埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2192|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
- S# H6 @7 k- u3 j( D  ?5 X) ]) L+ n( ~  j% s5 n9 b: e3 }
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( z- W/ g& }. G5 a, K' C3 \
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。
" W6 `- _; F6 J( S% v2 P/ s1 W总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。* a& X0 t" I5 w0 g% A% \( }. w

; |- J4 ^6 n% @: O- ?! Rhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 S: u1 H; s) |5 g
4 ~$ V9 D  d' Y5 y
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选' i9 @1 w/ ^- c; V7 k# P
' O+ }0 x% j" H3 U; ]
英文原信附后,大意如下:
5 ~. [% e7 v* Y" b8 F
# W# H8 R& ^- x9 b, L) v斐尔,1 z$ v" H* v* ~. k2 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
/ k) ]0 |8 K! e. T6 Femail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& m. {9 N; b( S6 D1 R0 X; 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
6 B& ^& J, O) @3 D( a0 H  c8 Z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, ]9 L: R3 A% H$ u" W5 ^
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。  \8 ?* z1 N2 E
       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3 x' G7 z$ n& C+ }
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" w, z  B& s/ D* ~( h; B. ~+ m' Z
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4 N6 B# s- r: B0 p3 Y7 ~5 t
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。
; V5 ^% y" P' `) N* Y; |; F% e       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
% y7 u  P2 P9 Y,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
1 o/ e# d. G: P; c" E* J, F”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。( y* O3 u9 y, N) ?
       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
2 H8 c! M; }9 x7 Q& ]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 C2 X* I# f8 n- t. L,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
) J4 }7 v3 j) y6 x+ z       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+ G, C' G7 r# i2 v- \
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+ q! O' i; G! p! E
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
8 I( V) ~) w4 P# D0 I5 t: t3 O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
1 B- J+ q% r" Y9 d2 U300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六# ]0 m- b3 ?' _( `! q
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3 v* [' U* ?1 V9 h
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3 C! U6 w/ m0 T4 b$ T
。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
/ v* z( D. t- E. @录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。. ?6 H7 S; k' R1 T2 o' t# X( N, E) R
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
% r1 e- g9 X( r7 A+ }! X1》,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, ~6 ^3 w  v$ c1 H7 p3 e
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
* C& F% s& \, y1 A, P1 p1 m同意见的专家。$ M; g" V; ]) a4 u
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
4 ^' X% F2 V8 g# i3 C1 ?1 }/ @. |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. D" I7 z6 A, P
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 P: h4 @3 a, k- X* z6 `
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
6 r" m! n! r* _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)
/ \( n1 A/ w  [0 e8 O. {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+ Z& {0 z' T0 a' y* Z5 j
《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$ B/ V# d9 B0 z3 N
这些被Callaway忽略。- ?) f$ B- k& i3 F! K( E: q) K/ C
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 h8 K; M8 Z) w0 T: U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5 H+ c* u/ J9 k; s8 G: i  D/ A
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。* R% O* S+ \  V& Y
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
/ m5 s/ L% ?; a1 V! S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
" ~; b2 `: _- `6 A* {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
7 N, `$ n7 d. g, H' M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。
4 R. n& T4 I0 }5 E% z% _( Q% h# z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
# T, j+ J( H/ n. h* k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
1 f5 c. P+ L+ ~. L7 L: h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; [" @) R" }* m( d" I
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。; c* U7 O2 J$ r" e* ]3 n
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6 }7 Z: U, ~( I) t% H! X
弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问1 k2 A0 r$ |/ V; T. x1 W: C
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+ O$ V/ j" R) g: z7 I
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 q5 X, \6 v* `  m9 r
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
" P/ _1 N0 i$ N  l而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
. M+ u2 m: \0 d! x) L& P我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。! N' k# d3 @6 _6 L0 P

