w2 I$ {
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50# w5 K" f: `5 o& X" m8 W+ z0 n- [
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same  y' G1 |" q8 C* j; \. R+ j
event for men, with the second fastest record.
; T( W" l; h6 [+ l2 h5 l       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
5 z8 [; }0 q6 b6 H8 @was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16, Y+ ~" q9 V; S0 d- I% k3 A* a
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record* c! I2 s5 g* K( G" l) e/ I
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
" I/ h" e# f& W+ S1 t$ H$ Emeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,' w7 r: g  g- X1 X7 _
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than% w* N; G5 Z9 Y- W: @
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed4 {3 P( [0 E0 T. C6 r$ P1 K
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
) w% X( }2 W4 _( ?( o7 Aindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower% V1 v  f+ j" `  e% w
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
6 H/ m. h( @1 [$ m2 N3 _those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was+ w8 P  a5 G! S2 Q  V
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
. f$ z* \$ |- i4 ghe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “2 D) X; b0 L  B0 j1 C  P2 J
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other& b: R! |) f4 v% g- d1 n& a
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the7 t' B+ y( R, v4 W/ a+ a5 D' i  }! n
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
$ V" F2 e: U1 O3 R3 ~Callaway report.9 D! z/ f) P5 x4 b
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
  {4 ?$ A$ j1 |( Nunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
9 y9 J  X: b" C$ Phere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description& |! ]7 a6 U) r" |! E. e
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been7 |. X  Y& n2 c* Z( n; D
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the" c- C: F. J0 z* [# j2 ]
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
6 A( {. S! x! P0 z8 X# W1 b3 Zpublicly voiced different opinions.+ H5 ^% X# J- K& M
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD, y5 ]& E) g0 j5 J
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* ~) W. [& C. ~7 I/ Q- s* \7 ^. p. U6 sNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
6 o( D/ t# J2 n: ?6 \" C' Q" g. Spostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds! ~8 G. `/ g' K; g1 d6 s
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy, P- Q* A* S* D- a  H- H
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
- Z* t2 c& J) t9 pThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
" K6 }& Y8 F9 D2 Q/ H' Rthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They2 [# g3 C. p7 l) r; a; e1 p( |, \
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
  p& b/ ]7 W: n4 v1 iAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that7 U1 [1 x3 Y% K# w
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was+ o, ^3 P" ?! x1 ^1 l
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
7 r8 C; y2 e4 NOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that& a) b/ d7 F$ n/ ?
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the. [0 U7 ^4 n% h% i  X3 T; ^7 I# H
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June4 l9 a8 `5 e. f% r! p5 `
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she* `% |: i. \, Y. A
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.: z# e# V7 G; w5 k; y+ r% l
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science, X4 a" R- k: R# o6 I2 ^  S
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and7 }4 H7 J7 N5 q( z% c
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.7 m9 v( v: Y1 v- `1 R3 i& C
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
+ N; \# N* j2 ~objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature; P  X! ^$ S0 L% X* z( F$ n
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
9 D' l, ?- n. C' ^: H0 Erepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
( K8 E. D7 C1 ]4 N$ s$ yThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not/ B8 c$ E' {$ W$ U6 o
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced4 ^- p6 k  b- Z9 c0 q- a; C6 _# O
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
! \3 M; @' }: d5 z: Pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
: H$ ?, g4 T1 Z2 X5 h4 D- uthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
+ I6 g" C+ g7 C* sabout British supremacy.
1 Y$ o3 _/ K3 `3 W. i: XThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many( u" K. v; i2 B9 v$ S
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
; \' }; M2 b6 D( |# d, {- ]8 ZChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
# d4 i: a& f- E% xour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London; `- W% O) V5 W# D/ g
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.$ i  T8 M  s! S: K/ v
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
* ^0 j+ T/ U! W6 @0 _/ T5 tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
4 T, U2 L" c  h+ zbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
# d5 T. B" {, ]it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
7 w5 L8 M8 b1 l+ s+ d4 Wpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like, X! j* M/ P7 h3 @  |( Z  q
Nature.) k1 z6 ~0 g% o  x! T) k# |8 t; h
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance; e8 ]' V( P2 i5 v: I% c
the Callaway report.
