埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2288|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
" r8 g0 q) Q) v4 D6 ?0 I. L1 [" \/ s, F" Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
7 \# M2 @# a6 p/ t* s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。
& Q# f; f8 w- z9 o4 l总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。& v) ^, z- v3 J  m
# }# c0 n, E0 c- R9 `" H. G* u
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
8 T+ P  g# L% ~3 E' m5 c1 X3 ?( F- _! }% @4 ^  w  @
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
, l8 V+ w! K" |3 r4 i- E9 [" e% ]2 \' O. T7 x7 d- J7 G; A
英文原信附后,大意如下:& W% _& J( `; b# h5 N; a7 Z

# b8 R5 |' Z5 J. q* Z5 G  L斐尔,* l  U- Z, h! b8 y' f
       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
: o: V6 D$ y# Q5 y. i6 M# |( L) remail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
+ K9 U+ ]6 O3 ?& J; T8 X       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* _5 R  h/ t6 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
5 I( f" J; G: N0 [5 O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。/ f2 o$ q+ n/ `5 ?5 f( s  c1 G* x
       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/ B! z9 _, K3 Z& I7 O
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 v9 h- r2 r
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
0 L1 c0 G* k* c: h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。
4 X' h  B0 ], h4 b8 }; k       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
  @5 q) ^) }, R: g,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# i6 ~4 p' ]; P+ C5 w
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。4 g. M5 M, o! g3 S( Z) d9 a# [) [
       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9 {" Y) j9 D  c* f: x/ ?% S0 J, S
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
8 v+ Q8 ]! k/ d,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
: J! J# Y6 @5 z5 R6 x       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. @& a1 q$ v1 B* v) o' s
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
. r6 P8 a% c+ `; Z8 V5 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
, z0 ~" |% Y( {' v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
7 q' p8 e  f/ b300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、六2 X: T; F( j7 ^4 C6 J& W9 j( g
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+ V/ \: [/ O# @, c1 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
+ G+ z. N" u4 ^# b' N: j9 `- H4 e。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
) w3 m' E( S, Z* K( ~0 `录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。: |# W6 F6 b0 H8 `8 s
还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件' L" J. ]6 I' f& e4 I7 R, B
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
* W  q5 M( E9 D4 Q0 {1 V7 uWikipedia。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! I" L" z1 x3 k+ c4 |0 ]$ W2 w
同意见的专家。1 ^7 [+ t) A. S/ \" p
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" Z# q$ V% L; ]
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
# k! i* @- _7 E% ~+ R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! _7 P, U6 |* x' l7 j5 Q6 V
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- i; c, @0 v& o9 ^& U0 U( FCallaway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)
- ~/ [; I1 E' \$ h6 q! W; O7 g8 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
& i/ Z1 L0 K" A! o4 p" 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5 z! Z5 Q5 W# A' q
这些被Callaway忽略。
9 g: i: l6 V0 {2 L! o2 @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
* Y* d1 k1 T) x6 b英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院; Z. Y: N4 P  ~( I" W; V" {
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
0 c$ A+ M4 n  K" k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
. ]$ q# O6 v8 h% H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
- p* ?- f6 K5 m$ C& p0 \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/ F% {( C6 Y5 v% |$ ^% S8 ^
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% S7 p$ s. G' X1 ~; m+ p
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
6 X, X! t; ~; l) i6 c) J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  D* k! N! j! a: j! C# |
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
. C) ^% [- Q5 T”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
6 f+ F" |- s  X( p9 U4 c  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 D1 Y- z; R- B
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
2 n9 T* |+ l1 H! A; S& u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" X. W7 f# d2 }% d0 ~- \- 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! t, d1 t' W2 j) C1 d; M4 s! z8 {
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5 [/ ?  p! {3 G( k9 V2 v
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: f- p# m$ }! m& x
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( k% a5 u0 G& [
% X1 L" N  z7 L+ n3 m

: b% U# R3 S7 B' N  E6 j北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) x' i- E) }+ D# _; W% W

9 X6 m, ^. I8 y, f+ [( E附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
. M/ _: a) H, u, t6 G; x. j附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email9 w) B% Q8 @; J" Q& v6 \, j
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见. g0 C7 K* r/ ]6 _5 v
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见+ ~" p9 T* V3 Q) q2 q
5 n# \5 H4 H3 S( m3 j! S; l
1 j6 G! h. Q( Q  ^1 U

