埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1827|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
  s1 q# z% _: A1 c  V$ E! ^7 T9 x3 V2 |) J: @. X8 Q; A5 }7 r/ v3 Q
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
6 X) O8 r" M; k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。7 r0 O0 r1 [# A/ ^  Q: \$ h' s
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。9 g/ x- ^! ?0 T9 ^6 |2 J( W5 M

( H  k' E% p& ]# Zhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ L+ Y& N' X1 r8 k( x% Y( Q

8 q7 U; Z# y5 ]; N6 F; h) v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选* t- ?, R: G; E* T* K3 O) D
. @. T9 J" Z4 i& u" f
英文原信附后,大意如下:
% E+ n4 @( o: W
1 A* }: |( F. R8 j9 m斐尔,3 ?. u/ H  G( \9 R
       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0 Q8 Y  k" |2 G6 |
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。6 E6 J/ x; P* V- x- x
       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
! r! ^' Z" O! r# F  U2 J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
- c' t$ I& n; x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。
* w* Z1 F: G$ }' o       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
1 y% d( N3 G/ @; W, P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
5 Z; z! v: V# l. T0 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
$ J5 F# \6 l" X4 E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。  C+ x# g. W6 Q$ C5 |
       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% c# B& @! O" Q: X! |% L; b
,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
2 D  I( m$ d+ m5 {* W: s, S; n”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
6 k* I1 r/ `4 V5 ]5 M* s" {7 x+ l       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3 `( e0 g3 T3 R* x
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
3 z8 f2 H5 r7 d5 C, N" |,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. q% s0 d2 C- B$ T  {: C
       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, ^, _! Q% [$ S6 w' s6 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
, V5 f: @& [$ o  w合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二3 j* e) z. ^2 d: 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
" K* L# j7 V% ?/ c300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  Y3 i; B  E3 S% N6 I
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; o9 N+ Y: F8 l, H8 X1 k0 T
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0 u! U: L) o  b9 U
。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" L! _) S- K" W$ M5 Q) T! G
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 v8 a" O. }9 v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- Z4 n+ n, [4 K
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
6 \) a3 r. S, {: {  _) [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5 V+ e5 z. @* J
同意见的专家。
" r. N9 P# R7 F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 h$ Q! S* e4 I) d, |- X" P
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大" M7 ]# }: T2 m8 I  _  \4 g  F
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
6 S. O/ L  O# A( x! e$ l《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- I& ]7 v( C$ B6 ECallaway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& M* \" b, D6 B的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
0 A4 q" @, x0 E1 E《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
+ d9 c. }; E! U0 a2 k+ i+ D7 c; c: t( _这些被Callaway忽略。! F( D) e% f: e6 z/ |
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
& H) N  i7 x8 _; a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
6 H% |7 f9 ^# i1 q, `教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。6 p8 I0 V8 t" Z  J" k
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 p9 ?: V1 i" D" ~6 u! `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, m- y* q! M$ X
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; d- U# f$ y! v6 l  U
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。
3 r0 ?: a! o& `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; c7 }' C; M$ J. r+ h  a4 a
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0 r* ~; O0 z' Q$ ~2 `) p( a
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0 N6 r  g% _! X1 Y# p: N
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, }9 U0 i0 }" s& y: Z; p$ U; i2 T
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. S% ~. i7 d, A$ u" R5 O4 E
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' e( q/ B$ B" j4 d
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
6 H6 ?7 _4 n0 J  ?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$ n# o# E. ~1 r" s/ ]9 G1 e
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8 G. s2 _8 _' L, |# L' X: o' R
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
) N% h3 m: g5 C我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
" [4 T* P: C* M7 b8 f1 L
1 n& F* [3 S0 s+ T. ^; @( l+ ]8 P  E! r" H4 P
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
6 X" ]  n3 O4 N" A* u0 {1 E) {2 o( j- a. C7 l
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结' e6 t1 l/ H) g4 }9 |2 A5 p
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
3 [9 k5 u2 l; D5 s8 Y' O附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见% v; l$ {* u% a* v
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见* D9 @* R. c- u1 n3 G3 x+ D' V

, B- H; [# ^4 c8 e# Q
# \: c) Y( U6 _, F6 \0 {+ z& }0 E6 i# M
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 ~8 G: Q/ J/ u& cDear Phil,
) ^! I) c( ~. k       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( ^  P. R7 F" B' z% dreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 202 {9 R0 P# H* O1 i/ c
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
3 m- l1 M- Q$ t  Z/ M- Gyou.8 z8 [( Z' v5 r0 x
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 }& _. ~4 [$ D& q7 D1 b' o
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
2 K: j$ O, V3 e, `. ?! Y* Zreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
0 s9 w# q+ G" iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
