埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1941|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 9 k$ M$ m& Q8 W3 U9 r2 J
7 i6 L6 N+ B6 ^0 ?1 P7 Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
7 Z- G! ]" I6 b' m2 U) 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。: q+ o- m& y  U0 ]7 x( S* k
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。- i% q8 Z' E+ D4 c) F1 v" F. V

  ~4 I3 y' Q+ e4 p+ I. c7 lhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html% Y, b8 G6 H; l* L4 W* L& W

  ^0 h- C" n5 p: }* F  W1 g% W7 u致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ a& D! O, K% P& E4 a
2 ]9 a; e2 n% q' w# A英文原信附后,大意如下:$ o4 a! B) ?2 N/ w

6 c3 J+ j* D7 Z" x. e+ V$ k$ V4 R斐尔,
1 _3 x" ~3 e& v2 B; @* 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
  t7 C$ o2 A  @. q  ?email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
2 e3 h* R/ R9 r# e/ D. {/ N; W       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; I* E8 A$ P/ l5 m3 [
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0 j# b& x0 [: ]6 u4 j
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。
. m: \# u! t8 |) o  z5 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# l0 f6 s: R) S  o: u
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
8 Y* E* E: b# X* |2 L$ 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/ J4 z8 e# C; M$ |
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。6 I/ c5 z5 y' o  ^+ E9 M0 l7 A! [/ 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
0 `/ O8 R4 t, Z* M,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
7 y8 ^$ L, e3 z4 x5 a2 Q”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。4 G4 b, I7 `5 F2 t5 a1 J
       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
5 W8 o  X  i# v( D' [0 Z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
; \2 v# @( G6 _8 }  i, }% s; F,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。' D6 n: v( O* D. h" H; ~8 d
       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
2 v3 W- C7 ]2 J' H3 x3 _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
8 b; K- n1 [' p* L6 u) L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) o6 @, E: `1 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
! l" N4 I$ Y/ H( `. {+ j+ w300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
$ V, Q5 h8 B7 }7 O4 N$ h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+ D1 U7 T8 P) x; q% Q# Y
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" e' m9 n. s/ L
。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
' y& ^& k* V# q录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
- u1 z( X" W: o( n$ y5 n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3 ~2 ^  _4 Z8 Q4 I
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2 I! |1 _/ v. l; S8 d
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
7 ~5 O; m4 R' ?. B, Y# p- Y同意见的专家。% A. M/ [* D8 n8 R. Y; 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
2 _5 `! a5 B4 M% E  W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
; h# }4 Y3 S% _! e3 h: X) g9 T; y学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为8 X+ ^; {# A5 S  q1 w8 o
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。3 G. Y1 {* ]$ l$ |
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)8 U# \+ ~8 _4 }" G3 l
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
2 P8 C0 {& d: 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& z3 Y1 j8 ^7 J" A0 `
这些被Callaway忽略。6 g5 s" w, I3 t" v0 o  F% o+ ^
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
: _* T/ K# H: ]- T5 g7 c9 z8 L英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院8 I- a6 A/ }2 H
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
* I. J7 _1 ^5 F. G- l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5 d& ]* X+ a, b# h: O; `
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
+ m  B2 h/ B" D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
9 D& e/ B' t' t8 ]$ S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。
* @, O) J) \" H) d# `% _+ V/ R. h; s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
+ B- y! ^1 J& s7 b: X0 f, g; d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
  m! k1 m2 t# {( s" y5 l0 y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6 k* D. [/ L0 |. w
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
$ B0 e# i1 `* s1 S$ m7 N2 \7 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% v4 p9 i0 M# Q2 v% M' |- M$ d# N6 s
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
/ t4 ]' W6 V% 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) I$ H( n* N8 ?' G/ W& t
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3 V' {$ E+ w0 c! O' L6 E- h1 }
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) L0 @0 z- e) S- Q- M
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ N+ U& _5 w1 s  J  |9 V
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。, L) N- S* d9 K+ l, ^: R7 t

. d. t% g; ]( t' |2 F: \
0 s5 y$ h* N. s北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅9 Y4 b3 j# l) Y* z
8 W7 T- k) M# Z: I, |
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结2 p* @7 u1 _; q# S
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
3 ?# e$ F) M; M3 ?+ i附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
( V# Q! h' g6 k% c% S; O附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见( y: N, v0 W' }) N4 j* e1 B5 _) Q

