埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2135|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
# y; Z4 v) s* [; f+ v, `6 s8 a; F) @1 t
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。7 a* U( Q$ Q  C" C5 J$ v
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/ [& P8 h& F+ v
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
* E$ @3 P) W+ w! e' H
/ J; E4 V: G2 d. a' G! v& Yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
9 w& M- }: U0 W# ^+ t
" R0 x% w) Z- z: X致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
* F& _9 @& s, X, u
( |4 [* y* n1 N# \, `英文原信附后,大意如下:
% a' g& C  \  D: v$ v) x. I( w( T; d* @6 X
斐尔,6 Y! U. K3 t+ q- j. J2 P! h
       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
! r' z% L5 K: C8 Nemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。& N+ d6 ]+ m. E0 M8 q+ H$ |7 u
       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 @4 f1 H5 p6 d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8 t; s7 ?, ~  o* i( {
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。9 v& r' R3 k& p( W; Q7 w  i
       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1 M! S$ C6 ~! h/ Z. f$ 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8 K5 ?4 I9 I+ l- s$ 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
, Z& K8 z3 G2 Y3 \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。
# u3 `9 P( Z; P+ D0 {       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
( j3 a$ \8 i2 J3 k/ p* c' f,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9 M( e0 M2 i" Z# n. h
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。# K+ F  q' u; l
       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; F* R1 g' M5 u1 E1 u4 q! V$ \" }# g
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
' h: q8 N) n/ r! o, v5 Q  k8 v' z,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; [& p% x' |" `! G6 x( j
       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; P4 S7 n: M; A9 k' h8 |: G: v3 |
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
* a* ~$ W3 }0 K9 o( {2 F& ?4 N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 W; w7 F  ^+ W" L- V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% T) I. w7 X) A( c$ L% B' t
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、六0 H/ B+ b7 I6 Y; s8 y
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% R1 E5 D6 E# |9 c+ f6 G
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
% B' b! c  D7 Z; e! y( f。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 G- w/ u( O4 K1 U2 Z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
3 o& D. F. ~# {  t  N1 ]7 P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
5 ~7 p& }9 U/ n& A8 z- F1》,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
3 Q! F6 w$ O/ d9 r! LWikipedia。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, Z# N; `7 u# n+ g
同意见的专家。/ n3 h' Q5 e2 p- F+ d1 y
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
5 X% s% e. |- i2 U- j4 I4 x$ T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# J! l1 e( N+ N9 ^. ^
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
( B  y3 @! P5 Y3 f《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
' N+ t/ _- s, b  |) @2 PCallaway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)
$ T) F' {; p$ A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1 _: z( G7 Y. 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
0 M" u. p/ a9 U- Q" H4 k& z+ D这些被Callaway忽略。
/ z! @! t! a! R0 M3 z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
  {& S, S$ S" J4 t  n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" h$ X  N) p/ y" g3 v5 E0 i
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。  W' J. F5 r7 l& }  j
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" i+ x. E) `9 k3 S1 U
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# x  t0 w! S/ T; F/ 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3 L5 M5 i6 J+ E: 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。
2 b4 E* y; U6 Q0 W: D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
1 K5 {+ H$ l( D7 O! I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# {( C+ P5 X+ p, |( j  f: c! u) Q
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, @2 s  V7 w; m9 e1 f3 b! _
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。  p6 p# r/ k. |- Y. K
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: [" i4 ^, q4 d
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
: m+ s' ?% L5 \1 k( c1 x- S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
6 P0 Z- Z$ H% y9 ?* X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: F% c6 o8 W, L) 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7 E$ q* o+ A1 _0 W) ~" F& x7 x- e
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
) E' j* M* Y2 R/ Z我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
- K, W( R2 C3 {1 u& K5 S  x$ j* V
7 {% N* G& v8 u5 J( u9 ?. N
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
3 I; g$ F- e& B, C" m5 b, x4 n; ]" D+ D4 u' D6 H
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: ?7 l, R8 K) P  t( l
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email# O- Y" [  n- [
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见4 ?! b4 |# e# A" ~* O
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
! q- l& K' s& M, z
+ X  g* o  h$ S& t- _: q1 v: g/ O* X& E6 Y

6 L5 W, n5 {7 [原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
! O( D' k3 ?# L5 e& ], ~7 b1 ZDear Phil,- T) m8 Y! X$ j% I+ [/ J, U
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
5 o3 I# i" L% I8 [report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
! t' ]* I* C4 D' Dhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' E: L: n, B3 |2 i/ ^  V4 Lyou.: n! \+ q: d$ `' \! X! u! _' ^
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" ]. B& i% w3 \9 o
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! z7 E/ J$ [2 J9 m3 _readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
% ^/ O2 \2 \9 Q8 U+ Pworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature  B* T+ A' j) K4 x3 N" r6 V
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
' _7 H4 @: q2 Kseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
, w9 H4 ], r% G) spieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
( i& h7 K7 Y9 v4 y       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
4 F" M1 z7 X! Q/ W2 Lworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
; X9 b3 X/ }/ k5 k' nnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish+ _" P3 Z" B1 S/ C5 W
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway8 ]4 B: Y+ {/ ]. ~1 d
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping9 J% m, ?  n! L8 M9 [
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal6 ~: |; {: \- Q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
9 D4 D; R$ c3 K% S0 _# N/ W; qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
! n. D9 o% V0 U# y* I9 kto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news; z8 Y) B$ |9 W6 W5 \8 p( T4 a5 M
reporting.
