埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1848|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 - G4 m3 L. R, k7 l
' B0 U" h; n7 Z' h  J
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。) E/ d+ P6 i1 s, ~
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。
2 _5 h- h1 @& s总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
; y/ z: o% Z& j' S; E- }
8 k/ b4 q/ {8 n! nhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html6 l0 G7 R8 c2 P5 s; i8 w' B

& s. B, W1 x0 ?* d3 w致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选/ E3 t) G0 X) S- ^/ m
, e# Z" x6 _; {
英文原信附后,大意如下:
( u' a: |* v  N! H; c# F3 f7 b, b9 |6 B& D1 S! p
斐尔,* k1 M% p6 E* m- C
       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4 H8 q4 h+ y' I7 c# o2 ^
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
5 R( D! J# S) w! p2 m       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
* x" |- Q6 l9 ?0 v9 e+ 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( U5 l+ Z- H2 w" q+ @$ V! `5 r
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。$ E+ ?8 Y9 J. i8 {
       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* z, w" g6 Z: g" D" k
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$ i6 ?2 i+ n+ a% k0 ?5 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
9 n: @# \& b* L) B+ G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 C/ Z' W0 ]       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
. f1 ?3 D$ r. W9 U0 y,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0 w+ r# L9 s) ^; x  b- N
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
6 w3 l- S! x: o( k       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4 m( K3 T% V' t/ t& Q( c6 p
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
) e3 D2 Y! H$ {' d% {/ E$ w- K5 K,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; _! C, X9 B4 t( L) g4 |
       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
( i6 c2 V, l2 L4 c, c( w/ P( O+ A2011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
* P4 |' Z) x& r1 m5 A* q: ]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
  K! c1 x: D0 f& S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2 C5 [9 [5 Q; w1 A# p
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、六6 h* d8 `  Y1 y, h: Z
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
2 J  ?2 a! ?) \4 b* c. x项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目& B; |9 t. Q3 Q& ~
。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' d8 F! `0 \# z, t+ {
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。, b( w5 \0 l  u* M
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, w) J* R* I0 b' I( c. f# ^
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! {. Q' X: v  O1 p$ D+ P; f5 d
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
# y* ^4 G* W8 E4 X4 @9 _+ Q; n同意见的专家。
' s3 s9 i! C  `: _1 z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
, n1 {5 Y5 e# n0 u" p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
0 `) l1 n: [0 L! k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; ~/ U& P" L1 Z
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。. H. C4 ^/ U  ]4 b% l  Y4 Z2 `* k
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)
5 g5 g$ {5 i  G' s* d$ f$ m8 N, D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0 n. g! s9 M* z9 l" }" W( h
《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" R, O* K6 `3 N$ r1 A, S% C/ A
这些被Callaway忽略。
/ @  q, k9 j* S. w5 [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! X+ N  V1 B) E
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
0 {: h- M6 g8 c5 f8 z  `教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  \* I) H/ V! n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
$ B8 d. j6 A+ `# A$ q$ o8 W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
7 t% n. H7 g% c% X* H- ]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9 o7 v( p0 H9 u0 f1 h$ `
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。* M/ X: y# Y3 I* G& u" T
英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉,即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而1 n- [) L  Q4 N! p
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
; T, }; _, K7 @4 p+ [) f7 }7 x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
9 w% z' Z6 p; |% e- r' \”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。4 C9 |* y6 w& r$ X, }. z3 B
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
! T' I: v2 C6 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, w6 p3 b& I4 E, Y# r! E
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
9 {5 q$ X/ S7 F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+ S3 h. V* L: J8 l# V3 z
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
" l, w0 q, U4 S  ]# V8 X& P0 A而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。+ h- d3 }: z  K' x& ~
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
( o; z9 k$ x2 Z/ G$ L- b" X) H  C+ w% q. o4 {4 z" p