% O) i* R5 |: S0 ?/ Z* K! f: _
0 m6 I2 h$ b7 A2 q# G2 y; J; G
4 h5 }) E3 G% @9 s, l" w9 y原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)) B' @' o! p9 U
Dear Phil,# e: b* Z: H9 A
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s2 W( |% J/ p8 {" c0 I$ i6 \9 V
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
" f) o! o. ~2 d( H) |% _" o9 lhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; p/ ?; W  o. Vyou.$ Y! E, C% K" r: _" b5 B$ a
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( q$ ~4 t# }3 a" K' Bbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
1 V0 g6 N& T, k6 q  b8 qreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the! G. K, ^. `% I# m+ q
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature! J- m  R6 C; y2 d# e: O
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
% X2 N' W( \" c, _4 rseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news/ w& K7 v% [& h# R5 A, T1 C  Z
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
% a" F0 i' q( y) p       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
, e8 N9 q  W5 U( bworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
  C. ^" V, v9 G2 Anegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
* S, K: T5 \! B0 y+ P6 `1 s1 ithat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
/ G  L0 |" u! u0 k# O" ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping" r# S- X$ d* ^- Y
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
$ h: [. L$ s5 u: Ystandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
3 ]4 x* ^: z* nand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
. F8 z6 l- x3 f0 N3 F3 Mto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
  B/ o  c7 E4 J2 l. O" D2 K$ Hreporting.( p8 i3 _1 {. m' O0 J- P7 O! \& k
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, p0 E8 ~& ?. z  g* ]" a
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by7 b! x, `9 W" t5 k0 L3 d
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
5 Q; A$ s  S# {* t! M' jsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A- ]! x8 b* H3 n5 |, f1 R
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
. I3 m0 ]# i! _) n+ w- l       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
% o, u' u1 m& a  Bmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds1 D5 U$ {. x4 f
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
4 l) I5 u" p/ ^  vmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
1 c# |1 A0 i/ R% j/ H/ j! _/ r* Eevent for men, with the second fastest record.; z1 @! [) [7 w, L
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
* j7 o" z9 E9 h- s) U* X0 Gwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
  x' q$ D& F7 X& b% |year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record" Q8 I8 p9 z$ u& ^4 X
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
) C. y3 ]( s9 a! j" G( W/ s& v& i4 p5 pmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,3 B; h8 f, E* P. u6 q; L; F, A: ?
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than0 c9 g2 K1 K/ s" a- R6 m
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed- `2 g" Y9 ]( w
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
1 o2 o; W! ]( H6 J# F% x% Zindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower5 @. \: F" E! }9 d" ~3 j/ E9 D. f
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
' \3 k# a% a% B: M( M3 nthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was0 T( V$ q  C2 J" B5 o
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then8 S4 n5 W- F& V: A
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “# H! D% P. @) j8 r. m+ U3 l* l
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other3 I! o7 c3 I1 Q- P8 d8 G, P
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the" Y  c5 ]5 E$ V. u& r
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
9 l$ ^/ U0 P. U; y. U" PCallaway report.
1 ?1 V: _) H7 X& X6 B& D6 H: EThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
8 V! ?7 l1 o9 K5 i; R' P* punderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ O0 L" g; r' ~' `8 ghere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
2 [* `8 A; A' rof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been( M! f& y/ x; y
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
4 h. P$ q1 {0 ?; k8 UWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
6 F. g" ^* ]" Bpublicly voiced different opinions.; |& T6 K: N& t* Z
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
0 M( e  c9 l0 x3 W; M" T$ I4 Bfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
5 }, }  O) i4 O$ RNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent+ G1 o9 e. Q; h9 s  b
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
0 e# K- f' i6 _/ \5 dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
! C* ?6 F% l; ?2 t7 T0 V0 h6 f5 nof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.' e$ U+ F4 `2 L& ]' Z
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
( v# K0 W0 S1 W. i& qthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They2 o2 I, T9 Y( T
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as; {1 b2 w1 b% h+ d* P
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that: j$ E/ v# e( i
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 A( q% r- Y  T. y: `6 a) Q7 ]supported by facts neglected by Callaway./ V1 S* x+ q" [  d9 V1 M& z/ U
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
9 A1 R( M0 s; t6 Wmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
% F- t9 b5 P9 t: k' V* \/ Y+ eChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
) A. x- A! t& L% P* V& M3 q(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
0 Z8 E0 U/ h, T% jand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
" y+ D6 F4 _2 e& J9 }5 V: M- Z5 RThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- [' P0 h4 H: B  ^$ Fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
9 A( @" Q3 [: d1 v' m& W) |7 k; eDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
7 s' Y, Y# l9 ]Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and$ J% s' h* L. W4 T
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
5 i& q5 r2 K9 w1 Q! Q8 zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to$ P* ?: O& B8 t! v) `2 J
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
+ o; [4 y# E% k3 X- w5 k' q" wThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not& i, p7 v* ^; K- n* k8 @( B
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 \1 E  x+ O6 Lus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: }$ R$ s( W" `* e
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
& \) [7 @, z$ w4 V0 z$ ithis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
; V: j' E' `$ ?( H. Babout British supremacy.) k! d/ ?& b0 i: X% [4 h
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many. l& u  T9 g7 m- I# `# c5 y. c2 I
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, E  X) }+ }9 o* xChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by4 j, U3 m9 G+ q; e
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
3 v! F. ^9 `: QOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
3 |! r7 R7 h. CYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of1 x6 q! I4 X4 M, c4 \
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
  O) w; b6 g6 W3 K. vbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ y% l9 K! a, Y
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
4 K& v  P( Q% k* X. n) ppublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like9 q. K/ R( \7 I  Z# C
Nature.
8 r" d2 v& O$ f- `+ O9 SI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance3 K3 S8 L. }. n0 u3 W; g$ ~
the Callaway report.! C% \6 U0 R& H8 U, `
' S: m8 v" g1 b* v
Yi% C: R  L' x& V9 J" E9 s
! j: S" \3 I3 U7 b
Yi Rao, Ph.D.! }" ?8 u, k: C& a0 L
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 v' L4 y! K& _2 G: n( `+ jBeijing, China
$ |( j& n" X0 r* d& d
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
5 h/ C3 t" Z: C$ Z7 }原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