1 u3 v% z7 G/ E+ B) E  k+ O       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have/ \. W0 @( [) m5 t
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by$ e- |% O/ f! S& E  E" _  V
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 C# K1 _8 `% q# W% z5 w
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
* w" [! P4 y. Tpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
5 s8 I/ C2 L; U$ o" @       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
8 f2 M- o( s* Smore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
/ v) V' ^0 A4 V4 Tfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
1 e9 O8 Z* A$ E2 _+ kmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
0 ~9 k% z  t6 ?+ j7 v9 Tevent for men, with the second fastest record.
% H5 n$ G( K3 }, k       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
% y4 b+ J- N1 K7 ?% \was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ m8 m/ ~4 u0 N+ }0 ~% H
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record& q4 r) T6 H+ T5 X9 l4 j5 y
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400. K; a% I- e) f* i: a5 C
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,4 E3 b- t! f+ D1 @0 n8 Z9 N  t( \
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; I- }& ?0 q$ H& r+ h5 B6 v0 f
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed7 V6 D2 u+ S5 Y9 M
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the3 r; h- I* }, B
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 }; Z& G8 Y7 G) Q; D: }
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' T& `" I& [% {
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
# J* ?& q& l9 {# @/ Z! g' sher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
, a) P$ Z+ D. j# C" O* f, N8 Ehe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “$ \0 S) A- U/ O& H
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
. C1 F8 J# J6 K3 fswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
  t& H& n+ t1 }5 L1 Gteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the' ~' q+ j7 M( t, P
Callaway report.3 O3 e, ]1 o; @9 Y3 S, e+ q) g, {
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more2 s) f: W1 y% S
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details7 B1 E7 A7 m; o# N; a" D8 s# l
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
5 U" d0 f- l" W0 Z1 Gof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- j7 N- @0 }3 {4 e5 fbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
+ F4 W% d% Z1 j) O( r, }Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had4 S: y8 K; e& b0 {, s. ]& B' [! C
publicly voiced different opinions.2 [7 q5 P- D+ G8 Y7 A) H
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
  c; K8 f/ D' u; P) h0 yfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature0 g8 [' i( @- K& E6 `( a9 e7 p
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent* y7 i  I5 \9 u
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
; \3 v' X2 u# dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy4 A+ E6 ^1 _; [0 C  X9 \
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, s# N1 ^* R9 w8 xThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think0 D* d% m4 m, s! d7 `2 i
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
% A# M* T# A6 h8 y- c+ x' t; phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as5 K( f9 m# G0 q% [. A1 ^
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that+ X4 b7 u. C5 `' `: \
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was* G- n% B! q. s/ N1 L: t  \
supported by facts neglected by Callaway., u" `+ Q( G) k/ h
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that5 [( y) C4 s- o
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
9 Y( b1 i8 j: x  S  ~# W$ c. aChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
5 Y- i. P: F' _2 a0 K% y1 A4 {6 n(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she2 K6 S: ?4 z- V0 n
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
. a" a) P' m$ B3 UThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science: [, _) {- l1 X  f
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; ?; z$ G3 q9 {2 D2 D  ~
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
5 [+ M6 ~& q$ [# w4 FNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and0 I/ i0 N1 K$ B$ \3 A
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
+ ~! P% S2 s4 uwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
2 X* {6 y7 B( k0 M# lrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
0 M2 R4 C- O- z' ^5 E5 F9 K( r  yThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
, s3 s$ F9 p8 D- ?. C6 Oshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced1 T4 O( C% Y! U2 d
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 q! d1 H! I* O6 G0 D6 Cfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that6 m$ V# t* [5 W2 c  R; v7 b, r
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”8 p/ U7 b$ G! z. N( D
about British supremacy.# h4 Y2 v+ k& J* s; a& o- b
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
  k0 f) t% R* q3 z+ bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more, x/ K  T" N& g4 A; V
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by& \4 r5 T( T* t# W1 N" V
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
/ i! x5 R+ @: Y- ?Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
& m) z" d& k, ]  N  O' ]( IYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of. V, F  Z: K. [( c, S
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests; ]) o# M, s- B4 c+ Y8 D9 B
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
5 h" @: n) ^- @5 ]it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
" K+ J% ~9 q1 A9 y( i9 Upublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
9 x  g4 d0 u5 i# S5 ?Nature.
