埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1972|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
& y* a8 q7 @  ?$ v; b& s
3 o( m4 K) k# \5 B' q" l0 ?" Z饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
8 _$ A" b' \9 `. ~" i0 _$ r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。8 J! W0 i8 K* T1 J# \+ W9 X
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
$ D. Q' B1 [8 w: K4 p* Y
7 {" z9 ?3 d! Chttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
" C. y' h, l1 o5 ]
! e, e; B: R& C, g致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% K* D# D/ w- U

' I: @6 R6 p& \/ N8 r+ ]) N英文原信附后,大意如下:
3 P4 F' L- _; p% i4 g: t% H
3 K" s& T: o1 ^; J: M斐尔,0 n; t/ ?7 z  o4 ~( x: 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
; S) H  n6 y. K6 Gemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。6 j$ q2 ]; ^* n4 B" k; j7 t4 i- p
       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
, g" g0 e' v6 @0 c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
- s7 N% D' u1 m) [9 d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。
- G9 v1 y# x. K       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 l% O" g+ k9 B, x$ l1 ^
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& V! g9 p+ Z. T# E* ^' }, U! {
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
$ k  [# d& r7 J, h责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。6 Y) s7 l( `. P% I: y3 r
       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
) |* Q1 J- D8 e4 h1 m- Z1 ?3 C7 V,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0 c" `; v& w  p  t+ x' {: }& t
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
% ?% G# }/ G: E) O: h5 z       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
' G5 b. x* e" N4 y8 ~# e7 s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/ @0 D, B5 T& g; A6 B2 ~4 C
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 s8 D+ U9 W. \" O, K2 h: U  v
       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+ D, B0 F7 |' g- m" h
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
0 a8 f& I3 u, D% g) Y5 ~) P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) K  u" m/ T: ^0 P, ~# j
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- b' B( M& O8 q6 @
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
6 V$ a$ ?) I6 v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2 O3 {' o# W) n5 C
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
. b/ @' y8 K# z1 Q/ C  I' N7 D* p3 Y。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
9 o# W! [& V+ u8 @9 J( e, ~录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
1 J( B! ~# M8 j2 G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
; d7 z. \  \: k& G1》,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2 o0 w" u7 A1 q# |: x: R: s1 }
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  w, f) C. u5 J  z
同意见的专家。$ S: ~1 Z# {! y- P
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0 U$ E; e& ]1 c5 W
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
+ E3 ~! {# h) o9 |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 x3 O0 R: j) Q$ a《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。1 }1 y/ N. J/ Y6 z6 l. M! E
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)7 v% M5 j( N/ Z# @
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  }9 y2 m7 p' [; x
《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5 J' F: `5 c; C2 c
这些被Callaway忽略。) E. j$ Y; C1 g* n4 z5 c* R8 {9 ?
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
$ c" `* [" x# h, q; [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 j: k2 j% l! Z, f: o/ A" ^教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
9 Q$ S0 C1 _) c' _. p4 \, M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 v5 C5 k" u8 }; G! d5 P/ m' Q: s  t
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" s, B8 q3 a, I& c
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
: Z- ?% ~& B0 t) `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。5 Q& ]) w4 f$ s5 W1 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
3 a& U! y5 O  _* }2 `- i& 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% X7 c! v. w9 y% a  M
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5 {% y! y6 T9 B% {3 g
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, ~$ z5 M" \6 d) d! Z4 H
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
' c) ^$ X( p" s4 h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0 X' W/ Y  }* t0 w4 X" V. `
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' [7 x- T2 h: |7 [4 ^) w8 O
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2 o1 ]6 }7 d9 Z) p& 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4 \9 k! k: y' W3 F
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。5 r. w0 j5 l# j% i
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
+ K4 t5 L3 a0 l& H, x) ?. {6 {/ G9 t' d9 F' x- l9 Z, k! P" |5 J

# y5 P) x  t. ^  X( K- ], x  ~) l+ M北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅0 s8 x: f! {; z& z

% z! s  ^$ P0 b) y6 m附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结* J; U+ b- X# i5 U
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
/ H6 ^( N/ g7 v3 I& x- Q附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
- ]2 q! ~1 e( ~, N附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见0 Q7 J# ^3 E  ~* K- i! f2 ^3 _

