埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2100|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 - T  y1 o4 o7 N9 U
6 L, `$ M8 V" e8 C
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( W: }" |# @- h
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。
* h+ R  M' Z- X5 d6 G% J总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
& f+ N7 u3 n  p) H0 r
+ t" Z' L: m( E" X4 Uhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
' W% w  y* p" Z, A( ?) N2 d" a! U% x3 V
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选  U8 o* M8 A. G
* z# Q9 p5 `1 r  q% K: m2 b
英文原信附后,大意如下:) E4 D" S' D' _' a& {
2 k, q8 s) W& w7 P: v' ]
斐尔,
2 h, f4 C5 X) X' F: [( z/ \       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$ T+ k# j3 |  S% Z
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
2 _# M5 W4 s2 M2 Z  B  ^! e8 V, l       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴5 Z; }0 D2 D" f' D2 l+ 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
2 d- W5 e; y6 z! S+ z7 z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。1 S2 O' [* Z( p8 n. O) b# r6 `
       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! _, q8 I9 o2 t
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  L# ~! }" w6 f/ e; W8 ^7 u' E
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+ o4 B7 ]/ _2 p) _- r1 P& {& V
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。/ D3 p7 R' q' C
       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
& M6 Y. M8 a; x# `9 |,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% g% J0 S7 X/ [$ \( L; b- V
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ X5 I5 r  i5 O( W; f0 G
       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
0 E0 j( E+ Y% Y8 n: ]/ O" j. a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
/ N4 A# a! g) p- E* i,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。" W7 }% c% ^6 |4 v
       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. x9 y1 T' }, c/ M# o
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
" S3 g0 `2 u! r5 w6 w合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二6 a$ W, P# q5 i) p0 n4 Q
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
+ B2 a/ \5 @& E9 I300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: d. @" y7 A0 h+ H- @# [2 i% @3 f8 t8 x4 z
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
) h" ^9 k3 _0 q& O1 O% ~2 A+ k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+ J9 B  s. _0 p" N) `
。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
2 P7 b, v) m3 U1 p/ T录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* F. V$ q- @: @0 j6 |6 v- Y6 E7 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
' u" f7 k! |( P  E* B6 ?& d1》,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 i" Z+ `! r1 dWikipedia。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5 C; d1 Y# x0 u. @6 N
同意见的专家。( |* v7 v* A9 R. \1 B6 T
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
! w  Q7 {! O0 i8 J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1 S: u; v2 s) b, f* t
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( C9 ^. e- p5 d1 O- l( a6 K" u: r
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
+ i% Y* N# b" |8 o# f' a% Z4 y- P5 rCallaway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! O& \% W+ E1 U# t8 _% v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! ~8 k. J( S' k/ {
《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
, Y' w6 N) x, P8 B* O- y2 T这些被Callaway忽略。
: O) K$ N9 O% P! O& z2 U7 E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 _8 h: K' i4 j
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
: M  A% |: f" g; |5 o. G9 `5 Z教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
# l" x" q# d; _+ p, t' H  I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4 m- P/ y; b0 b& c2 Y
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
- d. Y& n! v0 y0 H: I, C. E0 r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0 p' T/ ?! D  G* J2 Q
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 F3 t# ^, R  ?2 t+ U# b+ |2 F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" P3 Q9 V8 X5 r8 K, d9 ?- 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
2 l; C4 e' ^* N" `% `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
0 R' b$ {! ]% R3 \1 W”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
+ r% a4 I4 \/ |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
) y8 f+ F# ~) K2 a  P: l9 V4 X% M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% @+ U: j: S! M) a
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
; A% ?% n- J* }$ `9 u. n+ H& o! 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
- M/ z2 k% ^+ X* `4 S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
4 m: M$ x) L0 u9 A* D) N# f而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。3 \  L" g3 t+ b9 `8 o
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。2 P) N+ \8 s; d+ O0 o
