埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1884|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 8 x0 W; l3 I: U& ]8 K2 d5 S

" C# D+ Z6 f5 x  |) J饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。1 k  D/ N9 l" W
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。* J' k: y1 r4 u
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。2 Y* E8 E  i) H( V8 _

  K* y4 n5 c0 J2 n, k: hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html) i/ C! v* \% R# a* r4 z

( S1 w* \' @( T9 v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
) U+ ?( O1 b! u8 L  P
2 o' N  U6 f) V* C2 ~3 Z英文原信附后,大意如下:
* k+ _* ]0 C/ _  W0 c7 ~  _3 E( r  D& }' t" x8 Z& n) t
斐尔,( m, _' t+ Y7 |# t8 b8 z) y
       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2 q$ i5 |$ {) L9 v) [
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
9 c4 k6 R; d! X+ g) Z' h. {' Z       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
' e9 a9 A0 F2 z' D0 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, F- R* h7 N% b% t$ J
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。* g0 I4 P, ]5 E2 i: [, G. t( T
       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) o+ T  ?0 t+ |) L' o
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+ J+ |4 w8 P! t7 a4 m  p  M
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4 G5 y5 `4 ~4 X& u1 Q" `' J
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。
' X. K* C: M$ N( w$ b4 I. c3 Y; {       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; z( T, V5 g3 g9 q' s
,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
9 @$ h8 M, t9 y( m1 i1 Z1 ~”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。1 U/ X: {: c2 L2 K7 l2 c: M
       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
: E- K. T8 p6 {( x1 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% f5 P" Z, K( L2 f& R
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
6 S2 h( m0 `& C! ?' u0 F6 V5 `- e- a       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
, ~4 ^7 B( v) j( o( L& _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 }3 w9 o: q& H- I1 a
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 K1 S+ ~* q% t, [% v
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
6 B' ]" X7 W: U1 Z5 I. M300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
5 P4 g1 I/ E# _* v2 ^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 @4 z2 j- W' o0 p  K) q
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9 Q% l2 H8 M% W: v* M! P
。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
, E3 R, u- R3 x! m; \录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
  M/ p4 r5 Q& c. R还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件* ~0 @5 k  T8 O
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7 B8 o# U6 r7 [7 j$ \. {1 @% \
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
& N- r# c9 P1 R, K: I7 n$ w' m  V同意见的专家。4 P% V( g! p5 Y% H# Z/ Q
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6 s* ?; r; @/ l' x5 y# R
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- U7 P& x0 G* W( n1 a
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4 I4 B$ `, P2 l6 \" B! z( C0 h
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ E/ }! G7 i( y
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)
1 S8 ^1 \4 \1 ~4 ]0 C/ o* 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/ }1 ^+ a1 [  P
《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' O0 e( m& Z% ]  ^: m* l
这些被Callaway忽略。- S" ~9 O4 L3 g) ~2 [5 N
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 X+ |+ l- k6 U) @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3 Z' A9 Q7 [* t" I0 ]: \
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。- Z" [4 I0 K5 P
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6 U6 T2 d1 h& {; Y" U: K0 B" G
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
" A" R+ v9 g6 Y; c# 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% y, w* c2 K$ r
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。4 ]. ^; U* {% D* P
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
/ U, Y- ?" l2 m4 E' \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3 i/ O7 F7 F7 W& E; c$ H/ l
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2 [0 j4 h; B8 Z2 i! R
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。5 W, q4 e7 C) s. }4 ~7 A
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$ V; |! ]( |
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! ^' Y0 L3 z# m* }0 C5 |% K
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" S/ a% l7 a& l1 A
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
* u7 P3 E; g* Y& k# y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
( X5 y1 y; C+ P; H2 S" O/ Q而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
; N, u2 a" P4 V) V7 l7 k我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。- k" ^" V2 _1 e
" s- j6 b* x' I8 L2 t
* z+ |3 P/ \' T# z9 m: _# T) _$ {
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 z* w$ v' ]6 ~1 Q( c+ Q9 n# l- X8 p
; j. j% w9 X6 j
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
1 p9 z, }" y' _0 s附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
  J' t- W& [# ^, `( H' r. q8 t附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见3 R* _0 i: Z  u5 ^5 L2 I
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 O+ k4 f. s& |# K" H8 @4 X6 `8 i

