埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1817|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
) u, O+ m9 t  @  u, C. v
, E+ O2 {) q7 N" B; c饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# a# Z& M" e2 @1 [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。$ _+ N) P+ o5 b/ V
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 e  y0 q6 R4 \# |6 c
! h2 J# E1 P6 a8 Hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
, k* @8 F$ a/ Y5 e" C2 Y: o) M) l4 }
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
! w) U6 ?) s! G; M  L8 j: Q/ @7 }" U+ P
英文原信附后,大意如下:: c+ o( `3 n6 m' z! x+ k5 t8 G

: l+ s( ?6 B/ e4 d7 _8 a斐尔,! }: A* b, k. N0 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. {, N) u6 F) m, F
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
4 t& ^& f0 o* o) h: E9 Z1 a% Q2 e       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& l6 h( i( D* m: ?% O0 p( x
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$ q: J3 Y/ g; }! @. k+ L6 [
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 V3 V6 a6 O$ Y: r( r* p2 Z9 g       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
+ x) V( a. Z* b) 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
5 C* b+ s/ Y5 p& t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* P3 m( U$ j, V8 x, K5 i9 s
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。' r, Z" h6 L" J7 _% A' U
       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$ H+ w' V# b$ G! |% j7 i! G4 E+ l6 U
,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
( t+ t6 o$ G2 _' B6 B”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
' u+ H5 y" o9 ?3 `8 A0 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
, o. o. H8 y9 L6 ^$ M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" W/ }5 o: H& K  T( I
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
$ u3 R# X) |+ i1 ?, T2 g       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
! D$ J9 t4 L* ]+ v- u2011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! W' i, Y' w0 }! a
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" O( U) h1 A9 C! E3 B$ ~- Z
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8 w8 J5 h2 v9 E, k
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
! N" }0 G% S1 {/ y  l位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱  N6 ?& `  Z# N* A
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& @* c0 c( S4 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
4 j9 I6 d0 }4 M; Q( S录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。! u. z( k: n% ~( l) e
还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件4 H: n4 i( S) a8 z- m8 z
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* Y- M* j0 p% G0 W/ _9 H% }$ o
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
2 G- P/ @( B- J: S同意见的专家。
6 E. y6 Z' [; a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2 Y# S1 K& L! c, ]
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
7 w7 W( a( ?/ w5 H- I* v2 `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7 E! ^& ^6 b+ P0 W
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。0 o% L. ?$ ~4 N/ A9 }  v- P
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): @4 _& _& j( f) l/ a5 N$ S5 x1 P$ P
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
9 m. b0 l1 m7 U7 s) A0 Q《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
4 J/ ^/ Y# C8 i6 |这些被Callaway忽略。
+ b0 _! x, y* |" `$ J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
3 y. Q! S; F' D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
' g) l+ i9 t+ [  Z6 O教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。5 b# v( t1 x# ?( e( j8 ^  k0 |
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  s/ w; D* z, N, m
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& @$ L% s3 [6 W
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2 ^7 X; l) E, ]) w( k0 Q6 f2 R& w
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。
) h6 ?6 b7 r1 v( H5 q) U  O0 r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* u3 A$ s! q4 q3 h& O/ u+ Q
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 {1 t5 y4 j1 p# Q9 K
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+ u# S" ^' r3 o3 h# P5 g
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- B3 r( \+ `+ S" d6 [
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
) y, Q  @3 i5 N# o& m3 {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6 m* P% x0 W3 A) m* v/ I- [
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( _; B: O2 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
9 L! ~- D2 E' ]6 w2 S; i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
0 [0 X  Y; V3 d& z0 r5 ]2 r2 ?' {- I而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
/ ]* U/ u% `. ?; U( [我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。, V" d  K1 \2 M" P8 j+ m
5 S3 i8 p2 I6 q3 j7 Y6 g
; @4 Y5 Q/ [# y, n2 Z
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅( a, d. J; L+ |8 X% H* L

# n3 U! ~  ?, p9 P2 v附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' b' v* q7 @' K4 r; X3 e$ q$ T' W附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
- F- E' Z) _, n9 b附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
* F$ P# y5 \% ?3 z, F; t: C& o6 R附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见  j7 v! ?" J4 |
: K' }5 I! x, M6 {0 Q& T
6 w( [+ L' L* K1 Z

' U% v6 o' ?& j原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
/ @, c* ]4 @3 {9 h8 I5 I; @$ {Dear Phil,
2 i0 t3 m' H% O) g7 I: A       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s: I( r6 x4 z8 l( p
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
2 T. R3 x! \: R; A& C7 L! dhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
. b: }  d3 }: f0 g9 \. F% ]you.