4 a  x8 ?, c7 J5 N
$ _" _$ H- T! P5 o" ^9 ^
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: e) t. j0 y8 N) W
) e3 {* Q4 Y; `/ I2 x
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结# S4 S9 J9 N6 p1 s/ ]6 B
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
; n$ L0 m3 d" \/ Z  ~1 z. H附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见* U: W; r' x" R0 u4 [& N. E1 k' C
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见! ~' n3 D" J" Y

7 \0 X/ P# r  g
% D4 x% p% q4 `* G# N' N: n8 r2 Y. O; @- I2 V, a; p1 E! x8 Q1 M/ Q
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)& E# _2 ~3 _3 t+ j
Dear Phil,. ?. H) {6 Q$ V+ v6 M6 s
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s5 b: c( h+ g0 w# n
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
/ B3 S1 Z, n5 u; z. Y$ S+ R& z# t$ nhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
! L  e+ M0 J$ k7 t: Ryou.3 K; `) v2 z& q4 f: I6 v
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have7 O7 P* t4 ]$ P' x/ R
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
6 M% L3 ]" y" ~5 Ureaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ Q- R* h9 ]0 w. P! \" F8 Vworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
. W) g8 {# _* N. U: o5 O' jpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more0 p( y) i8 k, V2 m  ~: v! }  M
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
% R3 J  L- m0 D0 m2 `1 gpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
, x. J4 e$ d9 S       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
  B! {3 i6 J$ L$ rworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
3 B) V' |7 i2 x0 @negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! b# {. C! t; S! O- M. E4 @% {# Kthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway" |( S5 Q: N" y% j& q0 k
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
* H: i3 g; u6 Q: m+ N9 _! _' {! bexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
/ \3 g9 s& r6 w7 g9 W6 ?% Q% Pstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: ?/ O3 Z% S5 X3 y, y* ~. Fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
4 n6 \# z8 s# R4 o/ ]to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news$ H3 ^: k: d# ^( Y
reporting.' f3 n5 w% s. a0 h( b8 L. L
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have  R6 |: C2 A: ~
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by) z; C- h: V6 Y( }* c
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in# K6 l, ]2 l, Z
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 n& y% Z. U# e' [" T, D4 P
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.# N$ i3 v; @: ~* U/ Y
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem& b$ Y" G; V% e5 H) t# v  D: r
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" @# \, O& }  t# z9 a2 h
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50( S" W4 b3 Z- f' ~) a: a
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same, }% P# z5 @0 O9 D+ e4 [$ Y5 C
event for men, with the second fastest record.
0 h& [! K0 w2 H# O9 p       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
$ |" N, q5 `2 d3 j+ l7 t7 H; o" gwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16, r  V/ y- ^6 v0 j2 X% l
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
& ~1 P& A+ i' ]. f+ a9 `1 X. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 }7 \1 c9 p- {& Umeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
( Y" I, j. S) k5 r; d# ufor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
; I; S' |: h; U  m' l8 MLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed/ Z6 j& f5 I  l
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the! z  ^0 E0 W* C
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower3 V; _" c, d+ ~$ I4 o5 S
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
  y; @' t( r' M1 k& Y4 {those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was* w8 ^) H8 C, |2 p$ Y
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
& ^. r, D- Z$ Zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
6 u: l3 T8 I! b" Uproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
0 ^$ |$ d; @" C' Tswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the, x$ O! ?" a9 G% U
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the6 X& L# a- \; S2 z( J+ r
Callaway report.
4 w9 \* R' N! o: p& m- gThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 X0 M$ ]- o& F& p
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
3 |7 O% y- p" O4 b8 o# z( _here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' V# D# E! }5 R  T3 jof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been2 g& x1 d/ e* q4 V8 }2 h8 Z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
6 B. F. {. ~/ @/ r! rWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had4 z" c) |* }/ R, A6 J/ Q
publicly voiced different opinions.
