埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2048|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
3 `6 I, Z+ s; V5 a* [+ C+ S: C9 m' v6 R8 ]  \) B0 U
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。' j( }3 R4 x" A1 I6 `
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。
! c6 D! D+ O" u' o' k9 n: c/ B# X总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。$ `% Q" t. `/ V, _

+ P( c+ l1 ^. E; ]' ?: X  vhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ g+ k/ ~+ B% L9 m3 B$ V2 `, a$ U
" p( D2 v* i7 ]6 T/ ~5 |* J5 @
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选* V0 w# x# }1 v9 T) t

' G3 h9 @8 Y* I' z) r! \$ n英文原信附后,大意如下:' n9 v% c8 c5 Q* D5 \0 `. e

% l6 v9 |2 o6 k& Q/ Q5 W) ^- D斐尔,4 U3 y) c1 {! ?. X4 e1 K* y5 e
       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) y7 X; I$ ~+ l6 [+ e, O& V
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。( O& Q* M; s/ w  D
       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
* ?+ p8 T( G0 `/ _. A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' |; ]6 h7 i% [% t; w* ^
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。
' x. @5 q. T# _. d       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
  b8 I: u: i$ G  Y! Z7 g, U2 N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 ]/ C/ s1 v& F4 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
- {3 k% U8 z$ S3 @, E9 Q7 l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。
( ?  a1 i: Q& I       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
+ j. t3 j$ ]' a+ i,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
/ E, w% I4 s" x- B- I5 ~”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ e  [: A: z/ Z: V0 q* Q7 ^
       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
. A) {' @, {. @. \! o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
# ~: q5 \. |% g3 {( v,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。# f; M! R' e4 {6 z: D0 v  m
       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
8 ~4 u8 r4 I% m1 T- L1 B2011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9 X- h" g7 b5 ~
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二7 m/ I0 U8 X) {; 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2 _( [0 N* C9 N" V! Z
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六
% R- m, d, q# A; Y, o( n/ @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6 a" t. y; @" Y( \& o% |& C0 R7 d
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
$ X2 Q. g1 _, y。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' A1 D/ x5 h, ?8 R
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。6 G* C' h, z, R' ]) F! x, e$ P
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
5 D( y* d/ Z6 l1》,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
7 T/ [) g3 t. W- S9 R; qWikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不
3 ?) i3 }& E3 _4 u7 Y0 K# ^$ C* v同意见的专家。" l0 c. @9 V7 t5 R* W9 h6 s# b
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
, `% L! [! |$ T) t" X' s$ `8 }4 O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# @$ k7 |# G# Z7 d$ W' e7 e
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- i1 g6 T2 J5 T* b
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。  s7 J1 Z) I6 B7 Y4 s: F
Callaway在线报道下面有很多跟帖讨论。有些学生以为有些很有道理(且有实质内容)  v, X% F4 f' E' S1 Z
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
0 a7 H2 v# D2 @/ C9 Z" y7 l3 `1 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# E" G% `- v& e: Y, ]
这些被Callaway忽略。
- Z$ f7 ~4 C% _8 I# ?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  V8 ?- J% n8 C3 t
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2 [5 t6 r5 r+ E# U$ B
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。+ U0 T2 U6 |7 l. [0 ?
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: g) }+ R: }& [' I& F9 h  q
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 B1 K1 W" T% o  I8 H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# y) U0 W9 V2 @/ D
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。
7 m. }- A) G+ h# P3 T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* e8 [/ r* B& Z; ~: B
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- l* T' y0 r/ U+ M
代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问
) Y$ L/ m! l5 m”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
3 M# Z1 p) M$ v& {7 U4 H8 J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# q4 Z; A  l, k# W  i7 H
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
. R2 q' c" Q# z/ V) ^9 Z5 a4 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: j! F. ?. k& b& f3 ^1 N0 c, a4 e
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, y- ~+ b0 N: k
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% _; F7 [8 Q; g; _9 [
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
( \3 D4 O7 ~. N# [我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 q% i* E" M0 N7 L
: M& ~5 N2 H. [4 }8 k& d9 S* _0 w" D, h1 J. }) X
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
1 v* @* x! g* m: v: U9 ]9 W1 H
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
$ G: F% Z# }% X- m5 B- c附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email1 q/ G1 Z/ O5 {" H
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见& U2 x* g; g6 \$ f$ x: c: ~
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# I2 a, A3 V4 T% B# c/ ]
3 E& @0 l% }4 P; H; J9 i- v
! o. j8 s# p5 \' Z4 w( L+ `- W$ w) n+ K, i6 i4 v0 Q* H
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
" ]: B7 b; R; m2 D; n  iDear Phil,
. [0 u9 X- I" l% l) n+ K* a! P4 y       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s6 |: L% V$ [3 O( }2 x. e
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
3 p8 E; v4 ?% x) s, G4 H  v0 v' h9 _hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed' ]6 ]# Y. z  M6 k7 e
you." T7 E  v) `2 O% [' t
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have) W- C1 k% d, I
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
# M* Q$ c+ |7 \# y$ c7 @: Q8 ~readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
0 d- \2 I4 s4 w2 F# E9 rworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
: v' y7 T4 g( p( u% v& s" npublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more# z$ I' a/ e% l# n" t) \
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
, R( v) D- z2 t# t3 rpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
7 f7 h0 j! x! |       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
* z5 k  r3 _; h2 ^, a( ]0 l% i- ^$ m& _7 zworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a& {$ X. g! q# m& {7 e
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 s" e) ?' ^% S' Z+ z1 cthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway8 R* x! r; E4 S
