埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2258|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
& f( H# s1 \, @4 c) z6 P: {' [. j  T! c) B' Z6 _
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
) o6 n4 `: R* T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。& ?* g1 g$ _- b& z$ p& [2 D
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
# ?$ c. M: A  ^' H" E0 u/ W# Y! i/ B# g
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html6 h4 ~. E6 z9 ?3 j" f

! [: H  c% s8 p+ T  W) W- j# u% U致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
, R9 j; B+ x2 v0 Q' e7 V
- b# A  t2 m! O; B- ?' s  w, j英文原信附后,大意如下:
6 r6 I. T" n' X9 @6 J* _- S( [% u" z% w& I7 Y3 f* Q5 V7 P
斐尔,% z  q* g8 L9 u
       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( k' F5 @; s& F6 ]( b7 [
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 S- s2 t! j8 [" E; ~2 l       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  K0 o' M7 f3 I% r- P+ s0 l: m) L
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$ l2 D9 e; ^0 F  {- R. Z$ s
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。$ H7 ]2 u% ~9 I) V! X
       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& E1 t5 ^4 z& b
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
; s+ i! M7 r/ x" r9 q; g0 J. Q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 R4 t4 }) |8 R  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。! Z0 e  Q4 @+ W2 K" p2 r3 v
       我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中,《自然》可能意识到了原副标题的偏见
8 i: r! D: Q) t  r9 v: R3 E; c; d% [,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# J2 C, G6 Q  I# ~& s
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。8 E; F' n1 O' y6 ]: h1 `
       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, M& d' ^/ @" R& d
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+ k$ ~. y6 f2 B: F8 s! [
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
7 E. M1 `# `7 M6 @       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) N/ {1 \9 J( }8 j7 B
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
+ |; R6 ]+ d- H* U5 a. M3 w5 K5 u3 H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" D5 J9 x5 c! R
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
  G* z0 W' t0 o& d' U1 g300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( k$ q1 W+ v0 n9 R4 S
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: b6 [& M8 L  i5 G, s8 q( F; y
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
1 \5 T" |9 q" v8 x/ b2 `。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
. e9 `( O/ ]& s. x9 X4 a录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
2 _% f: Z3 j" U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
2 R" T; a7 z3 q5 L3 C# S0 `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
1 ]; X7 D- k- w% ^. Z7 q* R& UWikipedia。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1 \- ]5 o) m. W9 ?6 ^6 L9 F* O
同意见的专家。% K9 F1 h4 n1 A$ `
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
* H! `% ~/ o) \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$ g3 \* p5 t$ ]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
/ o( H7 Y. Y/ Y. b' S《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。4 j- ^% G' K! E# H- ]6 x
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)
. u. I( V$ c/ t3 L- U) [: ]/ r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
3 c3 ~  V# f$ V7 O) O( O7 u《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
0 i0 V1 v# S1 c+ i* ?1 A# h这些被Callaway忽略。
# B7 D& B, n; o* _# `0 r- {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
0 L1 i) g4 ]5 O9 h1 n0 I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
% q& v1 {$ U) E9 H5 L教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% s  n' v) ^# P1 e! 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
0 c/ B0 f# E6 u0 r1 }. }& r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% ]" w$ M4 {2 F- M1 N/ J* X. J5 E: _
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
: y2 [+ f0 O! Z  I( }7 K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。9 t0 f5 w$ W0 Q! `& L5 n8 s! Y4 H& s
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( h1 D9 h3 o+ c3 r# ^2 z1 u- 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
4 ]. r6 B, N1 _: g- w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
. p$ x( l, ?2 S6 T”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。# M  [+ K* Y; N7 ~! b6 ]; e- W
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: E: y4 ^6 C! |5 D/ `0 i( 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
& s. G! R! O6 S3 \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
2 v8 U, b# H* {) G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
6 ~6 U2 ]2 t$ d2 K5 ^2 |$ R8 k' u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
& ~; u+ G$ e# D. z而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
0 a5 _7 @3 n9 v  e  O) `6 B我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
0 L0 z+ G: Z+ u3 a9 j: z/ ?* {9 W" N% U+ K5 i$ B3 w" @. V
3 C# |, b. B# W0 H& W2 E
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅, c) M! |9 p/ ~5 f1 O6 J5 b
% L5 B, g6 D: v, n3 x4 [( j) a9 F
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
9 r& ]  j0 z' q4 k+ O2 v附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
- B8 N. b5 ^7 i  k9 y附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 q* z- v( z- C. L3 ^! T3 u2 M附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
+ V! m0 r- j8 u5 l2 K8 q# F. m$ A2 }* `6 o" x  j