" `9 ^% `. h7 {  p4 {, x9 h2 v2 N' M+ P8 x$ a: d' d, A3 H
Yi6 K% w: S- U! P& n9 f) {* p  ?
' x' Z: R# n! @7 @
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
1 a) a, b0 k$ p) M8 `; n$ AProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences* q  B- `/ T. X$ Y7 C
Beijing, China
9 @6 T* L8 D. q, r, ?  Z
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 0 e+ G% @1 i! o  e3 ^
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
% i- z4 l( V" i4 l0 L5 L/ L
原文是公开信。
1 R% T1 i4 K* {- P3 d" A; S1 P* k* {, M4 F4 _+ \- g
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 # q- K  [, `3 O9 y4 o
原文是公开信。
# ?. Z5 \# |' K  r& |8 S9 _- u) y+ c" j
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
! D" K( e$ v/ l- X9 r3 _3 A( i: Z
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" _6 k: A: c: [9 R- N* B2 W
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。/ ^; Z* m; ]* w) I/ T* G
* J1 z9 F' ~0 y" B  R
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" n* b! G( @8 b# U) X3 Q" Q$ r1 d, f

8 d/ S4 u5 v. _, F8 f# a' [  P9 IFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania8 T# t3 ^) p6 i( X8 D6 a% r% V2 r
8 j" {+ Y0 F5 s2 U7 M- D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself: k' |& X- N1 U  S- G: S
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# \1 _4 {7 d; _* F  w1 R4 l' H9 T0 Kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, K$ F: n7 l7 Bis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the  R3 I8 E- [0 N5 e) Z. U8 B
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
$ F7 S7 p; z) u; w& @: ?9 D% Qpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors3 U+ b  Y. E3 m0 v1 S1 e2 |+ X
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- G; w) _* V! r' `5 i; S
which they blatantly failed to do.$ b9 G$ \; `3 ~! D/ G! H
- a# \5 Z. z" q4 O! B0 m
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 e& n# i1 {: @
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
" x! a' H; |* @6 Z$ V: `: t% x2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
& k# ]% I/ R; J" C* T: |anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) r6 M1 |" v6 T6 E4 Dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an* o: o, [( y4 P9 B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
4 @8 i7 X- g+ rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. v6 u+ `1 T- m9 hbe treated as 7 s.
8 T# I2 }! x2 y" U8 {$ |
+ E& d# M( K/ D5 bSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is  r2 N8 ]  @+ V0 y. b4 M- e
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
3 ^# n2 i4 ~/ Z4 c7 C( [impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.% ~: E4 q0 A; f: |/ H
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* F( J6 W* y9 O( l; t( D" [
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.- o1 Z- g) ?0 ]
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an0 X8 s6 t; t% R
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
' @' h' l; G: xpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 Y5 l. y* [5 w9 m( Zbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.% {- V3 k( P8 r5 Q4 Z8 i  K6 I
! i0 k3 ~" i  E; U" H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
/ \% X+ |# @! u3 x; o* Bexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ j3 [5 Z8 r2 c! [& y! B% u( Ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so9 H; p. A' E% Y4 R
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) _, W6 _4 b( P2 k0 j# s' fevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
- q9 Q) p  W1 e. O7 _% g& lbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
& }4 |9 R# Q6 p7 k- E2 {Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 Q  i. t/ {. Y& X8 `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; I/ }- L3 K6 L4 B
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, v5 ?( k; a9 s' E  Q
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this) H$ y; v* T( i# C7 [) o
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
: m; O; |% ^6 ?  V/ j4 k( d( gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% O- s3 r* u7 V( P* O  d, Y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ [( t1 E1 I; v, w7 x% R$ A  Kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* M. \/ O) A$ h  Mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.4 k( q$ H( k1 w# Y: [3 j$ G

) S, f  ]% o: Y  @7 w2 F! QFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ x6 O  C5 r3 R1 p) H
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ F  [5 O3 ~" J  C0 m& E1 M+ j. P
