埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1880|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 4 \8 a' e" M' \2 h0 E" S

( |1 O0 X) ]2 H; R' F4 N* r  l饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
8 F! t$ _3 c3 R! @% B/ `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。
) P- I% o5 k$ d# ]% G! v: a总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 B/ v# e9 {. m" U8 X3 C( G
, i$ b" n  i) Q, d1 \7 _
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html5 A: u$ K8 t$ j" a3 t
, l4 ~! Y$ k4 _. U
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
$ x+ Q  g- ^/ T6 c) u8 V/ U# Y& ~
! x, U/ p$ w/ R0 S( l" d! V$ W0 m英文原信附后,大意如下:
: U* @. V) }* ]5 z( A5 I
& v& i! F/ y5 L  ?7 v3 L- M; F% a1 O6 w斐尔,
* m2 Z( }0 n5 O" 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
7 C, N! h( V3 z! W& J  Yemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
( m. P/ u* G7 m: B. c; g" C       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6 v) Y% [% 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/ Q7 C! W& Q4 o* V- @1 k; q( q
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。
; I/ j, R: n7 G# X" P       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞5 i+ c" d- a7 z( f
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
0 }: {8 ^8 t  E. X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; f' I2 @7 g. r8 Q  I7 B# S, @
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。: N* X; l4 i% ]1 ]" X4 w
       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
9 o5 p* \' y9 ?. X; N# ?,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. C1 v9 i; z/ w2 |% D9 l
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。) k  S$ H& c) z- R& T7 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7 \& l. }4 N. R! S- j
比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快5 [& v3 q+ M7 w! l9 c2 S; x
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 V5 h0 r2 [6 p/ ?) p
       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 k1 y7 w8 R7 c! Q/ m0 c
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; j9 c: I8 `. p0 g1 e5 t
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( ^0 N1 d! `, [
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
' Y% W2 P% n+ g; A5 L3 B$ F300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六4 \1 b: c( F; l/ L
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/ Z2 y$ \3 a5 B0 F# f$ b. }
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
7 C9 e4 Z& ~2 h! m。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( k9 s9 g+ C$ v) b
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。5 ?+ i; j) x6 j3 d- V
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
4 V; ~" n; s4 j' a+ g) w' h% t1》,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
% \0 k  g" L9 W& A1 J7 iWikipedia。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 j0 h/ Z: b4 K+ X% I& m
同意见的专家。& w, R- [" U6 z& W) ^5 @3 r
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, e  @6 F/ s% P- `( z
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+ ^! r( |! s! T% I' a, K
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 I: M7 M9 q6 V/ v. }
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
6 [8 F3 a% E  ^7 J+ 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)
& ~8 e5 ?  O# E% n" D0 Q3 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6 I* V4 F! b$ g. P! m  P- ~4 |  K; w
《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
- o* N2 m4 O  ~" a# N' z# u这些被Callaway忽略。2 I, j( y% h, m# ^# U
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2 E* }& L0 ~- J0 V8 G+ 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1 Z* ?$ B/ t4 ?# v( m
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  P) p  F+ U* F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' C/ i0 S/ p0 D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4 z  G. g: ]/ f4 C
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
# ]/ t2 ?/ |- F9 \5 N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。" }- Z" k8 A* 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
: u' O: _0 Q" N* n. P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
* G6 v; K6 ~! a7 w% G1 L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4 y% G2 k1 K/ a
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
& S9 w8 m4 e% H  [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9 N7 l, @" H  N; h* A4 A
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
3 A, h3 R* z) ~" Y, X) g/ N& v( O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: Q2 p: E% p3 |' h
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
2 Z, D/ f) A. T: y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
6 Q3 k) K0 U$ {8 y4 e而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。" c5 z5 ^# y- d( k5 m# _
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
# `/ R$ ~1 T' s$ H& n) N3 o% v+ c  I
* I  m6 s8 ~3 z* H7 _$ Y+ A
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 J$ [. b, F) C1 l# M
$ k. X; n; B1 j' l  Z7 c: K
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
$ J( j' q4 s) c8 s$ k8 Y0 \3 d. N附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
$ G/ Y% i6 T: O% K/ {) W. e) d2 c附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 j/ s8 F/ w* }. {. K/ A! b9 |附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
- V1 b. V" k, p
9 M  h  t4 ?' v* \- r0 n' c) {  r8 _: u$ V1 I0 M1 b: c/ {0 z7 W