. ^- p7 t- T" v6 _4 K/ w原文是公开信。
3 \# M7 R5 U- d8 H* G6 b: g* K2 V3 E1 G* }1 }( P" V5 |* P0 G5 w
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
8 }5 c& i& W7 q8 Z3 r/ E原文是公开信。/ w. ?' n. W& x: G; o9 B6 f" C# J: r

/ n/ M" V4 r2 U) M0 E5 E小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
  t- `5 p3 x4 v+ ~) X+ R0 U
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
* Y1 h  V# o9 N6 L. W9 {* e8 x7 t如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ E$ u* W" F2 k0 U& b) g; Q  |& Q8 P1 e) f- x: }
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html! X0 g6 F! O8 ^- w# O/ ^0 M
) C5 K6 ]. P. Z, Q2 |
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 s5 Y% m+ I: {( ?1 V3 I1 ?
2 |3 F% A: n6 h* ~6 |; l% bIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 f5 i* v4 r) T. E$ p% q& N- A/ ?, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
. k0 T) |/ ]' p7 ^magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, \1 a6 u, T  G
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 T& ?( x  k" F1 D! V, R2 T5 u
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 m9 @! X! e0 Xpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ `9 d0 r) P3 F9 a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,, j+ H7 I2 q" b: j" v0 q
which they blatantly failed to do.
; V' z% q, C/ T. C2 B( w- i1 M( H" ^
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
# n$ l2 ?  F8 j* COlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
8 J; `1 N# O: D4 @3 K+ }8 D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 J& y, u$ q; W# lanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous, \* _! ~5 o1 l' L8 ^" |& u
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an7 m( s) k5 j2 L
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
  h! N: X2 v1 K! pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to& ~9 Z+ w, f! q, c9 q
be treated as 7 s.
0 b" H' j, w- X& N, H3 p3 a& F- _, |5 P& q* \, B" O8 u! C
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' \* p: v; ~4 b. Estill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem- X3 j; e* Q7 y4 A
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.7 @1 N! y# E# I9 }1 k; W9 I9 {+ Z2 ]: h  p
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 v/ b& ]8 o+ h' K+ U9 z. p0 _
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) [# c. C" h! i* l' k; a8 EFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an# y% W* O1 @3 t. U1 v
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and. D9 ]3 z3 y, i" L# x% m+ d1 V9 D
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: ~; ~# z' Q4 L% pbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
) \9 j$ ?+ L+ Y* M8 A: }) |1 F8 S' s5 ^% D' ?3 h% D
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook) U2 W( u, ]' D1 k
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 n' o2 C8 c& A' pthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 L' [; s  L( v) |! @4 h' ?0 lhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
6 o# X6 M. o# V1 Ievents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* b7 I! G/ ^% h" B8 C  W
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! p; L( g6 `8 @. m; j$ H- q5 g
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 I3 W0 j( x% }/ m* o7 W/ Ztopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other2 Y% r2 p0 f: L5 S
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 ~! ?5 r$ s' t3 s2 W1 s/ M; U, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
% N4 i! u' Z7 w: ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 J. O' f0 p- s
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam# H4 P9 U/ |# y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 w7 q' h% ^. g* e2 ~8 g# N) Kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% ~9 c+ O, K( O8 y7 K
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.0 ^5 G" R1 @$ z& F9 b" r! b8 Z