, `( E1 ^* ^( NI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
1 i# ~$ {$ x% {( jthe Callaway report.. @0 g( Z; {: s! x8 J$ @7 e- W

% @$ w0 ^+ [& l+ c+ t6 wYi
! z7 [3 M9 @0 K/ {1 t4 Z: b5 @& G8 g
Yi Rao, Ph.D.# K  x/ m1 b  X9 D' e" K
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
# J0 H+ |/ {5 c9 @& ^Beijing, China/ ^2 S1 T$ ]$ j6 p0 t0 A
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
( C0 E; V; D0 c. t/ J7 @# k原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

. {2 j4 q  j; r: e" T7 f原文是公开信。
3 r' x5 o" L( y' i" R
) V* ?# k3 O+ S0 c3 c" @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 7 d& ?: e% c- T5 R0 p4 _) w
原文是公开信。( ?0 y7 |9 \; r$ m
& o2 V" W$ W5 L/ f% L% h7 h
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
( U  t  l3 @( c% q6 f+ U' ]
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
大型搬家
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
6 |! Z. q0 C: @+ l$ t如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ Q6 ~# r& n! C" r0 R4 Z$ K; P* {, E+ ]$ F
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' |6 o+ b: J; }" Z# i1 `) B
5 i+ x6 F& {/ i5 Y4 L5 r' eFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 p( Z. r/ W- Y& {. M$ ]+ |3 N8 Q8 V6 C/ R  f: J# z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself8 o5 R4 O/ k8 N- v" F& v# o
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
  X9 }$ l7 t2 P# C. B; b( umagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
( u/ {( ]4 b  W, ]is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; P+ v# `4 H) u+ O* |9 _
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general1 p# N0 ~( n& c! P6 g
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
; ^2 I4 w3 G5 R4 xshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
0 H& T" z  u# J3 F- a' X; Zwhich they blatantly failed to do.' R1 w* K+ S! X2 n' }& N
# Z+ d1 l# V+ i1 g4 H
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
: f! e- J( Y6 {6 h9 OOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 {, M2 V. l) Q, s# H! ~; j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ l5 E5 c% U9 C9 ]/ v% q. r
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous8 I8 D5 ^$ b" ?0 I3 e$ H  j; j
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* Y4 |4 l% ^4 T% X$ S1 M* I) Fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, s1 d/ o  g7 o5 o# ?
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
5 z0 |; Q. e9 o5 Xbe treated as 7 s.
