埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2310|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
* ^: r% w& D# i2 x. q+ G2 O/ x  E: s( M
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
4 S, \7 }, ?7 U, @" W. Z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。2 j3 T# D4 T3 c. L  v0 t5 R
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
* a7 [, s3 A1 l1 k% `6 Y- z: j% {2 \7 R& M. P5 p8 H/ h$ q
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
( A. Y* I) G* {" c: s2 {
. F% j/ q" W  A: b" R- P. U1 V+ L致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选9 ?, \. @5 i& M  {

* X" `9 D0 Y% r9 [8 }6 L% A7 [英文原信附后,大意如下:! p  [% p% M$ W; ]  h# n8 `

8 t) w2 [, z% L  t% J5 h斐尔,; H8 m6 c  \" m1 i/ l+ n0 W
       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
0 L+ J7 |: b& `' @+ qemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。. F' H1 z' D% R; `) m+ l
       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
* r9 O) P# I# M7 f4 w, o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% P# z9 z2 q( |1 `
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。5 T& a8 B' l& h3 y% _
       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
# J# m7 G4 N  A& u  i% u' q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 M( D8 T- g8 a# A
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  m' R+ {* S: i2 J3 y
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。
/ T  m9 o6 G1 ]5 o' 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
% a8 M7 c# ^# ?6 [* P3 B,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' W( U8 r* W+ {3 T
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。7 k1 h6 w& d& `3 y% |# u9 ^3 G. W
       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
. ?8 f9 o& M1 `6 e5 }, M9 _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
0 L+ I( A5 [4 d4 T, J,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。6 @" w) G* a4 L6 u, L+ G
       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
1 \. S# A* L4 g+ a+ {& v  L$ d% \  q" o- C2011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* V! z$ M' U0 u
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
* {: }) Z4 y, i- j2 `& i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3 B  S0 l) I: ]. o5 W
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、六0 M  b+ ^4 q- n: M9 k( b* j* |: G/ Q4 d
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
" a" L. ^& A9 `' k! Z  Z1 F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" X& u+ f) O, I5 _
。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
- u) E0 t/ O/ l录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* i. t. U0 v. m4 }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2 H7 w3 P3 K! }9 o  C
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
& N" M2 e3 \0 `, Q7 e/ f% I! jWikipedia。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
1 z1 {3 Z' d3 T9 _- t3 g- i/ N同意见的专家。
8 @: g. W. G3 u1 Z% Y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. F3 C5 l- F" Q/ Y0 H" Q
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+ a8 `( T0 ?: C2 W
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
& y" Q1 v* f8 @& W( T% e6 s7 V2 ]《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
& q" C/ G( L( J$ pCallaway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)
9 m* Q$ z3 g* k! j5 ~- u! C& `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# z+ e# {8 v; w) [9 ~; [8 v
《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) I: R/ H  w  _* D6 c0 R; F
这些被Callaway忽略。) T" H. D# G+ g3 z5 Y
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给
3 Q) n9 D  ]& S0 u" z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
" Z, H$ t. B( p5 H, K  J教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
2 R4 O# k4 i; k( O  Y" Q- ~) W) H; q( [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
: b# ~% {5 G" F$ Y1 S3 \) ~+ q1 t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- \  h1 Q- }7 \" j' 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
% j. F. t/ D9 e0 E0 h* t( P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. Z2 v0 ^$ }$ g# g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
  U9 \* `" C- D" K& E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0 X$ F  V' P; O* A
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5 E5 b0 L5 A! n) P/ f' @1 u
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。/ Z. \2 P8 Y/ Z+ v. A2 x
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
1 X. ]+ J8 d/ u, i7 k# y" l9 x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% e  Y7 [: b4 U2 N
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 K4 n% _1 H1 ^5 j: D& v& [
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
. ]! T& C6 a8 N; _8 ]5 a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2 u5 ]) c# ^& r: Y6 ^/ J: J8 v
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。+ y4 L% Z0 [0 Z( g1 {/ m
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( z$ B* y- W4 h  @8 q

& N' [7 G7 g3 M' h# |7 c7 W
. w" z; V- _9 w- Q0 h1 F! j4 h0 m北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅1 Y- w$ y( a  Y! Z3 h4 i; I
# u" w/ d2 ]1 T; C- \
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结6 d6 i8 g" p& Z3 x4 K
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
. d" m* R/ J& c附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 o8 a/ c, W2 c0 ^) t0 ?* X; a附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见$ r4 ?. c' n, U; K) P& A) g
# B0 t* F/ \" n1 e1 E+ a
  T; N) U/ K( }. `" c3 \

