埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2293|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 ! J! E6 C" ^8 z& P! Q; j5 T2 G+ I: N
/ y- `" D( g' g% a4 z4 J, D) P
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
' w+ g2 p9 R7 w4 I" d- r5 e. w% Y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。* J7 `* \) H4 m1 _
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
% ?: o, c$ m- O  h' _% @% @* o6 n- g4 A: v/ w! @' J4 ^
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! \4 t7 B5 [$ B. {) o  S
1 ]4 b" c" \, g9 f. K- w8 n: d; R致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% j7 }8 P# d( j5 o6 b
/ Q: [4 T( _( a* W! K
英文原信附后,大意如下:
3 w8 Q1 [9 k: G2 W/ M. c, n
2 e4 H2 I3 l  X& Q+ w斐尔,
- p2 I4 |0 D3 `& f) W$ M       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( F8 U6 D1 E: T. X9 H5 m$ p
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。4 e0 M, W6 A6 m* G2 v. 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& L, f% g0 y  |& |. w
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# _1 k+ G& J/ U+ {; o
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。" X6 K5 u/ w8 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
8 ]1 |2 Y1 b2 Y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 @- s. a; Q& D" ?
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
7 t: g3 G8 K5 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。7 P0 N7 `# J5 V
       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
6 f0 |6 s; {: q/ G& q2 H+ a0 q6 G,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# J  f& M5 P2 Y* ]% Q. `
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
/ A  G. H$ }+ E) }9 I8 n3 ]: p0 t       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
6 k: f4 {! s  J3 \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! v5 r* o# O* t  r0 |
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 S  K6 q6 Z* I7 t0 W$ C       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# V/ o3 Z: D6 Z& P; I
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
2 g& k+ b) S2 J# J# s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
$ C+ c% S) o, H3 X8 F- F) K. \. 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# K3 c7 L# W  e! g" Q7 ^8 u
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六
& d- |/ h% j( U( e1 a! ?位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱6 a( ~6 _2 B" c  D
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目( A" o$ P( [  J, S- _0 R# {
。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4 Z$ E3 e$ g1 l, C) h
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。0 |3 W& B: J. C" B& t! }: i
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' o- e+ A: O# P6 U# R( D
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
! T) G& G; g0 y0 M; p8 S+ eWikipedia。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+ ]2 e# L! X5 k
同意见的专家。
( z( X  c3 {9 T7 m6 r- ~. n. V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" V1 K7 T2 t5 Q- t6 Y0 p
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
5 z4 B+ E  ?, p: f& R5 m1 l1 }- g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 Q2 z( V3 ?7 A( ~" ?《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 v! h7 @( E/ @: J( O
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)1 O8 f( Y) z4 l3 h0 s1 P0 W; i2 n
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
5 U' W+ f  J& O4 w2 y《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/ s9 @: s9 m! e- N
这些被Callaway忽略。
! E4 K1 q1 L' ?3 \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/ |' W) x; y% V4 Z7 a. h( }
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) r. Y% X' w% |5 J" U; l, r: |
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 d0 ~3 g) Z- w2 u9 ~, D5 v. ]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
9 l) n5 L2 B$ ]% J* 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
8 P4 P& x  D8 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
3 \$ s! M; ?2 {" j4 t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。
# x0 g. Z& r! s& e7 E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5 {, x6 x  S! d" H4 F0 s
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( @: a- I6 O2 U3 W. m' w' k/ u/ p) ]
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
3 c; [( R& {7 E8 m2 x$ }”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
; }% Q4 u$ L! r/ o2 A  ~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- `5 r1 E% I8 u) _2 h
弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问1 g* G$ t( y' E* W5 f: l- K
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
# s5 ~0 e2 ]" d7 \$ \, a6 M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 g% T, Y, H  b
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" m  ]7 k5 j/ J! j+ p6 e( \
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
( F9 o  Z% h# z% w  {, P我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。0 S0 A* A: ?% u1 s3 I2 f! X

# [! B  h+ g. H$ E' z. J1 f2 ?' T# p8 u9 m2 v; k3 d1 H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅8 R  b5 A. |) L8 ~* Y  q
6 R4 k9 K: x9 K7 N
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结# n/ o/ X$ H! W, o8 B( ], B
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email* t1 K2 U1 @+ N( k
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
& a! t' ~+ f# K附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见; S( g% H: l% n1 n! O! S* t" E
7 E5 ?+ l4 M! ]( s2 ?8 }
- \2 U$ m0 D0 c0 O7 I  q7 W: Q# }
* r: _% q  N2 z0 }3 _6 t' B. l
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 R6 J+ l2 K( o) bDear Phil,( S; c: w( {4 Y) |# u: m9 @
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" @- k6 H2 r. }) L1 |6 Ereport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
8 x1 P' y/ x' Y0 |hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed: n* l; f* ^* y$ \. x" h1 r
you.
