埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1874|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 u' {: C  G# c. A# x5 F' Z

# m! j/ B& A/ T& Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
( s8 v3 K9 T) i. v: 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。
5 t! o3 D+ F% B$ o0 ~% i8 ?9 p总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。3 W2 v6 G( P  x5 p% n! F1 P& ^

+ c7 n: W' T7 o3 f# c1 X2 ?http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html' o0 L5 }; v; ^2 p5 G; R) k

$ ~9 p. g, A/ [' V致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
* Z! c7 g. M- e# G2 o4 m! ^% F5 J. y: i; Y" _
英文原信附后,大意如下:
! i# w6 X0 O4 W7 q
5 j) ?% R/ _  L/ M% U斐尔,
. q2 A2 ?& B# ~& G% K       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; j  J1 L& h) I
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 Z( ^- w. t% x5 Z1 n7 f
       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6 C0 }' o# i% ]
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  v- q9 B: g% U! o/ G6 H
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。: a: S4 i( C2 N. p  j0 p0 c: I
       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8 P  N' @! l$ ]( z
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
2 H; s. _2 _7 L9 K  n* n4 [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) F/ F8 y1 r7 C4 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。
3 w/ o* c; ^7 w( o) J5 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0 m9 Z" k. {% k/ x
,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' P- ?" T# r" a5 E9 D" `+ E" j, `
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 f$ X- g2 i' W9 b; ~4 v       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她
: t) X- j6 b. D2 j) N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$ `3 J9 Z/ l/ s0 X  E% E,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。4 \9 _2 i7 k6 H; Q; T! P
       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$ z/ W5 N: N& N: ]  f  D- X
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" N" U+ u1 x: ^5 {1 }* z
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# \! @" y! W, w5 T9 x
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
0 I5 N7 M0 H* c% `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
/ z. e9 C4 A4 h! O* g" G- G# ~7 N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6 h6 x+ w' h0 Z) B
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( E* }1 P3 N: s$ J! X  }' u" K% O
。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3 z  T4 }% z/ c* A
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 }( d( ^9 q# A5 {6 f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' l5 y; I* h8 u" Z- D
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
( E- C" {' A. H3 I3 L8 LWikipedia。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% Q0 K( Z! ^7 n
同意见的专家。, o* t, I) }5 |+ h
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
3 O6 E5 r2 T( P# I- M5 _+ q" K7 d9 z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! R& n  w: f7 R
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
& u  i6 L7 \2 k9 i《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。& a8 ^0 w' X" {3 q5 c! i
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)
9 G- c) r1 L+ T0 n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6 l7 D5 D  [* D$ D) K* ]2 j0 J
《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% V  S0 x5 O1 w
这些被Callaway忽略。
' A( {1 p& u% }- |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6 V9 a$ |) ^/ P) g; T5 x7 o: k
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! H% s+ x9 ]" }  k3 N
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% o" x0 x' }/ }2 L) ^
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
- P* k/ u' s9 R* E! v5 S) k5 D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" n9 n/ J+ v: R1 R7 w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' U) m2 J1 T' j
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。
2 ]/ }1 C" L; ?0 ]7 }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: b" d! h1 E* p" T: H9 G4 W: J- w
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 @3 e& `+ G5 U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- k& ~9 a/ B1 E  |! @+ n; k
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
# @% g1 L: e: Q1 ?5 ~2 I+ w% 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" V' s6 C" m' S+ M( z
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
; b& q: ]3 h. G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
$ q2 q- w! T4 b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) {  z! |0 W. r& V3 h. q& G
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 t8 q  _3 f1 p- }4 s而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。! l. Q1 C. Z5 l9 i! t
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。% y% w$ J- u: v; C# H! G

4 h% q$ v& j4 d0 {/ f7 i+ l# t6 I& B2 O, \& \! J
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
7 P! j+ R9 I; w' A( V) Y' H/ W3 r7 ?% e( O6 r
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
8 F+ x3 ^% p+ S: p附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email6 I/ k' y8 K9 m5 _% g: _! L9 ?
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 n: {8 U; c2 a# D# B6 r$ R0 Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见' F) F# S  d0 l7 x$ _; k2 T( F