; c0 x2 U0 P% ^9 {& r5 l. p0 p" K1 @+ @2 B
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
) ]' o8 J3 E% j! wDear Phil,1 E; W& W1 c8 E6 p% i  e5 u
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
# I( f" q3 |0 N  Yreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 201 K" p; k  k- C2 ~* n1 l- u6 U: J
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
2 z( n; r7 U. s6 Q  n4 M3 h' tyou.
4 g4 P- Q( Y. H' D       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have; G/ l& z8 E9 H0 x* C
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese8 }5 s7 s8 U8 l3 u8 g( s+ l  ~9 D
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
* ^" A% e# i  }7 O- Tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
! \4 C3 n5 u4 `3 Epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more- ~$ L' u% F% c. w! f) j  H. d& `6 ~
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
1 W5 o( s" t* B2 _% y& ?- Q  s1 `* B& Upieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 I: u, X& ?5 Z. C. [& O6 ]" O* c       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the  Y9 o% `, R3 s/ I: h& B& ]
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
7 P- Z( x, J( _2 l* j7 F. qnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
' F8 e1 D' `2 G" [0 O2 [that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway! ?+ j" I& J/ Z- s
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% Q0 e+ I+ `1 |' G4 d$ W$ X: }explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
8 l  R  X  s- U" u# U4 ystandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
& y$ k, {2 L' p9 f7 fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone8 F! G7 D' R+ @( W0 i
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' T6 b% {) M% Y5 S1 yreporting.
9 d8 A0 J- ~% X8 G. P' x5 a& M: `       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have  {2 F: h5 l3 I+ F
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by- ~1 E; v$ C7 O# Q8 m5 P/ s6 N
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in) S" z8 J. p; I2 O5 B1 u" E  C
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
& B# E* V  q% F  a# Vpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 c* t& w' t- q" e
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
+ l& u$ Q6 M' {* R$ p& t& ~) y0 Lmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds: G/ |5 K9 U8 V7 r  T( ~' ?/ ^
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. o' P/ j) V6 N
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same/ L* G* M* k0 c/ P1 E1 s* _! T8 p
event for men, with the second fastest record.# a# Z% d4 N; _8 r9 c
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye& T. ?7 R/ [) s. t, X5 u: s1 s
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ X0 J2 z% p( U
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record) j, [$ c6 j& _6 h: t* i' H& ^
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400$ l8 e& `3 T1 m: u1 C
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
0 S+ n* u4 c, e. R  ~for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than/ W9 U# Y. P1 X1 ]
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
0 M# t; g2 O  t) B7 o  }behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
$ u& c7 ~) [9 X& T# c' @/ ]individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
3 k  S, `) f- _1 n" J: H! J& o, V. uthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than- J9 f! K: B( l0 U" n
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
2 m5 l& Q, M7 ~+ t' _# `& ~her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then  `  R; Z1 v3 V. P+ D
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “7 S+ J1 h* S" {# K8 i  ?0 W$ x
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other7 A1 Q$ R* [* v- z6 @) o
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 j* @0 l/ M5 R0 q) M3 ]1 M
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
! ?0 T/ H1 V# z3 {" e* }2 ECallaway report.
0 k( U' k' v7 I2 D! `  ?There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
. x) B. q# X" ]( `0 Z: }understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details9 k1 W! Z8 `; i+ _0 ^6 l7 h- `: f
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ X' b' a, @" w5 w
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been4 P& N& ^- ]) `% K
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
& ~* C- |  K4 r! QWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had9 I2 H) [' A' I. I
publicly voiced different opinions.
3 e/ i+ c% X& ~/ d' u  X) EYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD& s3 w8 b' P4 s& G- P) G
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
; c* E. z/ A0 i+ `# m$ a( WNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
1 |3 h% Q6 l4 ]7 A0 l& b8 s( ppostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
1 g- s% Q  I' |  J5 H, Y* xyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; B; h, G3 Z9 P3 O$ Vof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.$ v8 r8 a! c/ b& ^
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
: s2 S: k" S) K8 k9 P* Y* vthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 E# {- U& Q6 g- e1 ~1 {+ G* Ohave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as+ |& H8 W8 M% a0 c) _2 L+ A
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
5 }. A, t, G* q! b5 J, tthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ `% i  ~8 W8 `7 ?6 _
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.0 x+ l+ C) S% a3 Y+ {- L- c
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that) g- V6 ~) f. B6 Z& `9 d' i
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the, d: @( x9 ~% `: y3 f& V
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" A5 z* ~0 a- C0 y3 b" t( D& Z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she! V, r7 i" D$ S; H( W9 {( q
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
0 k1 y9 F9 L# _+ @3 yThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science" U, w, c. Z* ^
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( E9 L1 ?: t! j! X
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.8 `; ^7 K) ~' h1 P+ F# `
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
2 U! l8 s9 Y- U2 i2 zobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature3 z1 ?( A' g3 I) |% }
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to2 T7 z( v9 g9 ?2 R1 v6 P6 a
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, N3 B" s. B+ b; m9 f$ `7 H1 F: hThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
. L' B0 Z- o5 ^  W: `6 nshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
$ l% h% w/ \# H( d6 d9 ]+ L, Fus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather! {) x% \7 @% R/ U/ R9 N' a/ i/ N  k6 Q
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
" O2 v) l7 d7 n9 N; L0 ~5 B3 |this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”" e1 Y4 l0 W2 s+ T
about British supremacy.6 e! q( r- @8 F! b
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
' w. {$ O: ]+ P7 @5 t+ j8 eunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more) H# k: `9 R3 S" ^& \' c
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by" }- S# i& t" z& v! \) c, ]
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 h( W; z+ s( H' \Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
, w5 P& q9 d9 D; Z  X. _Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
" f3 Z3 m9 k4 u* `5 m, bprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
# L$ m! @; a7 wbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
8 S8 `3 F, t6 }6 `it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly% _* H% j- A3 |0 ^4 Z) A. q8 l
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
" `' H0 a1 t) B& j* BNature.; Z; [0 x/ B7 g) v$ G
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ N( t4 U  a) fthe Callaway report.
) T. ~2 @5 v" C% W2 x
1 R. z3 F8 E0 _% Y& mYi
  q4 U/ z1 M  }
# P1 u* y) e4 Q# Q9 QYi Rao, Ph.D.
: c5 S7 S% ?9 E' S* e4 P; c. uProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences  n+ q2 F8 z+ |
Beijing, China, O/ {" o$ u( [" h9 l+ _
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
$ ~6 b4 ]: @: A( H+ X3 o. j原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
# z& K% W7 T& ]) o8 d) w/ a
原文是公开信。
$ o7 z* k- d7 O
$ b% g  P- p, p9 a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 : B/ C! p3 F# U( t4 a
原文是公开信。( Y4 a& T7 y; n$ c& i' h  Z
; U1 t* L. b8 v$ A; S4 F
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

