埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2090|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
1 {% I, N/ G1 y6 ]: u1 _9 j
! k4 w4 S$ ~4 k8 b: z0 j饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。) n+ G" c9 y% K5 Y  j
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。$ e6 D9 p/ P+ [( w5 J- F* ~
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
# q: x9 w/ w  C; w4 c* i8 ]7 Y5 w) X' C
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html; A4 v0 h9 d: n! `+ r0 L

# Y+ o' X, {& J$ v9 J8 D) h: @# ^致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
, a8 d. `* |0 M- q# O& v9 e4 a7 q& T& B/ r+ p. u. U
英文原信附后,大意如下:: l2 v, @2 s2 b" j% k

' X% M7 U. h- C$ x* C斐尔,- X2 G1 A% e* q" L8 I  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
* D2 ^5 ?: T2 v6 J3 zemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。/ {+ L, f! D# P: e- C) g
       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. v- _  |% h$ U0 ~* Z
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  K+ \! ^! y# Y  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。3 Q. X" K3 o6 c. V2 {& s& Q2 d$ F
       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3 ]! K5 ]' H1 e+ B  h
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' C: t8 c3 l: c
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
+ f9 \% a" `  q5 E2 l7 D! V! }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。
0 _5 l$ `+ z5 |* L  Z3 C* d! `3 D       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
2 V- E. n8 x0 }7 S,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
) ?/ x  m; S" ^4 M0 r) V2 R! P" }3 L( z”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。( {) C& r3 m& W
       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
0 h/ P6 |% {* K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
3 s* {5 c1 `: `) Q. n+ |2 @,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。$ P) }. R' Z7 D
       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; }, |! [3 S+ u& D0 a8 B( n9 ?; V4 a
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
+ h" d& q7 K& |' h0 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米是世界第二2 S9 g+ Q7 c6 z1 i+ m4 s7 w# }
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
9 [, x! S; d/ e+ Y300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/ h# w1 J. F6 @0 @7 U0 ^6 F
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
3 @2 R: z6 ]- |* p9 O$ c+ @( m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
( ~4 ^0 [' l4 y9 J。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  t" s0 l' A, A% `! T/ V
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
4 W* B( ]7 _) R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 ^* c% ?4 N8 O  D& b1》,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
" q) h& S0 x( R0 L' I2 SWikipedia。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
5 F# ~/ K7 l! Q/ x0 j同意见的专家。9 N5 G" v0 X2 P  l7 S5 W* Y+ A$ B3 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8 ~# j1 R( I5 K+ x
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# _$ T4 b$ v7 o: Z9 V$ c: B1 Q
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
6 y8 \$ y- r( U《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
4 K2 U9 M; Q% ]- M: S. k4 \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)
8 l8 e: s  a1 w' Z! _, M5 M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) L$ ~( e* U$ W
《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# {+ a- `; e: p4 i
这些被Callaway忽略。; A) A9 l0 Q8 u; q) k' n- J8 c
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
8 }% w' |5 H  B! T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
$ D" V. [0 P& P$ ^( J/ H* D教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
' l1 n+ ^8 X; C" e8 n! F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
& o) X& P5 n  q' y( 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# \5 z0 d0 I# y& _2 n+ m# m
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0 s2 l# |. N' p: n8 D
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。# w( n9 C8 f' X0 l. u6 @$ |1 ?
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. R$ Y! j( k. m
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4 H: b! X. Z' ?, h3 c$ W& D$ v8 G
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/ d& P+ ^& |- F1 C) ~/ P. S
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。2 [8 P4 h1 A2 c9 @: p& T! v
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! o* b/ b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
+ U: z: b" ~  {/ i# _3 A) v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: R& E2 h; r* K2 B3 t0 p
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
: l# X1 `, S: e4 F9 @, R8 m) e3 W) |9 m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3 g: J% {& X8 Z& s( ~& Z
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 p, L. u: @- z  s0 ~( h$ H. e' ^8 Y8 X我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。/ d) j0 h; o7 i7 _; W! ?1 H
' r# J, H% o8 J) u

1 h0 R9 |3 W# D8 c) v3 [0 x$ b北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
( ~; O+ {. t8 V8 y
7 ]( D3 k! p8 W0 l% Z" }2 b8 M附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
: C) i; ^. }5 S4 r6 n9 Y# K附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email* H; X0 `. K8 J1 }
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见/ G- v, k* @8 [5 ?& Z
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见9 D( S  W( t4 F" u+ _
1 D( r% }: u9 \/ Z5 [

* w& c4 i, o; p4 i& J8 A+ i
7 u6 B6 L# F2 d原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)( @  J5 i; R$ t, `% Q
Dear Phil,  o" n2 t4 g1 C- h9 e$ s6 w8 D
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s! V4 a) M+ l2 e& S# v  P6 H9 g
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 208 z5 r* U5 S3 O+ U! e' h
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' J0 Z% N3 ~  C6 z& vyou.
