埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2130|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 ! Z0 G: I4 y9 Z+ I, i: z- h( i

2 E9 ^- {" z3 s3 v& Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。$ @4 f- B7 Q% {4 s0 R7 ?
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。3 O0 O$ ~; z. J3 Y0 g
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。8 p+ r: L: ]( X" r

. E( M9 y3 q/ ]4 @* D- Hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 f; Q8 E) G2 B) K
! u( G  Q. B$ J
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
. R9 `* s, N% h# B; i
8 N, c: M* y) P2 H. P英文原信附后,大意如下:' L1 J  L8 Y) ?5 m: y

  O! {) r7 |0 }  z; H斐尔,
3 t3 [. i3 @. x6 W       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
+ \- ^' e( m& N7 `- h1 N7 U( m' Demail的人里面小部分也给我来信。* _3 k% @( g! t* L2 f" r- v6 W5 }
       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
3 Y6 L/ _% b  D; R9 H  _+ j. }2 ?& h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  A9 `$ r0 D( Y$ ~9 p! q
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。. Q) y% g4 I% F+ V: @/ P2 X2 i+ o7 ]1 X
       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
% r6 d9 d8 {3 b3 E' b" r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3 M% R# t1 V; Z
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
1 R+ x- x7 I  c) v: f" b; F( g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。
8 m- `' x8 \' K/ p% P+ h: K       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; g5 L' X) X$ ~& |) m. 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
' i+ Z: D8 w  }# E- N& U”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。; p! r% H8 W6 n6 y' _; h! O1 d( }
       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! R# @. ^# H  u" w  [9 F3 U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( ?; n" T0 [4 N1 H
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 W7 S+ D/ b6 R& }3 |! f
       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8 }& a& X6 Y5 e; O
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
' W# d6 {! O1 l: @7 [3 q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
8 n" Q; u/ k9 p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7 S  S4 a( J6 O9 B# w2 k. 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、六0 q& s4 F! z: Q/ Z
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 ?4 X4 f$ o. n5 y/ Q# ?/ I) O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; a' z  Z! j# G/ I) |; t$ r9 ]
。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0 Y8 `" R) S+ m* _
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。% U; G6 x" Y0 b: e$ l* E
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7 l" o! R  A) q3 k; x
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+ a  I5 L1 A$ h1 Y2 q( C
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4 N' E7 w4 U! z- T+ @9 T4 k7 A
同意见的专家。, U: ^) R) Z8 g. r0 d) g
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
8 _4 d) h$ l* Q* o) H4 \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
& z5 y0 g6 p$ {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
& p& [" I5 i; S  [& d8 r) E2 U! m《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。) L" w( i# j9 k! _1 m8 _5 Q5 b. j
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)( K% {! X5 g, y/ }! u7 x4 w9 U
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: t6 c" q% t. S1 Z3 f. 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- a$ H* C  N. G" Y: ?8 U7 I7 [
这些被Callaway忽略。
- t8 Q- ^/ k; m: c$ s3 e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
- L  z" `- `2 l' R( M. F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
9 b5 s7 @# U: L8 B教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
# m2 ~' W# x, V+ c( W' ]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- Q- X, d9 Q: a- Q
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2 Y& o; _- Y9 z/ o
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
3 y: C7 ~4 j, e# m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。: D. S; ?( h, h: X/ v
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
! l1 q) U& u$ V9 E* a% P5 U, t* Y8 G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
) Y1 L2 d1 x0 F  D4 R( `' _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3 {; x/ I3 I( |3 N4 m' I+ P- }
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。5 ?1 \( H( u# o+ Y# r  t% c9 |( \
中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞" v' ^6 I0 z! V) |7 i& ]  {) l
弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问8 D' b2 n- U7 t7 s& i/ s0 ?3 q
题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁0 P5 e1 I4 x2 L( A  |1 Y
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次# X; E- D# M1 l: g/ h
测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染
; D4 R( ^: j+ Q% G3 Q: o$ s4 Z而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
4 B, y" [4 Q" ]1 l我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
' o  z: N3 ~- }3 o8 B& x) E6 ^5 u5 q$ \5 j2 M3 K+ y& c& p
, ~: e& H& g- `" I' z6 K
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
4 X. b1 K) ~" W0 J) j* i+ W( ]/ n, U; F
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
) Y$ ~* S4 _! {  a- d+ C' a# r附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email  `; o+ N2 f% {8 ?9 _, O& x. t
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 y& _  {5 l* }, i6 @3 O附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
" X! Y5 H# r! y0 [( M3 v- F+ K7 `5 p7 h) L, _6 h8 L
4 \) Y( A; T2 o, B, Y# C5 X

