埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2014|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
7 {' v2 Y. c: V! S( W6 I2 ?- [- I# x( W" v7 O0 E
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。+ S4 c2 A. J( d. q' A1 E
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。9 B$ l  u! G, L7 L% {) x6 A5 x
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
( I+ `6 b7 n8 e. H; Q7 {2 i8 h+ w( w) ?) n# z
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ a& I2 b" }, k8 [

9 @4 H7 h# _9 b; h致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
6 |+ k8 f$ n, X  Y- t2 x0 G* R2 y5 ~" B; Y9 q/ j7 k$ l! v
英文原信附后,大意如下:0 H3 Q$ r( t, o& p& l  S0 D

8 d1 ~! C4 Q, E3 h  R斐尔,' K9 G. O  t7 a) n- V0 ~' U+ x0 e
       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
; }8 x8 z, l& remail的人里面小部分也给我来信。3 b; R. O5 M+ 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
5 {. a! ]. j+ s5 O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
' O% z. q  I% A0 E+ w6 G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。
* v" j2 \' _+ T' 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: e9 [# o% {) |% t+ |8 Q; C$ U
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
' d( S1 t0 c1 c1 b* m: A6 Y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
2 g0 ?; l) u7 E; Q# ?% [% `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。+ U1 t! v- U9 @. ~* 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& f, T6 y5 ]' u0 ?
,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
2 H0 B; J4 e! _( R2 V5 ?2 a# t”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
* A0 i' k8 N$ ~0 y1 ^# q: n8 ?       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
) f1 i+ R; z3 b! s- }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. U$ Y' m! ]2 y8 g$ w
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
1 S8 c9 }$ I) H$ z% \; i0 v1 H       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
) Q2 q6 I6 {& p# n7 I2011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# I- d+ _4 Q' X  o, k
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
3 M% U6 u3 f* \, Q! N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
3 V4 H- i) f% J7 U300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六4 A2 M9 h$ C* Q& S# W* e
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
9 b; m/ W  h8 _5 a9 L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
" |8 y6 Q& O* ?。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5 s7 k5 G( i7 |0 N
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。: T  C% S8 N% \+ v2 }! a* T; G
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
1 @, Z' j# Y& |6 I, J0 [: 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
/ B" a3 p  o! H* n4 \; X" u( aWikipedia。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: u0 `$ }) [9 A5 B9 j
同意见的专家。) w- o% @' B( x1 V  w0 L' J, s
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, S- m5 C2 Y2 W; D/ |
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; N! {. a: h, a
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/ X" T9 \3 J+ L0 \6 N
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
9 C+ d( w3 A; |- Q  q: C1 @7 \: kCallaway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)+ [2 ?0 }1 ]* K$ f" V$ w$ F% Y5 C3 C
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 M4 H8 d, q- L6 c1 ^
《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
! ?6 [/ \0 t" _0 c$ o+ R这些被Callaway忽略。
3 `% E" j* ^4 u  f) s1 v9 n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
, b) Z% W8 R; V; r1 J* b9 l$ r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- z8 G0 N) C+ T
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
( w; C, w" X2 J) c$ \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
/ Z7 `5 Z8 |6 K) b3 N8 g& h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  V$ B6 ^- Y/ W2 ~! P% p
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 v/ h* p: p5 v# 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。- A% C2 Y2 \) s) e- D& {) 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
5 u- x: x3 x/ }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
% O4 c6 l" j3 O& D) q4 f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/ t* T6 a+ Y1 D5 I8 K
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
0 [1 K( d0 f# |5 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/ s! l% M/ u  H" G
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4 f! O3 l6 W! J) R
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
% v8 @1 d6 E* ?# u2 ~# z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& V! T1 M0 ]; U+ W8 M8 V' n
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
" y3 X2 [. ?" m' X; C, y  q: G8 I而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
, W/ e) l& E; _" K. G我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。+ P5 V  X2 K+ ]- C
6 h4 H& |0 [8 }6 h6 N
" C0 l: Y* [6 s+ r! m9 d! a& \
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅( U. u3 J$ M5 v9 ?# W  O3 v* u4 g, I- F
. c: \# n  W0 [8 x* i8 E$ B
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结3 `4 @" r' U+ }  y% G- c8 O
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; F% V$ `( P  D' A
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见* e. a$ m2 x% M0 }! {6 f; Z
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见; I4 ~  G( [' d4 _2 J) g% R

