埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2312|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 ' V5 |9 C" s2 G
/ j0 ^) d% M  ?, E
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。! H- b2 k& p2 V/ H1 u3 M; u3 i+ h
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。
$ s" ~4 D8 Y* r5 J总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。3 J2 g# D8 @, v7 l3 ^" d& X" n

8 c& \5 u/ D/ D* \http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
' F; O  B( G) E9 f& H7 u' G* }3 n7 d0 d; L0 L7 r4 r! U: J4 \5 Q( z
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选8 ~- ~+ C2 T4 ^2 [6 Q

3 ]" g+ y' x9 o! V英文原信附后,大意如下:
0 ]. R# v9 p1 u& v" M$ [4 R" k6 Y8 O) i$ _9 @% d+ z# Q% d2 L+ H
斐尔,
) ]  E2 H' |9 A) E" v3 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# |1 }9 p8 {2 K; `
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
! F5 ]; Q1 k# m) K, u4 }       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- j) r6 d2 P+ T% \
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5 L# w5 @( z9 @+ U7 w, ^
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 D8 z+ r; T( z# Z" c' @       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/ S" U  X* ]# Q9 ^+ n! n; 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
' K- t$ _8 {6 c8 ^/ r$ |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5 s- ~2 T# {& C" z
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。
6 s4 W8 _5 T# ^9 Q( |$ o       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
0 H5 r5 T/ F7 Z, c,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
3 j2 B: c: M- s! ]" b' O”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。+ X+ V$ j+ V6 s% C' o
       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
% j% N8 z/ b& @/ |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
, X/ J4 t) [3 V5 _+ x2 n' x,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。3 L& [, c- I4 E6 b
       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 c. V: d' 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
3 g5 ~* s' \& ?& L- J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" u: B1 @4 I- 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
. v5 K  b* e% Z/ T; x7 C/ b: W6 r/ C5 s5 J300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
" I( S/ x5 b( V9 W' P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 s7 w& g; M! v5 f
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+ i  f5 E: ]8 q" q: A/ k, i2 B
。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
: k( R; K( u) Z$ `! @) l录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
% R7 v5 J. w6 J* Y+ h7 u/ p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$ u! [8 [4 ^1 r  m1 u
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
/ \4 O( ^0 A3 K$ ?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8 `  z; W5 [' A& @
同意见的专家。
  F! {  z- O* V' l3 \+ b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- E, |% u) m. }
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
# M! J! ~/ v' a1 ^" g( P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
. F6 L+ y5 w5 u# X《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
1 J) y6 d* ~. ?; ?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)
0 f" V* J; {1 w5 l4 v6 o6 o7 P: [的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为& ?2 G( ~# a3 f) V, Q
《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而8 y6 q% T. O: N3 K6 X& B- F
这些被Callaway忽略。  ?& K6 [0 B9 m: s
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5 G5 _3 a7 f4 k( g4 G6 V& x
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; \6 p+ ~  ]6 {教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。; V  O4 V9 |# c$ t- ]
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
1 m+ ]" b% g: Z: w: h; N' ^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
3 \, R5 @! e9 X5 W' I; ~, q& O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
$ C5 `+ v- {0 e' e3 D! W. [& }今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。( P4 x) h' x$ Q& C) ?
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" |/ _- G6 N6 ~- `
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- u$ k+ v5 Q  a  A2 _
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: ^( l& W( K3 c: Y6 U/ R) M
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。" t6 K. s( C" a: _- 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
6 _6 |0 i! B+ h( j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
9 a9 I/ g4 H% h, ?  H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; H& z1 F# ]) N
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: C' `6 E6 }5 d- c* L" ]1 d" H
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# V0 r. w+ b7 y- v5 Q% X- B$ s
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 a2 F+ w/ h+ L8 R, G; C! M我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。9 E0 H- Z  K, W* ~% F  s" k

/ \! r) x# r' z3 g- E4 K- R% r% c/ J: @$ H+ C( f* F
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% \2 Q0 @2 Z: i$ P) {% j/ Z# {8 ~7 I

; g* G6 t8 M/ }( ]/ d* S附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 q) p! E' ?* o7 U% x. B& N) s附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email3 j4 I) U; n1 g8 m9 C' m6 V% h
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见; Q; s7 t! j1 D- X5 y
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) `' ~+ h. j8 }/ Q( v