9 |: O8 [/ G6 n$ |' a9 G
7 P$ z1 D: U+ a
! u3 U; Z0 ]! m9 \+ V  U; d! p* m原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)/ S. R' B8 X3 R, s1 D
Dear Phil,
6 X7 o+ d  |  Q! v       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s1 Q4 h, s" f/ W7 h* p9 Z
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 202 q; Q, C0 Z( v) ?3 p/ X2 K, f
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
1 y2 `* R- r1 h5 s1 ?+ t% r9 |( R' |you.
& u$ }, {7 i. |' \8 A! B2 P       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; l! O; w/ E& w' t& V0 \# x' nbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; V1 \; c' m0 J4 m+ w3 @: creaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
5 J& D1 L# K, Y  jworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
8 N3 g: y6 Z5 epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 K8 F- E( ~; \
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
- c* _) }/ y- l7 f2 a8 tpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
5 q3 G- b; \3 y8 ~, }       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the2 _3 y: t9 v4 H5 w
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
  V8 n6 U7 s2 T: \2 H4 d) Inegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
. t- z  ]# ?% N6 M2 ]that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
% o* H4 }" ~; G: ?+ O' qdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping; t; M2 F! M; b6 l& c' f( J7 ?* S
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal  L9 m7 V1 N: K6 p8 E9 x
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,) E$ j$ ]! k( S' n& ?. p
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
9 g( k, F. p( y- yto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news3 c% v) U8 Z$ I- c
reporting.  [3 p9 ^  z6 j  K
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
+ O* G  z( d( `2 b% }already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by- K9 U9 c+ h6 v4 f+ T1 _5 u" X0 O
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in; N( J* F8 P! k6 X4 j0 A
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
. ^, H4 \0 E% f/ {* N" i3 w# ?presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
; L( a; m$ _) X7 I7 k       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
  a* T, \8 K3 J8 {& {; J, s6 Umore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
3 y; {) B# f/ q7 dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50: N$ q0 D1 J0 ?- u$ f7 @' s
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same! o" u+ u2 W0 C/ a2 a( |
event for men, with the second fastest record.6 y$ M& t7 c3 [+ O3 B
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye$ M  U6 ~0 s. n, |9 @: R
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
5 r5 l. u4 [* S. I& Hyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record' e+ o- p! I- H6 @: j% V
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 W1 e( i* A& D" J: }: gmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
. z$ d  w$ `8 p5 y& C+ X/ u" qfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
$ x2 \, x' w& O( W# pLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed. r' d, Q- i( L+ Q. {
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
4 J  o* @8 y9 e1 n% X5 bindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
7 s% ?  o/ w" h4 V' |# K" a9 Xthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
) \& D/ d  b$ m; b* r" p2 Othose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was! w; f. {9 ]  j! y$ r: V: U
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
3 @9 |- L8 t5 t4 p" che would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
6 H9 k8 `4 C# i$ T6 w4 @2 \problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
5 O) k, v) y, _2 R! w( F" dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
( M# m: W2 ]! d. s; [' ?! D1 E  Hteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the5 F7 d" T3 {) I5 M2 u* Z0 j' @
Callaway report.% k2 ~, c6 p- a/ ]' K
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
0 a3 J% }2 `5 i! i+ zunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
) {) J8 Y9 {+ ~3 y& S4 ~) hhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# i( i' V5 p+ H, v4 Kof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