; y  \' m$ m4 O$ |$ V" T- w% u! b- j原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
3 j$ B3 x# |; m" {5 n& ZDear Phil,8 b# ~# a" w' ~. Z% T. ?& O
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
, A4 A3 G( R, k# a; `report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 201 {# G1 [9 \5 ^& r" R: c
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
/ A, M/ \4 T+ `4 jyou.* P8 s0 m1 d' ]
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" h  e, C3 L" ^0 X5 w" Z: C
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; H! v% j8 G* X6 b8 w' r- \) r2 Oreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the* _( A$ n% R. e: o% d
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature1 ^+ B) t4 K) F9 \; q" i/ W
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# ^% P9 m4 l  ^. d7 S0 u8 Dseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news+ s( T4 c5 p$ p7 F6 U
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would./ H+ L0 z. t  T4 G
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 J! ^0 c+ _. h
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a7 {) a) X& U" Z: c7 ^  @' q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 c& `. o# b; m5 s, h7 N' F
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway& ?7 }: I) E. m2 i1 ]
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping2 k/ I! K6 \" g& G* @, b" D7 ^
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) g" L" X, B8 ~+ Q. S( f' C& K/ [standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
" i/ e+ P  F% }/ @0 b" H. R( z3 q) ^and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
4 o; T+ ?- @7 q* {3 S: M( T, c1 a" _to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news# P. `. i& `- f4 |6 |2 d! B% B
reporting.
4 D4 f5 i3 u6 |/ X" l$ [& Q       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
' x4 A" P( H, u! Galready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by- D$ L3 V, y6 D7 B
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
  e9 C. {/ ^4 Qsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
" i8 y% [. S8 w7 a3 u6 t" qpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
) e% P9 g: a$ P" v       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
) C  h8 I% [# r/ d4 J1 lmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
5 C- c# x9 r4 n1 n5 Y5 d; c) Z  i  Mfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ h8 q6 ^- S6 Xmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
8 \3 O6 V' D2 e0 vevent for men, with the second fastest record.
% N1 W2 X" m: I' w       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
8 C2 b# f" P2 {+ C: F7 @was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16% S9 R: N$ c, c7 b  h! n* A4 N: ^
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record$ d7 g- b7 w& g2 \7 ]% x4 U/ {
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
% d: w% L6 s$ i( ~" _" xmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
$ a7 z! ^. L6 d! b; V: r' xfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" u3 v. `. H( t0 R
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed, I# m7 B$ ?; }( Y1 E8 z
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
7 h$ q- h. Y" Nindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower7 f; ?1 [. v9 ^+ ]( q  D+ H
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
; |4 p; G) s9 i; [4 n# g* l7 f6 _those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
1 C' ^) d6 b" bher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
" R% M0 r, y/ r; Ehe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# a% `8 O" [; |% h) f& Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 j2 c) q) a) s
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the* Z$ S. U  b; q; y$ `" }5 ^
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
+ O* F- R* z6 M' jCallaway report." u+ ^; Z3 d( y# j
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more+ a0 f( {0 Y# m' ~
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* K3 U* j8 U; a2 Uhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
- V5 _, K4 U- _! Q6 Sof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
7 O$ ]8 Z& ?% M2 y& f9 pbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the2 m. x# G! Q- q$ ^( j3 g* o8 L" e3 b
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had1 w) y3 h- j9 a+ z% Z  M
publicly voiced different opinions./ L8 Y/ D8 V" v8 b* u
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
% X* N, W2 h6 s5 U/ n. M# L/ jfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature) H- a% k1 c9 ^% Y/ n
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent0 h6 }/ q/ ^1 Y4 N7 t- }
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: M- v9 t2 B0 A: q" v
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
4 C" f) s0 T, ^$ q& B* _; I/ K) z) Xof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.' R: y. S% }2 J* }' ~& g4 E/ n
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
# e7 l1 k- @" o+ xthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
7 e9 T+ z: g5 H. z. [9 C6 Whave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
  W) S* N7 D* q( f* V  g9 a" ]4 J- n# qAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that$ F- m+ _5 }7 L" z1 O( M
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
6 h0 v/ j4 w7 f6 t# U1 Fsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
6 i6 Z2 @( d8 l% q4 }0 xOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
) E1 D; o. ?) `8 b2 y1 Imany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the8 a: P3 u9 i# W' S: X$ G3 {
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
8 t: J! v. f) R# ?! \+ V0 J( u(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: r5 E, p5 _6 p& _9 P5 Wand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
- w$ \; h& z7 G% K1 tThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 w% z7 K$ F: V: T
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and# N4 F. q! E; R% l& L6 j+ x9 |' h9 e
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
, z( h4 |5 c. U6 l/ fNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and0 R# H  \2 ~/ \: u% y
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
) T+ i$ l7 d; D1 e6 I) Awhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
5 q0 T' ?4 S! Orepair the damage caused by your news reporters.* x- [/ f3 N" P" N' c
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ f) |3 o7 T. E" a  M9 K
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced$ k; X, w/ b+ `' m3 G/ z, n
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather  _) A0 r2 B0 t* a$ w
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
: V3 C8 D/ R% v& m; }- ?this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”2 U) X$ x6 l4 {) a2 {, q0 x/ k1 z0 X
about British supremacy.
+ a1 n$ i2 s7 p  D3 yThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many' H$ }0 }9 }% [: [# C
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; m- P8 {; v% k- b
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by9 n8 Q9 r6 t. y$ T/ d
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London/ J, ?- f+ Q8 m) F; X! p
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; G- }- T9 T3 _) H* E; N
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of% ~* K" X0 X% P) O1 h
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 F- d6 [, X. G  Lbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
5 h# R3 |! \9 o, O& p4 ^! Tit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
6 Z+ ~, V% k8 b3 |; ?" X7 i" apublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like6 t( t6 T" q" G: u# t
Nature., K2 @; `) r( d
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
. s3 j/ }" D4 {% d! B- wthe Callaway report.
5 M1 Z. u# c$ I
7 {5 l7 w2 ?9 b( F; J: _' ZYi
( @  M. o8 ]0 Z. z
! r9 M4 F0 x8 g, p1 y" PYi Rao, Ph.D.
8 i! D. |7 V7 a9 Q6 o" P. P# QProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
: C4 e2 N+ [/ g: [" B1 qBeijing, China
" @1 k& k3 N9 R0 r3 ^% u
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。
理袁律师事务所
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 4 K. o4 K" X  n1 A0 O
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
  F. j0 h5 [& P; a7 v9 ^
原文是公开信。: h2 S4 Y* `. K; T
1 x. i$ W1 r0 O! h9 e+ w& H
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-6 20:23 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
bigsnail 发表于 2012-8-6 21:16 5 m; ~: A+ s6 M# T6 a4 `3 }! z
原文是公开信。
" Y0 w  R+ }8 |* R% J' Y9 v) y  Z' k, _- _& F: r
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