2 X+ p% B3 S2 n! ]; a% k       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
4 j* F& y9 z7 o( P& f- ?  }brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
4 x, K" a/ |6 X8 ~5 E$ D) _readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
2 v6 o7 k, }) l' v6 f4 @( P. Sworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature8 Y9 y* @7 F9 ~
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
4 ^9 V6 w' R/ H. pseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news- f% {# u& J) o) _" w1 ~$ k/ @
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: ]& q* C/ N' ?/ B3 o' \  |
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 D' @, s0 l( t: P5 W
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
4 x1 F0 S# v% k; Tnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish; j% d/ l# P7 L% P) D* @
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 a2 g4 y$ g; O
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
2 r  [9 O5 d  Z  N3 @explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal" H. X( E  Q5 ?: Q3 X3 Y1 G# I
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,6 ~- ^9 \* F2 O% K( E
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
0 m8 A! v* `: j# t2 {: d7 Wto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
1 r8 Q( J$ Y" lreporting.
5 y, q6 f; j; _$ M9 Q; n) V       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have" f8 L- _6 M. D' Y' n2 b3 w
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
% @. W8 C  S+ a9 P) bchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
& ]7 C: K2 f6 lsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
9 @: H6 P3 t  H5 D* T3 wpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts./ n/ L+ K" C9 q. @9 u4 L
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
( G+ h" T* E) k& f; Pmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
. k# c/ D/ C$ c! Wfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50; o3 B4 D) p: Z* L( X
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
& j! D& u) b' Bevent for men, with the second fastest record./ v' @4 E9 @4 T$ e8 {  f
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye( ^) M! o4 \+ }( V0 G/ E; U, c
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16. q9 Z% x7 p& p6 D' v
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record2 r, t" q5 `8 i
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4000 k' @% x/ z4 f- h5 b
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
. E% z9 Y/ [7 ofor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* |& B' T1 V3 L4 l/ P, n) M
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed) v+ {, n. V; F" y) A; L' r5 [+ q
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the3 w; G. S  q0 L
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower; |5 x1 f" N. }; W: X- \
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
: R; A- ?/ a  y2 F, S# [those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
% u) `$ Y+ v6 q, O% ^; aher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
+ [3 e+ r- w  I, T0 d# Mhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “) q- M+ U* W# \4 Y+ o. z
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
% d, @  d$ E& S) @8 u- s# b" _swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
9 S) n# B' g2 w; p( T( J, K! Eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the( L$ U7 b* |$ U; X& s
Callaway report.1 z5 r3 X6 i$ \9 K* q( s5 B- T
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more5 {7 i0 D: F/ C+ M0 d) x
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
1 l4 l- w+ }, V: p9 @here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 ?. s- D5 p- v: rof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
: x0 P3 Q/ d) J; R" r6 Lbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 D  M. m, j7 A- @$ O
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& Y3 T! P/ h6 m# n8 X" P2 j
publicly voiced different opinions.6 j# R# m2 y9 N7 b* `4 [  ^
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD7 J) S! i, W0 E" g( i/ ^
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature8 S$ r1 R+ c* D. X- a* q
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
+ z8 `' O& `, @, U2 X( T9 fpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
& }. A/ F2 m7 E0 X# Z# e3 q) g* Gyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
' }% F2 `- Y# O0 k5 Q6 e) u/ Uof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
0 q& A% p3 d  [. m* KThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
% y3 J6 u& t  L, Dthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
3 l2 D2 l2 m+ Khave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
$ F$ J/ D8 m, `' o8 `Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
4 N  c% g; y( F1 ]$ xthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
* |% y& W/ r, H* r) X, M/ ]supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
( |' W/ v, t, s7 [( p8 ^One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that. V  F* d# u4 u8 @, _+ c
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
5 W3 ^. S, Q0 N5 PChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
$ v, j2 B) V" x' {4 Y* G( e(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she! \8 J/ A$ h1 N" I
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.9 E5 d' e* h( |. m
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
6 |7 G# E2 h: q$ C3 c3 j. N# g! e2 fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
' r6 [! `# J: n: WDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
5 z2 I8 `% b/ t" VNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
1 |3 z. Q9 S7 G$ robjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
& ]0 A# F, ^' `% [7 u5 I% ?, l5 Awhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
0 C% K# H" ^9 V  a) \4 g- Krepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
6 l6 q7 a4 z( O+ h2 BThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not" u1 T- T8 j- N
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced: Q3 I. J' z! i
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 F, {" y$ ], s/ q# m
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
/ _: s0 ]; i, [1 I( O0 @this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”0 o/ ]5 o$ W. K/ Q: Z( \7 \
about British supremacy.