2 [6 S8 B+ I# [1 V: }. [) z9 r0 ~! q* ~! |1 D
+ m$ n6 S: X" T9 A
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
; u6 Z2 d0 K( Z% xDear Phil,) W" q0 g) k1 w  h$ @
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
* c7 i) L. H0 b: N" M# rreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
0 r; N5 b" s0 {% `hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed1 h8 w+ |/ }% \2 J! u
you.
" J/ h9 D) V0 W       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
8 S) X4 F+ E# y; zbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
" N* ^2 e6 r* y& Preaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the1 R- r7 o+ ~/ X, G" t# K% M, q1 K  n
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ M# y- Y% ~6 I: gpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# @6 C" A7 ?' j. g9 k" p+ x# E/ T( J, h" ?seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news5 v, }7 F  ]* M& l. t
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.0 U. |' a- I! S/ E6 e+ Y6 P9 D- p8 ?
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the* }" i3 Y3 {6 N' T3 a/ L
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a3 q& a% R- S0 `' [4 G, q! S
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish& y2 L, u( t5 n4 P. O$ H0 p$ M, D  E
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
( w- [9 W, T4 x  Y  c% Rdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% F& R$ r. I4 d* l6 A5 Mexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
, G% s7 G5 q6 ]1 ]5 e& bstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,& Q5 x$ C8 W9 ~5 p7 U
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone% q) W4 L  ?3 t6 e- t
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news* k7 P. ^$ S0 G  ^+ j0 o
reporting.$ c+ X% d' f# r( C. @3 t
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have1 i; C- ]$ u4 z) V1 L
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by, l% X* e; f1 p
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in: q" o! o; K' A- J; y# c6 y, I
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
. Y7 y3 X% [/ y0 S* ~0 n1 m2 E+ |presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.+ |1 I& ]! Z* Z; Q8 }
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem4 T, c0 B( J! M' E0 I" j3 @4 G
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
3 N" K" o' d8 l/ xfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
2 a" Y1 ~; w& w0 ?meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same, K& \5 r: ^$ ]& Z. V6 i
event for men, with the second fastest record.
; y' p5 Z6 d- Z- q       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
7 n& y. [- `6 w- _1 T* x8 twas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
/ U+ c/ H& E" B7 v) Myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record4 p/ Q7 A9 H7 J2 c, ^
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
* _$ F* a) `9 G4 nmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
$ `' f1 N  D! O5 @) |' |/ p8 Rfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* \8 Q: p6 ?& G4 U! _: V
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% ~' ]5 p% w- E
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the9 H* X2 P2 w  N2 q- T
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
  F4 L9 j& ~9 K; Uthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than4 H" o  k, ]1 E* S9 B! b# h
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
0 T- K  C% T  b* R( Gher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 ^4 |' v1 E: u% V% ~
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
- Z3 _4 ?5 N. J# Tproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other1 k* i+ M2 Y3 z+ H/ u( ?
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the" B; R" y- c7 k2 p* k6 R
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
7 G) _( n- F: }# r3 q4 {, bCallaway report.
+ ~: S1 k) w: B8 @( w4 IThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more5 R) j& W3 ?8 d: j
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details+ o* }) [' d: i  k4 {' {, @
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description  s$ r3 c8 a8 G+ F0 I; i
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been5 }( B* X4 h4 q" h' h$ Q
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the4 n2 p' q. a4 [2 f! ^9 j
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had* p; M! o" ^/ J
publicly voiced different opinions.) T" [9 L- e) E. b
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
& p  L$ ]6 ?6 s/ C5 u/ sfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
( d" C$ A8 \" \9 nNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
4 W8 z' d) \1 w$ C! spostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
# E8 u: D/ @9 nyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; s/ G2 K6 B1 j2 l' i$ Jof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
# G* k  ^/ j8 x. g# E9 SThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think8 e' w& @  V+ L0 a0 ]  E; n
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
0 l$ L  x7 L3 e! j0 W! n9 ]have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
! L4 f( Z/ }1 \" r# J4 s( TAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that( d: u7 @! r- g  K4 Y" _
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
; ]# k8 ~4 E/ z: `) Q  psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.) U3 }9 E1 \& i
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
' V  y0 E0 U( z+ y% L  i# gmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the$ L+ U4 [& Q; `; T; b
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June) S/ c2 z1 E4 I! y4 i; h7 f
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she9 W( l$ m' a, W. D
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  o5 l6 W2 m& X3 {" m( {4 W
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
8 l. {6 i: z& r; \and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
0 f, S) U+ y& T# KDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; O: ^3 D1 b; D; e* NNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
0 ]- R. b9 `! a2 I  x+ Lobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature: m. {" O. n& o. R" C/ F
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to# a$ K/ L# h+ O% `8 c/ d. m
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.5 E1 ~3 A8 D3 s* s  x. E" c
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 P/ _# k9 f2 B. O8 rshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
% L# ~4 h  X* [, |: fus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
7 ^- Q/ _; _5 t* G# t, ufresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that4 D$ W7 x9 O# k! F. @6 k
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”% Y) {- ]! L1 O
about British supremacy.
/ K) a4 y2 ?% H/ U4 b) ?The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) H" L7 c; V" o! k( d5 b8 z; iunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
4 ]% E8 i8 i. v& T& A- E1 h! eChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
: D) Y) o/ `$ v2 E/ Z  @$ `" Sour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- I4 S/ n# [, t! ZOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
5 b: v# T) e7 u6 e+ s0 MYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) i8 N$ O) Y6 a7 Y/ w1 B- |: Tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests* Q: |( o1 d7 }4 N0 p! O
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' q3 @6 o- H. s4 h; m) h
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
1 c5 D% \( \. d# W. [publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like" _. ]% z9 F9 Q
Nature.) D7 l" I! G$ r, g( y) y
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
2 K. n8 K# ?4 Z, @; s8 D4 N9 Uthe Callaway report.0 L3 K" j4 |! h2 t