$ q# g( O& v8 l7 N原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送); [$ \1 F+ E5 }) ~3 ^& ~( m6 [
Dear Phil,
0 j" P. r+ u" {       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s) {+ f3 `) w. m) e
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) T" z( t) M1 {0 V. [hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' e* k3 i" g, L6 Wyou.
, v9 H" N3 u7 Q. T. n( _9 k) S( ]       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
! u; \* A! Y- u/ Lbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! Y% F$ \) B1 k& k2 l& p3 M2 ~! Xreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
. L7 Y( V  i2 C! n! c  @- vworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
1 Y% \# P3 U" M' K$ dpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! ]8 G/ u% D3 k  p8 _' Useriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news2 u  b5 p1 F/ E  X4 t* q2 L/ L
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
4 j. n) ]; n+ \7 \% A       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the+ ~3 q8 `1 E! Y, M- ?  f! H8 ]
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
! b1 F* x$ A1 \" S* p; `( Xnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish' i6 o4 n2 }4 d' H( W' n
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 _- ^# Y( Q3 m- ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping$ T- U# D8 V) n+ z$ r
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- e  ~' h6 D7 F7 L. X
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
; y# [! X# h4 `6 gand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone. \* \" l) L& W+ ]! |
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; L3 j  h6 c2 E0 Kreporting.7 I) q' _5 G0 [; x7 n0 Y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
* d+ t6 ^5 s$ D$ Z# ~already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 U/ F% I0 f. X0 ychanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
( k8 `( j3 v: p8 a5 @sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A; u8 S/ S- ?; u( L
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.9 m* o/ W) V2 S5 M
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
! v, m, ~0 K3 X0 }more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
6 m- Z; F  P' Nfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 502 v4 E' }+ @; V
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
6 n8 k. p( }6 S  d4 uevent for men, with the second fastest record.+ @' L/ ]# ^2 ^$ i, z) a5 ~7 l
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
, A) B5 T& J2 r' Twas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16# R7 T" s2 o; d; [3 Y0 Y
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" p9 Y; m. k* g% o0 R6 d. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. p) p5 c! h+ \6 h% ^5 `; imeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,& F" t  Z" p* [/ a; I/ k% `6 p2 h
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than( ^' S9 p$ l; ~
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
" |7 ~3 e; Y2 C; L, a8 A; Vbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
, q+ r2 e% Z: E- ]0 Lindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower! L# c0 @+ m, k7 B
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than. V  K3 W2 `& n# z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
, x3 l$ R0 a- iher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then* c) ~; I" C$ y
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “: @6 P* c0 n4 P$ W" k2 t9 A
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
+ l+ ^; s% Z: I4 P5 R% wswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the6 F' V9 R! C: m0 r3 \+ y3 s- m1 k0 l
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& n7 U& V' _: t3 pCallaway report.
2 L6 E1 }" L, X/ _# Q5 V8 fThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more/ S( S9 d# X9 c1 _" W) e* s
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details* E( u+ d' k) X5 @' D. c8 L
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description5 T2 l; n2 l# i
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
6 k0 C7 _; a4 G6 x0 C) xbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 ~. p9 c: W  R3 J6 c0 }& o
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
  J- x8 e2 q" A' Cpublicly voiced different opinions.5 g* J% y& x( U# J
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD5 m! h+ Y* O# p0 y2 j( n. ]4 |
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
3 s4 I6 J, E/ b4 A! f& r$ J' N; m2 mNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent/ d+ o4 q6 Z4 V% b/ C) b' \
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
" n, B. L" [' fyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
3 O* f6 s* d' N- ^( Nof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.. p& A- v  L! K0 [' N5 [& h- C
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
* H4 g, C2 @+ u6 v; }that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They- P1 L" H8 T, K, @# L
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
7 b" e+ g5 R  JAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that8 n/ C5 d" k3 z% y1 j. j% |
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
' ~( ]; R5 ]7 j% W1 vsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
. ^9 }! O6 R8 t1 c& k' c5 M- n" d  `! ~One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ o1 c; ^9 U4 |: _3 T
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
+ g5 H# ]* [2 gChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
3 x# ]3 k1 \. \* E6 I& [(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she" Z6 _1 V' ], o. O, C+ z
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting./ w4 N$ O9 H3 l9 J6 ]: c% g, v
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science" D' d1 U7 {' u: n
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
$ c1 G7 C* o& gDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.  _2 G+ W) n3 n+ \6 u
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
. k4 f# c6 g4 Q/ Sobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
) P5 x' m2 Y. Owhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to# [8 G# _( Y( h  i! ^* W9 Z7 u
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.) {: f' Z. {* s0 ^& J7 G
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not; }* x& H0 p1 M: l' d9 X
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 J+ T/ |5 k* b9 l3 m8 X  gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 B* p! h1 y, t- n" J& C
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" x1 ^8 ?+ R7 J. J
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
- N3 v0 W' r3 W: N7 N, p2 ^about British supremacy.( |1 T& S' Y+ V( ]. `2 ]
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many$ }; V5 @- T' [% b3 u
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
( `% r3 ?' j( s7 iChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by2 z0 Y3 e& i- c9 E
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
4 A2 [5 I1 I! F0 \- X3 q0 `Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases., g7 q0 }& [' m1 H7 ~* A, c- W
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
! d' z2 f3 d* A+ y& b4 Rprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests; d8 i2 C% ~; d( r. s' L. }% r
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
: ?4 \9 r( M2 oit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly( t' r; s9 |& ^. L: z
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
4 `" q7 Y$ F8 `Nature.
- p. G. i) Y: ]+ V6 q- }I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance4 J2 x/ n! ?( m- H
the Callaway report.! J% B  B2 z; Y% }9 t

