埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2271|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 . C; t, R* Y9 a) x  H( D

( k; U# P( _1 B饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。) r  @0 Y. J8 D  Q; V
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。! A9 d1 R- E2 K1 w  X
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
5 W& \* y: D2 f  Z+ T7 _7 Z, q. `/ u9 E) o
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
" m; [5 q, q6 @! L/ s& U( y+ g# H' h
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
, u) l' v- B1 l0 r# U1 @/ u3 ]  P) i, X+ e5 X
英文原信附后,大意如下:
0 G- d% C' M' s& Q- x; ?4 w! e+ O' C" k6 h
斐尔,
+ n* d3 U- c+ h4 x$ g% i2 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 e- h( ?& J  c" N* ]4 _" M
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。: ^+ B; z( A7 m9 z( V
       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
' y# Q; Z6 @5 h" ^  l$ y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
- @+ k: R# `5 r% |6 U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。7 |3 G, m6 c  L) v2 t$ s+ q* D
       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 T  R# {- ]5 y  R' x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
9 \# O/ d- ]# t4 R, Z& s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
2 J* F+ T- u3 [0 L( o; }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。
  l2 t9 v) R- T' l2 N$ B       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
2 p; b7 K$ E3 o- e& H,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
1 R1 p7 ?) M4 w! g! u”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 z8 q6 z' u/ p       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
7 ?! L+ L% T+ M: g# c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
2 e. n  P  Z4 b% Q,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
1 |; e  Z6 W6 t- }7 g       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
# F/ @/ X- D1 ~! K7 s- m2011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$ z0 Y) G  L) ~
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
! }; n/ R1 y# j: Q- U& z$ s3 `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
/ z3 Y2 e9 d8 ?; j8 K" b300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
; @) b0 [% y  q! d9 \! p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
% {5 Y9 q% y$ I6 _. ]8 b项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目! |  F/ E8 R1 J! T
。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" d4 q, c: p/ z( Y
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
8 B$ D8 I. A' y" M4 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+ Q, _* \. I1 {) L" y! k# e- U7 O8 d
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于8 y! }7 m$ \* k% n" O2 Q- O
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! x; r# c( f2 w) S: e6 ~3 s
同意见的专家。# V; y, E3 `; s% 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
! ~. a# n, O% f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
. J; x3 o9 N6 o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* I/ h7 y: {8 V1 n+ D
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
4 g! `1 D& F- z3 ^( J% W- 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)
# t3 z, Q7 A; h) K& ^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
8 S# G. p( V" p5 i  x9 f" O5 N7 C( D1 M《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; G, |% |2 R$ R( Y4 ?/ z
这些被Callaway忽略。4 h' n( u9 ^% j+ J
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
# k' a3 ^: Z( k英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院& k+ T- a9 _9 h5 o+ P: J
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。! n$ J8 [2 H4 g( x0 A# O
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
2 h2 ]4 O; X; K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) U/ b4 s( m9 A0 k: W( T
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
: X* P; p% A: A0 `# t" 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 S! e# O2 q6 q! L' W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' s8 {' ~2 D/ z9 c6 ~/ @$ ]% d
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  M3 M; m* z& E7 h' ^8 N# g- F
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
- \7 W9 s3 @7 ^: |3 d# K& H- K. G”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: i" G4 l1 C6 C6 T  V
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; y) p* ]  q5 o5 O( B
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' h9 z3 T6 L- i
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- `5 \1 S) B  j: t* P7 }
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: \  R3 y0 u8 Z
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
" K2 J* j# M3 e& F6 ^而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。" Z, X, I6 i" A- V' H/ R4 |
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
/ k4 w( W9 v/ @. [7 v
0 K+ ?. \, o' K6 N$ B% K' }( W/ s
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& N# B. l" V- l/ i/ |+ U2 D- t

: D( S: T6 g; U" F: |! ]/ I& a% O% s附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- O9 x4 _8 Y6 j% j8 d0 p8 _
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email& ~# w+ c4 K1 K0 T
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
. k4 s  I* B5 v/ {附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见/ u. n% V! {* L* E, n/ ]- j$ _