: p* I& d8 D# J# N& f
  Y; _; y( {5 _' ^) q北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅8 B0 X' y( A% Z, x, t
2 V9 J$ M; R9 L: M9 g& @
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结4 k4 b3 U* z! c4 J4 ]; k
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
( v/ M0 A$ f& o8 v附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 M( n% i" f. a1 t1 D3 _附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
, {  j2 o# o7 @% o0 I& \4 \: @4 W- h
) T" K( U  K9 c5 ]1 l* F1 e) Q; V9 v; z  K  _' ]: y* l4 D; ?
. z3 @! g- j# d( }9 `
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)# i7 O" f3 N* Q0 V
Dear Phil,
2 c: i" e3 t( m) P5 d+ @# H/ o       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s3 y+ H; ?/ m, i' D  f/ k
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
6 e& a5 |2 }' S, q. Ghours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed+ {# ?" S& b) ?; ]  x4 X, _) _
you.
$ F' X( g0 O- y, v4 E       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, _) W# t; `: s: G, ebrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; w7 j6 [: Q- i! G+ u/ P$ g% wreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
  v1 w: O* A5 D$ bworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature' E/ C* l4 R& _4 B9 I0 U& c0 M
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
1 V/ O. j/ O2 l( {3 rseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news5 L# Z! e) x' c% v9 d8 l5 I" t
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.6 i6 t# C. M' O: N6 F( `1 T  I
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the  X3 v2 ~$ ~& [: V- @3 u& S
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 l; ]4 W- ~* H, H1 P: `negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish( l9 w# u% @- `! u$ v/ L; O
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 n. O/ z( K! L, f& Mdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% [1 c- h' T7 q. `, Eexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
0 q8 K% l1 \: ]! q' ^2 z5 Qstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,4 I1 f. h8 l% ^* \
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone8 N5 d. M6 N) }9 m' ^' Y$ O5 K( a
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news) R: J/ c5 U( A5 ~  j7 V1 p3 O
reporting.- q! j# |  K; K# B9 T
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
% c6 D% H, I4 c+ ^! P7 Nalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
/ N4 M, z2 i' j4 kchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
6 S7 P5 M# w) Hsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A  j2 I2 `% `! c1 j1 y! L/ F6 Q
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! G9 R0 z' k: T' a9 m, s       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
; b% W" I& G! Y3 ~( ~more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
8 }, Z; y  C) bfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50  x. Y! T+ W0 ^( j6 a7 I/ i+ e! f
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
5 d: N* Q" g) M8 C6 s. Z, Levent for men, with the second fastest record.
  _! b- Z% q* \       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye$ E1 l& M% d9 G; o$ M5 T
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( b& }; ]1 c  @
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
  `, H: @! p9 }2 S+ `3 z# z. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
# X8 O, h# b8 ?: B2 [& Q3 d0 Emeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,# j0 ~- b/ h8 H( u: K
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
; \; {$ V" r, ~  \: e. KLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
( }' D7 i7 s. m" hbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
9 j" ?: U) S: R# ~6 {individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
& v! ^1 o* w+ Q8 ?  Bthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
& r* v1 L0 z. S8 m' d) W4 [# rthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
+ m, Y" @) M, V3 v# x  L& V  mher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then; m! b: G1 p9 C/ s5 T7 `: h
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# Q4 N8 K. l3 lproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
, g% s4 ?4 j7 mswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
' ]! M1 {* W$ W8 D# h$ H  kteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: z1 ?7 o+ ?( y: ?# n  r/ a# |  GCallaway report.
4 {& z, ?! b) g4 `) ?1 G6 JThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more; z( a4 ^' E) Y7 U$ \
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* x  p* R5 ^  O' s7 o) {here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description# ~% k3 q2 \3 G( y# z- w
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
+ w  t! \* f, s5 h" {) i! @! [better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. y0 m* g+ ?( q- W
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had2 O, |2 p2 g1 ?$ y
publicly voiced different opinions.
* I# k- `6 _/ `% qYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ F0 Q9 F4 Z. J/ s1 r5 X* B
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
$ g+ g( a* G; A' `8 HNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; T+ B/ T$ |7 H; z( Qpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 h6 m/ d4 \: [+ z1 Nyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy+ B% y2 R$ j' J- D6 k2 S- W
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.+ n2 y8 j8 P, g/ Q
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
7 j2 o) e! J% W7 Kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 n7 M" f2 u1 ^( Y! W: O  v% u
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as4 P4 J# n9 Y, M% ~' Y0 v. s' B
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
6 o/ S  [! K- ]1 X7 t0 o! hthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was; k, s/ P2 z! i5 w* u3 T6 m/ |
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.3 f/ e& E2 l1 [# `# n
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that  C# }) C$ l* \8 W$ b
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the; D  B6 C1 F/ O, x
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
0 ]' W% z& \  m" |& d(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she' [- f8 G/ m% |2 ]8 R
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.% {: H$ M* P& I& g/ ?8 x$ U) N
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science' ?4 O5 @" N+ Z- w  L
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
. B1 [* X. l9 p4 e; ~1 |2 KDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. t) w& s! S6 q9 zNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
. {. e! A9 w1 Z7 m3 tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- w# R# l9 n5 i- ?what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to$ Y7 q6 s9 H* h" B; u1 e
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
* S  ^1 B* X' i8 U+ H- l: Y6 wThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
8 s! Z/ X* i+ \) }1 ^6 Y+ f1 ^show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced- B/ ^1 Q$ D4 Y; T( e% R0 X. g
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 @: r% \( c+ O/ T  I+ Wfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
0 N/ q9 T3 \# e& Cthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' I  V( ^! ?# A
about British supremacy.
- W- @, G3 }2 G1 h7 L6 P  b4 s" BThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many8 R( l+ ?/ A1 w5 z7 ?
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more5 H0 Q8 g) A( x) P! v
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by" v1 W2 f. M, T* f  L0 `2 {% \
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
  X% u  W! D" P& A8 p2 t# LOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 U8 u5 u' a2 M2 q5 o+ f  [  v0 N
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
8 P2 j: p, w; U# F# \professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
/ e1 R6 g8 p4 ]) W9 Rbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,9 {7 z& [% M& y! V  ?
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
" T4 t5 G+ B1 L. L0 \! Dpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) J$ g  I) x. q8 I5 [Nature.
& y2 @) v1 b4 r* hI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance) o/ s* `+ [" `7 D7 r6 y7 J( i
the Callaway report.8 k! `, U& F1 x- Q2 S$ K- z
: `# X- E& L) `8 a0 c
Yi6 g# D1 ?/ m+ H4 q9 A
# y5 S" l( K& t! a& k9 N* k& m$ `
Yi Rao, Ph.D.' U9 x. l0 w% \+ C8 j- k' h
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences) D! t- A3 f& k" R  w7 C) H/ H
Beijing, China
/ c0 T- T* G1 q1 @, j7 {
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!!!
大型搬家
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
  J+ C$ e3 M" c" f4 B6 ?9 q原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

