埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1948|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
. X: d; Q( y# `
7 X! p, o) h- k. [8 D饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
; d  H$ ~" d. b0 Q/ 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。
+ p' B8 A' W% O# b; l+ z总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。1 l8 M% h, H9 Y5 O
6 D3 y) M" z- e0 i7 }8 [4 c( ~& X
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html2 J% l) j5 r5 z
8 `, l; j0 H3 V6 ?- c& ~) j
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
6 j- R3 A1 u3 ^" N6 F/ U' j2 D7 z0 ?0 j3 w& g: R: \/ @# z
英文原信附后,大意如下:& H; Z' p% h+ A- V
+ H, X8 u9 P( Q5 V2 |; A; D+ Z! X( N7 D
斐尔,
% F9 i9 Z5 _2 E, Y7 j: L       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
' H* I' t9 q: [" w5 s3 V' xemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& R: S* [% q& {; ~) `8 N7 |       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+ d9 ~8 ]0 M/ U6 l( z# `7 h4 e) p
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
( F1 [' O/ C3 ~  A( v. E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。5 u5 @1 ~6 N& o  H9 ^* v3 M$ J  U
       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
, `4 H: Z' l: J  O/ F2 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
  ~% X/ k1 y2 A6 Z/ U; V& P& 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
# e" U2 x2 ~- v5 Z. y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$ X% A0 l* ^$ W+ r, R
       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
1 _6 q. l/ V( },将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问" g; A, J) S$ V1 H
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
6 `- d  w+ t* _6 l* u% v       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
; e, @6 E/ b% U$ j  j# x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' z7 J$ u$ j3 J- F2 q! e8 W
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
8 d& M0 X0 ?4 y/ L$ J0 u5 E5 `9 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
0 z) _" L5 x$ j! o5 l+ W1 ?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, T) y' z. o: v
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! X; @7 g. 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
7 ~& Q& q7 h: o/ G4 u, c8 x300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' G2 o6 h* o5 [. N1 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
5 s" o' a9 C7 x* X* s5 w4 c& k项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目2 `. P, y; Q+ K  n
。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记# d( R6 y% R; {4 u* W. s( x- L
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
" w; v2 a$ [4 d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
) I$ I5 l$ B8 L' |7 `6 |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2 y, p# K, f9 X
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
- M$ j7 c0 B5 m同意见的专家。
: Q: R* C7 X5 D; l7 v/ C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
0 Y( n8 X. {- Y0 m; o5 D6 j第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大1 T1 e4 H/ l+ b9 G' f% {6 {
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
/ ]( y& S+ h7 w# K& l. C4 H2 m' P《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- M- h; G) k2 N' N8 m/ wCallaway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)
7 r) m5 |) Y( U- Q/ Y- t7 g: S; k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% M' P4 ~9 f- w3 g* a  S7 @0 g
《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
: I" Q* [9 z7 A# l% C' `9 I  r2 u这些被Callaway忽略。
) x+ V- W/ j) ^; O1 O3 L9 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 Q  Q* ^+ }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
! f$ N/ C  I( e$ ^8 J, Q教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
/ y$ R# t! _+ r' ]0 c% F1 C2 R- k/ l" 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- M2 m, |, v# v* j! i
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
& K9 C: ?' a9 C! d" Q% h9 z3 ^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
# g$ t4 ]) o2 p6 T# D: S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。' e6 ~7 u  {3 W& T; m
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6 k, R$ k+ g$ l
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* I3 z- ~! I0 o+ W0 }2 c+ l  A
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# j: }7 o5 C5 I
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
' Z3 P+ s2 V1 Q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
* k1 C( R8 x6 H6 t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
* \' O3 u% m3 C- F  ]% E: [5 U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
. q+ n5 U5 l  Q( b2 A/ Y& I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0 z/ s9 S) ~1 e3 M. [/ b3 ~0 A
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
& k8 @, q7 k) s: ^- W9 U0 h而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
9 l; d, ?3 x" a' m我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
' ?( p9 q6 N2 e, y- d: `" L8 l7 b! I
4 p. c5 X: G" Q, k% \6 i
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
9 M! e+ b/ t( u. \# @7 v4 v# h$ {  u, p0 @; k
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: y$ j9 m% W9 ?2 q6 u
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email. \! D5 c! L; l% ^
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 A" m  i% N, [$ h  `% G附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 d, y! u" T3 R$ a' ^4 ~) D- L' H: C; a. z
7 [9 ~+ ]2 P/ b. u, `6 L# `
( p& {. p6 t. ]. r
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 o1 i! ^1 g) h' `5 q- C
Dear Phil,4 F6 C- S- ~3 R. e; U- {' t; {5 {
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
/ S5 K  Z9 @# Q4 V( \0 n. Preport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 208 K& s) N) I% o% q
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed7 c. ~# S( V  W
you.