# S& D3 b4 J+ c% R6 m  a- p8 _( V& D9 w  I
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)* a: [& Q' g. W; d/ P) e( S
Dear Phil,
# y1 I9 t5 A' W" B. B       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
4 [  L5 c8 \. K7 wreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
% v4 D6 U# X5 a3 a+ Phours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' ^8 d4 m8 h4 r8 h- f# i3 ~you.
/ z3 k" P( p# [7 _# A* D       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 O% {$ s$ ~/ \$ b; F& s
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
+ S% R3 T  A# ^" a5 Q0 |readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the% [& u# Y! {1 K+ k1 x- k( O* t
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature! `9 @$ Q5 }/ d0 a
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more5 `- n! a9 y! S8 p# q/ X
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
0 s1 h0 `( G3 x. Z) G5 ^- l/ [5 r+ wpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
" S: L. _9 i, W/ E& e+ L       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
; ?! Z  F' R; T: c, Sworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
! E3 x# a, X0 ]4 [+ s3 m2 Pnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
6 C2 x0 |. b# @- r8 I8 N9 [* `9 Z1 Qthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 ~& m: F5 v! g3 s* R+ r0 {- ^did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
3 @1 I  n# {& j' p3 K. ^( Pexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
7 o! R( w6 e; e6 H8 J; [standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,5 \) e* f# [: Q8 F
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
  s8 I8 B3 L; k$ tto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news' V2 u2 n# K$ P( A+ v; o
reporting.$ a3 A- M* Y7 w7 ]
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, O0 k: z& Q1 S7 Z3 Lalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
8 p( @/ b* {2 K1 Q# }; G6 mchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
: X$ O6 \; ~; G( Q; ^4 ?+ Z$ Xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
2 q7 C5 }' X# i5 N" o: Lpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
, l/ M0 ]  ^* S$ {/ T2 f: c& ~       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
; ^9 F  H* K, J% Wmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds+ D" T, g/ |# K. F+ r0 [0 I
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
( y0 I7 R+ q! @( Q! d$ T, }2 _% B7 @meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same! E% g" b3 @# }& e* f- e' k/ P
event for men, with the second fastest record.# [5 ^) ^/ ^4 C
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye' ?7 q5 \" c( t7 G
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( p3 |) q: U- k% E2 a0 ~6 v
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
# L. b, @% {' ^( f3 M* Q. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 Q  @5 e' A" A3 S6 Imeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,/ x. @& n0 ?- k8 J# e$ Z
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
  b+ A) e1 S$ q; `" ]: S+ c6 DLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed: P$ q! Q1 v0 W3 G3 x! w( {8 p' e
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the2 `& c6 m  u1 q: i
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower/ u$ I, p3 M" b7 I1 Q
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than* _9 t7 B% K( e9 m7 e% A8 [
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( J2 e* h5 f; l2 Hher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
4 w- n; j" d. fhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “6 Z5 g# n# {) i6 [
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other6 j- d, o  M! |! f+ C5 c% m. E; A. g
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the9 h) l' E1 S  f
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the% w# `# y, `  r" q2 r
Callaway report.
* L' i( r7 O( ?3 ]9 mThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
8 s" D' F% q9 M& Funderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details6 S5 F( e" |- N: j0 u' p
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description2 ?, f2 K) N' k0 @* n4 S# C) a/ p
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
: t) Q# G* I8 O) @better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
, v5 z! l1 ]* }0 z: ]+ E/ l' s7 mWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had# J. G, s* F0 a5 ?
publicly voiced different opinions.
8 L; a8 U0 j2 ?- A- aYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD% `4 T) Z  D2 T' r" p$ h
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
$ N0 S0 w, V5 z! i8 p# kNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent, F/ m6 [. H9 P; V1 S$ X9 B9 l
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
+ m$ T  d; ^: J" Hyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
! A* Y2 y  d! V: w0 L+ pof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.+ H) T* m3 u1 T" e6 N& m: _
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
* t$ ~4 _2 c' b. N" v; ?% ~# cthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
" D* F9 Q& A4 J. I. Ehave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
1 i, U& }6 `. Q! aAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
$ c  l8 h' D0 Qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was: @2 e/ b& @% e/ ~6 _/ l9 w
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& C, c* d- w$ f! B- S8 ]$ zOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
+ ]4 J9 O# f% X! p% y/ Jmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
7 T/ t. u/ G$ O9 O' s" sChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 J$ E  |: V5 q
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she/ n/ Q- b5 N: K% W. Y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
9 b4 G- q5 t2 |The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, F0 f* l0 v4 C5 d2 q) a# ~and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and0 S+ H5 C4 d4 M( x! V
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; O" K! i) Q3 B# Y% x  s. l  P
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
& L. p5 i& |: h1 |. R" {$ R7 cobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
7 X; r' W) M# R' lwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
3 X  D! X$ \5 s4 {repair the damage caused by your news reporters.! p, s: i* I6 K. ]2 w; N
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
$ b6 X1 N& \9 j8 ashow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced1 c5 g  k. `4 v$ v
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather) Z( o7 l( k* ^- T: ~4 O
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that9 Q7 Q* i2 S, Q+ P+ b7 t' v- L
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
1 ?: }5 X0 L' `about British supremacy.
5 P" D1 `$ c" G2 D( |5 y- f7 E0 vThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many2 c, A- S$ w- u6 b5 R
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more# r+ n: c! U: N& U0 D2 j8 u
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 E$ y% S! |* w" Wour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- Q& H  `0 R( ?) ~6 sOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.0 B) V# s1 L/ u& D! O
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of( ^5 D4 X# u, G: G, w. U
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests+ n, K& ]5 {4 S; n# Y
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
; O& C+ d# l% `( Ait is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
/ J0 p  H' O, m( P9 @- k  }/ upublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like2 v% I8 S) F2 r- t; F; j+ Y8 ]
Nature.
7 B; Y6 d% I6 U; F5 f7 Y6 RI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
% T7 c- x. |' F1 l5 g) Wthe Callaway report.
% d3 M, c* a; l3 _7 i, E7 O# q1 O
Yi" j, Y6 V/ Z8 Y; y