9 W+ v6 p$ Z( R6 o/ d% G, C& ^You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD7 t" X& Y' g4 `( ~3 o" C2 T/ n% Q, t
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' j- z0 `3 {! D
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
1 y& J) p& z3 h/ Rpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds% a3 e5 c4 d7 Z$ G! Y0 ]& j* o( S
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
8 t1 q" I$ M( M3 n% Zof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.8 L1 Q& c! X6 v' `) T/ \
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
% Q6 M- N& ^! j' b6 @that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ X3 |4 O. O) ]- p& p1 Ihave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as) }% J$ @% s4 j) n' |
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that4 x9 S1 k- I" c$ {4 k
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was) |7 ~8 q) x+ s8 l- e6 h& |8 j
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.3 R$ x, U7 F+ s9 P
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that2 y0 ^. p; g3 @8 r  N  X
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
5 ]0 D  k' u% I" f9 xChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
# [4 d# t4 s1 O: x& I' @(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
5 E8 |0 g5 G. z6 \3 W( Y. h  b% land I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
( U2 h6 n. `& lThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science0 i  ~" @7 X. l
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and% P# E/ r- _4 c( b- i+ ]
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
! b& U1 k" m' X5 [9 u2 _Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
" H. j  Q2 ~; D6 N; tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature2 `5 ]  |6 ]# l4 L: G* V
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to0 p3 S) f$ ?2 \. b# H
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.0 F: e3 c# O, S5 z$ A8 {
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
6 ]) y* l" s: N! Yshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 ^" J( \5 n+ ~4 y" X: ^
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather6 o0 Q4 V  [8 j1 ]( D) B5 h
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
* N+ c/ o) Q2 Z# [  {: H" C6 l' |- P. }this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( M$ B7 B3 R0 z0 O3 xabout British supremacy.2 m: @' B! _( c: r
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many4 R( M& U; K/ a8 o4 [! l/ J( n
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
2 v7 S- K% z  JChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by: p2 a! G# f! O+ T8 O
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
0 B; ], s5 ]( G  _$ ~, M& bOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
. t' s0 u( b- w" ]  d% V% r( IYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of' C; G% n& x" i. E7 W+ F  g! U
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
. B8 m- c) f. V5 q/ l* r. E5 I6 sbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
6 |4 J8 l4 R9 Y3 x7 Pit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly/ \6 J8 G9 b1 K
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
# q1 B7 x% M% h6 s; T; |Nature.; i4 I- |7 c/ l8 i  E& f% ~
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance2 H0 W* K+ L& t
the Callaway report.8 |0 w2 p6 S! T+ m) J0 g5 Y  F
; }5 t$ u* h2 z9 k" R# R) R  Y
Yi1 k5 N+ k4 `% M' @( t  T
$ s# N4 g( T! B; _+ d
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
2 p; Z* j. Y0 O, R' hProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
5 S* r/ H; v# sBeijing, China
, K- M/ P: _, V5 p6 {. q0 A  {" J
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 }% ?- p8 r8 e$ Q6 z% H
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
* x+ C% M' m! |. P9 e
原文是公开信。, |# `" r. i; P2 E  }9 K

9 B2 \7 P9 X3 s9 K" q) H$ ]1 p( o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 3 z1 k, l6 v: _1 {; K
原文是公开信。
' L" M$ z9 a; P, |5 |& _
* O" p2 a% n# _$ Z# I+ H& g小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

: L' h0 e, p* q2 C, X% ?# }. N. m9 r谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
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 g! i, c/ S& p( U8 \' ?- X如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* F$ x6 j1 {  d' v; Z# {8 U* G

7 I. c1 @' m8 F. g$ {( M  Qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
$ l8 Q3 G! A- X6 w
& ?2 q% K7 A2 Q1 @2 t0 vFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 p9 V% h; i, k+ T3 h: e5 h% Q
: p, b8 x0 i* f/ E+ k- Q* k0 xIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) e$ C( \9 U: Z3 j" [4 @, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science& n. k7 _* I# A: c) H
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
4 m0 c' ?8 J1 d2 {. m, T; His not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the2 G) ?, H9 G3 Q- ?; c
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 u: {& O" H% u. R+ u
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
0 j. n' {. l/ q- \0 Mshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," l5 E8 A  M4 J2 D& G& m# r
which they blatantly failed to do.
/ F# P4 D9 t: @6 n0 d$ F+ E$ C0 H. V, e: I# J  Q
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% ~3 J9 G2 [/ \) \2 W5 h) O0 f% N/ YOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
/ O$ Z4 e0 R# Q! w, e7 z2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
" b" g) m4 T: e! D$ A5 a# H2 Sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous. ~$ O$ R* B. a& G2 j" L6 G3 \4 a
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 k5 j' P/ `: Q. ^- B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' m  S( [; J5 Y; F9 D6 ~7 c+ y
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 C( a8 m! D1 Q7 Jbe treated as 7 s.