( S: S' S* G  w3 P
7 O; }0 z, X& {2 A/ y" _
: x  l0 s" g3 R原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)5 v8 e6 E) W( H$ A+ G
Dear Phil,4 W9 L3 T  m3 H0 G7 n& A- i6 R
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s4 f3 }+ O. \  x/ N) M. s) _/ ]
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 200 m6 G, n( n  L: }+ _4 u
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed: Y3 A% `! J. \& F5 V6 s
you.1 |( L& e+ e' [; G+ |/ a0 f
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
8 C) _7 g/ `8 jbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese3 n3 G: ~( [6 c4 O
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the0 s) u" Z/ S' ~! a8 [  s& s
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature8 G7 t9 U1 a3 {1 t6 A3 o' y
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more) {3 R* _1 N5 H8 T' F
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
  A, R2 y' g5 X, v2 bpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.$ i6 P- E4 z& D% Z' ?
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
6 b6 K7 w; G3 jworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a6 C6 N4 u0 U  Z, Y+ t9 T
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
' s. p4 w3 e3 e4 @; Y3 |; \that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway: l4 b* z2 ?, ^7 C
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
1 D1 g* V2 ?$ T! }. N  _explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ Z) |2 ^1 o% N9 b
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,- a3 h  T5 B3 q) `
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone$ u( w5 |. m% |  B0 V
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news) |5 _" M) x5 I
reporting.  j% X9 d0 V0 i3 c2 u' T
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
% c' w( T+ W3 ^already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by" O5 G6 d# P3 w
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
/ i* B- `, q. m6 W0 _9 ]7 qsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
+ l" r# Q+ q- Ypresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.7 `! P9 L, E, z
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem1 _% N- n8 }2 U4 g. C2 k0 H
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds* ~. o4 K5 O9 D4 s! [$ M8 a
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50% w$ @0 y+ P/ @) `- j! Y
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
6 V1 B  n' A5 E7 e* M+ b$ |; u" Oevent for men, with the second fastest record.7 a( G* [# D6 P4 v2 Y% o- y
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
4 Y' v+ \7 N" C. G3 r" v. Xwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16* h3 Y) l& p8 w8 X1 X. X1 M
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
3 I! B7 ~. e5 P* L' Y. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
& O/ r, x% Z8 x, Gmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,3 _7 Y$ }7 P$ L% l8 r$ a
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than6 S% K$ ?, g/ O! G& f& F& ~
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( C; b4 U1 x7 T+ F% L
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. @5 [8 ^% K4 ]+ Nindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
' I7 X* r$ Q. S$ ^: X+ b: d' [than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than2 g4 K- ?/ R8 W. [
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
* w" C& V) L2 H1 Nher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
# _1 g+ U) ?* v; z- F- _he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “2 _* Y1 M9 D" g* n: j
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other: J4 v: w8 `6 t2 C2 l
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the3 ]8 \2 G% j0 t0 O- q
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
. O4 Y8 o) t' X' @; d/ {8 M" HCallaway report.  m4 x- O0 g0 H# Y. H3 E- e7 \, E
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more+ n5 d6 O  {3 L( [: Y
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details' x9 I0 p5 o( {
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description3 f+ j. v0 ?" y
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been  ?6 j! L0 w% ^, T# F( m! c
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the  R4 s  ?% a3 H% t) M  \
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had$ R7 h& @* H1 D- m. V5 O
publicly voiced different opinions.+ L/ o9 h  K/ H: I* B; c4 ~  L
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 N6 N) W( H" r" D
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature" p! o! V+ @' A
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ D: N7 T) u: F7 u7 N% ?- L! a* p
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
0 {; M4 x+ Z, F! iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
5 _4 G* s4 h1 kof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.# d! |" G, t$ ?: J1 Q/ I6 p% y
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
. n7 ]( E; Z/ W) @7 M/ Y* K. Uthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They# l1 E! z. q6 H0 U2 E' H7 r
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
5 z% n7 m( e8 r- U" p0 Q3 sAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
- c1 y" a5 V) N4 w' K2 Y. ^" Ithe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was( P6 z" x# y# G6 j. F4 t
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.9 d  T2 b% d5 \* |+ s: M. M) a
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that* S* `! K. y1 T5 V0 J8 I
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
9 p& V3 o7 f3 N! X5 \) AChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" h, L2 w) z4 P$ E  a! Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
/ K9 H: L; i; O$ L6 rand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ {; u4 A% H7 y2 z5 ?6 OThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- |6 e( q) B4 W) _and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 n# G9 f8 ]& {1 u* p) _  ^
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; `9 J9 q4 u, ^! R6 O. p
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and5 k) [( r, ?6 b4 e
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
6 E% L' C( a9 ^% r9 K% G, D+ mwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
5 {7 s1 |! D0 G- _repair the damage caused by your news reporters.6 z4 n- G7 X4 I, }) v  s. I! A
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not1 ^5 ]% @2 c+ C" J
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced$ C' f; i) ?2 f  n
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather7 E) F! @4 z" D
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" z/ W& i# I; ^
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
. v8 A2 w1 l0 P2 ]3 Q# V$ Dabout British supremacy.* B; }4 v& h/ ~$ T6 S* [6 }
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many8 j7 y; S0 n0 z9 K: {
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
& j# A. s9 `% ?+ r, bChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by( ~  y7 Z* u# y: k( u9 {
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
  G  P# u2 J! {: `0 Q& vOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.: p  \+ J( {4 {$ |/ z
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
* O8 T+ H; W% dprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests+ r. b1 L2 ^6 r( K# u/ c% }
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,, H  T5 [; x/ T& j2 t
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
) H( j! ~  n7 G$ f0 h' r7 Ypublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like' W: K* ]9 ~* f/ S
Nature.* g7 S  k8 A% c1 u7 N* V
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
) e- M; [& S7 E5 o! D8 a! Rthe Callaway report.
# p5 c- x  X/ `  A
& a9 {- d. u& A: r4 [1 HYi( G0 Z! f4 _# M! Z/ _* F7 `
9 t) \  {7 X8 W; k% k" j
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
8 ?1 Y) Y7 D' T5 @$ D- |& xProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences) v/ Z3 I# `8 t/ U  J& T& W. n
Beijing, China
% }* S$ l# n% Q/ b+ E4 Q" 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
# e8 B2 M% h4 g3 p7 d3 S  K原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
" A$ ~- I$ r+ [0 P+ ~
原文是公开信。& f( G# B) e+ A/ }1 @; J