9 a0 @. [& ]# R/ J' Q! @* b/ D0 K原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)' l( T( ^6 s# c8 u
Dear Phil,- b. Z: W% b8 `* Y  N4 y6 P
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
0 y. r+ S4 s& C: G3 y, E2 @+ G: [report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 202 Y6 y5 q- F2 L4 m( ]. }
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed$ ~& o0 [' O# h% D) o# d$ B
you.
; [3 `! k* L5 P! A1 ~+ V       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
  g& O  O1 L3 ebrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
* M9 r" g9 ^- v% Rreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ v4 u: {- T& [5 F/ O5 A% k5 M: c3 W
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature: Z, {( M" N& @/ P9 i
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more2 L; ?7 S( [; @' `1 k# f
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
, W! X6 q5 M* a3 fpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.! M; {$ i: J# x5 m3 p  L' }9 L
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
( G% q' s2 L) T' zworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a# z+ I! t; d1 f2 j
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
& a& P( p6 Y* g3 `6 othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
- _* e) g) O4 fdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
# v9 U* g+ W" _: y1 b8 y8 Cexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ A+ O# O, l$ H8 {standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
2 R  M% B2 C% }+ tand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
) N8 V) P& W8 O( Fto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news1 R: t0 D2 m; }9 t- J( e
reporting.
* g; g/ y- E: o! o0 N       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
- b; I2 y; _+ x: L% O6 n# K( xalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by9 T2 r9 a: Z5 z% }& j) W" t
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
$ L; @4 Y' K5 x8 o8 K* Esports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
* v9 R" r" o; Fpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.; G, U: O( b' {7 t# \8 X" D
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
5 k4 _# I  N& b9 j' Amore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds7 h' x* g. y/ n6 z/ v+ D
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
1 i) p) X9 F% nmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ X- y, p/ t1 Q: b$ `4 Eevent for men, with the second fastest record.
$ I( K4 Z* r, @' h5 ]) d       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
: h6 w/ v; ]* R4 Owas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 V  N% o1 |* _. \year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
* z% c5 u0 Q5 F. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! B7 m8 w) X- j5 F0 d* u& J) ~meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,1 c. V( A  H0 [6 B8 u1 ]7 k* t; p
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
+ `* R  h' `1 K6 SLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
% z5 |, P) U9 @& I3 _" Hbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the/ u- B3 ]) o: m7 q
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower3 i' _/ b- Z4 e3 L- I* S! F) @5 K
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than4 \# G5 E3 j* R( c+ d2 q: G/ I+ O
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was1 F# g* x( g0 @/ k
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
2 l% ?$ \3 Z3 o9 A3 b7 N0 @he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
" V( T1 L! a& Q9 A8 [7 c2 f* k2 Mproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other: z- C5 L( A- f$ {# |0 N
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 X0 i9 f* }" S  G7 W
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
; p3 B2 m0 e9 d2 ?6 O0 P( L" _/ J. ^Callaway report.9 |$ z" T' l3 E0 _; j+ Z
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
4 O* _5 x$ ~  wunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details% R6 O# o" t$ |* O) d- q) ?
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ I' h6 g8 d2 d5 m, v& X: Z
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been+ C' [. i- _! N  w% _6 z, `
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the' z  f3 @' H% ~
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had7 s$ Z  s* U3 U6 w
publicly voiced different opinions.: F. G: q* ^" O: A$ H' ^. H
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
: r% H) U& Z6 Hfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature* s& P, O' O. ^2 m
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
% J- J0 c$ m6 C: dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds6 a/ ^' [3 x6 P# z' M
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 I0 L# t! m, Y8 T; z  O
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
  i# ?' X/ |$ T4 L  pThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think. _2 N2 D; H  R
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They  I0 v& y2 l. H8 J+ V
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
, P) }- q5 f" m5 jAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 y( {( x1 ^# e$ \the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was7 D8 H' e- h* B4 ~
supported by facts neglected by Callaway./ q- Z2 v. n; t8 p. `
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
0 M, u, {: m7 b( {1 `: H6 E, k2 Smany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  \' E! ^6 I$ ?
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June. x& L5 A. `9 U% P1 g2 ^  G- F
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
" a' K9 }' g# j2 sand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
6 i  x1 u$ G0 @! u- U5 Y9 f) nThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science$ {7 ?' o& K2 X& M6 n8 |
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
7 @3 B* H9 F$ n% yDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
0 y* N8 @: r5 P& S# g# w- `1 ?Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
" J+ {  |" Q' ?objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
' X3 Q2 n& X- iwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" a  E( w1 M+ ?, a; i5 V$ i) O; Trepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
# Y" M- F/ u( i* r7 z) P& qThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not6 d/ D, B, @! P( @
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced8 e' T' L  b" }- ~" n# o
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. V* T. l" v  g8 }6 i' J7 F4 bfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
% n! K9 v/ O/ _& p& Ithis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
0 E9 u" t3 z, p6 a/ Zabout British supremacy.9 h& A. r7 @" Q! N: T
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
9 T$ U5 R, W. `0 N& t9 i# Dunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more) T5 e* B' Y: d; W: @
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by5 Y+ ~& p- \" N& a
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London  ?" p8 R$ p$ ^
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
& [5 ]3 _7 R6 ?- s6 I5 N; }Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 l2 H( j3 J. c$ \6 f* f3 G
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests0 c3 c/ t! T1 b. \3 A; J9 v
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,, x/ }! d3 g8 Z( h6 D0 K: @
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
5 z7 r& z% q0 B7 Vpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like, C, O4 D' S) y5 S3 A" ^
Nature.4 S2 E9 n/ `; m9 m, }) g
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance0 H* [9 v+ i' R9 b
the Callaway report.
" W# O2 \' P$ {4 u! ?5 H% _7 x: x1 o- x8 j0 c% U: o
Yi) u9 \" K: J' d0 o4 ^6 V" j