5 }- O  _' f: k9 f; P  Y       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have3 D% j9 l3 b/ R) p! {6 i$ j9 _
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese, y1 j9 k9 M/ H& k  |
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
. T* ^7 M" m# D. A9 [0 j- `world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- g1 }/ W7 E6 N. C; _publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more" H% |3 m: O6 L) }: |1 V3 X3 L
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ y  O9 r4 h5 x( ^: ^pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.; {# s6 N* U4 F# y0 e5 V4 F
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the& g4 t8 [. ?0 z( e6 [+ W
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a( I* F# J( Z$ r4 r2 e% j) q& ?
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish* _% P; `4 f' D1 k
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
3 E; S6 X" ^% X4 Y- i  cdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping" \0 g4 ^4 B/ U2 }# }9 ]: ~
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! U0 N2 m. K( g* ?/ `% t2 a0 V
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,' o- i/ J+ f4 W8 U$ c. ~
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
; M  J8 h$ ]2 R: \% X% y% z* lto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
6 |" C; ~' J. j& y( i% Sreporting.
  d/ h% ?7 m% N" X       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have) x( t% m6 t) ~2 q* k4 Q$ v6 F* Q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by9 T: {4 M! S7 b! R8 E# M( w2 E
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
& p' Q( d$ X2 Z: b+ L7 T1 t! zsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A$ ~  [2 o5 r: Q) @% H
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
- w1 L% ]2 n3 u: i; i. E       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
# L9 W3 R/ J9 jmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
3 _3 F  @! G+ Q8 K) X5 ofaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50* N! I+ B" r4 W# _7 Q1 b
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ R/ g3 `) V% S7 b7 Hevent for men, with the second fastest record.4 p; C3 T; q% b% O* D
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
. H, H3 ^2 v' Fwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
* t+ J. r! B% Iyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record4 h0 t# L( j- f9 T2 N  L0 x; Z
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400) K/ V$ G3 e6 r# u
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 Q2 H6 U2 s3 G: zfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than& t/ W/ ]/ K3 s8 [( L+ g
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed- _! k$ }0 @, w. C9 e, S2 i2 s
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the8 t! \  W, N. G- E" T8 L
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
2 U. t+ [! e; |' C- n5 Othan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' f$ m1 e# L) d+ ~- b: z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
1 X$ Z, w( n  [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then$ K/ R3 B" ?6 \% J" R0 |, Q. c
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
, \8 m* D6 ]5 \& `' P/ t* jproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
8 ?3 z' ^3 |* b% lswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 y3 ^8 e  ~1 F7 x# T% e; o: Yteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
+ [; R4 J- D/ xCallaway report.7 q. c  A4 Q+ R: P" I6 W, ~
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more8 p8 I- M7 J7 m5 t8 d* n: Q
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details2 F& F7 D( `0 J" V2 _! x1 X
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
" o$ h! O' R! W5 |& ?  aof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- s% w1 s; e0 C/ p$ v5 m2 ?better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the0 f1 M5 f( Y2 J5 K
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; ?1 j" {- C( M- z( {: X" t
publicly voiced different opinions.$ f# S$ C+ G, H  G. }
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
2 n; r7 U- S# w3 X, ]7 B  Efrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
4 o0 r% `" f# w  ~: K9 qNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
* s7 H) E& ~/ t/ ?5 Npostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds6 z$ Y  Y) e* N
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
" ]* h" F5 Z' X1 C6 R- yof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.& y1 \, v( X. b/ D
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
0 ]2 S" \" O3 O. G$ Athat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
6 i( T& m( \' J) Lhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
8 d% }1 a+ W0 T4 \' v: hAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that4 F+ Y# X* _) I; [. b& n
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
- M% X# t0 s9 C2 H3 ]& V" t& Bsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% |% k9 x- u% MOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that0 a$ B7 u; S; r# c: c$ S% N5 r& U
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the: {. h. _) o7 a' o' r3 y9 ~
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June) p' z; q4 g9 A9 `5 j7 X
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
" c: {- @2 I' y% u: p% c; Gand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.. F5 @" s0 }& A! |( C" y
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
0 ]  h! q7 S5 ^$ Cand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 {8 J# N' {% T6 k
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
: A, e0 ?6 O) KNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and2 `; u. r* R  M* Z% F
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
1 b2 C8 E' f% E) }; b6 twhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
9 U7 R6 S: v! E! krepair the damage caused by your news reporters." d: O5 Y) Z( }8 e6 u# t
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not2 n) |7 O. G( m( u: ~2 T: H
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
6 a7 W! C- @9 D' v6 @3 bus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather& Z$ Y2 k! ]& I' t3 g3 K
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that) f/ E* `/ ^: p
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
) h6 z$ L: q( ^. M. Vabout British supremacy.