3 a( |" d8 Y+ P& v. Opublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
0 ?# f3 b9 T4 V) rseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news' c0 A: Y# r8 D; |3 F& H
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
. l  Y0 P% K8 o: K4 ?6 t8 k; k       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the& U& N  F( \3 B4 d6 M
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
4 ]' |0 s; e8 {; C4 S, Jnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
6 L, S, G" }" {1 L2 T) Z. S5 Zthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
7 ^& Y2 @# ]- {0 ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping8 D" T) E) u; b& n: n
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
3 S4 Y  V- ?4 T) istandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,% i+ y# n3 e) W; k
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone% a6 F8 u. ^9 D/ f
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news3 L: j( e& n" }8 ~; ?/ k) G4 x
reporting.' `6 D9 A+ u/ W
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have9 p# [' v1 p2 g1 \
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
7 R; D- q% C8 M' A7 A/ ochanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
' Q# n0 b/ I" p6 Y3 b, c: }sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A" G0 a0 Q9 D3 w" o
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  ~/ E' d% l$ b. W9 Y$ W       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 s9 ^9 w+ c% P. I& }" gmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds# e% a+ ~9 _7 Z' n
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
8 N& @  |! J3 Q0 H. Z% Vmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ Q) m+ W- C( t: J- [
event for men, with the second fastest record.
' D+ H, _6 n6 }) O. m( _2 x       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye7 p# ^0 ~5 K" @( g. R9 |: ?6 ]
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
, f" r9 D- j* `7 h' B! n5 t8 g7 G" {  ryear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
, s7 A! p! y* N. A. D9 B  d. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400- w5 w: \, M- A) l% Z2 Z
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,5 V6 y% }* _4 t4 P- Y4 R
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
4 B3 f- p# a. c4 \9 hLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed1 V$ k" Z. b! @2 |
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# x" a: B8 i. y4 }individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
' Q) f( `: o# Wthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
0 P# \2 c# ^3 U* Q. l: s: t) t$ I; Fthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was; j' v, L' B5 _' D
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
' o6 @; v7 F" d8 ]9 X" ahe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
9 ^% f1 }9 a4 _: Jproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other* {* d* }8 B% Q1 k% O
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
+ o. C3 p, H, M% S) J, `6 Q1 eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the, f! @! C, F/ p, C0 X
Callaway report.7 c. d5 c) a  O- m$ B1 I
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more0 u3 i: V  @# c9 }; n- `
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details, T  o$ R- G, j% C& a9 Q
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
: t" N4 F4 s3 J- Vof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been1 f2 q* X6 I' k/ @2 @
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the5 c; C- u! z8 ~, e; n
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
! X  G2 x' s' D6 K  {! Q7 _6 spublicly voiced different opinions.* o0 y9 |$ B; ~; u
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD5 k1 Z6 s6 T4 N7 q+ t
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature  T* S/ }6 x# }" \( v2 r
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
: L6 h- L! Y9 E( Tpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 C$ y( s1 S! G8 h# F9 m1 j/ Q* ]( Gyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy7 G0 n. y! U: ]) d3 W- I
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
& c. m$ M; K( t1 lThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think% i. Y9 p' T: q
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 F- B: R, ?7 b5 e4 |
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
. o9 G1 J7 c9 t* f* RAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
, K9 z: \3 N4 e  n4 D2 w' X$ Dthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was* ^) @" D1 V. ^( T
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.; ?' y; m' a' k7 A, Q+ C
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" U/ l6 k: B( _, l# |  t; {. _many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
! Y- k9 \* ?' h+ mChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June/ L& R( ~6 K& k  w4 M- G( j
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she% ?+ p7 b, C7 R: p3 X- N! Y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.! R; x' _+ T; O4 ~' @" R
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science( @" K3 {' c  Q; G5 |" w
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
/ @7 P; q0 z3 CDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; s4 f8 _6 U: j# m! y, \
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
5 w: [6 G1 B# }2 Tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature4 Y5 [5 s. q% Q: i$ p0 k- d
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to- G' B  `# `, l; {
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
: T6 ~, z, G. X' J! [2 gThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
& m2 m& K. M6 \! m* p4 Yshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced9 \! X2 a+ w' ^% i, `
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
- @$ B6 C8 k5 ]: [' ?  m& rfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that- W8 R) Y6 N( V7 q
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”/ l% S; o" N0 o/ a- }) T
about British supremacy.