8 G5 m6 q5 J+ a# O3 {原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
5 F3 c  T+ g  b( V' }! o) gDear Phil,7 P; m8 E- O- F+ m1 a% e- b5 R
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" g$ B9 p& j3 Q' {) `8 Preport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. H+ z, T2 D& i6 [! y: p2 e
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
/ y* ]" s; n7 y9 m5 s& a$ Q/ E* m7 ~you.% K: ?8 ^1 S/ W% q& V: e
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, Z6 P, K. P9 O$ e( \4 e0 Zbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese8 z6 y8 A  h% r
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
- G( W4 H) q( nworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature9 @( ]! M- m; T( A3 \' x3 d
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ I8 r& E6 V; t. S
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
; b9 H, v8 h! L* s5 apieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
) G% d0 T: a5 L& q4 P2 u! J       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
- g8 G$ J* s" {( d7 a* ]& u4 i  r9 Wworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a5 a4 b. A/ D4 ?+ M% R
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish8 v6 s% L1 M2 o' f! [# {* N$ w6 X0 J
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway+ l2 F# N) E6 @8 w
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping  o8 x1 k4 ^  b1 Q7 ?. ^
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal, ^7 `3 z; `  w+ Q2 D* Q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 d5 f* B$ L) ]! ~and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone1 d9 N$ e  V6 p3 n; l* E+ u3 Q
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news  l; \: d8 x) k) K  [0 e2 ]5 H
reporting.; U" a" L5 \8 ^! S' ?# d) {
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have3 j# ~6 H# I9 t2 a1 r
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 o8 S$ M' a1 b/ _" M! U* X) G
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in" w5 ^: H% I* p2 j. e
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A$ @$ o# o: S9 c' q/ ^% g3 s6 x6 U
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.0 w+ |: }7 O7 i% X2 e
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem& }/ l& w8 q8 ]/ a: D4 K
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
& _  ^+ O+ R& ?faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 507 c  `3 ~6 J' n" W, A
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
: E( ~+ q" ~5 R" }event for men, with the second fastest record.6 L7 u5 W3 j( Y8 X: N
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye8 m, E" h7 i+ K4 S/ j; S
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ m8 V# }4 @/ S
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
. V: M) ?6 Q0 N8 x" }" X% S% a. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4008 \, F9 G  O/ G1 [, n
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,- h- J) L* Z# y( T8 x
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
! p( d& {. j9 pLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
5 j! C1 |7 q9 Q/ ebehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
; c% h8 U& o: W9 k9 N4 R' {individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ s- `9 h! z1 T2 Kthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
! Y5 N7 P% j- O( i4 O+ qthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
) [) f- t9 I; e3 Z5 J' nher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
8 \: L4 m- d9 Zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 K' B1 ^* ^; l' r/ p% m" r
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other( R2 A3 S4 D4 {
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
; a2 U. {" i' w2 e; Nteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the1 W, c1 R7 @' z* A+ v
Callaway report.- u9 j- v3 p9 x
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
& F' g$ ~  K3 _4 l! Tunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
2 g; v; s; T: Ehere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
5 U8 o- R5 l* o$ Uof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
0 w1 ?, s4 h; ?7 j* h: o% b& lbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) t+ O, C  v& w1 y0 J* K( ~
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
+ D. i& F: h: e, L6 Ppublicly voiced different opinions.
9 {$ ~7 @' O) X4 M: ?You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD# p! l+ Z/ j! l6 U' K
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
4 I2 B' ^: G. c' dNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
( J# o' Q4 B% \$ b1 }postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds$ G& ~8 K) p$ c0 H
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
2 e: C8 b. |9 m4 |of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
2 t/ p4 T' \/ n$ k+ Q. gThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think/ }$ E6 i  [. F- }: G, w/ d
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They: X# r/ i$ f0 c0 V$ Q' u1 B# b
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as. D: F$ U7 d, {  c' |
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
# g- G' i7 M. cthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was4 P8 s4 P$ h  F8 m% Y: X2 p- j
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
# e7 M' E: J: I1 Z$ O. G1 tOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that* e) g0 Q0 }! x& J. w- S
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
( m  _" j8 E7 U( d' w/ RChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June" ^3 Y! H8 N$ P" h
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
  p7 K8 o4 N5 cand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.2 h# c  c+ @7 M  {! k
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& D5 R$ [: h3 u  S+ [# r9 p* pand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
4 d1 D) j2 X, Q) W, X7 }Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.3 o* S- y0 a" f6 `, f( u
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and7 a% d4 P" u3 X9 s+ p) z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature' p$ ^# C( m) W. d2 \1 v
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
9 s* h0 N) _; H# i) F8 `. grepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
; D' J2 }$ M! A6 R) WThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not) S; O7 w3 F  o* G
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
; }" L& x9 d- u8 J7 e9 b9 ~5 l9 uus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather  k: A: D6 p' B: w7 k2 z
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
  Z" V8 }' i7 i' N9 Kthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
. r0 ]+ g7 L7 \) `+ [3 J1 g. Mabout British supremacy./ u! y( G% M5 ]
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many6 e# q3 E# P8 t1 T, v" Y& V
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
* u, Y! r: f9 b0 LChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by, @0 ^9 Q6 I6 \, I# h7 Z. @
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London2 R# z( |5 d- W, Q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
7 L. p0 @, h' q# W4 ~. c5 P' sYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
5 q2 q' T3 [. D+ Oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
% T7 b4 ?: z/ rbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,. f7 Q& S9 L9 m8 S6 b. K$ O, r' v
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly: }& I6 h  w4 t' Z
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like" ]8 v- q  [: v) L1 Q0 A
Nature.1 Y" M5 h, O$ W% B8 |2 S5 ^6 g0 Q+ o
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
# `# U% d9 @, a- I8 r& [1 ^/ Mthe Callaway report.. D6 P: F' V8 L& G+ z; ?