% Y4 q) b" ]" r$ m6 ~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' r; f$ X0 e5 P& `8 W
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。2 q% ?% [5 r5 _! M; n
# D% e7 A- K% _$ C' |9 `
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# M) k8 b  E: u9 j# R2 _6 m7 A5 F0 v, T
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, ]$ [* o4 y7 \. g+ G, U6 G. R
/ V* O4 u/ u7 F' T! zIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself$ u3 P+ i) [7 }3 M
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# G* {" i. \: w$ O: U* V! W  Q4 Rmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this5 K) l2 P4 t1 p5 T
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
, K0 v, v" A5 R5 h9 N: \6 Iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general# t& s7 D9 I8 N% s
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; b6 y- H4 t" ]6 a2 J
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
4 B* H3 E9 E! I( j- c$ p) U$ Ewhich they blatantly failed to do.
4 t  q' a, F; R" M# Y) N# `) _- G' {+ }9 r0 S" h
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) K( {0 o2 G+ f! ^
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ }6 {# g$ F6 `) p- X3 B- z4 L2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “' Q1 A1 a1 i/ n+ G
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& F6 S" P3 `5 ~$ Opersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an0 W8 P6 U3 V9 m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the" N% c4 W- H. j) G9 l1 J
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' l8 e9 G) [7 _! t) t6 D% J
be treated as 7 s.
: I6 V1 h6 l# Z% y% F$ R$ r' [! Y& H  W' a3 Q5 L! c
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is& ]5 Z2 b% p' R( Z* O, F9 r% V
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem! t3 y! d. @* o$ F# q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 a& }, ^2 y. C" k( i/ gAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4007 T1 `- L$ T) I* y* @1 L* `
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 `% U( F4 H$ l; Z  P/ g8 j
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, r( n8 s, p8 v5 q* R; G/ gelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& {( ~; F5 T' g, Qpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) W: `- s! k! K1 o0 K
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.9 J  ~1 K' R4 U% g# f4 |