1 y6 P- m( `- q4 R9 C
8 ], V7 O  M/ R$ L4 Y& C
) E( B2 V. j# V2 X! v6 O原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
3 P! m7 a* u$ }' K* {Dear Phil,
! \1 k1 U0 N) `! w" O+ G       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& c) ?" _- _( W( D8 M* s& L  q
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 f8 \+ \& \9 C4 @! U' ehours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 D# Q1 x* o! Y' P1 ryou.% s- c' j5 P- @2 i* T, I4 A
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 ]8 @5 g$ l6 H2 a7 \4 g4 @$ [
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! {) }* w9 c4 @) h% hreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
) H/ n! e5 y( B+ Z7 C4 S6 \world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
: a1 C4 g7 @. k$ \9 A; Q! Fpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
$ \. Q0 ?2 r* S6 `* Qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
% Z% I  l. N" K) qpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) z/ T6 u1 K* J' F$ F, W0 d. ?
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
& \! T* a0 M; c; I# jworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" x: d  F9 z! Znegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish2 R0 u6 b0 e6 p" i
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
- C6 N; b/ w. g& }did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping! J5 I: @' P! |
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
! K# H4 q' [, W! w) Gstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. B8 Q3 J7 Z! {9 \0 i
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone- ^3 Z# `& W# S4 `/ E7 k
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
1 Q- R, z8 d( ?7 |reporting.) X- a2 k9 @5 z! H
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have$ W- |9 d0 R5 i, G! k
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by" c0 I, e! ^9 M6 J5 }6 c& [6 j
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in) ^1 j- M7 g. \% E" U
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
2 |1 n" D1 j# i2 w) H. j6 hpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.& v, w4 R# h' U2 s* f
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
' j4 x. X. p, U" u3 smore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
; v1 H& g, B, }- ~faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
4 i; t" ?' I$ {& N- {4 Q8 k8 ?! Smeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same4 i9 y  j+ _1 x$ L, q
event for men, with the second fastest record.
7 R- ~/ J+ f  M! e& U6 ]1 o       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye! k1 Z4 Z- h+ B; S
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
' m/ Y3 |5 `( ^0 }7 k/ A( d1 Uyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" _& _9 w( \6 d( T' T3 X. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
# {6 j; m& K( O" Hmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,/ c6 i: c( \  e  v
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than! V9 R( T8 E- R! q0 f
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
" k0 X0 n5 z/ [6 K: Gbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
+ U6 A+ W/ w$ N$ z/ ^, Hindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower, L: {; j9 R/ m3 l4 T
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 |: \: I, l& t+ ]6 B
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
  {; {& x! m7 k3 Rher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 X0 A: C% T. |5 r& E, c( v
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
0 W# o3 f  a! W" ]) I1 Y* h: kproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other! L& i9 P4 _1 q5 |7 \- K1 H
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the. f4 [; D8 m/ ^2 B6 ~$ J( W& d4 S
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the: c1 f  H: I; }# h# C; j& t" G
Callaway report.
9 Y2 v/ x1 I# W" HThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more. J+ \$ S4 o8 ]
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ M% l6 x, e& g: i% z1 There. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 w( ^7 X, e8 [+ j1 qof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been# @/ z! c4 X8 f2 c' Y, s1 C' [2 v& ]
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the( U' n! F! g; C1 N
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
& g7 R* H6 s' R: S3 y: Zpublicly voiced different opinions.
3 F7 Q! T2 v* @% ^2 MYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD( i8 _+ A6 v: D( b( M* l
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
- r$ Y, S  n* ~3 _) }; `! _Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
& `& |$ P2 ~2 R3 P, [4 ~5 ppostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
$ O. h3 d6 _5 Z4 m) D+ G  lyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy/ U  `* A. ?3 l2 v# ~
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
; ?/ F% b* g( ~7 q3 |There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
, D* }& j, N1 a1 N3 Sthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They8 w( I  w$ `& g) D6 b
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as% C5 W; E/ i, e. p2 {" I
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
: n$ K% g) K) b5 k) h$ tthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
. G; k4 X) S: c/ D; m7 T5 \( i& \supported by facts neglected by Callaway.8 O3 U  h: _" c0 B- o  @% x) z9 O" J
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. L$ f' G  a6 @1 T8 @' y; Amany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the; ^# Q* g. G/ v& o
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
; K- n( g7 l) F6 k- `& ~(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* h  H6 ?, N; R- O9 U- nand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.; H8 }' ]+ c0 Y! D1 N' ]
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
# J2 P+ g4 E2 C7 x: ]9 Hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
; b: g" C5 Q5 L4 }Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.% V% p  L" m$ b
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
& w# f  z: E, v& C* {" tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature- X8 M2 U2 X( |; h1 u. E6 _2 `
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
& U/ m* r3 m5 Y+ @& _repair the damage caused by your news reporters.6 ]1 J; z5 _" _$ B6 K
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
# _0 D' t2 X6 U5 b. q7 tshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced' Q% T6 |7 z& |0 `, H3 H" L
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
* v7 c  i2 h8 h1 A: }fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" t/ ]* Q! h. X+ N0 Y! K
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
" i  \: `' ~5 q9 habout British supremacy.
6 @9 P0 I9 Y  K8 J8 W6 _The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
5 Q+ `0 K- O7 S0 P- v/ Junsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more$ q0 |' m8 u5 g" ?6 M; M
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, J. z* U) i% |0 k6 Bour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
4 m* T" J3 _6 L5 x1 QOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
1 P6 A# F6 K  e4 qYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of  U- U' L: ^3 `$ r$ H  @! J6 Q
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests5 v. m8 S% z7 x
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. ?2 v+ p' M8 P! N6 ?  o7 D+ cit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly- |$ R2 n2 p, V4 t8 D
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
/ |8 }# |$ \, r/ }( F( Q& Q) {Nature.8 V" P6 c" t6 {4 U. z
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance5 F# o+ _1 T" Y
the Callaway report.
. o/ i( @# z1 L. e) H1 t7 L5 O$ h' n0 t3 A, A2 T* M3 R
Yi
5 I; j1 a; m8 b5 A( e0 d
. \7 I$ C+ h0 B5 r2 XYi Rao, Ph.D.: U  R3 Y9 O( j* T+ N7 C# J) @
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences/ S9 Z* x+ q, T3 B6 E: K
Beijing, China' x3 T, v; P7 h& h# @
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
2 w" y' R' \2 s9 f/ R  I4 [/ a原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