, U, S% |3 ]. n* b0 G. VThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
( p1 _' v1 v% {' k& ^unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
! p. E* b8 d7 v# E/ qChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
. O1 @( J6 S( G, W$ L8 mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
, Z- |) h# D0 E" r* BOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
, d( X' X3 L6 e1 v$ {( RYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of& s  V) ]: J0 M0 p$ }
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
" n. F( S$ p7 q' zbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,, b1 @; g. ]2 I; Q( z) I
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
  c. V; I. J% Z- d- [9 Kpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
+ d9 E' q& E) h2 @  H7 HNature.6 U; m+ \. |$ E2 f+ P) D9 h& _
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance  ?7 U9 I& t0 Z
the Callaway report.
: K# ^9 w. G" k6 A7 `4 x; \7 V( H, [# _- Z, q
Yi7 t  _9 |* S9 W' Y2 E3 A2 Q
; D1 |1 m, _' e0 a) y* h9 p
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
4 L- w7 e0 R% B- v; V3 H- V) aProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences1 t- n+ p0 U4 R* [9 x0 e
Beijing, China9 A. v3 P* Q% G8 x- R
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
: w# Z0 l8 \+ B$ P3 ?$ u原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

- N0 S& M% J: C! s6 g6 v原文是公开信。
3 r- K' E* z$ ?; y$ l9 ?5 ~8 o7 O2 \; s) M2 X* H  a  J9 d. _% t
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( f5 a. c+ j# b  C2 b' s6 G原文是公开信。
/ M$ h' F' Z4 _  o7 m' e4 B' q1 h, ^+ C
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
" `1 v% h. Q5 k2 t6 u$ r- x; V. 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
; ]; B  J: \! d, v4 d: }如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 [5 a; N& ^" w- j* O
5 d3 b& k( v' c( N3 Whttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 d: n5 q. s& J
# `& t* h1 g, I9 ^9 [FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
2 ^. d) `: A& m; C% R  I9 o- C9 R8 [
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself" h; m* M4 H0 C2 s5 S" ^; D
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science/ }' a+ u6 {9 _
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
' w, c5 n) I  O/ G8 C# gis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ `+ ]5 m2 [8 jscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
  m: y* K- A& kpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
7 K* C1 u$ \% [4 r' ishould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. Y# _9 q/ ~1 l9 d$ @5 Y* ywhich they blatantly failed to do.6 e4 Q8 P5 ]* L( F( `8 z: x) O; s
' j. j1 l% y! w) a1 h0 K* a
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her1 m8 I/ [0 R0 D. v& p5 s' M
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
& x$ H4 P( j) `/ s# G2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “- H% j" a) B( B
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
; ]5 ^" m' F; Y  opersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
" @1 f: a& \. u% @2 \7 nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
9 h  r* X  N5 Z' \) y  O3 Adifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 P" Q; i2 A7 e5 Ube treated as 7 s./ t" x' W8 J, _: `3 E4 z

5 p; G: e+ \2 j6 s5 X" aSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 E; G! M( F4 x, ?. {* pstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem0 N  q/ U" V' `& K+ O* Y0 q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# C/ |2 p1 x  z' N
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4005 d$ F  `. x/ r1 s% z% _+ m. @5 J' q
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ J4 l: ?. h# t0 H$ xFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' i- \; }  K! k8 {2 U8 |+ i" Jelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and9 V/ X5 X5 J/ [! i. y
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; K7 L, Q: v0 }6 L6 t
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.2 d4 u; V! f: T+ D  n8 h+ W1 D9 @
7 t+ D6 Q$ r3 H8 [
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
; O0 [- U  i1 g. Y3 Qexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 _, X* k) }% [  v4 w1 ~) Y0 I3 p
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so- i. ]2 x$ J; O; Z' i
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
- W9 h0 O5 l7 m- o/ y' mevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s; E/ e$ \1 E* G8 \' D5 [. B
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) u6 \  ^7 s5 WFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! I8 K  E3 ^% l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
5 D& P! j: i& S2 r9 m! s4 mhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
9 P- E- n3 v8 |3 W! ~  ^, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; t" }$ D- y7 Z: C) D: _7 D; m
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds' n8 p* K% U& Z3 Z# ?