1 j5 h2 F2 r) V7 M原文是公开信。& L4 v1 w& E. E: J
! }5 X2 a7 s! v! {
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; `; a/ B原文是公开信。* i) C" k5 |7 c6 X- z

  X% r0 B% e- y. q$ R! F小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

' P' s. c+ a' ~( u2 U5 F1 B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 JIANG1 s  q: C' _  y1 ?' I- C
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# F' b3 F7 |% x, S: F, m7 B- D3 q4 C6 x* E! z  }
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
6 G5 C1 _6 Y8 c/ S
$ ^; N- W. a* [5 ?FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! N$ q+ q0 o/ {
8 p# O! n  n9 |0 R8 e4 @' F+ S
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 J' ~3 t' n5 ?" H  ], regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science! K' a, A  K: Q/ k9 K% y/ |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
' }0 o+ x6 b3 H& \is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
- S# U$ g7 h( |1 a+ tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
8 A+ y( n/ b) @5 S. _$ O. B# B8 C. qpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
& V% T# p- J! y  K0 f* oshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
& Z, l; _2 C' Swhich they blatantly failed to do.
- W  T/ I' G3 m* [. G$ T: F) J  {. U9 O5 x; P
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 I8 @; D0 l2 N" o+ D7 f% ~8 l
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in4 n( P# t8 r' t3 x9 M: j' y
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ b/ Y! ?5 Z0 c$ i; e- u
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: g- O  T9 _: ~personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
# n1 J! e$ S5 y! [6 x  U0 k* Mimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
1 ]2 ~# Z9 J9 m+ ]2 {0 B3 @* ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ h# i) }6 i9 C  c  k
be treated as 7 s.. F  u* |+ r+ e- Q+ S0 i. k* n

. D$ ~3 W* F  s& |7 aSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
8 `+ r: f0 \5 s+ L0 X8 v3 h  ^still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& M& s8 M7 P! ~( ?: q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) Y& y3 q7 |7 f; w6 K, r
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
  B: A% ?' b. J-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% w9 v% N. A  x3 R1 ~# m: w3 O
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
8 i" W( S# `& C& ]5 uelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% [1 r' y, s+ o5 t+ t4 v1 H
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
! w/ w/ B+ Z, Ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
4 E& u; L  T2 i
, ?  N: m! i6 ]; a! z/ y6 Q) lThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
* Z9 S( ]' X  z7 N: n8 ?1 N2 q) O- Hexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& N6 {+ O1 {  i  Y( n' j
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
( o! T4 v7 w, {+ N5 r+ khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: w% Z' Q+ Z) C$ Zevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s! r! }1 Q, A! C' k+ H% A
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 |  g3 B% F$ A! Y  P3 TFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
& J$ ~$ H6 Y& [7 n1 I. _/ [! _! @topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
3 }0 n' j; _" w( Shand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  h/ y% F7 x( R' c% _# y, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
- r# d4 f. o$ {! F3 X/ Cstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 z! e5 K: |( e
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 e7 Z8 Z7 Y. O1 C  @faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting! e; Z* U4 J, q+ U) y5 U
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 a9 \. u" q) F7 Rimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ F0 T8 h! ]: v; O# j8 ?