* H# v' U% r. J- @! `9 ?Yi Rao, Ph.D.
2 [! P" L+ Z4 `# QProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
1 P" x7 O2 u) [" _3 U5 xBeijing, China  c  C7 x% f5 r/ Z6 J* _& H5 b
大型搬家
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
) d9 r; C2 o) }! Y原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
4 m! }! C7 t4 |& A) v/ r
原文是公开信。+ N8 U/ K! t" Y" p3 A) i& \
; L" y) T. ]$ @  g3 X
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
5 x: [! E! a% _# |  R原文是公开信。
8 s0 }; \2 r/ e2 P! g/ J
8 I" ?1 X/ h: `" ~( a8 b8 P小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

# Y! \4 D" T3 Q: j2 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 JIANG, P7 \2 Z5 F. t& T& S) @: X5 n
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。  K' R: u8 F% u& d1 x: P
' R- a, ~+ W$ k# Y" ]  G
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html4 t: x. j! m( r# @

0 J0 c7 i9 R: s% z8 z9 g/ ]+ sFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania  U3 j5 p2 H, ?

( B8 z5 K4 O. O1 @8 ]It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself# }) X% o3 W% I- ~/ e6 g3 t( g
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 d, S) u7 q1 ^4 k5 e+ P/ jmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# C0 H# v% v. G* y: Dis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( |* e7 r! V: \3 P. kscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general! Y- k. e2 j/ p7 D8 @
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" q4 Q. J3 z/ y5 q5 X" s
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! F7 D, @$ [/ K( ^; I! j
which they blatantly failed to do.
: h9 O1 p" _* W  U: j. {2 v4 `8 \* I: L5 T
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her( f- ?! t  r+ E0 x" y
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
, F, r0 M/ p' t+ y! P8 W: d2 ?+ o2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) B0 g3 \4 i3 W8 i- C) R  k& a6 d
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
4 x) m; R" _( H. t* wpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! M. G5 Q. j; Z, o' g; i
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' k2 }/ p% E; ?  a3 [
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
7 t& {: t8 b4 e! r+ w' }9 |, T7 fbe treated as 7 s.( I4 K3 j1 b4 F! s. U; x