- v8 r% M5 ?3 hThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 x6 S, T$ h. P1 R5 }) |# junsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more: g! i9 F4 W5 p6 m+ M0 O
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 W: [1 y, J, {% {* x+ W+ t5 s2 r
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
+ ]/ r) D5 D4 ROlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; G% a' b1 Y* \Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
4 W+ M, a0 H6 T% Z0 r# W. P, bprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
  G6 Y; j. C7 P' u) Y' p! L4 Ebefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, ^; Z# ]" Q6 K! f# f( kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
. P# e: d0 W" x  s1 l' M4 zpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
; T; H9 [: t1 C! D3 yNature.8 Z5 b* y4 S+ K+ s9 [
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance4 o9 C5 @& {& q& R- M0 I
the Callaway report.! M3 J, k# m1 N) G3 m8 p6 n
/ U3 g; P' m4 o$ B# c
Yi
2 S5 v. @- {4 j6 v% W/ i3 W+ r0 |5 R9 _$ Q; S; C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
! E2 F, _' N% W* E; {1 A3 A; ^Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! i: J$ a' Z2 R, a- {
Beijing, China& {+ A+ ^, U8 D3 Z  B; B5 T
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 & r0 m+ y/ d9 X" {
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
6 m! |/ f8 [+ B4 a  p& Q* j
原文是公开信。
5 m$ m) ]6 Z- x* O
* o. v( g4 p5 v6 Z6 u$ c小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-6 20:23 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
bigsnail 发表于 2012-8-6 21:16 2 l' j8 g7 P+ h
原文是公开信。1 N0 C8 e; N, A0 T
- b5 T1 ^0 E; x2 E- ?
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
  q% M4 c/ j4 B2 N2 Y
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG. ]. A0 s; j' T) |5 r: H
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
- @) D, c# N" ^1 y
& G. E3 k' |; R. k, Q" ?http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, ^* k; Y! U' n: O
5 J: H* a! o, c
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. n4 d$ _  t- n# j
4 G* U4 ]5 {( m3 v. N$ h: e) j. d
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ h9 `  g; T! u- {( o, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
7 R; u# o8 ?+ S# W& P- F4 e' Lmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 J9 l* O+ `1 o3 g& Cis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 {; R# s9 i9 f' @3 v2 w0 Hscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 |# z. G, R: j- c* K! Lpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" [5 ?- F, X' u
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
2 h& x; o" X0 Y: H7 D2 L: j0 o; ewhich they blatantly failed to do.; U9 p: x6 C3 I9 c) A, R$ R
) m/ F- A/ ?( t
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; U# O% B  e( k+ v6 \' L+ aOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' D& T/ _3 t+ X. a5 u5 p' ^. E. X
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “( a1 g! T9 p9 q- _, K  F% F0 _5 y
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: z2 E- t1 f1 t! }8 U$ _, Fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: q# }; t  S! j1 Ximprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
- S" q; O4 m; i4 a) }6 n# q" `3 q  _difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 h5 E2 W0 x* M9 D& y
be treated as 7 s.3 @5 \% u4 w! o6 @
- @; t7 I3 _2 Y8 t  @% o
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
  l8 I& c6 n( |, b! @& `5 Pstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, `4 a! ~+ F# G* w  {+ Jimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.8 g, p) Y2 m/ x7 `" @0 y& |0 P* p
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400* y+ p" g) i3 z; |. ]
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
9 y; O& W. s6 a9 q' c: yFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 g  E! ^# d+ {0 j9 Belite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
3 a3 y2 O  i- l; `' Z' I7 w% y  p& Y5 Upersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 g7 H1 @2 }3 {% y
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
) x! A2 _$ N2 Q7 P8 z3 z- H5 P( U; ^9 ~. l* G) @0 ]5 u
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook8 v2 P) F* H9 T. j$ j' K5 V
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
. u0 y) G4 e: u4 ^/ Bthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so* w! l! n$ L# p+ y
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later9 N6 W) A8 G0 p' c
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s) q6 H$ n% N( x/ ]  \
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# ~  X* V; {, P& rFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another6 E/ l* N' j+ j6 k. s# m7 l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
$ g, n6 ], ?1 ^4 z" V/ xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 e, w/ N& c7 E  s, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
0 h3 h1 b( D! r9 N' u8 Fstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 s$ w% S4 E* H4 q/ N1 d& o- }  |
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- ]+ n; Z9 @! Y* p- Z2 Y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 ?# P& K& K$ K. W2 X
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# y( M  ~+ b& D+ M
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* F* M, M% b& Z* `7 v0 c) o+ A4 m3 m' X  W
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are- e6 \5 c7 @! e7 C4 e5 ]# \0 e
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
# r/ o5 G0 U& p+ A1 P: Ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' [: y4 N% U5 g2 i
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
) ^* P+ V, i$ v% bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,9 v; ^' t+ a7 L) E3 C% c/ j
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
( P6 b; t  o3 T; q; h! m9 M) Vof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 D0 L( X# h7 D: U& ^6 n! D
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in3 m* W* a9 Z+ ]; P: b' d
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
" t) M  K1 o0 F9 ~1 jworks.