3 P, P* c! a4 j) O
. x: o6 H9 q4 |+ k" H0 v2 lSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 P# O: E3 r3 Z& U' J
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem- o" D! F$ d0 g9 k& d
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 h( d0 l" h2 {- BAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
$ }" l2 b4 Q4 V3 f% \; J) Q/ A8 U-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.  _6 R4 k$ W/ b5 _8 P
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; o; h! b: n- h0 T
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; M8 Q8 G' r; ~5 M( r0 J
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
* D) A6 r' I2 H' u8 K5 Q4 I( Kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, |; V% @" o9 x. K8 w
, g! Z; |9 Z3 w2 _4 c! r: AThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook# U; j# G$ o+ Z0 H. @3 L% J
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 Z! W6 ?6 ^4 v2 s3 \3 `the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 v  ~2 D# n  C9 y+ t' Z+ Bhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. u2 H$ x/ L5 i' @events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s! Z3 |3 _" N# F' v- T$ ?1 p
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World+ b: h. Q0 R8 Z1 Y& s+ {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another3 O" j+ t  K) D( z( e) O3 r( P  y
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other9 h' L9 U) F% K% [4 {! e
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
5 A9 P( L4 h8 v/ O, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
7 a6 B$ \5 X" F7 ^% \, Xstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds; j8 C  h! E# n, b, \: C0 [
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
  y5 T' r9 |( b8 Rfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ [8 W& u1 X( Gaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% ?, y3 m( D1 J) p) k6 N+ [) i6 zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.. E9 y2 I4 D$ s7 I

+ g% Z; ~3 E. LFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 r2 S- ~6 N4 W. x3 ~* U/ [
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
+ D' g. M! D' g0 i6 c! vs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ K# |6 |  e2 W6 Q/ w! h
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
7 a% }" A4 j) A: Iout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# {8 g' m& g: l4 ]+ w6 F9 M
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind* W# D( h2 \& E
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 e: i, o6 o5 @  ~logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in! ^0 u) h8 t9 ]9 O
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science) w9 z# w1 j  R1 j6 R$ Y
works." p5 [' U5 S! F, j
  ^& e7 U8 k- h5 A# g# {& A+ d  r
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
2 t+ ]. E1 F1 ?! H# qimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this# v, h$ y% k9 Y2 P
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that* o3 T; D/ w  d7 E
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific/ ~6 f8 A- e1 k9 [/ p9 ?
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 t. Z  k* R7 {reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
. L' S; b+ C% \  Pcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
) L1 B3 }$ \# Ndemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( E+ d+ Z' m. \, }. w+ I" X
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample! F2 ?6 }( z. Z, D" w
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 h0 Z; n0 ^/ O- j4 V
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he. N# M5 q/ m0 ^1 U7 T! ]! J* K1 x3 I! o
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 p0 L8 l: q; O+ |. X# M5 ^4 Radvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
6 e, a+ e; F& M+ y6 _past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 I, l- @$ Z: y  l, d0 ]" v* {use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation) F  w9 A; \) F. G' {' x
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 t% h4 t4 L1 `( b$ Qdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& o, C% `7 C6 y1 d. g9 W; ~
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- k' ^! L3 ?& Y6 d3 {5 n! k% ?" m
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) s9 G1 x! x: ?/ O4 W- F( x0 whas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
+ C4 h) o( N; T) s, ^drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 c) U% F4 X8 x6 ?- D
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( ~$ z9 X! }+ Z8 y5 ]# v4 K
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
1 J8 A0 k1 `% s# X5 wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 M: O) D4 B) Y2 X& r
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight' \+ X% L. G7 y' j$ w5 s  k1 Z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 H/ d& |! w- {7 _% w
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ w" A# b  E- }+ w. z( I6 gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
$ b$ V9 _9 b. C0 T9 h' O- veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' `. Y; K! l3 C. }8 D$ r1 Z6 zInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
( z8 E2 H: U; X! x$ C
6 U, l; H  e1 V' ?5 w% qSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
+ M+ h" v2 J* J; p' N. Ccompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 q, s, k" c+ }( B/ Z/ s5 z5 V4 N
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for0 w3 E' j* y+ P$ m3 M  O
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 ?6 D( |. |/ n2 E9 p- XOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
2 W6 K6 Y! Z" n5 ^+ O/ xdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
/ J% s: W, `' \2 p7 fgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope  T( N2 N" ?1 u& j# h
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a- V. t* J' J' A" w' W7 ^8 L
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
7 o  Z, Z0 M9 A* Lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.! e  u9 j; L6 g# p

! b$ c$ w: k1 L, e/ g7 VOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (8 C8 f$ B  w" _2 u9 [  U
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! m( M/ d0 k0 ^: m( c5 l2 }/ ~( dsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a! Z$ p5 ~, ~- K& A
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
: D3 Y) E. I% P2 vall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your8 E1 U2 D  L; U6 \# a* g
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,/ p9 H3 u8 H& Y- r) M
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
  [1 w  ]# E0 Targument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
  c( d" ^& n( k( ~such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or# y$ T: i/ l9 p  Q1 I( z# 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, 2026-3-4 20:33 , Processed in 0.203934 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