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping4 T, o) o3 i  C8 ?$ {; s# A
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 t; S2 l) I: G1 S0 x: M" u* Xstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. E; b- i! n- v; M
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
+ `8 I- b1 l6 t# t4 p! R* sto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
! x$ s4 |" k1 Z" f: Jreporting.% J9 i' Q1 ]; O
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
6 \; n) o" [7 n6 s8 ralready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
& ~8 ^( n5 h3 t0 A! ochanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
+ Z- |4 V& N9 h+ a) @; Y% Usports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A2 U1 \4 e* M( k
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
0 c4 z) {5 ], e$ Z. x       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: J' C' T. b0 L9 X
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
; r# y" q+ T* c: z3 c' \faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
; U: }' q& b2 l& y8 nmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
/ {% \7 Y$ P( R+ \4 zevent for men, with the second fastest record.
, Z' I" i4 g! O4 d: J       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye6 c+ K  E' T9 {& `$ A
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
' d) B- r9 F; Uyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record2 \) ]# j. H! N1 g  D
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
1 O8 X9 R+ T* H1 d2 V- ?6 pmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,  w% j4 J. r- A# X  n+ z  l
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
# C; g1 v: A  D+ M6 G  W- JLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
8 i8 B9 V% o% Dbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ m9 k, a" r- E/ U( y( J$ h6 dindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
- E: V/ Q6 p- mthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
6 i8 B+ q4 ^) R' m- Rthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was- Y: G6 Y0 C' w2 A& _' j/ A
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 _2 i( Z% Z5 g4 G9 e
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “( t" e0 L* ?7 {+ d+ B. K
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) G9 B2 y, V! w4 O: ~( }
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the& s; a  B0 N4 D2 A
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
; N) q$ p) W9 i' [+ {8 X; CCallaway report.
9 [  f# z) \" q- T" S0 C' \+ vThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more# ~1 y- Q& o* \& {' U
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
9 D+ n3 X7 W! `! d1 nhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description2 I$ A0 o+ F* l
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
: Z; E0 N; p% l8 u/ i" L9 Z- r! E" E- Abetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the; [. C1 z0 Y2 k1 C* ~, N9 O* @/ r
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: F) X/ c& W  q: k" s3 S6 J/ f
publicly voiced different opinions.
4 Y3 x3 r6 g- WYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
8 e% d2 ^# d0 A. e8 _' h2 jfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature2 E4 e5 r( C1 L% C% F; R5 H
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent, q) i( z( F% R; D$ k2 ]
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) j6 E: F% `. b0 f& ]
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* X* ~; l2 G, ^& b  L. ]& `5 C
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
2 ~4 W/ z8 Z0 w! mThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think! z( \( [% B5 V5 B
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They7 [1 E4 J  n, s/ k. p
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
$ \- i7 l) g' `9 o, s8 J0 EAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
: I1 Q2 A2 G- c# d- Mthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was4 E3 l  d# r) f6 u- _) x
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
1 ]! w. N" L, n) R) HOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
* [4 q9 B9 r) |) D$ `  I8 g* Imany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
# P* p5 n8 p( GChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
/ s1 n! p7 ~6 M; C3 P( |(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
1 `1 h( Z2 I( G" [% Iand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
- G7 W" |2 P$ ?3 S& Q" U5 mThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ ?3 s* F' N4 i
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and  p( [4 J: q$ q
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
" b- T; o( p% U1 p9 z% [3 wNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and/ p  k1 I/ ^  `3 Z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; R9 U" V6 D6 L$ V. }) B+ N" U8 N' @: `what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to& j3 o  }( z/ C* h9 x
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
: F( K- [  ?, x0 qThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not0 z  r4 P* F6 c" H& s$ r
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
- {: ~6 ]: ]# V+ ~! kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 U/ d1 S& q" G. X  S0 t; Q+ K/ Tfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that: t2 }% H" q6 ?( u& q
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
  H& r" q6 S" k/ F6 l) K/ r$ eabout British supremacy.
9 d- b; B- j5 d* s) K: I3 R7 N7 v' eThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many/ F, ~$ t3 _8 o7 i
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; p" Q  h# H4 l0 T/ F
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
8 p# Q& b) c+ j* `% jour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 l% J# K, Y) X9 S, _3 BOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; ?: w, J% X2 Q% q' Q
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
9 y0 }) i9 }0 h- o* H: U3 xprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests! c7 R5 X7 I% q" V! T* }( m3 R
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ `: ^6 @4 j# }8 y) X2 a- u# @( y
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
6 [' A. T+ H- m) A, Tpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like+ f' q' t0 l: T5 B1 q
Nature.5 K; E) U$ R1 I$ l5 n
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
$ _/ a1 T( @2 |! Wthe Callaway report.
( H9 m$ q2 K- v" p1 O: I
4 D1 n% x8 s' Z0 _Yi9 S- e: w$ W& |9 I$ J2 s
' {- S. m2 Y: e7 q2 A5 b
Yi Rao, Ph.D.% y0 W1 Q( w5 g: J# V$ s( M  z- I
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 I" |# Z' b9 j+ d8 L( v
Beijing, China
8 H" f/ g3 `) C: J+ I; _! u9 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 ! H1 V( t3 l* E7 u! m9 `2 q; }
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