" d, S' t5 r7 F) a8 Q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 # ^8 }8 s# O$ C/ V7 v6 f/ K
原文是公开信。4 i3 W- f) ~; X. J

& o! k, a/ ~8 U; Q0 r+ M0 {( z* b小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

7 ~& e/ Z, c- W( |* A) }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
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG: y1 {& E/ L8 B( N. }9 s
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* N1 h( U; o% a- C
: ~7 F6 A: N, t3 q; W
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html4 b" Y. c% r7 M, l! I7 h8 N- y9 k' W

# E% j5 E: X/ k2 R  P8 `FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! t. n5 G6 J( a. _4 D' m9 O

: N9 x& l- |( @2 D  qIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself( Y# l1 _/ l4 x8 S! s
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# t) @3 O# r7 k+ _; F: a1 B+ Y0 pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this/ T, E$ ]  ]1 o
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the0 P, Y3 }. n! V  g! h9 s
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( c4 b/ ~4 j9 ~! E& X( e
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors9 Q+ _% H! b0 @# ^* U8 E
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( b& t- x$ g  l6 R& `) ^/ P
which they blatantly failed to do.. W4 S2 U1 i$ }. Q- d8 o1 K

& @! m" K9 L+ z2 {$ Z' VFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 g5 w5 f+ I2 v: H2 r4 Q3 XOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& ?6 z$ V, c1 w3 Q6 E
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ B5 u& h" [* S+ y2 _9 {6 u
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( n* a* P' |, X4 s8 b( @, C0 I7 J
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
2 \1 X5 K$ t7 b" k! yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ P% @4 Z4 W8 o" y+ R) x6 g4 idifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 w# Q7 r5 d. G; g. h- ~be treated as 7 s.
4 ^: f8 I* ?  j* v4 j0 n" g# g
3 M- B2 ~6 p# u$ ]Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is0 B' r( G( Y2 S/ S
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
- l+ P* r( p) T7 y8 fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
9 q3 E4 g; w% C" c6 j% G9 WAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 Z6 F; A5 J; r5 S5 J5 g9 Z-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
4 G* L1 Q- S; [- V, t% uFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; k( ~7 ]4 x% }6 m8 r, a0 q+ y1 t
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 f' S: c4 Z/ Zpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”' N5 \$ \& F' O
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.4 f" E0 r! f1 V  c1 n$ w
7 |' f6 |5 k' a3 ?+ l
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 B! o5 C, R& c& F5 |( `+ o
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in' \( h# J: N: E* {* x3 a1 |
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so% t1 P2 h4 u; c8 c/ h
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- A, T3 o. w( K+ f/ e+ B2 R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: {4 W9 H+ v/ Y. _+ z' B2 ~2 Y- R# c' ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) t1 v8 Y- x5 i1 M/ l- sFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another0 Q7 v  u% i7 m4 _3 M
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
- ?% ~; z$ s0 w" n: k3 Bhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
" N' S1 d9 ]- N, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
: s/ R7 M, p1 S  u) xstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds6 D7 o" L/ t; \
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam, h' y  A- f& H
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, D7 S2 s' J7 Z: r' g3 }0 M$ x- Xaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 p4 B+ |( \, n  U' A8 I+ |1 \( n
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.! i5 F2 q9 D7 G. n; A
, j& _- U& P2 Z/ W/ N" P/ @. M
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; W, v; Y8 M6 t' `/ r
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
/ N- h7 A5 J- b8 @$ d2 W5 ^( Os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* |; P/ O; e; K6 P' d0 X2 s
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ T6 ~, @- G( e: J) C0 Hout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,' U% x" j, l8 w8 @. M
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind/ x$ f! A" [" r5 }% K