6 K+ q; Z% i+ r9 y8 N# g  Sbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
" R8 g# u/ k7 ~7 aWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
  C8 ~; y8 e+ v6 y  \$ fpublicly voiced different opinions.
, k4 q8 E9 k  G& N9 \" MYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
8 D1 u3 }- |' f* Hfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature  |* ?( `! b( }& Z. R  |8 b. T7 A4 a
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent1 l5 X# B- F$ e+ K1 E2 f
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds3 {8 {( G: E  X8 Q  c: R$ M
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy5 g& [# @* I- X* a0 X- R+ W9 V; B
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
  @) D, D3 J; ~5 `+ PThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think4 ~7 t9 J. s( v
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They- w- S: s' o5 P6 q
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
4 n- f0 j3 p+ L4 ]8 v- F$ z$ GAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
$ C6 f5 r) p6 L7 G3 B1 b# k4 O- nthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
/ X' M" w. m/ m% i0 d6 v* z1 csupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
7 \  \" A1 ~; `3 e& l4 ZOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that4 f4 E" O3 }3 H7 g, V/ w+ s( p
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
: [( t9 S5 G6 U2 F" VChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
+ N9 k( @4 r" z) r: {6 X(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
( O+ h, m' f6 Y& {; y" jand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.7 w$ L) a9 d5 X% O" L% f( M8 Z6 \9 G
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
2 j$ ?: y1 R/ \7 z+ J5 x% fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
# i- d. ?6 z+ T, G2 s7 r- J6 W' kDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
3 U- S/ v# T% T; X! ?( cNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and9 d" T, a% p: W
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; i/ ^% |) ?) ]5 Mwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to& O& w  Z, C3 D
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
5 J" @0 w* C% w8 bThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
" A8 k: ~6 e% ?' ]" _3 P, U- r3 D! fshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 h5 P# t5 R! Y% D, ~* Y
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 g/ M+ m6 h( k. [' G( `9 D4 u
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
5 ?3 S5 Q2 ~  Mthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
' O3 k: E6 J& b7 c) q+ Sabout British supremacy.
3 L! N. i: d/ x9 T9 f9 FThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
7 H6 M: C3 x3 Y" w/ g* Ounsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
8 l8 w; l6 D' J7 U2 e, o* |6 ^Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
0 g2 S/ d) n6 {4 ]# Wour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London; C" x* `+ x- S8 A& p
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
9 p; z7 l' ]( ], h6 JYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of* \0 Z5 s8 ]0 U& z" l- m
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, h( q# v: o$ M9 }before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,! E1 b: X) i5 y5 s: x& a8 A
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly  G% P# j6 Z% o0 H
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like& ^+ e: f: b7 _! \8 \5 W
Nature.: ~' z3 q% `& g5 I/ C7 C( D% o5 }
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance. P- w0 X% h4 @
the Callaway report.% b, \+ L: n3 P4 H# m0 x
. B  h# g8 B: f; V
Yi
# v) v7 d7 @2 {* s% h7 g: }' U% \8 X) C. O
Yi Rao, Ph.D.8 J# t8 B8 d* c& x2 n0 W
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences4 k4 e! t$ r/ u) f( b, i
Beijing, China
% g, b- t7 [# p( A6 I
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 / G: z) C1 I7 c' _: ]
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
8 ]/ q% G+ t" D
原文是公开信。8 u0 v" n3 [5 M9 Y) r' K( @
9 B+ d$ p2 P- Y
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
: n: V2 q' ]' G+ z- `原文是公开信。
& J: Y* h* S; p. Q2 f  u9 j0 x& _3 s8 e. }1 G
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