) e5 z" x9 U( ~9 U0 t4 s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
" K4 q9 S, O" S, f如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 _4 e  |) N/ y% g+ T
7 S2 i7 O: g5 E* ~4 p& Q3 Rhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
& m# w3 |, p+ S! R+ x& J0 I+ ?  j" k
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 C8 ?! H- N) c! C  l) H
* O; @6 j. ]4 l% a' |- Z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. }0 T1 j8 M! ?4 u* |3 N
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science: h' G1 ]& v* v5 t5 l
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
6 W" G6 R  U5 N9 g0 O9 o- U/ m: m1 His not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 R5 E# b0 E0 e, K3 F) t% Mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: c9 z7 ?: B! M2 e' Ipopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 _5 |% C( ?. Fshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,. _, S* Y+ v. D6 x- i1 j& _* A
which they blatantly failed to do.
; T* m# c# A! p' T
/ ]1 W4 ]% {1 L2 s/ ?First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 n" k1 ?+ W# c8 Q( h. T0 Z: v
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in4 `4 |/ t, Y0 d  R: B( B4 `! a
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ R) ~% B: V' q8 R! @anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous: [  f- Z& w# Y/ }+ u
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 X8 A) D0 G* W; w& f
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the5 I/ W+ T: K3 c
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
7 M+ Q, k# z4 i& _be treated as 7 s.
. {- J  F  G/ T# x1 x  j* E. J4 A* j' I. l8 A
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
9 g5 p1 M5 K( H% F. s2 qstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
6 ?2 V$ w. |8 _) v2 k$ mimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
3 S2 S/ _. M% U  N8 jAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% R" m& h. |6 t6 q8 R" ]
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! t8 p! t4 D& L# y4 P
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, g. ]1 K" X7 [, j# Selite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and  \& }% t& t0 l5 V6 j% g, k
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ Y$ J/ _1 [& E/ t4 D& }  S4 fbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.' l" F; s" M  g# c& R, C