+ Z9 E/ q$ @& z) Z% u  ^2 |Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ o9 a. Q8 T6 s. ~four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( g# V, |6 k1 Z. us) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s# V3 i4 U5 n( f$ L" }" _
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
1 S- ]+ G9 e! [out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
$ d) B9 f' P5 z) l, D5 h. d7 |4 ?Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 t* X4 [& Y* k" c) N
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 h( i8 Z, L; I3 V5 I' m
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
. y8 [+ z1 e# a0 S, h1 n. s8 _every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! s+ ~+ U! q' w* l9 T' y. s3 a, Oworks.) r0 A1 R8 L  s

8 W5 |/ V! O) w: cFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and6 H% M! P' W$ \% @; d2 w8 _0 ]
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
0 v) t: b6 l! ^- R5 Ckind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ l0 ?/ X7 x0 V$ `standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ j( l. Y. }5 O! ]- spapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 e- R0 x6 g2 Z% G! H( u! ~9 u; Ureviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One" |: i! S4 F4 ]9 V
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: v- ]2 W' i  u/ M0 }* s! ?demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works5 W8 D# s, O6 y' T% f/ z4 x  N
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample  d  K# w2 c) U4 T
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# e/ x0 A" k: Z: |  M# D7 m
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
  i# Z# S/ l; ~0 P$ w9 Ewrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 x8 [9 D2 Q+ i
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the! q, g# D, @) B* i
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- k/ j) |. z* ~6 P" V- iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; p, d7 q; A9 c+ l
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& j2 R# j/ I% ]' t
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may6 @1 Z. m- w6 r6 F3 n. k# c
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 f7 b- T  u8 [# f
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* ?, G% E% T- E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ J8 a  Z5 c- e# Q
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ O8 H! w0 P4 @( L8 `
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect; r( ?5 i) k! B! @! H) F
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is+ K7 b5 R, k/ \5 l! C: `& T1 a
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 Y" \' J2 ~& D' [4 N
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
$ U4 {  U. q: E4 Z) l9 ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: w$ ^; l  i! r' T+ fLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
) k' c5 i: @7 y$ h% r& [: n3 L+ zagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
9 n. i: r# i. v: Ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
. Q% ?( I6 ?8 c: p. v/ R: u- @4 m! KInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: A+ e! i+ I  G! q  H

1 D/ v; V' h3 O. |! x, [* wSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
+ x, D" J% ^) b" j( Z  Bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
( D- ^! D; b' z2 f# ]* Y. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
5 Z2 e) h+ V: e& D( W! a( |3 h! d4 fOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: b. j' A) ?8 d" U' a% Q7 F: B
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for( A6 V4 m2 V# \' \1 g. Q
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
1 l8 v& [; d4 J! j7 b5 M7 U  egames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
1 U5 \$ Z( M6 Y9 X- Z) L6 Ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a5 I8 F# a) M7 p) b5 T
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: h( U) y8 r, h  ^! B9 \/ Rpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.+ R' W% ~/ x9 r1 M8 C% n+ O

, A- z' C3 U: V* g. ^9 [8 T4 QOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (* |  X4 e; B, X' E- f4 d- _' {
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
5 h4 Y" k5 }" b* o! p1 N1 I/ gsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 u2 _1 f) L$ h: h4 G1 ^suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' C' c" K; i+ c
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ ~1 _6 a/ p1 D6 F
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
, w( |' P+ `5 l+ ~& Q- |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
, Q# V/ G* ~7 G" K; Jargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
: x" B( K4 m1 S! asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
% V5 [, v, P0 e% _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, 2026-1-18 04:58 , Processed in 0.139285 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