% o4 X: ]" x, A9 I1 F7 k8 A原文是公开信。
! H7 f/ l) @: z$ C9 c& f0 @
% x+ H+ S( H+ v. d" h' r9 Y& k! M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
9 T. X6 Y% ]& @( T6 H) Y原文是公开信。
6 i$ l' G7 u& z4 R+ q' g
# @. t# x6 G) x# T, `' V" G小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

& m$ [2 D  z/ k: T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
理袁律师事务所
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
3 F6 ]% S5 Z  t7 m) l0 }如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 w8 z$ V3 E! x) |1 F9 C, f

5 j4 t6 J5 i+ i1 m+ T1 f" ?# ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ x6 o" D- W( m0 F1 H
1 ~% T) D( w  l3 CFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania8 h" N1 [4 T0 M) I+ N

# c. T  E' ?9 M, JIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself9 q4 X3 M1 e3 X$ _7 E8 `
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 A* T3 h! d3 w) k7 k6 C; |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
: g. ]- ]. V4 _- q+ [6 [is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ X* F( X+ s7 |4 z, s: {3 X* Y9 \
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general0 L5 y/ U2 \9 C( i# Q* _
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors  R$ p  d' f: C  _
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% W  H! @+ r" P! Fwhich they blatantly failed to do.
4 C  G, k0 _0 h" \9 N% ]5 r
. i& e) G" U% k% R* oFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her* K- d7 G( v; g. N) v0 o' R
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 _7 p+ l" u9 F  l( _; k4 a0 S
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
, w- e& J2 z- Qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ P# Q- |4 o% Y/ b( L/ Y  {9 }
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
# \( L5 [& _2 ]1 X( }improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the- E9 B$ p& K2 b" A' G- b$ {
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to3 Y8 s2 x) V; C; F9 q  V
be treated as 7 s.3 [$ G0 N# y8 j* Y8 X$ V$ S$ u