( o6 p) s2 j. C! B# ]) p. {/ b7 m# g$ a
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is1 D/ s; @. t( w' B& _
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem8 K- ?4 V: m9 U) P
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ M* H1 h. J) j) N0 `/ }An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: T5 o3 W+ j, g* {$ ~2 o, U8 J6 U-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.. d! N0 ?7 U- x7 X) _: F
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an% I0 m4 |6 X) N7 I
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 T+ [. g/ e1 F2 z: `
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: r& w/ K' i  H! s" x+ m3 E0 @based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.& m8 Q: R: c% r2 j  `
! H5 F# ^; x, q' q0 n# g
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook( ]0 f! M# M+ c  S/ I. C+ a
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 K2 C6 U9 C1 o; X$ W0 {8 k8 Cthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 W" l' v8 ~) o$ i5 j5 G' @
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
2 I) g9 o. q5 Aevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 f5 h* g# E4 [% Pbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
, G2 r& q- V3 O2 }, ~Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another/ j2 Q" b) f8 u* I' t
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 I. T7 A- m8 O
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, R# Q* S8 s" `; e; K9 ~7 k+ {( f
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this( N; z* {$ S. ^6 o8 x: P" m
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
5 ]/ t9 u0 h3 Y) G2 R, ^# n( bfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
) `7 W8 e* v2 n# d2 g. A3 y7 Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
( ^1 Y+ a! _( ?* maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that: z8 p. u0 `5 i/ T
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
  W* o2 M& V8 s& P9 M
& Z  m# i" R1 f. fFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
; g  c' k* {; Mfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 {" z( @5 F2 }$ f( g6 Js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
; y9 Z" e& N* o7 n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns3 L9 y8 Z1 D! {8 t$ E1 h
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," x9 W" t* Y! H4 Q" C; h
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind' [7 f, ?. f8 W6 V. @) D
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
! q) U1 s6 l( M. hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" X+ R* z) v- {every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science8 p. F8 ]1 g- Z+ G, }" V7 Q* d8 H
works.
$ n6 V" V7 G6 B" u7 ]5 U" a" ]4 j0 c7 ]' |  {0 l$ |" ^
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
  p# Y0 ?3 L& T: X/ jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 X1 O# K- v# L. J3 @) @kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
/ f0 j) U) L8 s% j+ Astandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" g6 m9 H* n% [/ f* |4 D
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and/ F( f. e7 o) ^
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) C! H' }2 Z5 z, L7 J/ [0 tcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to( h/ o3 r. I7 d2 t# t" q2 h% z' x5 o0 `
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. s1 C) c: H3 m+ M5 ^
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
# W3 ^* h* Z2 Jis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is* G0 L; v8 p' |$ V* L+ z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ G' D1 F5 }3 ?: I- M4 R* R
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
3 Z, v# m7 N% I, e3 u* @9 q3 @advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) b$ P; _8 L0 e; J! d& epast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not* \* ^0 ?$ x+ E
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& I& V, h4 T6 h% R' n4 Z8 a; l6 X( G5 U. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; e* y, L2 ]  G! _
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
; a. i' Y# q/ A+ r7 Abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
8 k. p' N0 f& J4 `% Nhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 K* A  I2 d$ A$ b& F8 ]; _
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
3 D) ?7 e  z6 j4 F7 ^1 f- r2 h/ Xdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% _, z9 I# @( A! L+ O
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect# O% ^$ i  D, O  H
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ u( e; J; Z- x8 P' X( uprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an1 ]" e+ t  H" p+ W8 l
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
3 b* M0 o. U; H3 l. `4 schance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- z2 M9 W4 G! ?: L( }% h3 U9 v1 i
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
; z% W0 ?0 v3 y& w  A& b3 jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
1 I- w. V+ U8 w" y$ ?/ u/ Neight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
4 O0 S3 m1 O1 ^  X3 W2 C' cInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
+ D! z. m1 L6 Q5 x
. c2 r( s: `$ [9 ]: lSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' r2 z# s' v2 u1 p+ V
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 O) f. e4 o& [; V! b$ C0 l
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 h- A1 g5 l' D" Q1 i* h8 w* ~7 @  T4 H3 R
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London# t: u1 u3 J$ d+ r* _& X/ T
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for) r( i* \; p4 i6 q0 d
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
' G/ m+ O6 B) ~) Tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope4 k8 [1 k2 Q! o/ f+ k/ }
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
) z! \; K7 N, F! J* m) o: qplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this2 w) p1 I" R# J. o: _
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., a( ^6 `0 {( ]# z+ K
( [, j- E4 \  D6 N5 ~+ u& x
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (7 s, B9 |, {; o5 U: l* }
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, j' g+ ]8 Q- g8 ksuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
3 k& P5 }- C: v1 w" Y3 Asuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 ?7 G. N* O: K, [all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. ^( a5 G; |7 v& R) X
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
9 D6 L; ~- S( ?- {% i1 n2 u. }explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
& Y! S7 c. Y2 nargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, A$ a' S2 ~4 @/ ^/ t+ osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or  L" B( r2 g6 z. U- a& Z& V
reporting should be done.
大型搬家
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, 2026-3-17 05:18 , Processed in 0.117919 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