$ _3 S; ?% j+ l5 R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- c2 R, [+ H/ ]$ f0 \4 E
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。" _* e- f. x- j5 d' {

/ ]+ o3 Q) c! w& G* E; T% S1 ]! Khttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html$ F; S8 s6 ~2 |( i7 s) j7 B
  a( j8 ^' j$ ?! u
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" z2 S7 @3 G8 s. _
- o0 x! [& E  B5 F5 m
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
7 n- \' o; ^- j+ G" ^- v/ x, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 _1 w& o- w6 B1 u9 w, Omagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
) ?1 g2 ~' h- ~8 x- Bis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' o/ n! l4 I8 ~+ Zscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ W; v8 a1 r) o' J! T
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. X3 U  `8 ^# r3 p& j
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,& U* [( c! B" v7 S# w" L8 B4 H- b6 O
which they blatantly failed to do.' L) W  t9 \9 z
' a) p$ R: t0 J. [
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
4 i9 b% i+ a: y  m4 {Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in  R* ]3 W( [) R; U' d& n( p3 P
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) e' g& D- P/ L, x- G+ j- E
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 ?6 F/ m7 J. W. s1 gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
* u' {3 P6 r% \' `improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
" z9 p! @: k& h- P+ X7 ]7 vdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
3 V! W6 [. N6 m4 J3 w7 Rbe treated as 7 s.
9 s, \( P  ~, P* o8 y
- E+ J$ \+ }# i' GSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 V% T9 b$ y% O0 K
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
" d: T3 t# a& {' R: vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
1 r: P$ j7 P1 R$ ^An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 F7 H5 E9 x" S/ e* g-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.3 ^: n, W6 I9 L3 W
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
! }! Z* \4 R/ Relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 Q, ]  m1 V( p  e* f, G" q, o1 j, A4 s
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”  _' h  c3 o+ c0 C8 _3 R- d5 u
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.8 @# e  l4 j) r) X0 x/ y: B
1 Q- b# ]5 Y- T, d6 }( p% |. w
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook2 M2 Q) _) L. d# \4 m! a
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 p9 u, G: |0 o$ ?# X+ c) ?the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so+ g) }! b$ z, n1 s0 I, k
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
) p: u: A- h1 j7 e  u4 m1 Tevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
, X. K4 b- r1 C4 b$ S4 t. Vbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World; k$ Q) n# ~  d( P
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% ?2 ~  p3 K- ~7 |/ Wtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other& r- H3 r& Z- i& ^" ?. I; N
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle/ @) L7 i+ E1 ]( o; H. y( X) M/ s
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; I9 W3 f) H/ ?* I, H7 f+ W& ~
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds( \( R2 d6 j" [9 g. X; r: @% B
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam' R  P" k. ~; x+ c
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% S9 Y  Y; y6 `& |7 Jaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) F9 w) m! Y! P2 p6 b( I) Zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 i8 A, P' ]$ b' f) }, G; z+ S
2 R, g( }, r* |: [
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! l$ W: z9 g# U9 ?% t
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.938 ]  E/ R! T2 R
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s! @9 U* ]1 i5 g) ~/ H- H- l( M  m
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 N. {, h1 ~. G9 F5 i, C
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* Y4 I5 G- f& _, h7 ILochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 c  I8 j3 O8 xof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 y+ U7 B0 l9 s# O" y
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
% V3 d, k  h7 h9 P" q- @1 c! u3 ^every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science5 D. T4 P! |( r, [  m; ]
works.
$ a6 y$ c* w6 ^
: U2 X$ }# c1 g5 ^* L* ZFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and" {8 n; v8 P( u1 {8 p8 S7 ]
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
  @/ b5 C& x8 z) \; fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 Y) _& ?5 l$ d8 A
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific9 g% u# C$ X" X
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
1 \  O7 G6 v& G4 D( u2 j3 Y! Treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
% b: q: Q7 B  Z' d3 ]cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to: f7 o) G2 r. n9 y- w
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 d( _( ?& h  \+ o7 j1 M
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ ^( t+ x# }5 j( X6 bis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
: m7 i# q; B& Z4 J; C# g& P$ r* xcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
  w- O. k; _- `6 S1 t+ fwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 w4 c$ ]8 b* O3 L8 _% e' k7 i
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( h4 R: b/ d! |0 j4 u
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
+ F' ^) ?1 ?$ o# E3 Huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
* L/ \8 D% x( U# W0 v+ @. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, E' _# T7 ]9 H. A/ w
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) g) m$ @+ _5 X8 |0 j
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ [* a4 l8 y5 a( j  x! Q  i8 Thearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
' a6 S2 ^3 V% ahas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 Y: m3 p! M) H0 L
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
* S0 R* l" p& P% c/ y; x9 p) yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
8 i" N) O7 O: U; W- f! B+ u# y+ B, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ K. w, g! M& x  x  yprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an( v/ O. x9 w) I9 u. p  M
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& d3 F. Y( @9 r# Q! R1 D- rchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
" w/ T3 m  h) |Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping" @0 [6 U% o4 s; w/ b7 ~1 h6 M
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# Y  b  g& y2 }! v1 r- p
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.0 T  H3 y" x" F  X; k, q
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?  E; J2 p* h' D

) p1 o- a+ F; \5 P1 H8 O  `Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 f+ C4 V9 x% I; {
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention/ X0 L2 Z1 M- h% p  E) \2 O
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
" U( p  R9 i% z% {, b5 OOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 c; i. a( b  r/ l; n6 D
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
- n  t5 G; O$ z9 i8 ^! ~6 Y5 cdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
! m6 l) R% M- k. Z& Agames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope% {$ ~- t* D5 c" Z0 J/ t) M
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' t/ N1 w# W: Q5 }1 T! z, e" Q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) e, X! w. R' r- \6 v
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
1 d/ N  ~! V6 X
& {1 @% {4 [2 LOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
) a2 c- G0 E, ?: x4 W5 Jintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 Q1 ]" B* }, V7 k& Q; p
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a; O% |! g/ {2 ?1 \
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide0 ~% X4 h" ^' z2 n4 w
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
# Y4 \* `; [* E5 q' @& qinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
8 F; o0 Y$ C! }* V2 l- [explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" Q/ l' B9 y0 N; }4 F. rargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal6 g7 s! m" P+ E  f  A, c0 p
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 B. t  D; J% F9 B+ Q3 v$ Y0 U
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, 2025-12-6 05:32 , Processed in 0.172467 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