" R$ |! h& K% v3 N9 E- C. X* [+ ZYi
: H# q3 i+ u. j
* Z( z) F# d8 x8 ^Yi Rao, Ph.D.- J6 a' \! r% v% ^* _9 u/ v
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences, ~/ g$ [# R% s9 Y  s! ]
Beijing, China) ^8 X. r4 `; [* @
理袁律师事务所
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 7 a" B! V  A$ }, [* R! c  g
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
& r) J( _' p0 @+ Q4 S
原文是公开信。; |( k$ Z; J/ [/ H( T

, L- ^4 {! p1 z% U  l0 [5 z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 $ t, n8 g; W' h1 i/ a1 x
原文是公开信。7 d6 n  o6 ]6 _  ~) O
7 g% s+ X9 t4 B, V/ u4 T
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

$ r$ L$ x/ J2 C: ~0 \( ~谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
) a" Y+ j* ?$ ~" \如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ M/ I. u1 w' d
' L! ]( q6 n9 G8 u. ^http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html; d) ]' ~& ^3 g, A4 Z& E0 Q

8 ]8 J  x* y  ?FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! B  I* ^2 @, E5 B6 o3 T# s; Q( @# B

4 G" ~+ R. n5 n8 O7 UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
* s: ~7 F* @; S. c/ |* h, j1 j, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 R2 ^1 T6 m3 p4 P- D9 R- xmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this6 U1 H: @2 u: o5 \+ H8 z/ U
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' q+ r0 J0 x/ W6 X; E* bscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
6 W7 r$ @; i1 ~; y# G9 \populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
. n0 M  X0 j8 ]  ?) C. L* c8 Fshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ j+ B: x! w" B0 b7 F( Wwhich they blatantly failed to do.+ M# n1 V' k8 g$ w
+ t2 e8 A, ?/ J1 Z- y" c
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her2 c% ?4 c. w' b
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
8 B) `. o/ f' e' }$ D, _2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ t: O! k& [; q  kanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous$ k( i( j* n7 T+ _/ C# l
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: P  p. E3 `( F1 A$ _0 j& A5 simprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ a& `9 [+ u  v
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to! h! E* a  A+ w( e* W" o
be treated as 7 s.
5 }5 l+ l( N! T( w. t. |2 e1 G  m; G# D7 E! F1 k+ F' B  B% s
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is3 w- z6 N# ~& p& Y
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
3 O  A  J" Q2 F0 R# [1 ]! qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
7 ?, e$ e/ X$ ?2 r5 O$ [; jAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; b1 \6 `- K3 |' e7 f-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
! M- Y' n' v5 q" M; C6 \For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) F) l/ i( t  w- _( ~! \9 W
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 K% A1 }. [/ fpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”9 f. q% O4 R5 C& `1 w  V7 r; t& i
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.) x( n( B8 W' \' G. @' \