8 b/ s( r0 p- J  u+ }1 M( J5 vThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& J4 c+ I# `. Y) C0 Z1 jexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
6 I  Q% q# g4 \the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! y3 V1 j0 c6 |" V# U. G
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
$ c9 H; \, W% V# p: M1 _6 eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ b' o* Q6 \/ w4 p7 N# rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- ?! B! s* s* i* S# a$ TFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ E, N2 P- h0 C# z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
& A; `$ S5 C7 u: p* ]1 J4 Ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ Y0 \% M. b# P) ^3 f: j
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 w" ?+ F* ?$ L" K- Gstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 U: Q+ ^! V& _6 l; B2 i8 Efaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam( @. F* U- c& I* K+ H
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting8 C. Y2 F: D. i5 X, ^2 j" a( G
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 z! ]6 A# _; ]" `+ e) {implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
( |8 L! \8 K3 u+ `; k( p6 X4 l4 X. e! {" T6 j/ W
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ K1 y' O1 S) a  Z, D
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
& L# I, F- L! r' B3 s, X: L. x* bs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ C$ V8 H( n' \/ g( S! \), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
' }  f# I" {' @) {out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& h  `& j" D4 u, o6 @Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind! w5 V1 Y4 @7 D4 l7 l) d  o
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it. b6 i1 m+ y9 _5 H6 k% R# R( l7 h$ S. g
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in% n$ d& n, Q4 L/ [6 N3 L* ^
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science+ T+ n9 a) F9 ?( i5 E
works.
, D8 [( m3 f: V4 ~0 }$ s9 {# _/ v* B* I% z6 F* J# l: Z5 I1 i* w
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and# W9 G* h/ W: \0 K/ b6 y, }1 v. Z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% G$ S2 E% x- h8 V6 @, ~* ]kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
# o; L* L, y# `standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific, @' ]/ W* V; z
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# `) t( S1 m& L! V+ a
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
4 U' k" C- F# ?- Y) _, T% H$ |; vcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ O  h3 k6 G! Z/ jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
- \9 Q! Z! ?! `to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 T+ ~% A! T- y! \
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is5 \% q- g) I5 z. W5 K  S& r
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; D9 E$ v. ~1 C3 P0 \+ [
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly: [/ R1 Z# T, z4 [+ C1 s
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 n/ j2 J  F1 H$ F/ ?* E/ Qpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not/ h7 F- }7 k5 l! t
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
# Y& j  s7 C' o! L2 m9 q. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
7 Y. n- {9 w$ i2 |$ wdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may; J0 i; h) G2 t7 d9 ^: B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a8 q! I; j6 s' Y5 @& B9 p
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 n7 W( k" n1 m1 f8 {
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a5 T( t+ ?6 }3 z* _7 G
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:8 K+ J2 m, p5 p) z) c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
* f2 I; K- J6 N3 }9 S, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is' Y$ P, u5 C$ |
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
  Z& h- b6 _2 E: sathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
. ^$ D9 }& `8 W0 ]chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 O7 I2 q2 h6 a( z. Z8 C
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ \9 `% ^2 ]5 T8 [: E0 ^) Y8 @agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
- K0 v' A3 w: c0 Oeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, A; s; f5 o8 X8 S# ?3 r7 d  wInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 g' u# y* e  q9 G* _; |( `: b( _2 @$ J  }; U2 ~& i
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
, x7 @9 l6 i% s) w" [competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. D5 W3 f; o, v. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
! ], v9 U# e2 Q1 n2 a0 UOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London( o: E( g# U( ~6 A
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
6 I( U$ F) d5 k! H1 X, U6 idoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 Y4 {# O& [/ }" n: Z' t4 ^
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope/ K& G4 C$ T! b
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a. n& p$ y, ?$ d4 m  ~! h  z
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
( T& ~% O5 N  {% ~* I- L/ apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.6 `2 D* A5 o0 o- g2 Y/ f  l

' b* J9 L$ \! _+ e. v2 p- f0 eOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (5 @" J6 z4 C" ^2 u) C
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
: j! ]) @1 T% M9 V8 A. {; Wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
# @- H. v5 q: T+ J5 Dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 l: r, t+ q- J3 o" xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
9 k' ~+ p# W! ~4 ointerpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ J6 U6 N9 V* J# vexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
* f& K6 J3 a$ @7 O$ V3 _# ?argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal2 c  H' ~9 ~0 X: C, D
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or2 _: q0 [# P$ o# j
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, 2026-3-15 05:18 , Processed in 0.203498 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