8 D" u* a5 z+ C: s, }- j+ f5 l% |Yi
; i+ D5 k# n  \% k' T; w# z: Z1 c. R( m! q$ x% e+ B
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
" G* H9 T0 w1 [Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
# q4 V' B* O7 ^. A; FBeijing, China3 B( m. @1 O2 }/ u5 h  l' z  V
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
3 h/ q! A3 P; t5 V原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
( n2 R( u! Z7 E+ K
原文是公开信。
9 R/ j" w7 H& K( p1 M( p  Q% n! z7 i8 [
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 ; j/ B2 R) p2 ^0 c6 `; a) F
原文是公开信。/ c6 L" A+ ?2 @
; }' {1 t% l  D# a8 O
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
% S$ V: U* ?, a% N
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
+ `) Q; Y% b! s% J8 j: h2 H1 i如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
$ ^& j# f4 G: l3 x* [! Z  N% `" d
9 I' W. h* z3 H* ^# K0 R! v# Phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html1 U9 m6 s- Y& B& W/ L8 P

3 h  r, D+ w& ?FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania# y3 i- v- M" w5 Z

3 e9 C" q+ C2 |  `9 S/ ?It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
. `5 Y& P5 |/ v4 M, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 i8 @( ?) k' |& [magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
8 n! `  v3 X$ m! Z% Q' Z5 z6 Ris not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the$ a" K8 I4 a% l' W- E$ t
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 e' d/ a/ ^4 t' \
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 I- w" [$ f* [
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," m3 j) A5 p7 J* \: Q6 w6 v3 d. G2 ^
which they blatantly failed to do.% A( [5 \! C1 k$ u2 z9 W* w
: t( N& D! M- t- a6 [* h
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her+ P! ^& c" V" O% D! r+ l/ ~9 E/ i0 N
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' e4 q8 i" g( F& e% E
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
% M' I; y, x2 X; f( H- janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& q+ ^; c% o! @# i; R* M1 l7 m
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an2 H) J) X" C/ x4 r; K# G
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. I' q4 n# b  hdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
2 g* m* C& c$ T- x$ wbe treated as 7 s.
/ {# G. L/ f5 z# M, C" t: G  x, H0 r  g& _
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
9 M# s" y' g( n! w; o$ ~, zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem# O( ~! b) V2 o1 c3 q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
/ |  c! ^; j- ?( rAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# P4 v5 w* r: m7 p; s5 r8 |9 z( @
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
  ~# k. S) q, [) P$ yFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) p4 ^+ O# `5 |! C7 u& y! k  A
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 ]8 s1 C+ j+ \. w, Ppersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”$ b9 `. P) c8 a
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ z/ j' }2 u2 a! n# A
% j0 J, d  Z; G: @* Y
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 y) F+ v+ @- R' texample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 `* |% H- u- t5 \8 b- C( l
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ i  _3 S2 _9 y
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later$ O7 o6 C7 a% Y2 w- Y7 b, c2 C
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s- n# e2 O$ c  A" l) S# y
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
; }0 e7 e% o1 K! U$ tFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! g4 B$ q- ~) T# L% E, C
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ E) X. n! Q) P  i9 zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
. {8 n% p8 z8 X( Y# t8 C, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. ]& a4 p% O4 j& V
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
7 ^7 v. L- N! i: Afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam& U: E: ]. g) a) o" B, |
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
2 p9 c3 x, M5 b2 Daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% L2 s0 Y2 |% @% I* V! l& {
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# x* E  ^3 q! e: b* O) A( C+ t
. r" W1 e7 c7 m+ pFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, o' ?, }: E# a
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93, h7 l4 [' G/ M, f' j
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s  u9 Q0 O2 X0 C
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns7 ]! I: |: D: p: F' }