: }  D9 H3 j1 O" [8 ]2 \Yi$ Y2 {; m  ]% R% p7 w7 F3 v

7 x2 F/ g) {3 I8 KYi Rao, Ph.D.0 _# R% [; o+ k6 U* p& V
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences2 S% p2 {( l# w6 G: A" T
Beijing, China
! k& l& O# W+ B* H+ x
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 B3 l* I5 E4 h" R+ `, M; L& h
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' ?, J$ M( Y4 [& c9 q7 k- v6 v2 {原文是公开信。6 b' ^6 Z- D! [

; R/ K" ?$ Q" e' n7 w( l9 {: b0 J( 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
2 _1 R; O$ r7 R原文是公开信。1 H" R! w  m  S6 P% j9 i
7 W4 c3 ^: @: I+ F2 p  W6 n: `
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 b5 E  v! X3 s: @" i' A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
! Y6 q; @9 }6 d: |0 q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 k+ `$ x$ D9 n: @( J8 g1 D

8 H2 W( B7 z5 p0 C! Shttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 G7 i- H1 ]  x
; T  x2 j. P0 g# U" ]* aFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! {2 p3 l' h+ g5 ]; v) b
5 B3 _  n! T# f! {$ U( E/ Y4 I% D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
: m8 ]8 u2 W# s3 S1 F/ K0 m% W, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
9 v7 _! y! W# T/ zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% F) e: q* O1 K5 P6 a" E
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the, T8 i% e2 ^, p  u
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general, U+ Z+ d( I/ |
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 ^. a$ K: @4 a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 r" Y* p6 E! U* e
which they blatantly failed to do./ Y1 }  t- i  y; w2 @1 A