( I* ?/ I* x& s, f2 p
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 ?$ u, O* O7 ?' ]4 Z1 a

6 ?# h. C, Y% [6 B" I8 o附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结& g5 I& M4 [& ]; f
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email/ I. ~# v) E) O$ t. F3 S
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见% C! ~6 f1 V/ u  U6 w2 G
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) z8 F$ x2 `! K/ d4 l

) j3 V  Q/ m2 v. J- \# U+ H) \1 T* e, y! K. R; E
: W3 i( m: g7 d0 U" x' C9 Q
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)3 x( w5 s; Z* Q; m, B1 V0 N. S
Dear Phil,
7 Z; z( |: f, j" R( z, g, V: a       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
/ H$ r4 j9 y2 W1 S9 \report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20% s0 O/ o9 i% S6 A* @% Q! x) E
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed8 \! [4 k- y& _6 y
you.6 L3 Q; n8 B! a
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
2 h# q9 _* E  G0 k4 gbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese; Z6 ~1 l. {+ c+ E# j, q$ p
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; H. ~6 B  O4 _* s. R/ z' `
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- e$ h. _' \* r& Z) vpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
2 ]* ?  r2 c7 a$ e1 Qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news1 H3 E; ^5 s+ P, t0 k3 N
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
) ^$ f8 I4 w; n  V* F       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
1 D) s' U& N- F) oworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a; s5 Q  O/ P6 ]( u; n
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
$ C5 e7 }& k9 \% t0 Wthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
& K& |3 A2 m6 m% l9 G" B1 Kdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
/ @9 d7 U  {8 I0 Nexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ ^9 P6 t; [1 l$ W, `standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
) K) g/ ?; Z" Y. A2 ^1 Xand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
* ^# K& M- R5 H0 \" t2 B' [to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
& u. X" @6 U  ?: U3 p/ V4 u. Sreporting.* J" ]6 l6 z- R' w; O
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
. d# `  [5 G3 @* Z: x2 g1 J  Aalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by  y4 h$ k+ z- A- S
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in- I! K" \3 p# L8 }! K) Q
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
( {! Z/ u/ m/ ^6 L4 t% bpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* }3 U8 j; k; D  ~5 ^       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem# u7 G: H) L/ z0 j8 `
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds3 l# n& X' t" n: ]: L& ]1 W
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
1 S5 O+ D. h0 g9 Q: n# Hmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same/ Z! Q+ d/ C2 C0 b) e6 S
event for men, with the second fastest record.
" d. q- Q3 u: F( Q) U3 x       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
/ P% b9 j# Q( ]7 p1 {was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
/ G( h9 j0 i6 K- z- k* {! ?1 kyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- L4 ?: J% ^* N! |9 T# s% c$ R. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
4 |, G4 i* o4 v# M8 ~& F/ Mmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,4 l3 }! n8 L! \2 P. ]
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than) S3 ~0 ~) C( O9 C. B3 q
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed! l" q" u8 Q; z; v
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the& X6 B+ d, b1 x* g0 K
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower) e% }/ ?/ g5 k' b- A# [
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than. j% ~+ S* o. w, K9 m0 D. q5 }0 ~
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( n! i3 T( V( v' Kher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- y9 n6 p0 q  S! d( A/ @/ The would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “3 C! Y: N- h2 w8 k) B
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
, j" A7 f3 g9 @1 o9 Q8 T6 Dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
5 O, Q4 x; x1 Q. p4 kteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the: m2 ?3 s0 j# {9 C2 i2 _
Callaway report.
7 h  r- S; `, S/ ~: V6 p* r8 CThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more- R8 m1 k5 b$ s# v, ^/ x* l
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details% W$ J  \( q3 b* N! ?5 Z) }1 ^
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
8 y4 Z! X: Q9 s; c8 F/ N: W  yof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been: Q- Q/ d5 Q" J) Q2 m4 W! p3 n
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
4 X6 i% \% C1 U7 k6 m3 O! gWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
) A) M! i5 v  @& S2 ]  gpublicly voiced different opinions.