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; d- M2 ?6 Y; e$ I
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" U5 b# d% @& x* x6 K7 p' `
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science: S4 d2 [/ Q" h: h) r2 k) x1 F
works.
) F% X6 o; f7 z1 n* Q. E6 ?- ]  L+ _. J4 |! l7 r! e$ e
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
: u6 i7 x' O) ?  l* i4 Jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) h  {1 G9 E& A, i1 Tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
, f# |/ m2 s3 m/ |" sstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific3 m3 e% @- U; E
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
; b* p' i7 b& \reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; G$ }1 U  z, q" p$ w6 a, m
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
6 P# c& L. E3 p1 W% z$ Idemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
! ?9 p3 x! V7 W4 G; qto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ ]1 z/ g$ f0 L5 G3 Vis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
7 D; S8 |+ x0 H/ t! @/ t- Mcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
+ G: ]* _; j! V! ?* m* t6 P( ]7 \wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) _; M% X) Y! {% c& W6 m8 kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- L: j) `9 G" _4 e
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( _' u: T( F2 e9 _6 s( guse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 M' ~3 d. h& D, @
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 ?1 A; T1 a2 I7 U1 n
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may. C: g* m4 Q+ l0 O0 p* U7 |
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
% n* E4 h6 `6 b& Jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 y& e! ^* n/ y5 F3 N
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& s# b/ c4 f" {7 q/ @drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" u/ p( {  q: [: i( ~- T# bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
& h. [! S  o' b+ g7 E, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is* ?) Q: f0 u+ n) r- ^9 x+ p  |  G
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 K9 y. D8 f! _) f) u5 ?
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 Q7 H# A2 R* w' e4 `  i* W0 p7 j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?: X: L5 Q0 z3 v6 C; c6 Y; |1 }
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& l$ q5 T' Z' e; Cagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
) \" S+ I0 R8 l# O5 w) aeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, g2 y  m* B. h3 f" eInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?9 [( g0 ?& E3 B- q7 b9 C

, l5 }- D; T; x4 aSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
! d  q+ z- n) w2 j( V- Vcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention( V$ x5 M6 i& t' L
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
7 h8 g# N+ z. b: d' }Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 D9 V$ [; z* e& W* ~8 D( g
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
  l5 s- M' u9 N/ [* X$ ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
" S( k6 C' H( h* ]3 Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope; Z% q$ ]" @5 u
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& }' g; c" C+ m9 o. A/ j- mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
* K$ |6 _) Y  Fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ i* |; `4 H+ l- r7 d. Y) l1 M+ v
" l+ E6 A2 B- q# c8 \+ R( ]" ^+ VOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (. Y9 K2 @7 k# E5 L4 @3 E, Y% g
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) V  K, c" u: w/ E) z2 y( t- Bsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
: Y8 o- s7 s/ l* R* Z3 tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 ?7 [5 l, w+ Y" j! eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 f" j# R8 ~" D& z$ V6 a
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
# r4 q4 G& z) W. {2 k* G0 w. E# _explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 y8 y( d$ j, G& o; C* G) t
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal/ `1 q0 D/ r/ H" ?! D
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or+ B" _. U, e2 q) m( I: h1 H
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-1-28 11:47 , Processed in 0.130169 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