; Y/ {- s6 ^% Y# Z, [8 D. V! N       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have  F9 s6 J0 d' o7 B
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese% x5 I; R9 G  J) u1 U
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
+ J( D  O- S: d" x. e7 hworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
3 u2 g4 I0 c: P9 t/ y2 Q+ c1 r) spublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
7 P2 h+ d3 t4 {: G, qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
# y: A  k1 @& Q- N2 C  hpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.4 o" k( B9 X) L# l# S8 J
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
# M' M) W; I( p/ x0 A. }worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
8 B' v6 a, s2 D. ~5 N9 Znegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish1 E- ^, h6 D, V2 e* f. w: p; l+ X
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway; M: j6 S8 a# H6 Y
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  U3 h0 t" x/ V$ e& x' y/ S* X# Bexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
: x2 ^. |+ I" _standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* l9 Q4 Q. b$ O: o* O* `
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
) l7 W1 L7 I. t5 F  e, E: ?to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
: K7 s/ K; A1 U# dreporting.- r( @% y! f" v- {3 |
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have6 q' q6 [. h4 j1 B4 N2 _
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
+ D; _7 Y1 U  X7 Rchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in6 Y3 R: p: m. y7 _) G8 N
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 N+ g- ?# O. R( o  {2 dpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  X. t# g: Z! d; L6 i  W$ R  ~       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. a  F  |" U1 g% m# X
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
6 i' V& B- s: E: S+ Vfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 509 q1 I  Z* @; B" B
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same0 p- w% A4 p+ q6 m( D7 a
event for men, with the second fastest record.1 Z3 S3 v0 c  D1 s) i* E0 X
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye* D- x0 ~/ A6 Q3 r
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
; A8 t( a( Y" e  [- m: r8 Kyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
! t" B" c& x* q, m0 B  w. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400& }  L6 u4 G" Z7 P* A* J  b, m
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% o2 O! L* i3 e/ Vfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than0 Q, [4 G$ C! N+ l' E+ W
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed# i, w+ u- [5 U, q; X- A& g
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 t, F5 X9 {1 |: {7 n
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower% h+ V  ?  V9 p1 W9 w' u
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than2 w; k/ T, }: g/ F2 H1 m
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was" L6 _$ S* V7 D
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then* P0 m: L, T7 |
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “# a' `/ C4 C5 h2 P
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
* o% ~0 K5 `# }swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the- K% h+ p3 f6 V! q& Y
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
- m. \, U# v3 D. x2 m  x6 A; rCallaway report.7 s* b7 Q+ V  t% u# {# _
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more4 z3 g' C$ t- h& ^6 H
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
, D5 Y5 J6 G1 x+ g: u5 qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description3 Z3 M& [7 \0 ^+ X  w
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been2 L/ F' J0 Y$ @* |, E5 i: R  ^
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the' c$ {  i/ @. f# U- ]. O0 O
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& [4 a, i0 {/ N) \) H( _0 V
publicly voiced different opinions.
& r) H8 ?6 S) _) C! K2 pYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
+ X# A1 H( [1 k' Hfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature  {# k; l+ R* z
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
$ N" \: ]8 b- x, Y7 p/ E9 G2 f3 k% Upostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
! ]/ v2 c. V  ?+ R. Qyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 Z% B" \1 e& z$ q$ }) N
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
* ~7 R) `' K" _4 hThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think* F* _. {1 ]7 _: d
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They2 R1 p( j/ U9 ]5 {
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as  n* F6 K) r9 N! g
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
0 e; K3 O& N( O4 f! m2 nthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
6 V" H1 \2 W( [$ j- Csupported by facts neglected by Callaway., ^* i7 {: C( L' P0 c' F9 v1 \
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
( T# H: x' y5 f6 Cmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
( c: D5 E& b# E5 l. ^6 m/ S* _% YChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June( `; O: v# p8 h: d/ ^6 a( T3 t
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she( D8 u: m# D" G! x$ S- M$ v
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
: H7 q) }2 S8 O: h# x& ~: T( \+ H5 EThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ h6 @- Y( L* _8 m/ h. u: q
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
. D( a! F$ _1 {+ G8 f. @  Z3 Y2 r: {4 v8 ^Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.2 ^4 T$ w' h/ K# N
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and: t+ T8 O% ]7 b, G" H5 Q4 i6 a
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
8 f+ k0 Q$ J; w4 {- Nwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to; |7 {: K7 J4 r$ @6 a. A' d
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.+ {+ v( _% p# M2 k; u) A: G
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not" B  Q/ {4 M" }9 T% K
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 S( L0 L% @/ ?$ Dus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather9 x* v7 X. T. V/ ^$ f' F1 t- K4 F* T