6 v3 B- g& ~& n! Z0 E8 X
$ W% ~( c9 S. f7 a9 Q) Q& `2 T
) u. ^7 q9 l0 K  R' _* i/ p8 e* }# O6 p6 X原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)1 S- {1 g% I: h* Q( v7 N$ T
Dear Phil,
* u9 a1 I7 M, ~( [5 b- D       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s5 T% q$ [0 O5 ~" S8 ?0 J
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 _7 I  d  E: W
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed4 P8 P; ~; `8 f9 e# _/ J
you.. N( r2 ?- g% ]: [# c# n
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have' V; A8 n7 G# U5 m
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese  a3 f. w1 o# y% \4 S0 `
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; P8 g: O( u% `# x1 y
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature. d3 `: w, |( I, ]1 d
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more+ a, R% w& k; w& u* v
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
! D5 u0 O% ~9 o0 b0 N% x; {$ Spieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) S/ Z6 q3 F9 w: d6 y0 r2 @
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the* v; a9 B$ |. ~
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a0 j* }1 M5 [9 @4 g
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish" j+ f; B* m( L" _0 [. f
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 F& w/ H2 J+ p2 e1 a9 [did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
' ]9 z5 S* j, I- ^* eexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
  A$ e4 ]2 k1 d. S2 Q& M+ gstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
8 q# c0 g9 _: L4 Q$ b% aand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
1 P! o# t" g  R& O; _to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
: ^3 o  {1 c3 U5 w, Breporting.
& s. l0 |& d: G       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, M9 V: Y5 m/ Q. ]" g( A/ Oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by8 g% J( u( f; r% m
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 O2 {2 J% I* G2 `( i
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
) m1 b3 ]" D0 _& ^# lpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.# U5 D8 u8 {4 x3 G: a2 V; ]
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem, Y% ]" U$ L; [! P0 [* _6 a
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
$ {/ ]' V# m( c# \faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
+ E, p* z2 h" C* K8 Zmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same: O" c/ U4 @6 @8 {* D, q# s
event for men, with the second fastest record.
6 _9 @+ U! Y& J9 v; Q$ |& n% h3 [       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 s" {% c1 ^) M* K9 F; r( [was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
% E* }6 ?( p9 ]2 E8 w" z2 M* d% Syear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record; |- ^5 T+ g7 e" ?; `5 D1 w7 y
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
+ x6 {0 G' }) P; Y% vmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
9 ?( v7 d5 F/ t9 k. {% V# ufor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
6 V/ M$ J( e( n+ f& ULochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed! I* z3 t5 c' G( O& |$ p
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
) e( w' s! i. ~0 y  M& c- b7 s' A" Qindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
* `) E# T5 J8 q2 N& W8 |than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' E% L  s3 L& u2 i; c# P
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
0 s1 k: }( R; y  s: W8 ther strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then, a& [% m9 T/ o. n  R
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “" K' g1 I' U, _: D& q; W, K
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
& w# R- o8 Y8 L% f( S+ n' k: ~# Iswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, t. t2 t5 x! |/ [2 n& S% Q& Mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
- G5 h, W3 [5 z  {8 Y+ {. X0 p- p3 bCallaway report., p8 Z8 X6 a# O) _, Q$ ]! L5 W
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 N9 r; m: x8 Z$ v
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details8 q6 O( G) H6 h7 s- Q& K& e
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
- k3 U& w9 A# D4 X7 ?of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
' ?+ q- B2 J" k( |. q: R- S  D" ?better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
. J& H* I9 |8 d1 B- B3 oWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: S8 @+ M+ `2 {- T! v! Y. j$ a
publicly voiced different opinions.2 p9 k( @5 W3 b4 R3 K
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
1 C# n9 v. v! o* hfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 n2 P  b( ^0 eNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
$ q" ~0 s: x2 K3 [# Qpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds" }& D: v0 j/ h+ j; Z; z
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy$ m% A" Z" E$ g7 |* T% y
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.5 V4 V0 y! ?: b& m. d; l$ s
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think, b  T) u7 M. e& i/ M
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 R" z( O7 K2 F, t. i
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as0 {! F" T! w# a' m6 X9 \. q
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that1 D* X6 G# H9 V, l
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was; k. H! u# C5 S0 g
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
# w1 O, V% g' ?! jOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that4 r8 `/ r3 N1 C( s! z4 V
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
" v9 N7 o3 u) vChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
% P0 L3 I! d0 a2 P. o8 H(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
; A7 H# H. I5 d. K3 J, e+ sand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  r% ^% D! L1 o
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
$ m. i* Z" H- T& Z7 |) Hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 D; b' q, _8 m' d  N$ A& y9 o
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world." A1 Q% |$ A. K2 [
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and! Q& g9 ^# k$ H' b; c
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature% a2 j- H" b' {6 E) j: s
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to* ~, x6 i3 B% @; H( f. w
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
/ [, H" v5 `7 i) r+ c+ t! c8 c3 aThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not3 Q! u3 ^9 a+ A  k! V9 d8 |
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
* g& Z1 e$ D5 \5 @! ?% mus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather3 H* D& `1 b& \, S: X
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that$ e" W2 i; J9 a
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
; v5 Z2 B2 y: y) @. gabout British supremacy.0 I) R- D' I6 b! H0 H. j
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many' X) B, Y% v# l& l+ j* r
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more& j7 Q, B, D& k- S
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by: x* y# w9 N( ^
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( R& \6 d5 r1 _" ?* O" h. _
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
+ @% f. ~6 w' Q: rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
; M2 C9 z, R( vprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests' k8 C0 D5 i/ t- X& r) C
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,& y& g6 R' D1 b0 s$ {$ H
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
0 ^+ d% {2 \, n. a6 k2 D5 M: Bpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like8 b8 k9 t( @) c% j$ g2 d. a& P
Nature.  j" C4 q8 C  f9 Q% x1 r' k
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
& `4 l  n! B! N( N( |2 G2 ^+ lthe Callaway report.
0 k, W9 ?5 a( n' z1 B$ P& L* k5 Z# N9 c! Z
Yi
, Q% Q; p; @2 {
( O% }+ x# `2 }, ?( e1 r9 ?Yi Rao, Ph.D.. j6 d& }9 C# q' y
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences6 i' l7 w" _; P% I& b
Beijing, China2 r; |% N- h0 R7 b4 G4 \5 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。
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 % h; @/ J- D4 m
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
' e* g( M) \. x) R' Y  C
原文是公开信。$ F1 |- \) p5 o9 j9 R- q
( U) x) @& f2 G! P. W. M2 @9 K
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 3 A  n. L) h# h% N" E0 ?3 h
原文是公开信。" N7 F" @3 D3 N6 O1 X- c) C