( }) z& Q) O% n' B3 _" n原文是公开信。
8 _$ Q) t3 Q* u* @( {1 @# t! I* V3 X1 U4 g, R
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 5 t- s( D1 X. U$ O: m0 r
原文是公开信。0 {. p$ H+ K9 E' N
: O, V. ~. u1 N( G% N% ?
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

+ W' V: I+ K( O9 ^谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG( _4 l( e/ H7 Y& N9 S
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! s7 }, W3 \" P0 @

: `9 ?0 @0 Z( \. e& [+ Jhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
8 U3 z; T( n  B3 s2 V, {
* Q9 l8 |  t, L" M" ?6 M. AFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! L! p/ Y0 A( s+ [: l7 H. R
+ f0 U" F: B- s/ _, I  ~) B7 VIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
' p! l6 A  g( l/ W, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science( o  D. c8 ?# H- R% S' p
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& l; ?# E0 U/ q) O# V. m9 [6 g  t
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
1 H% C- ?3 t" ^/ ]: \scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general+ I( C! v) b  `
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 q; R6 ?" O4 O8 D3 v: R, D- j/ rshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,1 c" a" r6 I! {1 C% U( o. g3 I
which they blatantly failed to do.
) {  F# i& a% L3 R3 C% J
0 ~. a% R' g+ y/ ~! f/ |First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
' q$ c& L) h0 G0 ?6 m. \Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
5 [6 s4 R3 G1 e4 Y& T6 Q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
9 q$ D! X7 W* \! v, `1 `anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
+ P! v( R0 [* c- Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 L% C  X4 @4 g6 _; `# G% zimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the! L. T- z. \9 p% I2 Y, U. ]
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
& t- _$ j! `- W4 a. _  [( A5 nbe treated as 7 s.7 ^; V; m" c6 M/ G( K

. _2 ^1 @. F' A$ o; ], N1 ^Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
" X6 Z. x9 a2 @6 E! N8 F% C* ]still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 D8 q* C7 I$ m5 G# D# q/ wimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
4 {* \! F; I  k+ BAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 Q+ V6 g, i0 N5 I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.' l" S6 J6 g$ F
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 K7 z8 Y- v/ [! p% l
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
- ]# U" y3 ?4 g  B. C2 Fpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”# b; ~, n4 w0 D2 V  N
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 w% S5 ~' G2 ]$ Y3 j& |