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
, C3 B3 ]2 b( ?2 uthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
7 B( f2 d& R3 r9 Wabout British supremacy.
- z) M( D6 H( {" N$ f0 ]9 m+ W" JThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many& f7 x! L. |3 s1 q4 b% p/ v
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
1 u8 L; v; Z% @Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by$ D3 v4 j5 |' n8 F4 X6 S! G3 J! b
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London1 m/ y1 k  Q0 c! N7 e
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
/ ^1 W! k+ S' ^7 w) iYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
3 [) R, S1 R& Cprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
/ t; l* U) ]0 I7 P% wbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' u+ p' V3 m4 J5 X
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly  h/ m. ^) l! n+ A
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ D6 }8 E7 x: ]  X' y
Nature.- h9 w: J3 r( r( R  v0 c
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
# |6 H* I  m$ Ithe Callaway report.. K, [9 V$ V& Q" I) u

) W, Q3 s# ?' {. \$ c6 c. F0 QYi
5 G' |# r; u2 f4 P! n! ]7 S5 @
4 t9 p0 s' `$ W3 e( Z. g1 kYi Rao, Ph.D.
' v1 T% D; z! b% e# m& j% WProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
3 o& Q. V/ h- p7 y9 {! yBeijing, China
. X' U% _+ w( v4 S
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 : m3 [  m; ]  T3 J" g, T/ o0 k
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
6 G4 e: @% f: @# H% r% P1 E+ k" ^- v
原文是公开信。
! Y! S7 J. }# C* _' a8 t( {- T  W  V2 K0 z
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 0 C, E/ X# l9 ]3 z7 U5 D
原文是公开信。
5 y" S( ]; \4 c' w% F0 l  X! ]- N0 f; z6 R( T) a  o/ \% {: U/ ^- e$ m
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

+ M2 A' ~' y# s谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
理袁律师事务所
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! r2 `, @7 A9 p6 E- g% b! }  P
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。  W9 z0 o: }1 ~- ?; ^' ]& I

1 a$ X' p) D3 \) t/ V$ ?, Phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' S, R4 n- T# _( a* M& ]# C5 I2 o7 Q' s3 m, M8 N$ k
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania# h  ^( l2 s# V! a- P

5 T! t) c$ P4 a8 c9 a4 _It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 e% [6 k! ~; z( h* h' d, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( s( I- ^( l$ X% h  C; Vmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( ]% m; {; q6 g. @# ]is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
4 |9 g% W) Z0 V, d4 P1 y# P. Hscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 J) l: r1 K, W* U" j8 [populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- X! x* b* H" Z5 D6 K; y1 bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, n& q- o7 P$ {; ?& g! D5 ~* pwhich they blatantly failed to do.
1 C- Q6 u6 D5 K  _
4 x: @! z% ]6 zFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her4 ~9 u" E" o' D
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
  @1 ^7 g, w& q8 O2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
8 T& b1 I3 c+ q' q0 M. l$ P. Ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous5 _$ c, n- v) a% y
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 Y3 o" {5 y- s; h
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ Z9 l# l; c7 c% |3 S# ?
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% v$ L1 R1 h0 J- K/ x& M0 J4 T
be treated as 7 s.5 Y4 O# j1 M& N+ T+ [; v
+ L4 ^5 z1 O6 [( ]1 d% W4 I1 L7 y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ A# o9 L( _8 B* I) Ustill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) p. x1 z6 w; x& K8 ~impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." ]+ F, F) P. y
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400& b0 V6 W9 i, K! k  v5 O
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
1 j( S! G0 J3 t$ }! k7 {7 GFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: f" N5 \4 i+ [& p  u5 O) h
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
) I6 [! x3 g" M( ypersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 v6 X* T/ T3 [! Q
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 ?* |- i9 k8 ?