! @$ i3 }/ |) |- fThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many- K2 q' K+ A/ `9 ]
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
: C* \' j  ]) k) x8 y8 d  h+ {Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by  v1 N  g3 s) Y0 J$ ]4 H# u, J
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London! w: `5 E1 c( N( s, |9 h
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
6 c) @6 K6 o+ }4 x* HYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of* e% G- c0 Y% |. q2 c2 \4 L
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
* Q5 O- R/ c/ l! s* q2 cbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
/ `' x7 X7 A8 w  Q, \/ Lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
$ Q0 A& Z  n0 ^1 B& vpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! H5 |( D# {; _7 a8 e# ]7 d' fNature.+ e$ N( l1 V5 I! c3 n' p* O) ~4 z" D- u
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
! \  Z- C! l8 o: H( cthe Callaway report.
; m/ I" t! t8 H5 [
  d; b% g& r: C5 cYi
# \* X, m. ?  |4 b
  `6 h3 r% a. T) IYi Rao, Ph.D.( g" v% c5 U1 ]; ]( E1 M* }$ a
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ K) p1 q7 {% |1 O# `" I( o
Beijing, China
0 r/ T7 K% t. S& I0 S3 m. k
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
# [& V' s, L: H$ R1 q. U7 D# Y原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
. W( d/ ~" e7 {) c
原文是公开信。
0 ~9 x3 c3 {; O9 z: c6 ?# T6 ~0 t: n- t) S0 o& Z! K
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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 & v: D- K; {  E( l
原文是公开信。/ N# x6 S& }" \/ G

- v0 p3 }8 X- H5 Z. M小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
# c' S! c+ Q1 X$ f1 l7 e
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 JIANG5 H' \/ `5 M" C
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 g+ V8 e" z, w# s
, N* @& W# }, I4 D2 h& ^% Vhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
7 X* M1 O) M: z5 N) Y  _* J$ c
* f& e( a1 X6 i- j% {- OFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! u' q0 \. e1 t5 f9 ~
' }$ _! D; s" G2 {It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" K& w1 G: H! i  {& }( Q5 ~
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science, j: \$ R0 b" `7 K) T
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this+ n! N* g) Y: m& \8 D* b2 I
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; D2 Z1 H- s  f5 ~scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general9 _7 `5 l1 G: x* u$ O
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
7 w8 p2 d" c2 b* Dshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
$ `$ E$ h% t) y* v7 ^6 c5 Swhich they blatantly failed to do.
  H( }' {8 W* {. I
( j3 B/ U4 l) m1 b) t" NFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 D7 q) N: q( k9 f4 E* I. Y! QOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in/ a% I4 H1 T( D: a3 ~
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* H' p% d: c, o0 h8 n3 [+ y" L
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( ?, {! j1 @# F8 Wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 N7 w6 j2 r. s% B: [; P3 [
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
6 N/ v$ B" g: U+ h" E8 Pdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
' r0 ~2 E$ h! T! V. ?be treated as 7 s.