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,9 r/ L; N& B& @% M( j
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind6 S# L: n0 R2 c6 |4 Y1 I
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 D  U/ \0 _6 u: blogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: D1 ^8 E2 }  ^4 ~7 j
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science8 d' {! K; {+ y' ?- _# X' g  }
works.
! V: {# F4 r( ^4 L7 B2 m$ o: {
% x$ T# P! R, [% I1 k# c, A: rFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
' l2 x4 T- U& \5 Z) i1 jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this, m, e  o7 b' P8 i1 P2 g
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 k1 V9 H; A2 astandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% p' c: u4 M! n) x5 n
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ u0 P5 {$ T; ^) ?  Z" ^reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
$ n8 L; j$ V9 t- _9 Vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
6 _( I/ g& ?% m& m2 c/ idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) k5 |* H: j3 s: \1 G+ h, A
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" p/ B8 u7 o( Q8 P7 ?' o) Y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 {& l9 `+ d# L/ i% }& k2 P4 O* s
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he' R& G( @& N, e
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ K7 K) r4 @/ k" A2 h" f9 R5 U; hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& V- j1 R: q0 i" l# S
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
" {1 c2 W! ]& ^5 _: Suse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
/ s8 Q: o9 ^! B' _. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
- l# d. j7 b. p  V) J0 Gdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may/ Q9 \$ o# Y$ R9 J+ D9 ~+ v. k' W
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% z7 z5 X& N5 n2 o6 z8 O9 {hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye& n2 N# Y! |% ?% f! P+ v
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, e& a9 [: O3 T* Xdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: N% t+ O" a1 F2 d* |other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 n7 t0 j, N# q2 P
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ O9 k" O9 O0 z$ y7 Aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 ~7 h  w0 F5 A6 |
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 G7 n* n" e( k- Q' |+ Mchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& f6 V( X/ J4 XLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
, o6 i* b- Y1 Y! M2 v, R- }& kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 c- t2 u3 O8 ?- ]6 }5 z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- P0 `! j* s. E! K2 X& i
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?- z  U' _- o* B; y, g# L2 Y

" j$ U9 ~( N! O& f9 |2 _6 ySixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 ~# _! R) Y  E% F7 O5 P# ^
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention% [( x6 W/ g; l1 w
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
. c0 r: m9 o# w' V; kOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London. i9 ^+ a. H1 z: t
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
5 I5 X5 x5 C; qdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
: L8 }# \8 R5 ~1 |; M# N: t' tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
2 @5 Q/ r, j, r0 r8 `have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a% ?/ t+ d% x; X: Q) z
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
' o9 `- `" {8 X6 L0 i% f) dpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" U- _; o/ R0 V9 C$ u- q0 `' l4 m: \/ b( j: O0 J  V
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- E& \' b5 _+ a- k# }intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! @7 g, c3 Q% D' x3 R- ?suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a5 O; J7 ?' i' N9 l7 T3 ^
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide$ R; k$ \5 J- Y* I1 P; U+ r
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- S) g% }& H- w+ U* d
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 q* r" @# o* a' Jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
. d; v  H8 l% _- Z3 F+ s! largument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* l* A. z* E) B9 S
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
/ B$ n% d8 z2 t: |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, 2026-5-9 10:48 , Processed in 0.380972 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