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! ^8 D3 N$ C4 c  [8 L% Q1 x" n2 b8 Efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting; P$ }8 L0 H0 g% ^1 g
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
9 K" B& b& Y) \/ u) D8 |implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# p4 F' [2 j; d$ p7 s) w2 G; B' }# }+ C% B2 u* ^# |
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are) ]6 h& T% {: g
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.932 M) K4 j; K: o5 \" ]
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 R+ h- p0 s; L3 J), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
; f4 _9 n% t9 |/ H/ z7 Yout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 e& l# ~2 F4 QLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
' A# {* K5 `9 I9 j5 S! n9 V+ Pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
! m6 [. M3 X& e  Slogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in: W+ {0 R  g4 U1 E- x
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science2 p4 r$ L, q: L" O2 ~
works.
$ y; t$ r! Y/ l) v$ ^( S" {9 F- S, t3 E: h! W3 Q9 i6 J
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
* q, }- c6 w: Bimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: E, D* G! q2 N7 x  jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 P# {1 r4 Z4 H- ~% S
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 B' h2 a9 k, F) n6 G7 ?) d2 S% o, jpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 W' u% i% v% I2 V4 yreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; a/ |) a2 _  m) Y% _- scannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 P) k6 [# v' P7 A9 C
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
" A  j3 |7 ]) F7 ]/ p) M% nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ L7 t8 A+ s  d3 nis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ L# [4 T( D3 p: d4 b3 X* [, y
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he# j! \2 Q% C7 s7 z
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly$ C9 v, m# L# f6 g* D* ?
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the/ Q/ ~0 w4 T9 K& S3 D
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
% P# r$ f/ P! e4 @0 x4 L0 xuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 w$ d9 t, a3 ]# u. {6 z' d
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 w3 w, z9 i: }& y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
& a: h; P8 a5 [7 E$ _- W& A. G8 zbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 W3 F& o- N; @- b# D6 u7 e0 N4 f
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( U. ]: r  J( {# Thas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a. o7 T3 S1 D( f8 W9 _
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* f8 N; {2 G0 a+ z8 L2 A  m" J
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
6 [, U$ {+ ?, e; ^$ f+ x: H/ \, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is/ }( M0 B/ E8 K
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
" |( n8 [% T" w7 A5 A' Nathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- e+ U9 B/ ^% q/ i: }8 |chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?6 r- C. b7 r, E  z% _2 I
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping6 q1 V3 ?0 i+ C7 H
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 D/ n' K& Z" W( e3 s, Veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., N  C2 q5 R  h2 J# U" }: S/ e$ o
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?/ {0 u+ {# j# m3 u6 U, W
1 c3 n/ K- F' |- e2 _/ M
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# d5 a8 x- t* w$ ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; `7 g4 W  t% {. X& V: C1 i% c. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for- C: G7 Y; w0 [8 M7 d7 u; u
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
7 |( X5 m$ y2 P' X6 \; sOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; M/ T) p% ]; u" L0 m/ m$ zdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 x: n2 t- J4 Z1 igames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
1 O" v. y. X3 \& K& `) |4 jhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
+ _$ x; X; L4 G. p% f$ g. Bplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 E7 B, e) q1 L# a/ R& D: S
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.3 g" P5 l  ^3 x- N8 B
* j# m4 r4 d$ F' C
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (% R  G# V. g7 _  F
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
6 C! q+ o& a- k3 ^4 E7 n, E% ysuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
, Z8 ^# x/ S. w; Qsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide% H0 C8 {, ?, G& h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% [5 o0 S- O+ m2 uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,8 p( q0 i& a2 X) A7 [$ v* v! m
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 Y+ w5 O9 F3 M1 E
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 S; I# n2 i5 a2 _+ }+ @  Csuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or* U: [0 y7 z3 [% `
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-11-22 09:36 , Processed in 0.204160 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