0 T+ L2 y( q9 I$ K' G0 ~; E       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
  o' I. c: K& jbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
, y% I7 g& n# V+ ~readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
5 Z& U) C* e! }$ E, y" bworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ x% U) }; G$ r9 t
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more0 x8 E# Y% f" q) f0 W1 `8 H
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
$ q) H& ~1 w( n+ ^' x3 c: Lpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
( n) b- V# Q1 q) i  j# L5 U: D) e       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
3 Z1 r0 q3 J4 a( V$ gworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a' u2 Q' t' m: M+ |. h+ J( s4 Z& g
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish; K8 ^# h9 Y! `/ {2 o: k
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. q0 T  D+ e' O5 R/ O% t
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
, ^0 U: Q$ u1 S7 Hexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal4 w$ B5 s% [6 |1 f' w
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,% q5 i) w8 a, ^: N, a
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone$ t% Q8 R( Y6 n# |
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news+ x8 \" S$ g' X7 S* v# u# j
reporting.5 N8 p0 F/ k; V! T7 E
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
5 Y. e( }/ \; S0 |already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 v! s# ?, Y. b; rchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
) |7 i0 ~6 ]9 K$ B: K, ~: |6 Osports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
' {5 ~3 O. M) b/ c0 @" U/ s# M% @presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
8 r2 N& U: g7 P& Q. e( q, ]       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
1 [- L. @' i* zmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds5 ?5 d8 T: d: d. W/ C/ m" G) X
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
5 ?9 n0 K9 n2 e( z& o# k2 smeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same$ {. Y" G* R& j" v3 a" f; P5 L
event for men, with the second fastest record.
8 N5 g3 b, |' D7 z       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
# u$ x8 A- p5 B( }( x% L5 }, Pwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
, V9 k) a8 A: y1 byear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
+ N% t, a2 n1 j3 n3 g: H. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4006 v$ {% \* T/ J' v1 U
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
1 X$ l% a  m3 w, Ffor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
. Q; s/ ?1 C- z3 N, }Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
5 y  Y# J% `% j% l. x  q; Tbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the, w- z: V, S* @) ]5 ?- W" d
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( a  E4 O; e3 C( p) J/ P
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
5 y5 T+ ~0 p* f$ g$ B6 Cthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
5 P; i% D' |9 s9 y/ sher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then; t8 e2 m' |/ t4 G8 P
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
7 s) C/ ~/ P0 x" n$ L4 [" D+ Oproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( b2 m# S3 W. k  Uswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
1 G; N" J. |- Nteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
2 X) d4 ?, v' f( L0 `$ Z; wCallaway report., m% `3 x) v) g- `+ n
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 P+ e; L9 g* i( `; s1 Z" a4 w  x
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details4 x7 ?# ^* N( k2 l( W8 I2 I5 o0 \
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' c$ y! Q! U4 |4 q( V+ Q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
0 B: S, e0 q% jbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
6 ~5 e; e7 ~1 }. G, C( L+ NWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had1 Q7 ^. G  q9 e8 ~3 H- {' N6 e
publicly voiced different opinions.' l) K, C% [9 }, \# D: [, @- h& D$ h
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
/ R* ^$ F/ [( j7 m, \from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
% `4 A' t* k! r, [Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' `, b6 ?3 X, E4 E, q* X
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: P  y! u8 M0 i. |
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy# u/ F" O7 r( b; W6 l
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.6 X4 s* F. y1 f$ F, D
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
5 T5 E& n- {; `- f% |# wthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ `$ r6 b# W7 I- h% y" {- M5 @have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
3 |& Q: D. D: z; T# I2 GAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that# o+ B  A- o  i& C6 [# z+ {. y
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ }& E0 U$ @& J- ?) \  X0 w) L7 L
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
. d( X6 n* S1 _0 B" jOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
' S; ~; p% l% Mmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# {& \: V' A; v) e1 |3 d! E+ P9 ~
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June: s- Y4 g+ C! I6 H) K) o
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she. S8 c! E/ g5 V
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  J  k9 F, _3 [( o
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 h  p& L; E6 m+ L3 @; I6 W3 K
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
( d+ F* G; T. ADarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
7 ~/ v5 @/ C$ A8 YNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
. ?9 Y- Z0 {# X7 j" s2 P8 C9 jobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# h* }) H! Z/ u5 ?: I8 rwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
3 G" s3 `0 T0 W% f' Rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.3 v2 L8 O) `9 V; F* ]
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