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 b/ s9 c# U# r9 n' z: }6 |7 n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- K; U0 q6 O: L2 P, y" m) [; e0 Lout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 I3 m8 W7 F! X$ A5 P
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 E# ?& E% |3 h( X1 Q# nof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 ]) U# b& b- M" `: K& b4 l3 ulogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
. q! F$ |: Z1 \( |* k; x: r2 E& z3 {every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
7 v: ~2 Z8 X- _( [" H0 zworks.- L6 q6 q7 n: T+ D
9 r0 a" |( [4 o! {( Z. X
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) b- J9 b6 w$ i4 N* o7 d% q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) }- z' ~, @3 x4 r/ F$ S; m2 ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
) H; {: x& Q' c2 {% R/ }' Fstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 o4 T' r7 H0 ^- Q$ Z' @: a
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 r6 l+ M9 S- ^5 G5 f7 J( k) freviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
* c" O2 Y  a* o: g5 A  f# @1 {# Bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( S5 \' D1 i0 S: Z& B) P% A- ~demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
  d/ M/ G+ z+ ~& w$ hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
5 S! f5 _% d* {. Bis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
$ O; F0 U# O% ?# P# }crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
  s" p5 C$ [9 @, Q3 z6 wwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 L1 j. F# }0 I- {
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
' j/ ~% b2 N1 C- d5 {6 _0 T# _& I  Upast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
) a) j- P/ d' H+ D; N! D7 ^use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( Q3 V( W# |1 s# s: F. V/ R0 i. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* j& L4 O( l1 L: \
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may# r6 q: u1 A( q8 q" U" X
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a. S5 o  F7 s9 Z, y9 g
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 r( x8 D4 _2 z6 N; S, q
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& H1 `! ^% B5 }; A% Zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:$ d3 t! v$ l# i/ [
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 M$ a1 p  q) ^2 z! c8 d# J% s  a, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" z1 W. J  q% \probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& [- }' d9 b$ G, T  |8 p
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight  Z0 A, W3 ~, t! }+ o' G& @" [
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
- g7 T. Q; m! z1 V! g$ oLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping  J7 Q& p! U5 X, j9 W7 d- [
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 _8 _1 C+ O7 F8 N8 `
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.: o4 E4 @1 P+ s- N' l; k
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?  f0 |7 T6 w( q' B9 H) L* s# M
" ]7 y' p- d  \* @* D  h0 Q- z$ ^
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-# v: X8 ]; v9 p
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 n4 N) T  A! G& G' v: M
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 T# U) R+ T/ q* s" W, ?/ O5 ZOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
' D1 f3 w/ ]. G6 u# y* {: U9 JOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 V( R% R: Z( ~/ `4 y+ vdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic% W& w( _, u5 J2 ?" _( ^& G
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope1 J" z. K' n; S* _+ o! T! K
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 R0 L+ V4 ]4 l9 F* ?
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
- Q( ?- ?5 s* ~% t( s& Xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ H; C# a3 z# f, k
) e( [7 p5 `& R& h
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ r' T! h5 f2 e# Jintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 g) ]& H+ L& M% n% D+ X
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a, F9 j3 W- |' v( M' q
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# _8 `& A2 P; \' P) C, T- G
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your3 Y' I7 [: R4 B2 y6 m- i
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,7 P1 N6 v) g4 ], S6 U. A
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
+ F: j* n( U7 \$ aargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal) g, W4 f/ W; [6 ^
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or: {; A2 F! }  T, H0 @: A
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 19:17 , Processed in 0.155755 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