( s' m3 c" H2 x8 e1 oFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- s: u, k& ?( m. j8 Yfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
/ D$ E2 n8 _( b/ ?, ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
) \6 A+ ^' \8 l3 ^1 F4 P), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns$ `" N+ H/ T- O5 Z  {
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' G9 a0 N9 D1 |$ y* K7 ULochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind" D0 S8 T3 _! L/ u3 _' E
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
" B' }6 Y. m2 C# T" E1 j8 Q8 O; ^logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
  x0 y2 o. i8 G( v* devery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science/ g# I! l( y/ k6 T! [
works.. p# Z" D( I3 W$ S& l* X* v& B. A, R

; u3 P  S: r" N  pFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% K/ f5 w3 o# x: @0 V+ ]. K% z; R
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ [2 A5 @! F+ G( O0 O" N# W8 akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, R4 e9 x, L4 a2 tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: Q9 H, _! t4 Y6 n, R, h& w
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 ]5 u  X% J( g; _reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 N$ x2 }6 c  [. [) R7 I; `4 q" v: R/ scannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" ]  F0 W# G. s; \3 b
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works& j4 {. T. {% c7 Q8 t% B
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 }8 i" ]. x4 {6 {4 {1 C7 Eis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# r: M1 E0 e1 `: X2 r, P( X
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 G5 z  r% b7 n: g% x- Y
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
& T8 `6 M" K# e* }+ @( ?  aadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- u% [/ s3 B3 Z5 v
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- V' M3 i- h8 I9 X5 Iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
- l1 g# [/ y, A. k# S/ O. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 m7 j: s; P* w, |! q/ Q0 O
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ [) v2 ?, |0 c: i* S0 T# lbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a4 \, B/ M2 Q% j0 O: F& k+ k" Z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye  {9 Z1 A$ z" Q
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a4 E# J: m7 S4 \( S
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ N0 z7 |7 u$ Y* `) e
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. r. \  {  @, N
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ J9 ?4 d) u* R/ F& n' i' `probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an- }3 [8 L: D! A1 w$ s" d+ L2 ^, E
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight% @% c; x- h1 U: b7 t- b% D! A
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( X0 \( s; t+ r. pLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping" ~& h/ k( `. C$ k6 r; `1 ?
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
" M- p' V- i3 @% [eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.. t: q# m; ^( i
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?& G1 d  l3 c! N' k& S2 B( q3 }

" a* V* A5 g" K5 i  n9 a# ^Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-$ q' C% Q  F3 _- p# W- A# f' H
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
# c4 `8 O& e+ W7 O7 l3 u! I. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
* Q! e1 O1 C  s7 P2 H) {Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
0 _4 X" ~& R: B  J5 sOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for: ]6 |8 \5 t8 C: x' ~6 j* y# G3 A
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 [* C) O3 f0 `: F' ]  O6 O
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope, ~8 M# e# V& _( T2 e! V; y
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. {5 T$ M+ |' ]- J) A6 }- _player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 h5 k0 g$ o$ W  ~% E# \
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
) e/ r$ f7 v* g8 @8 f  _
* {1 s% Q  V) L8 xOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (  p$ N3 V; [+ [; B
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 G8 H. {5 f/ E/ ~* g; e" w. O
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
  @; \) L, G  T+ B" Z7 i8 |suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide. D' F7 |8 V# T$ v( ^0 O
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) z$ E3 o  W8 ^' L
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,9 B6 v& G8 o, z2 Z+ ]* @* u0 y
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
/ J5 u: R1 E  B$ n) B2 h+ y4 ~5 Iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
+ N) J% \1 {9 o3 `5 X( E! E4 Jsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or8 Y) g) n% n9 X$ d3 A, `) n2 v$ 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!
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, 2026-4-10 00:56 , Processed in 0.306358 second(s), 21 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