1 C: H2 N7 n; [* L- Dshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 j" `: w5 T" h+ W' f. P- e2 ^/ Tus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. R1 B0 w0 `) o+ O. V+ pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
8 ^6 I$ K3 K% @7 z+ \this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
% i) k. e7 @4 L% k- d; Kabout British supremacy.- D( j6 j, `' s% o( f
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
/ m- z9 S' H2 ?! H2 x; punsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; s" K4 x9 |' n5 L  l
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by9 R9 v# p3 O3 y, I, r- E) V" _
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
5 o2 F+ E' ~# L/ y: Z7 ]3 T% K! @Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.5 H  `0 b$ A- @& w" l$ A1 A! ]
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of/ k$ e: r' |! {/ r
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
) X: B% z9 i7 s$ ~' r0 Y6 Gbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
4 e4 k) n8 `. h1 g. Dit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
$ c# Q& D6 Q- u0 ]/ y$ r! lpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
0 _+ F5 _9 l) G; `  p- [Nature.
: @  T. Q* _4 V! K9 i" O' BI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 i% W  ^7 E$ I: Vthe Callaway report.
7 Z5 V- K- v  j5 p+ P; g9 \7 _+ J# i9 r6 p/ f7 C8 s" J
Yi7 S" O- f$ C$ r) x4 \' d
2 c  W% h  ^- C) z+ _
Yi Rao, Ph.D.7 _! _. N- i9 ]- T! ?  x& o
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 p8 w0 h/ {- `; {7 Z
Beijing, China
. v% {, d7 S( X6 k- }& L
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 . e; B6 b& b3 [5 h* g
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

$ l' k1 {1 Z  h& Y* O* s% X) z  i原文是公开信。
/ w- ?& Y8 A' ?) g3 J- S0 A" M1 G9 c' W' 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 3 d+ i1 U) l" a% d  _: R0 W
原文是公开信。
3 C8 Z& @) ?- P6 `
8 }5 W0 j9 `6 o/ P小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
4 ~8 M& v; {8 e9 S
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
; i/ a0 `% S+ j5 H; u如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ E6 ?& `3 G& q" c# C7 s% g5 r0 ]2 o* n# O
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
8 g: ]8 r% z; j9 A% k/ X( N& ]1 H! _0 W# S* Q7 |1 {1 g% O
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania( e) g  i$ P% k7 x8 K) H

* t9 X" @2 ]9 O+ d$ [6 U# z- hIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself! P. g5 }+ ^3 ]7 [4 \
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science- V1 |8 l' f9 Y& l: y
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
; e8 t+ o$ T, e* q( G, L: g$ I; a, kis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 R1 [7 b2 \6 `) a. [scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general2 |1 ]# G$ l' E
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors+ S- K, Q2 J- d( L1 E6 l" }7 ~
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
5 S; X$ ^8 g/ C$ R. g6 W3 Owhich they blatantly failed to do.; k( N3 j; W0 @+ {# \
( V) F2 s! z) U
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 y9 T* P; L2 EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in  ]; O5 o9 }' ?: W1 ~0 E) t! q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
# Y* R( `( b1 t2 ganomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous2 r! G+ I) |, s) }; z
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( u! W9 R: ?' v, \# J
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# u8 [* k* ]/ V1 ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to) L: _& v2 J* _0 `0 P. _: U. n
be treated as 7 s.: u! l, O  R: ]
. C) a8 [- I+ B1 [" c# h
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
, R, U8 m1 c+ n. u$ Z  k) e0 y5 b2 P! Sstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ n2 s9 Y" Y( e2 q0 m4 u8 n
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.! ?. g/ u5 Q6 L4 y6 n5 ^" I; C
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
" Y5 l5 d% {1 v; a0 `-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( \- K& b  s/ G; yFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
$ j1 l3 H$ f5 H! Oelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
* s+ z% ?7 I! T6 {persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 ?9 ^% Q3 w" `, y/ N2 e
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; ^4 K- K" l( T9 C3 j4 V0 r8 |
% h# S% ~% E6 i) xThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! u5 f& k8 e& p; ]' z, F1 j
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- g" M+ b+ u! P8 J- _
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
/ b8 }- X1 x. e( @; g& H% Y( g* n2 Ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
+ u" w8 a6 d  P. C  ievents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( i8 p7 G$ i2 H) k4 a% A* fbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World4 ?: w* d4 K' K6 s& ~4 N! J3 @
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
  S  c! b, H0 n1 l' ttopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
- d# u, c7 k7 @# A+ x" {2 Lhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 V; q  ?' X, Z6 ?+ c7 U& v1 E, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this5 `( G: `6 z6 n1 X, `( r; M
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
- W0 g4 q  ?  }) h: e; O9 rfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( _0 R2 }8 Q' c$ l$ p
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting& M7 r- `- y3 T  l
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ \* c1 L* M/ qimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on., Z, J& z+ g$ m+ }# Q) B

! @" {' \+ g) fFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 j$ G* B# e% R8 z, D
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) M; U( y$ r8 ?- @5 |  k
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ C/ c$ o2 u; i" k& t8 r+ W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* }; g. L# X: l, X
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 s2 E3 c4 O4 o# e% v6 w
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: r2 D! `; G$ q  C
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it: ~% ]* R8 D; P% k6 ?