1 B7 h/ D# c; p; @6 D8 J3 z2 ]  E$ V; J6 v# x) ~
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) e' t- S6 T: ]( @implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' r' h( q. ]0 G# I5 c  u$ y
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 _2 ]3 f; z  W7 L! A
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific- q5 o/ d9 w& t0 U. w& n9 {
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! h. q4 @6 e/ w# q/ T& [reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* Q5 ~, }1 Q6 p) `
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to! |& w" w& ^+ w' x0 ~  Q
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- C6 t0 w$ ^4 L( `6 L! F
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
$ i8 y0 O# `+ H1 W3 r. G# Jis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
& K3 ^# _$ A7 d6 D, e* jcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he/ ?! k8 U/ ?* t1 ^& L0 U' p( L' A
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 q% s) M( O- p; W  M9 a
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( C$ f/ V1 w- p+ X5 I% h; F
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 H, E/ t3 _% O& }
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
- N, Y' ~9 J# d+ O- o  _. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" E; m& q9 i4 X8 M5 d9 S4 K5 ]: xdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 Z  Q3 l0 a$ h2 ebe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a4 C  i- W7 i6 j1 B
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 I7 v: K  p$ v9 ^: Q  t& q
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
% j8 E: G  ?) T7 u& r: y$ Y5 \drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
, o" m" R' ?, o: eother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
$ Q4 C2 I9 E1 d8 u- e8 C/ _, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! f2 |2 k! A5 v. b& Fprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. Y  y; r! C. W8 b$ D5 i* Y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight  s9 E: I) y- ?) d' p5 V% M4 T" V0 [
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
6 ?$ R& d7 E0 n; t) J* ^9 M( V, hLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 E( ]* E: }5 x+ o# \' zagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 H+ F  A" c" a+ Q5 E% N, _
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.* E/ x. b% q5 @1 J! p1 `
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?6 E3 A% F2 L8 ]
) U9 I* y( l1 _) q, T$ Y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
! C" E7 X! K" W& p$ D. H* c$ u, acompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention' B( `& [+ f7 s& C) @4 i
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 {3 c- _# J* p3 [& i- G
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 p9 Z) b3 O( K4 V+ xOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for3 G9 M* W1 C& w; ~1 ~1 f1 J
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
( E. o0 Z. o, v! b" W* mgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
) x! n8 }" \" Z4 M. v/ yhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' ]5 ~9 g% Y" Q2 a8 ^player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; i0 S: q* n) O  `1 W% ?* V6 E
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.% L& C8 m" b5 \
/ i7 x4 O. h: c  x* Y3 H$ ], I  S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
7 i% y) A9 s; `. p* rintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
( Y. _% k9 G/ i; }0 X0 Z1 L, j- Psuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
, ?. R9 U; y' x8 bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide0 d; p& y/ U0 V8 V8 o: y/ F
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
) u! h- J, H7 P0 r3 I/ q8 zinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,& `) V, ~) |) I2 {- x
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; V* z* X7 u' Z! z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! `# z1 [1 |- c0 W1 _& |$ A" Ysuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& K! u. w- A  ?5 U9 v
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-11-19 21:26 , Processed in 0.099930 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