1 q# L7 t) A# m( M0 \4 B. kYi Rao, Ph.D.
! h9 }1 |& T' ?, v2 t6 G( Y7 Y$ jProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences, A9 W$ q  h) Y' f* q7 n' }" X
Beijing, China
5 N0 R7 H9 Z* w# s+ R
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
4 _. |. b0 I, Q4 W: F5 F) d原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

- i+ \7 U0 g$ U3 a原文是公开信。
; e9 w1 p! ~9 _7 k' Q
$ x6 }. I" _  M; _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 % y, Y( ]) w/ i
原文是公开信。
7 m/ Q- }+ }) {& h. p, I6 o6 E4 B- V' K+ J1 k
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
/ T  R/ R: r+ r
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
% s4 L  H  C  I+ @7 {如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 C$ k/ l0 g7 O/ g
3 e- H# R  X1 p7 {$ Q$ r0 K" |& }http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: L/ @2 o; j/ c& w& |
) Y4 L* R  S+ n& C' k0 W6 B% H
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. r7 m5 L1 h+ z. _  K6 l1 N
  J+ J0 s! y1 Y8 E: V0 n8 @$ W
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself% J8 J* g# u5 d3 r
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
7 u2 H! Q! o8 t3 n' ^- h7 Qmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
  F* A" |+ B; Eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
3 q' S9 {" T' s, [( xscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general$ L+ p7 }" o2 B1 d
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors8 d4 v) V  Z! e/ b8 A1 o
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. g, n9 H. W+ {  }) N1 x
which they blatantly failed to do.
% _9 k$ z( d( a9 l, Z( v2 V
) V/ `! j: z# n! r1 _) gFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ _3 `) e7 y+ t) ]- T, WOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 q( J, ^' |6 i  ~
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “2 \0 x0 X- t% ^- v' i7 U
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous1 n0 K. f. h2 |! x
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
' u+ c4 ]( y3 a3 i. `+ aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; q& {& n1 B+ t7 c5 Q% ddifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to! G+ z) s$ }8 `9 `# H3 }
be treated as 7 s.
2 h; F3 Y  X$ r+ N0 h' B5 L0 n$ f5 y
/ G" x& F4 v" v& r0 i  R" |Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 z3 o4 Z; x6 O! R( t+ ]still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
1 I9 P% {2 E1 Jimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) H; [4 s3 v  z% D# [An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
9 P- ?2 }: R- `2 R- ?7 x-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.3 j3 E: @+ C- z% S. x9 B
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an! y& z, h: N# [# s) d
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& s7 j) v( N1 b, {2 K3 _+ M% _persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”$ K  K5 a3 Q! I+ o1 [. d
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 ]2 l% L* D: y1 R* z