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 H7 j8 x& d$ uevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
' ?# n0 B6 j, h1 T/ w7 Uworks.
: B2 o, _0 }" f" y7 m+ P2 t6 ~: x% S9 i
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
0 z! |' p- q! }& I; ^) }, ~$ Uimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) l. \; }' o7 u0 c0 n0 }- }% I4 @0 |kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 ?& o2 x  Y/ Z4 |$ W. L8 ]0 v+ g
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific, x/ x& i. u1 }5 H6 h" W1 L/ e
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and1 t, O' I- G' P# k
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
" `( V/ Z% I" tcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ M/ R: ~/ ^8 U
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
2 M2 V+ j; g9 |) {4 {8 U9 B7 oto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample9 W# O# Y( m4 R2 P0 j9 ~5 r% {
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is: d. y7 t9 r1 Z% @7 `- M
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
$ q0 m' c, ?4 A3 N( l- F1 Qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 [; y6 Y% l% L5 J8 wadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 P% a' @7 G6 e1 g2 Gpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
+ e6 t: _) e5 B6 M5 Q3 Z% [use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( U7 ]/ M. g" ^6 {. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
* c# h7 g) X3 D4 zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may. G7 V" y. v. r
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 z4 Y8 V9 t8 |. p/ F" Z# V' X0 ^hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye3 T% O8 ^- A$ A& d. N! z) m
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. [' Z1 t/ b) e( Ydrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:" p7 F# }8 D1 ~: J. d9 c& I
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 ~% v  ]( ^! R2 R
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
8 ]$ F4 [( ^5 }' V) Eprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
0 X1 d, N* a% {athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight  U( A. d; d) Y% w1 |+ Z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 a0 T$ Y. Z/ j: q$ \Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ v/ d2 E+ w  E* A. g! E$ M
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for$ ]5 u& M- E1 L7 g
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.6 s" k& i0 D! H, N/ I) [* Y1 x
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. F" s) P% Y9 f& A+ |8 R

! i( f9 F6 U6 P- e* xSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-8 T) z& _! c& O
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! R& `( N2 j% J0 B7 N. C
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& d/ W/ D6 _3 a$ g4 ?2 t, Y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London. q" t& a, e$ h) P, A( H3 w6 }* N( z& r3 H
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& y9 C; @7 Z) Zdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
  Y2 }. G8 {3 s' U8 E, A% Rgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope$ U9 I2 e' i7 y
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a8 |: E. N8 G3 U; p  T5 {  v
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 m/ I% v7 G( x% |# Q" z2 C, Z
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
7 K5 g4 F5 r& _8 N' P( Z+ Y7 G
( ~- Q0 ?2 d$ v/ F! M3 ]% X$ wOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ Y' Z: l6 w0 i6 ^intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ O& D, F$ w% e4 }5 _& o
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& @2 [' j3 C8 C- M8 Lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide( c" R0 j0 {  H, W% T) [
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
& h) A4 `' r* t  Y% p. I+ ?! J1 linterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* \& s: C2 p. m+ Y* F
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& m1 U. {/ D% X
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
0 Z$ r7 }1 s9 H7 V) j% x3 Asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. t) z* G% q6 s; C* X
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, 2026-1-20 18:17 , Processed in 0.164208 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