3 K8 N  R. D9 p( c" Y6 X9 fYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 ?3 \5 y! i3 e" Z# X
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature* w6 _7 P( V, D; u0 b9 A% Q4 ?; a- ]
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent9 g! s6 p; q' m8 y- K/ G
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
! G. w* ~" P  u. i1 g  ayou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy- i" k( K$ B- x1 k" ~, u! T7 D
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.% D. W& t( s- T
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 A- p; v7 q  M" Y* y8 n) O
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
9 G0 `# ]: t$ `have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as9 o4 Y4 ?8 j% o, ^; s
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that+ V4 W8 W* ]5 X9 ^* l, c8 p$ d* j+ s
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 c, [6 v( c( N/ ^; X: Psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.) A  E+ h1 b9 c0 N7 ^
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that$ Z$ `. {- b; k* H" _
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
' s6 I. r$ y! e( v/ k% q% SChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June; T* K1 a3 s- `. Q/ L8 L  H8 B
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she8 y) o+ C4 x& a3 h6 O' J% y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
4 m' u* @4 {* N3 t. z* ~The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& d0 a5 `) C4 y( w3 b3 T# ^- Fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 h5 X1 y! q1 p9 Q# o
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
  {+ t' a2 V: ~) L9 d$ t7 I/ ?6 cNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
" H5 \8 D6 [" p3 Robjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature1 N: G3 [) M2 E
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to, r0 W3 b% D1 Y" q5 g) h0 ~
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
( A( u( p( o5 C# l0 ]+ kThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not7 i& m+ |5 ]# \, V( |* n; |
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
  J7 m! h" o- b* d+ n0 zus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 K. T' L, s5 I& O! ^, P
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
4 Z" U0 R1 L+ ^: Q1 Jthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
* P6 i6 z4 e( ]5 x& i+ e- q1 m: gabout British supremacy.1 T1 D" s) j& h# ~2 g, p+ G1 }7 n
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many/ H0 t$ Y0 b9 {$ V' h3 e4 F2 \
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
4 W  I' A! t' d$ d3 D% OChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
8 X; W6 H- @6 D% S# _+ Eour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
* R5 O3 ~/ d$ `5 b4 dOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
0 j! J. G1 q6 R2 G1 J+ cYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of6 R  k6 a  ]: m% v2 q" E1 ?
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests/ R( d5 f- _- L: [+ c) D
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
1 b3 U" g2 c( r# |* ]it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly! t0 L5 q# o, X; x# Y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like. ~* p: o8 c+ C0 A) y
Nature.0 Q" P8 q& U6 L. |# G; D
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
. m  T# i2 a1 {' ethe Callaway report.
9 `- F7 y+ Q! b4 m0 `3 D# e! a: t$ j6 w* U( h7 a2 y! V- C! T5 q
Yi- |# p& Q6 }8 T0 l1 N
& P1 w7 }' d  \1 I! P( @7 n5 X
Yi Rao, Ph.D.1 X8 l7 K( R3 ~  v
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
; E, R2 p' }* r6 m2 q5 y$ ]Beijing, China5 X' [8 N* P6 C2 G9 d
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·········
理袁律师事务所
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   Q; D2 f% v' q" P
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

6 l% `- j( R6 s' O% m; k原文是公开信。7 U# H5 a1 J) T$ b

. l; ]5 F0 g" V2 _& [& B" K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 M0 t* s, E0 D) E2 y6 J原文是公开信。
6 ]4 |7 n$ M- w
; G% S$ k3 Q6 w3 W小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
: P, O) t9 I% n5 R/ q$ S* k' o
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 JIANG7 W! z$ p$ T5 g# g% C7 S" h! I
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 V; z$ X; s) F$ [& _& U8 @8 p- c# m5 {2 w7 B
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 Q/ g$ g- ?% s+ B8 a% Y- L7 W
# @! D3 M- O. G9 vFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania$ x' d, ^* W2 S
/ Q3 d, q4 F; ?4 e$ T
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" \1 W' W% q7 N" |* @5 c9 P
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science) b  \' ]+ |0 Y# I' \- \7 A
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
$ U" Y; J7 ^+ d* _- ois not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
. `, a: E8 t' `) n2 S, s2 cscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
& t) l% w) A& x( i' W0 x# K$ Ppopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
8 g9 }6 s9 g3 q/ m: v9 O3 eshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,9 H" p7 K" q: I8 H" `" }9 L  A
which they blatantly failed to do.
% u% T8 H$ ~& j( a' }7 @$ D& F& ], Y# L8 b9 N. m  J
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her; g9 V& x& s8 C; t
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' o2 Z# K4 l5 \- R
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
0 t- F" P4 ~8 v2 \8 x& `6 Hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous; ?9 _* I3 D2 e% |
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an/ Z4 g! B+ p* a. `! {
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: i  x! N% j) L3 r/ _
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to$ q1 ?. W$ s0 k* l! `: t8 N
be treated as 7 s.! ?. h1 A8 l2 g3 l1 r
& d) d+ c/ E0 s/ ?$ _
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 q! E: V7 I6 I# |7 I3 i+ c( B! Bstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem- j. a5 X: t. J0 Q  r
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." A/ T3 e- F8 y) f8 K4 r$ x
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 B: d  m( @) B' o0 ~3 \
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.0 W" ^$ j7 g& q3 r/ z% q7 c
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an, O( s0 d& r; h9 D  y" [
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and/ I- V7 G3 u5 u6 a1 ?