8 g9 X! l! a( C& N+ z* S4 y6 E2 Y
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
; y( d* _9 Z, k% ]+ z5 }: S' Q1 T& _example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
( {0 k0 X: M, H' R  D5 I* d% H# Othe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
$ |2 b7 X: n: [* bhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- Y3 U0 h( y1 D- }/ o
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& X( G+ w" b/ M0 z) Abest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ K2 E0 [. L& L/ A: G
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
5 `/ i7 E' B! M$ x" Htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; y6 P  h& ~& c) N7 h
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
+ y) q( b4 R6 N) V' @. V" ^, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) D1 i; z6 ~, B7 n' e7 |) cstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds8 O6 w9 {* c& G' ?0 @* f, ]
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
: z, @9 H5 i: U4 X( Y, ^faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting  h3 A  D& q  E  o
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that" h" v8 M! [" h' T9 t& E
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.* E& m. d4 C8 }- f9 W9 E4 Y
5 A. e7 R4 b& W% ~
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' b. h. N9 [3 r' K
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.933 ~% Q- t! P9 n# q
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ ~. K" C/ E+ Y+ p# A) R
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns( G! X/ ~7 j) D+ E7 O: P( L4 t
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
5 ^) R2 S+ {9 j1 o/ w6 gLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind5 B' P+ H- L# G5 w, j
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
' I0 H- e+ f$ o$ slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) I1 h/ d$ z5 e' J/ X: |. `
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
9 ~% V6 Q9 C0 Oworks.
3 }4 y/ K. r5 R3 O8 k% i
7 R7 x6 s4 p% L  K4 w/ sFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 y0 C3 h/ i; \
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this) f7 t0 H9 X; F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
3 B8 m* }- s' v1 `" h- P) [standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 J$ }# z) F; o- j+ r- S
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) }" c5 v) m: Wreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
# q. o: ]9 X5 @4 f' }% mcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: k' T7 M, ]  v( b, b. Zdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( u6 P! x% Y6 M
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
. u6 p0 E* ?- d$ |* ^is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ i2 w, L3 \% X  N8 u4 U3 e" I. T
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 D5 L& f( d+ O+ Y. A. nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly! \' S! u0 H* D9 d! ^# X6 g
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& {1 u( B2 w/ G6 m1 W
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
; X5 p# M8 @( M* H* uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
% i) i! \3 j$ P0 u# Y5 D. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are% Z1 [; p0 s+ J: b7 F( N4 S
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
* O% A6 @# J2 I, sbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
" p, @3 i4 @4 I# x# K- c) Ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 C$ c8 b6 }6 n
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" W0 A4 L5 ]$ M9 J- ^0 [
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
1 r' [' s0 s' w/ Bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect/ L/ m" k4 _1 ^: g
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
' d6 X5 h3 r! cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an5 a2 g5 X. _8 k# z; z7 K0 j" h
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, M1 \' H/ N& s) L. U9 gchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ g1 F7 h8 n* d& F' B6 z. {4 D( {% lLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 n$ E6 k- H( f$ H' B' Z2 s
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for' L! B4 n, d4 e0 D% R4 P: z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.' Q% }; ~2 `. R3 R* G" f& `
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* y9 }7 \: S- }$ B

8 y0 s8 I- E4 U; ISixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-5 h: ^4 s& j; d! O' K0 M
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
- w- y. l# w. p6 z. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, d+ g. j! ?) B
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London" E; K' I4 X4 p) Y7 \
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
$ j  }$ a( C9 T; P# m# Sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) o) `$ z( I! Tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope5 Q" g: s2 _5 A4 z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a* s# a' p6 [& u- ?; U: _
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this, r: H+ q- {2 a7 a% N
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 }: L6 o1 b  b( p( L  M' K( V$ l/ p# p
$ x4 z" R; u9 [7 n! |& A, o
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (4 T! ]! Q1 N) E2 p& ~1 [7 y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 f+ l; G4 _+ ysuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 T" z6 r$ {& ?6 G' xsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide& l! [+ f. B  S- _% Y  T# Y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your" o% ^+ @4 |; `- X7 q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: x! z- f2 J$ z' f
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 X% m) A/ L- |3 @' }) t  X
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. q9 M* S  W& w7 b/ i1 Q( {
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
9 E9 |1 n4 z' f/ c& greporting 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, 2026-5-3 07:41 , Processed in 0.169098 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