  T' q5 q2 B/ ?1 n2 [$ nThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 r! ~8 d3 z  Z6 b5 O' cexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
, l3 g, I) B" }6 B- C# ?the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so& M/ Y) K8 g6 S( S. K# M. X% z( _6 N
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
0 `% h) n9 n2 @: z; b% j2 Cevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s" t2 Y) [# p4 o
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
5 y" ]" o- O( R( ]: e5 E. B( T, KFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another5 p4 T0 Y7 d& ?% @5 T- I
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 f; t4 r5 S, N3 j. M7 K
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
% G5 m: P1 v: p, H, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
  A  I0 o* B* Z5 v2 Wstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% m1 Q% r1 ]. \: V9 G+ b! afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam1 f6 {( ^: ^! f2 t
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ K- {, k) N6 L% m
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that  e* l% f6 _. k: @9 P, n1 s
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
" B6 ?4 t( ~& J0 o: p7 m4 u; C, `5 y6 s! F5 \
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are  p6 B$ l8 g7 S) g2 `
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ n1 Y1 g2 J4 O8 _( O" |
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
& O& G' G, B. q8 [$ r; t  w6 S5 M) o' g- R), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* W9 |. O  I' X' u
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,6 b6 m8 e9 C1 q, N5 ]; H
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
$ u/ b% k1 N1 i  h8 k, Fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" R# g( F& ~9 [" u8 ?& [$ a% p: Blogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 \+ z' F; o4 V8 tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
" z. c3 t) l7 T9 H4 U, k8 Dworks.
0 J" C$ g8 i& R" R% g! r, U9 a" J6 T; z% G3 M
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( y/ E: L1 o) g1 U$ limplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this9 O( e" [, \. ^7 `: H: f
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
" s" C/ |  A4 W* Y, Y+ J' Y% \9 wstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
4 X$ A8 V; g  D. V1 @' fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and6 j4 i3 ^# P  `2 u4 _) g! w
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 V2 d7 e: P1 r8 R( j
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
8 Q0 J, e% Y' D9 mdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
1 i4 X) V& d/ W- t& D: H9 wto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample3 M" t8 t4 k/ L7 v* X
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
  u9 d% s% g* Ccrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ S0 r% b3 l3 _9 |1 m6 Ywrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) e5 i, l" o1 \3 e' ?# G& Y5 wadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, |4 {0 S- K: E1 h: [* Z' z# t- m# qpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
  f% h! o( s# B1 B7 w9 \% h: kuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
; s3 x" Z7 Y: T. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* Z) G9 X: C4 `$ `; U' v
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may  g/ x0 N& m& O; r
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! w  f4 Y, c$ A: j: s* p8 v: D  |
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 x! l/ ~# P2 R8 g* uhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
# h0 S) K8 O1 W4 m  l8 x1 Sdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
# r% y; b9 n0 u1 t1 b6 Y# cother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, O6 A8 u: F8 o1 @
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
* i) `+ l7 C8 `" d/ ^- p- dprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
0 \8 R1 H0 n3 tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
0 m7 P7 h2 s; ~9 a& ^6 Uchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; I- I4 Y; l, C: i. A# U0 |6 \Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& |  l: S& g( l9 k+ X$ z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for% ^6 e6 _# s* c7 e
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.# ^, N0 i% h+ y1 {) D% ?
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
0 ^: O7 p2 T& M, w7 m( z: a& H) [; A0 i
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* H6 i, D7 j$ }/ F" \) d( Ccompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
4 s% s! L( N5 k. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
; s: @! V5 }) v8 a) n% n- DOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London+ e' M: P$ e8 K/ N" l$ I, ~* w; }
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for! u3 M0 M" x! v
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic6 Z1 ]/ p/ K9 n7 c! W; V( O
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
- g0 c4 P3 p9 b7 s$ Mhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 p& U. s  ?: \, l9 Y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this0 l' ^8 d& O3 m3 p3 \
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
, G/ S4 f- u: V. k- h! K& E, L: u- ^, X0 D
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (+ {6 i# s/ V# H
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 {9 V! T  V" f' Ssuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 j8 c! ^$ N; Asuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* V  i. X* c& d  W1 g
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 I/ o' I& |0 I, a
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 X! K8 S- u: E$ x$ ^2 C
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 D/ z. I1 h* a6 J5 Dargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal% h% ]0 Z( l- p# G
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( g# U' U' i, p# a6 o/ Z" F2 @
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, 2026-5-1 17:30 , Processed in 0.094503 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