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
) a: P2 Y4 c# ~3 ?0 R: h. ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* o1 K! l: n4 x  l* H
( L! N( D/ k) L9 D) ZThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook7 s" ?/ E2 L/ T) d$ h
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ Y  @+ r! n, Z4 v/ Q& c9 Athe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) G7 a4 o0 D& E! z, T6 K9 `# D5 Dhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
! G  R7 Z: T6 K. \2 vevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" f! U+ l3 I2 n) g/ Rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World$ B0 q/ T. A  T" R4 F9 R
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
) b. P# j* V+ ^: w3 ^7 utopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other8 D1 T( z  a/ U! F! F
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  o+ t7 l" {1 J$ ?# I6 i" Y3 q% \, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 _0 Q4 W4 ^6 H. i+ `strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ W1 v4 Y" A% _! J$ K6 E
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam; j1 {4 J3 }3 k! G$ s7 j1 e
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ T4 J& d8 B0 r( W. A
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
" {3 S2 D6 {+ B; j6 n, gimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 t; A% n& P; O& D

, g2 N8 s2 A6 H3 H" d& U! ZFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! U) r5 v" n7 ?" q
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ T2 R- D, [8 i0 n8 o
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s! B4 X2 p' j8 A9 ?) R# `
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 A' R) N# a1 c& ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* E( s9 r* B6 d% W0 w( @  n. g3 l
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& K# R+ L7 ^5 G& Y8 l# G1 C# Mof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, N: E% P8 }3 `: ^7 t" i
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in* V" y& Z6 h) @" {* n9 @8 G( {
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science( U3 r/ L0 X6 e" M% Y
works./ F9 E+ u0 p5 v& B# F# s) F/ q1 v! }
; o6 b+ y6 O5 H6 G& }: [% h
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
& p! a7 }/ o4 T5 Simplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this# G9 b9 u4 s! x0 s
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ \1 Q! o8 ~/ h
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific$ w3 Y! T% K5 \( E: a1 e
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and1 E( y4 e; |2 e0 P, u7 \
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. M. Z4 i3 x% b/ [
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 t7 L" M8 T% @  X7 Q
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: S0 P$ @' t) W9 k- w8 x- f
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ @7 H' a0 D- a% ^- _4 his found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
  M1 |0 e3 Y+ L* p$ Hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
8 A3 q* }+ ]/ h0 K$ d$ T' Awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
* E" ^: \/ u! |8 ]3 K3 Gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: w9 k/ {3 }4 i" {8 w$ o2 ]past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
) Q. j. I* K8 N+ o& B1 ?use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation1 `: f9 Y; b% f
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are. H- q0 p8 X, d
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* Q& m2 [9 N$ ?6 ^
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! z. Q  s2 @, p( S0 e% ^
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
+ P: l2 e/ }" yhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
; b! H, n5 B2 d0 {! f, L# [! i: }drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:  W+ S  A/ _+ M1 v
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect$ g$ T- i; o( l0 H1 _; D( O
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" t+ M  r3 B; D' r) i) U- I! Cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
4 I& ]3 t! @4 }! p3 Wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ r" [/ A7 R& y$ J
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: W2 Q# I! v, P! Q2 N( w% g. T
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
, q7 ]0 ^8 e8 b0 j, kagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
) D5 m5 T. T: s1 Teight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
% E+ _/ `  ]; c' ^) FInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
( r) l9 A3 x( z7 Y, m
: ~5 E& z- T9 W  pSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 g7 m9 H+ C" _* R6 z& bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention# A0 Y$ D. W" b5 O
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& A( z1 N# S! p- r
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' Y4 `# Z& u/ K6 f. X5 Y$ B
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 U8 H. F5 p% H$ ndoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic/ p& U) O3 P$ i. @1 Q; o5 u- e
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
! ~2 U/ U. w. ~( m2 ihave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
! \" I7 E* ?1 Aplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
+ D1 Z2 ?  s- a+ _- D% wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
  ]! b7 }6 L4 @3 e
  \' Q; W$ Y$ l$ IOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (& \6 r# d7 n+ F% e) \" J2 Q2 `
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
# n: l. U4 @- msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 {3 i$ @! E( b( D$ q% k3 vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide( d$ m0 h: {# |, h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
/ p6 S$ S2 q5 g  r! I/ Qinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,9 M4 l1 k4 D7 Z. Q
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; s" i! J0 G# i$ u- @4 {& eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal" ~0 U3 x# ^  Z7 @/ x/ Q# Q
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or7 j7 P% [6 S' s" P. I$ a
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, 2025-11-27 14:07 , Processed in 0.179277 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