) h8 o. Y4 j9 H2 ~3 _: nSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
, K( b. l" n1 q- e: Kstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
* l6 j* C" Z. \impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., |/ R  X! [+ W
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- P- A& s8 o0 d! b9 ?; D. ]! g5 r+ d-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
8 F' e9 R* {- ^2 a8 EFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an1 Z  w  l$ T1 V9 `" a& J
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 q* H% w) C6 S$ Mpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 \: R" S. H1 y8 R  ]/ d
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
  ~" t! ^+ k/ \" ?2 q& G, t0 D6 ]3 i4 A2 i6 l: W1 |
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook$ u; Z) e, ?* a- U, ~: c
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in* D  j; Y% d: a) K
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
  @, n5 o/ G' q1 x8 X! b; z" X8 g. khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) \. }: g$ f* n' xevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
7 h0 r! A% q% S1 t, ^& @% Mbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World9 D0 n1 j* E/ K0 I
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
* z( I* m6 X6 i3 i8 h4 z  qtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 B% t1 D; \7 L2 ~- y& {
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle- D! M1 E8 n' O
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ t/ Y. y% e/ x. X8 dstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds/ l6 _4 S0 [3 K
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ p% P2 ~7 {3 r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting8 E) R3 @9 N7 @, ]
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; `5 E5 _! B* B# O+ H4 n4 d* l
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 G+ I6 `  _. I& X: U
* K) m' O( A3 M  K$ |+ C) Z  C
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# O* `+ a: Z, E7 x7 m( p" u: ?1 O2 Lfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
5 d3 y/ o& z# ~; m9 E! Cs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
6 e. T& l/ p6 f# J- _), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
2 C2 O( O/ ]- s1 q, M+ @out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: M) b, F* |7 n3 O' G$ `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 [! S- Y$ {$ E. @
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ p4 g( j, p/ e: A0 V
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in% ~' E: G5 m0 s% k& M" A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
6 [& ^$ t' ~. H# Rworks.0 v. E- Y9 k6 d" }& z3 y

8 [. z$ `) v, M' @5 uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and$ V" I; G( ~! E! [8 z" |, K; p- c. |
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this' F! B6 j* N# M/ d7 O
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 {, F2 K) {4 Kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific# R, Y/ \- i% R& ?7 n
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and8 ^1 m! K& f0 \! m& q2 t1 a
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ U) P' y4 d: C  l  xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' `4 I. _* F- _7 y0 p1 Rdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works, ?! @4 S# ]3 O+ T* S/ y
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample6 G: Z2 @5 X, A1 D+ M
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
# G) i) _5 c2 \3 Q1 q& C, F4 P7 W. Dcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, c. y; G) l6 M7 h. ^9 q& nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
% p" D/ q& n. o3 w$ Gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; Z4 Y2 Z, \2 x, [8 J8 i
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
7 F5 `+ |2 f6 d( }. f1 R  C% e1 Buse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation6 e5 N8 X9 Y1 P  W5 {/ }" q$ R
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
' W9 ]! E. x/ Y5 kdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* q* \4 m0 f' v! }. p6 y* h
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 R. k# B' F" J; F% r$ R, L. I2 Rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye: O  S- ~# m$ E8 A3 h
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 p% V' F, B% l5 Tdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
2 O3 e7 u' W: q- h  k9 r% x; wother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
+ y9 Q2 T: G% r9 h2 i. t, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is% g* }; Q$ V0 m5 v7 ]' P
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
. h* Z1 E9 m' R4 e/ D; D8 v" Jathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
/ k7 x4 v. ~8 z3 O( zchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
3 c' c  v- j. U: o/ I' P. tLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping% d8 d6 p+ h8 |7 z* T
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for; Q3 r% n, Q9 {( j' ~- @4 i
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.. j0 _4 G1 Y2 {! d: p
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?9 C4 O9 Q5 H, x' S$ B! U

  D+ ~! m7 T; M$ T, {Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ n' J5 G" \' C( R/ M9 k. S. N6 bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! q4 E9 X1 X# `$ Z0 h5 B1 p% O
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
7 J% c0 W# C0 q# P2 GOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 }. q; s* O4 J' LOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" \& C4 F2 r: `2 k! R( udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# n" C" k3 p9 T4 Jgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
9 Q2 x4 H2 |4 u& bhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 U8 A+ E& N- z% S5 y: g  ]player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
! `/ }2 b" N0 s) s: Wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! H5 F8 J  o5 x: _. [7 O( H- {! M7 v& O2 T# E
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
! o* k/ c" B* _3 O0 v6 Mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 C8 R( v( |1 D
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 M1 `- ^& Y$ A, |0 ]) osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
% Y5 {; `9 k) D3 {# c; w5 O7 E9 Aall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
9 n, r) h- x6 S' |# ?; hinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
2 f) [0 c, x; f/ G7 cexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 p$ T: X. Q1 [& Y0 x
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal2 j# [% l3 O) u+ @. C: G
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
7 f! Z; K% O4 M6 g7 q$ H. S) p8 Q) Sreporting 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, 2026-4-22 23:58 , Processed in 0.137449 second(s), 21 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