0 a! @; v8 ?4 [0 i% iSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is& A3 e" O! i, o1 B( ~! w9 x1 z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) i* y0 q/ G! ]4 b1 ?+ Z- l& Gimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 C, r/ ~) }2 [% P4 T$ j' rAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: r! d" [  B% ~/ D) g% }-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
2 w/ U% H* z2 u, a: k/ oFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 u" j) ^' a  a2 Z, s
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( Y& w8 ?9 z0 h% opersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; C4 J3 u: D0 \" E5 g
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
" ^( P/ c9 a+ i8 ~  a* Q- A
0 ^3 R, r# H2 _$ _Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* A0 a" _, S  q0 Q( ?( u
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in2 K8 c1 x" @7 |+ _% S7 u
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
  j/ A0 Z' v- X2 vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
2 E& O0 h' A' Q$ Pevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s  C$ @& O9 ]  N6 {  B0 d$ n" p& Z
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World+ Q4 o  r( a- ]" V, z
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ _+ g: |; k0 g9 @, N$ S7 j9 O* E* {
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other& @9 t7 _4 H5 H: }2 [, X
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 G( n5 x, D. G( V/ ~( L
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this# S0 w; w  }4 r) R
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( \; V8 v  o& F8 r$ h# z+ Qfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam5 I5 q  I! g% C2 p+ ^- w
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
" R! f9 |% l, Y! ^aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; n" D0 M4 X9 G8 D
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.! p7 L- u9 b$ V0 |9 k  ?

# \' s( P' b1 S2 E$ e7 g8 sFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are. X7 M  m4 H- p  [8 _/ S1 Z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
# P  g4 b1 Y4 O. H& W4 y2 vs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* {1 U' r6 k8 b' N0 V1 E
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ _* W% H: s7 P1 k  q# A- bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; s; Y9 L+ M: x
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 N5 }& e0 m1 }7 n: `4 i
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
# k$ h5 Z% [7 {2 llogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- `' h) w& F5 Y! D% u
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
& U& z0 b# a4 D% mworks.& d. F& p, b4 ]$ T0 A* g& t

% o4 }9 B5 c; o9 _$ ?" T, @Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 C! c4 M+ `& T) S0 X. c) ?- ?implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 u3 [# \. C. x7 h3 [
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, k  i( d: f  p2 g3 ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: y% N( L  _" Xpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
3 R6 x1 N8 ~7 n$ |reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- s# s/ o3 {6 B- a5 }  V
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
! r" G3 `7 S8 _( O1 \3 [demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works$ Y' D9 h6 i1 c4 O, |
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample+ W: E1 B  O- ^% n1 z/ o
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, G, q  j; R+ z$ ?
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he: `' T/ `/ O" E. B+ l! n
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; w( U& o$ f" y+ X4 q  U% w
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
+ M2 V5 L) |  B, Z% Apast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
2 m; }, P2 J) h7 W0 s( m& D# Wuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' k& V/ y& S1 i3 v
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are8 ^) N7 j+ j/ m! ]2 A& E
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may0 `1 y, t( ~9 y$ d
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- P- C* m1 D5 X4 K$ y/ ]
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 s+ C. y( W2 R2 i: @
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
0 M5 ^$ A7 A! |drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 f6 T7 U* p9 }# H$ vother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 x/ Y" g' T9 C) B, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 ]- Q- B/ p  z" J9 \" i
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an' T6 F! ?& G3 L
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight! G, u7 w- t3 k! i- x
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& H& ]9 E2 _1 f( I( u2 G  VLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping2 Y' O: G5 L, W4 m/ p
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for9 I" H1 K- M) c7 k
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- u7 l2 Q* T4 X/ s, P- T0 MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?$ [1 I& R2 U# m# z' H; c

) y4 |0 x& x" CSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
( r. U2 w3 V! Z) y, [# a& w% ]+ ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. P" }) q! i9 O9 w8 [6 \4 {
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 v' h9 k/ p, _Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London4 E, B4 R# o: z  R8 \* T/ X5 @- {
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for) a& ^; m( R! P1 |6 h1 i
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
' y8 q' G/ M/ o4 G" [% Vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
: e' ?$ G7 B0 {, J. ahave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ n5 z( \0 V7 ]4 gplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this2 ^: k: P. ?  u- N. r
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
7 X$ M, X" y3 n/ A, K
$ V1 h' D4 N  r5 NOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
: j+ R* B9 p( C( uintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
& V$ U$ @) l6 J- \6 Z: nsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
) C' k9 y/ ?" A8 Y' Xsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* _' y, p0 d- q7 C. G) g4 }
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your) y4 \& T9 W* Y( G7 `0 M% |
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 t! @$ {; B  r0 `; J/ Hexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
) v( B9 x( |- v. ~# Sargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 U: j' n& W( }0 |2 ], Y
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or5 A8 @! Z0 s- |: f" g
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, 2026-2-10 03:57 , Processed in 0.195490 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