2 u4 S( Q8 J% h/ M$ UFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her; t+ f$ x' X/ J9 y
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in% z8 \3 v4 w$ ^8 T5 }
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “3 A! x8 _; Z& [2 Q9 G8 f
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
5 L. S. T. @6 {/ K! J  R. m1 _personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
. G, C- e$ Y' v) F0 Yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the5 K$ G( z! `6 ]7 ^6 O
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ _- [, {3 k. W: A  D
be treated as 7 s.
- |7 h, t& ^- ?! Z; E0 Y
+ Q2 D& }9 B9 j7 J" xSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is5 y& o& j8 W9 P4 @" {
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem- }0 R+ s$ M9 J' P: E
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# u5 M0 T# ]1 M- f) E) ^7 e2 O
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4005 y, d$ @* H0 f; G4 n$ }
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* Z$ @5 X3 u! l% {5 w) H9 oFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an7 K6 q# B, b2 e& S
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 X# u0 m9 h( h5 Fpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# g' z2 [& W: ]8 u3 lbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, F. E$ U, ?7 U, l8 L7 F/ ]
6 {- e" W' s& \: c! [Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
( C6 j/ ?9 B8 ?  f+ p* J, h, _example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in; m2 K% B+ V4 f2 @4 @5 w+ R
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
+ R7 x2 r% N" }. G& Ohe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) Y6 C0 W4 x) l! ^events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ a5 {7 h9 }) u7 B' I* b# Zbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World0 T8 Z2 \0 Q' P! V+ s
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
& X8 C# z4 v4 p( C1 _topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
; q$ ]6 O3 E+ x- e8 {" w0 _hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
5 U7 v8 E- w/ U! f1 e# B, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 J$ Q- H0 J$ ?2 u! v4 gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ B' b' A2 V3 d; r1 o
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* N% [6 s# O$ c0 Y7 k6 Z' |faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
5 p3 |6 Y2 K9 Q" `& B! {aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ E, o3 O* N; z- c) l; V6 simplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 w% P: z' z$ m" F7 x
4 O$ a% M# W2 c
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
$ ~. D! {  X) e: ^four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) ~5 ], r+ a# l* q
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s, s4 o( b# j. N6 o2 ~5 ~- Z1 I
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ t8 S2 k( F% n/ A! ?& C8 |/ L; {
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
; T$ m6 s$ @' M/ qLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ u" j7 n: A: H. V
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it  O: v7 R) ^% r9 g$ H
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in2 W8 G" j3 ]7 f6 a* v4 t
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
: w9 i9 D" N9 D6 H" c5 Oworks.
' t* v1 _# }' W$ ]; g" a
+ P5 x8 \" V; ~  W. z- tFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! u% m6 @! I( M. a! nimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" h( i! S4 n1 s
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
7 P  M7 M% ]! L! O% Q( Astandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% H5 i9 V% F* z4 ^0 _/ X# O
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
" a/ w# B  `; r1 a, i, Zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
9 a. f4 s3 S; ?9 c8 lcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( b9 S0 _8 _$ b, y9 e1 Gdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
  f8 q, x, u& T+ Y/ K" O3 S* Pto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
5 b2 W; w7 F# s7 l% I7 Y- |$ u5 q" ]is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
$ u, y) V8 w  J/ b6 a; S$ Gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% i1 A' T- g/ a, t3 v1 u; ]5 ]wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly0 i/ i7 c$ Y% L5 [# ~
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
2 Z! u) S3 e3 K2 O8 Xpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- m, H& \# g0 u1 O/ buse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation% d: r* j1 h  w' X3 }  m$ W
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are! q% r5 h( R/ `4 i
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
/ b' G4 V! r0 [! _# _% Z8 hbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: v+ q4 D" z7 y' m# r; v* [
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
* O( o: o9 ]* Y" v' |has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
; M7 _% E; w! _9 W: X& idrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
2 a) ?9 h; r+ g5 ]9 P3 pother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect) W; x* g7 e2 E2 U
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) ]; n$ ]: N$ X1 u6 r0 Q& |probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: E6 U1 M! }+ g; W: z
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- b$ {' z$ D+ T4 D+ q: Z2 x) Q3 a. T
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: [, a& \; Z2 U  I* S4 L' A/ W$ L
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 r; B$ P3 ~; C3 X# Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 ~% O" C; v1 ]! Z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
8 S) ]( h( v, ~" {Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 k* O# O$ l4 W8 g

0 a! w% R( p# G; T7 Y6 U# dSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
: Q& R. X) o+ Q- d- o4 b% c0 y+ M: V3 ?competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention( g) P1 U- F/ d0 j" W- P: P
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for6 ]1 o3 N# \4 g1 n$ N3 E
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 X) z0 k4 m& P& B( I0 WOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
0 h5 `  Q6 ^+ l- m% V6 m7 Qdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic, _' V3 \' L, B; l6 d+ U6 K) e% q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope8 Z+ _0 p1 v' U, [* z- @
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, \, K9 a# s, L. J, Pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; \9 F2 y: g6 V' m
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 z+ l. L5 q% z+ ?$ Y- ?! o' v( ~
* F  h; s( ?# {) W: T$ M$ vOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
6 J  W2 [& |' G9 [/ m* Ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
- L" B+ M. [  e5 P- k0 Msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a8 f+ j! t9 ~1 A9 g; H! K
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
- V" I, _! W- Uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* F( E+ `% e5 c9 z' i  d, F' y% n
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
# y! p# k, F2 X# r+ mexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
4 m8 Q' m& P7 [! i+ }argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
1 H, l; x4 N) ~7 Dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or) d0 n9 r- v+ A8 c" l( 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, 2025-12-8 18:28 , Processed in 0.163161 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