# T9 \7 g, I' JThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook6 H: c: U$ L2 D; `; q
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in1 P1 P1 k# _! o1 {( a" Q
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so4 u) N; f" q# p3 o
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
$ s3 x) m3 u0 X; p& J  y, nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s4 B6 a& t# o" q, ]6 w* y  _5 z3 t+ e+ \
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ s7 v- n- z" v0 c
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another# W1 ?5 A5 y1 t* ^2 I) p9 m
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other% |, A+ Z. H0 @: S; n
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle9 Y7 Y$ B3 o$ ?4 n
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this! q5 x: K. n3 A- [1 T6 a) i0 E
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 E5 F* L4 E/ p* }+ \
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam/ w# o% H4 w8 D; _7 K! ]1 R
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ w& q; |- ?( J' _% @& Q3 K
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ _9 ]; S. x; M8 R  h  U
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
. I+ m& s0 G6 X3 e5 s7 l# C, r& t" F4 v/ X2 w
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( m+ W  e. \3 r  V2 Xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
: X8 L% P1 u- bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: g6 C. |# D1 o7 e), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns) W5 ^% W9 o4 z+ a8 n
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
" O3 S% q! q5 `3 V$ y7 NLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& ^( ]5 @. b0 x" y. |/ lof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 j6 K0 S# Z* _4 rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) O# h2 d' O5 s9 a* l8 e/ y$ ~
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' Q: P1 [( ~7 Q: G  P; q& Pworks.6 @# C) N6 _- V4 J

) h% {% G4 d4 H$ g! U, M8 B' `Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 u3 E# j5 d6 z- A
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) Q$ F3 l$ k5 p6 F' bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 g8 O2 I% `! D' p. i/ Tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific) R5 [" q0 _2 D
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
# A0 R( X& B8 m  a4 G) ~% h; Jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One) z9 Y  ]) i! r  o. k
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ `( }7 j9 f4 p2 n) E3 l0 `
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% Z; Z5 U5 Y( f+ z  G1 X
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* D. ~6 J$ X7 l, f/ E
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
; R1 u" l7 ]5 f1 Zcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
* i; ?. ~: X% i( N: hwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly+ ^, A7 U" U) z+ A8 \
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  C% U8 u! u9 Z9 K( x. n/ s# w2 Q
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 O" a/ W/ [" N9 m0 o. B
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! [6 a& y# u6 ~& A
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
2 Z- F5 r! ^& v- ~5 E# H4 ldoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- B9 k$ R0 s8 @& ]/ k8 ~be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 W' F& m9 w0 Ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( v# m; `' B4 d5 ?has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" b7 D8 G; ~& @7 m/ g4 ~  [, }
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
* c) Y1 G( I6 ^3 N  W$ xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. o- ]4 }) n+ b% `& W: K/ k' c
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
- z, V$ ~* c0 @2 K9 y2 @% Oprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an7 u0 z( R4 ~. K& Q0 I! v8 g
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight) x3 e, ~: {% q
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* N% m. ?% H* VLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 Y' _) i* P- _0 E
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
2 a" B' k! a. _( ^, _- leight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' s# ?1 W3 z: d" O' O3 pInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
( H) j7 h$ T8 U" {; u9 @: r- u0 G1 N: R6 X- U
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% c+ j9 D, n- @+ n% N9 E
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! N! r% S: }# c+ t- l
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 A/ S. m- ~/ T1 }2 [
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' [! x3 e+ m8 c
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
/ ]- @% m4 a% c  F$ P# Q/ E9 hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 B9 h4 H" d  m* S: Q' wgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
5 k7 q# i/ J% B. u6 R2 Jhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a/ E6 |7 T, a4 c  A. X
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this( w1 X3 l5 q( ?
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye." o. Z1 C/ `, t! K; U6 Z; c
  F* [4 r# S! v# r* i& f0 j* G( R
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 i. _- y6 o7 t3 h0 I: Wintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too. i& W+ a! v# ^4 ?- {9 }3 r3 l3 f+ A
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 f  r; r: `% o* `9 nsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 X" i+ }5 \1 call the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your/ }( ?% u/ e, d* v0 D, a. Z& O
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ w' i5 O$ E" b4 ?7 ?) w$ k* lexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& E1 j$ k. X0 ]; h
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal9 s! O& s: t- }- K5 ~. j
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or$ v% i9 r$ @/ n! l* 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!
大型搬家
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, 2026-2-17 07:19 , Processed in 0.105234 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