/ @# u( [/ \  m$ j) V8 pThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 P0 N/ r; i& x7 c2 h1 e4 m  Eexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 g9 M" T2 d  S) H$ p
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so7 [' v* n: l, Y+ H5 L! ^; F; u
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later. n9 F8 g6 a1 o9 `/ a- E) ]
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
- P7 w8 v# H/ Qbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
0 v( X' Y# |9 r" FFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another2 @9 U8 d& N. L% ~6 X7 C
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 r% p7 E! u, Q; b; c
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle2 F% q0 S* l8 ~" ]+ X. v
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
4 _: t3 m! F9 m0 w# Ystrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
$ [$ S0 u. ?9 K- `( p8 Ffaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
# I0 j7 t% \, x; R% k9 [. lfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
  Y3 V/ I! G$ ~. u' W0 K- `aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
: ~& @  T* B. P8 h2 d: a% Iimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
" I/ m* t& N( f1 o. q& a. H% _6 L
  p. b: T; `/ [) S- Y: EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 c" K0 k, ~$ o- z4 b3 f
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! u6 ^" N# J. W+ ^* C0 f5 cs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
4 n  Y5 `7 t; A0 y+ \9 r) U), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ O% B+ q$ w, K* `- ^' |& M4 ^
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: ~* E* Q; S, o. c5 W' b
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind8 ^  U! h7 w2 C/ U# H
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
! i2 R5 k! i' S4 ?7 q7 ~1 Ilogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& ?# Q" h: _1 ^; ]( u/ V
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( A0 Y7 V6 j/ ]; F) Gworks.; a9 l( A: X! A# d7 h" M

/ g' R' A% J2 z- H# _7 jFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and( q5 Z+ L7 `- S# V" ?$ H
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 y4 Z, S" e; C1 A2 p; a2 Akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 [2 |* t3 M, x/ x
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific8 k9 t$ d6 E$ p7 W2 P0 h& b
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; T# n/ R/ ~( d5 C
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
, `! _* w; u7 T# U4 Acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 `6 S: l% [3 \* ddemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 |# ~0 @: z* O$ l$ X
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 A/ d2 E' q; p) G. E$ U- y; r
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is7 I# b9 d0 O8 ]  u# w7 m+ x
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, ]' `0 d( L4 _5 a2 A4 uwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 k3 E6 |' W2 C5 ^advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the. y" y5 V& W9 U' ~
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
: F$ I4 G  s8 V) O0 N* x% yuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
; P9 c$ C; t" f/ t( c0 ]2 G. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 x4 q4 Y! S' o1 Y4 N" O
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may5 ^5 ]/ _; _8 V3 y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, ^6 R: d* \' J1 hhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, R  M0 D* ~# e. d: B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ k% ^! v4 u( t
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 [' L- C7 X3 E0 d
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
: P, ~5 u( W  a1 j+ K2 i, m$ ?) h# l, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! ]/ ]1 R) _6 T+ N! W
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
% q7 k/ }6 \) p8 u1 tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight2 ?9 K5 C( D6 ^. D
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?; t& |0 Y: d1 V- K" ~1 q1 m
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 u# B% ^% ?  D* Q1 fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
1 t) X& Q* J. K0 u6 g5 @& H) H5 Zeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.7 J4 z: R  P0 e  Y6 o7 M
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* g; \9 s; {! X1 E4 b7 N# q

8 }5 E2 H' x4 R2 tSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; i$ Z6 w7 s3 Z- W( xcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention' b+ [% I4 |( |$ u& r+ I; C! S( s6 D. y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 X5 E6 X. c: \) A2 l- R# c" c* _) eOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
5 L% r" w0 d* A- F& f+ j  rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for+ s+ F/ Q0 x' E( z- u; E
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic8 ?0 _- u$ [! d8 y# Y
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
# P" Q# s/ \7 O( O, P5 lhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
3 f2 x4 V# |9 Z1 R+ t0 Pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% J$ p5 m! [" Epossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.& e7 v! `+ h1 M
- d" b5 ?( r) Z+ P5 n8 z- A" f
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- D1 k& [- M3 J( Pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too8 x, Z3 _8 l3 T7 u  u, w
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 n4 S6 r6 T: u, l$ Qsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide3 S4 C8 x" p; v# b
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your# u5 U( ^& m& R" r* [
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 y% \5 r, w4 a8 Q& u
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 _6 y; @) c, C( \  d, Sargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal9 E7 \+ R5 M; j8 J9 ~( j9 S
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& S5 Z) N& ~& c& E. E
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, 2026-5-9 22:52 , Processed in 0.141902 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