% y& U! U7 F+ t( WThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook% t* k! u) `! w7 t: M- \. t
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* i! S* f- S& B; _, f# Tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so5 T. t" L8 L1 H( r4 G
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
/ Q7 e* r: D0 ]events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s7 E, X/ s1 N  m6 ~- |( ?  J" |
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- W' r. X: W# q& V# {% DFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 e- T) \2 f7 v. [9 x$ u  Ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other1 |7 ]& o, E6 `; _, z
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
3 H4 Z% X! |6 u: e$ Q1 j, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
: r! R* Z& u* U- B- Y& K9 L6 Fstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds! x6 e% r" b# A2 J
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam2 D/ {' h- x8 W% B5 I$ b, d
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 V5 n8 ^% t5 R/ T8 g( l1 u: O
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that0 b+ r& o- C" R1 t
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! ^& D5 T4 E6 h+ {  p1 D, @& w
( w; Y$ y- t: z; ~Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# N# U) A6 }) J8 Y5 Ffour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) [9 {# t/ N6 |. y; w" T
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 j7 n. N. d4 J( }) }7 y), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns& g: q- R$ _1 V2 Q3 y9 k
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
  s, j5 m4 d( G3 l9 A. y2 wLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
# B1 g& V: E" W; P9 r5 O- G' gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
9 S9 J% B" J2 \7 c5 _) ^logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
. q' B! i% A' N5 nevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science" D6 S- V0 C1 \. o, J
works.5 j. F3 _) P8 I, o/ P  L- `3 E- l: J

( \5 i* c8 }$ C& {$ cFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and) j$ c1 q/ R8 y  w! h1 \
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
0 F2 q) |! _9 `# l: ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
+ h! z7 q& M) H/ Ystandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific& m, W% q/ ^) ], P
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and( m& O- N8 ~& I8 h" N
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
  E: d# f5 q0 l- r  C2 |# c' _8 icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
% X0 v! l- N( m. c) D, c2 xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 i. @8 w: ^2 u8 ~8 I4 P
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
: D7 b/ W6 k: g0 T$ }: z# s' h, M) j; D! Ris found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 a7 r% f& o) J& D
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he5 Q' u9 q  \- n7 S# A1 R6 t# c. t+ A
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; U' m: m. j  J) p, R0 P, e; s
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& q5 E% Z( z8 I* K- J) }past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 j% p5 T; X( N4 P6 y) G/ ^
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' @" F+ D0 B% Z2 p
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are6 r0 t3 H! P& X2 J/ y! y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
5 q5 ?% G& u; mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; h7 |# g- q# T8 _2 u
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
7 N$ ^2 W' A8 Mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a$ J6 B$ o$ _' h' v
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
: M6 h; `& m( F( Sother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
5 V* R; w% Q" M/ O, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is- O* T- n* O& ^8 }9 j9 t
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% c: Z$ w9 v- n# T9 h+ u/ U& y9 k1 J
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 n. I1 ^  N5 F$ q
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?; Q) L  b7 k2 B7 o2 l
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping! U+ P+ J1 ^! I; t+ B& J" Q
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
( t" d; _) z7 x3 h5 |* {% ~2 |eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.9 y( ?1 s) s& a
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( P2 t& J# ]. D& g1 r  F" Y7 H
- a! j% P7 H5 D0 W1 r
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-  ~4 g5 |6 @) n' [5 ]
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 U9 I4 P2 F, P& r
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( a/ d3 f7 @+ sOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London$ S# ?/ _4 ?  @" f. J
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
. B& H# y) ^4 e/ ^doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic  F8 p: w4 N* M, A, ?
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope6 ?2 U9 @8 [4 m' X2 Y
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
3 P8 q3 P& l7 U# p/ Z( U# M( splayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
/ ]$ a: i4 H) m& K6 V! X+ `possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ p( I0 B$ y/ w5 [' N3 _/ l. I# u0 Y! c3 |9 q
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 }& T/ ^- U) J8 e5 r! w
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ e; V- f' `. x6 C) p
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a% M$ Z/ F7 z1 Q, [( x; \
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
& o2 @  K8 z3 J* _, ~. P# z3 vall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ L* }3 q# k5 V! |& Q2 Z9 W6 b$ s
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* N; z+ ~: I9 p
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
8 A# ~6 O7 ~( z( Eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal" M- N  w# U2 ?1 n7 j" @* b
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
( \* y% z- @% i2 F" h5 |& m0 a8 @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, 2025-12-10 02:21 , Processed in 0.127593 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