4 u, y5 w! J6 f4 c
3 p7 F& h2 W3 t4 l+ h3 D. NSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 {5 G7 u8 k% Y# x& h, Y
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ E# ^5 t5 \5 m6 m' H/ g
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) q- z: ^. G: A" r
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 g& p" w$ `- V8 ^4 E
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 Z  n+ p8 l+ e% D/ U* U
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
+ R2 Q" m' V7 m' Uelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
! p. d: p& ?2 }  w' Fpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
- l7 Z& u. A1 wbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 I5 t( [) `/ h
  [, k$ H. ]3 P4 U
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook4 l$ T" I  r9 B9 |
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
& j$ e8 y0 H) Xthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
- k- {7 r( D9 _. Xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
, S. L6 ], G. oevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s3 R. M3 g. g: K3 u1 ?* Y+ Z0 R
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) p: X% U" P! TFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another( ?( B4 q; {% V+ x) h) E8 H. d. y$ C
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other& J8 U5 k% b% q$ ]) B3 ?" v9 g) ]% U
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle# l9 b& S! ?  f3 V7 v: d! t$ l
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ p0 Y5 {% Q+ u. X& q, \: M7 Hstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds7 J, P8 A0 v( q; e& G
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam8 n/ V! _: ^% k3 Y9 Y$ n, A0 Z
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% [- J. V( g9 C9 \, A" [aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% g. A8 u" Z) v, s- ximplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.) [% K+ v( y8 n8 N
" d2 {% _: i1 r) `! }- ~2 l4 x
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# {" R, l$ g' \) x& U! o8 q4 Qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ S- K6 t2 k( \( d6 j+ }
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
3 w& i) A1 S, r8 n+ B), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
7 J. i# r- S: }; S8 P" S& zout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* {3 k' l+ B2 P5 |
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
% z9 p; d$ K$ o9 d/ \1 ?of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
, I; G: {2 A) Ulogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in2 i& F, t! J5 R
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science* G& D- _7 B8 ]6 u; B& R9 D& O
works.
4 g1 Z* D  ~* r8 E# ]) _0 k5 @8 [- h' F6 q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
2 I: u1 g$ m( `6 C. |' Eimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
, v6 T5 I8 |; ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
5 O; K) S+ }: v) o! C) qstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific- N/ H) H' {. f' A- i
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 o0 G/ {& y7 U  s; B4 j, treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
3 z; W9 w8 q1 _cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' S  a: w0 C6 Y% gdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) t0 u" P; l* N6 l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: e0 G, e6 A( \" |  ~) i
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is2 h0 m' t: W  s: {
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& c) c; O% t# f0 B/ _1 M/ y7 xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* V+ `; u( x; p5 v- W% r* ?
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 C1 p, x' D- w) B# }
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
& f$ @# t4 X) nuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
9 C/ w* [" T- Z; F% W% ^. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
! m! a8 C8 ?: G/ y  q! C: zdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) }6 V  R8 M+ B6 a0 T  A, Lbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
; ?3 B4 z: B9 ?) S- a9 @# ~, Lhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% X; d& U) W1 Mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 w& M6 O+ J+ z% ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 z/ Q# a* m9 v8 ~# m, O  ~
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
( V. m# o3 f& u: P8 Z/ O0 @, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) {0 u7 L( A3 e& Q- O9 Mprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 X  m7 Q$ ~+ q9 M  w+ r/ V; v8 @athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
6 Y  R0 ~! }( `1 |chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
$ Y. U5 D! ~* v' HLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 U* v& S% C1 ~: nagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. _; v  I6 @( y
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
* ~, N- f: m  ^Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! B' f! y6 [/ d
# K, O9 G7 c4 F( ~* @
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
% K+ [# R/ K9 i4 U5 Rcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
4 J1 h  Q/ M  V& t& P. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
& z" U1 R* ^* K8 Q0 T6 XOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) k. F" ?  \( m( l9 l2 _- W& H
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for( Z6 U) ]4 X) l7 S; B% }9 V& Z
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, [/ ~4 q! k" O0 w4 jgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
  y# o( O5 i" V4 A: |& [have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a4 ], N8 J: m5 s! R
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% G* ~+ I2 i+ J0 [5 b* M6 |0 Spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. A  }. S- i; f# m
& E2 w- j3 p( aOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ o1 L" S$ P, Z5 d3 R- Z0 V$ R
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
  r6 ?  R9 Z4 U0 j& I0 ^' ssuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a, Z( B+ s5 t8 y0 i' |7 a. I. q
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
/ E! ?; e& h7 `) Dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
7 {8 f0 o: e, n5 [8 h8 Jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 y+ a* m0 e5 P8 T6 |0 ~
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
4 R& S& g, s( S, O+ Kargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* p( n" \8 T0 {3 e$ v' ]
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' r7 [& C& \& t! j# c6 i3 [6 y
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, 2026-3-1 10:45 , Processed in 0.162974 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