! ~0 l' X" g( W- j小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
% y+ I0 W( s" w
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* u5 |3 u4 q# {6 m+ O$ E" Q& P
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。  g- C& E* ?' D; f; L
7 P6 _8 s$ n3 v0 O! k
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! l6 V7 J& F& Y/ w* a" U" ~  E2 G( u# f) X+ E- J
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& D( W4 x4 @7 C# T4 \

6 V5 U3 T" R: n7 e+ Y5 h3 [! v3 [It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
. S- b5 p7 O6 F7 g4 X% v, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 ?2 Z% S- d% I3 O' W) M! ymagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
/ H9 g2 I: y1 {: k6 Fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
  S7 u3 d" B$ d( J. Tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general5 `; S3 f" K) d; U7 X' |
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
& F# }7 D" J- C) ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, V- Z6 t9 I: k5 e0 t! y& hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
; f9 H/ S+ r5 j) j; Q5 M; C' g. W. {) A4 m' e; ]- y' z+ F
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her7 j8 Q% f$ C% w" p
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" F) u6 P/ L* L+ ]( \7 o
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “( l1 |2 R  M  h. ~# K/ W9 Y
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous# j5 t4 E# z5 G$ }2 I9 p. u. ]7 b
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
) o4 b: @! b* X9 t& L; aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the2 f; Q! l2 y  J  n/ S$ L, Z- S
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to: f0 ~, Y$ _5 ]2 u' R: |+ @- `
be treated as 7 s.. u$ I6 Y! ?  ]* i, l. O6 w
( C. Z; F; N) s
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is$ Q& R2 T  ~/ C; N- @0 P* G1 z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 x5 q' ]) a; S- b+ c1 }
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
; @1 R" I  T7 `  {/ g! FAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
" ^' Z0 e3 H$ O-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
/ D; F; k9 m' c3 MFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( R9 {! A3 S$ }- r6 [2 F; Y
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
; v. w; B% z, q# U8 [& O. T3 @0 ppersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
+ Q/ P) |: X" K! @) i( ~1 s! }1 L8 Cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ _4 s5 p3 R0 v4 c  H! q
5 A( V2 E# z) ]* t. s3 m! O/ q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' v, z' t( ^- T6 C. X4 `
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
( L5 f" }. n1 J; W5 M: Xthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
8 [) m# V) Q$ Z: w# _6 ?% T( she chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% a: b9 I' I4 L0 T4 ~! ~
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s. P7 j+ D/ i9 S, B5 k8 V
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
" n& y0 `) O9 C. r# iFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% Y' S/ A: S* `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
) C" @" B! M" \4 q* ~hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& Z7 U% }- X  M6 t! f, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this: U) x5 X; h! N3 n- a$ q
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. h" N: `. y0 W% L8 I
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
) w. W5 x6 t# l% u2 Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
6 i- \% w4 R$ j! \4 ?7 w8 E3 Easide the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
' U, ~" T4 W: F& R# f# A7 @implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 N! E! ?+ G- r$ n+ @  ^2 a" K
  n  U' V1 _" L$ F) ?( [! nFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are) b: T* h! l- f1 g/ m  _, t
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93: _+ h/ K& r+ f& Z% L) |
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
+ i4 b! y1 L9 ]: X), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
3 ]) s4 a7 S$ B* `/ Bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ a# z5 a4 {6 P% m  P' H- m
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind/ m! O$ D/ P" h( Z' x) f
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! H7 S& q4 F1 x7 J
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- u1 [/ u8 Z' H6 k6 E) y2 {
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ P& m; Z* l: s2 a. B0 eworks.7 X' h" c+ n- r  G$ C, r7 E; [

( F3 a2 L+ ?. qFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
+ {* l2 ^; G0 m) G) Pimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 X$ B7 J: k5 u1 C8 akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 C6 |. O1 i+ ~! f2 Ystandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- S8 \" u  A2 k# e! {( `8 bpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
6 e$ k) K) M' Z/ u3 G* |reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
' x. v( l7 b& b1 x" M% ccannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* [! K2 \- C/ M/ D# v8 Sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
: s6 j7 {7 J$ v# |# ^0 F. ato a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' ~' `- T, z4 h( }" ?5 x! s4 Kis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
1 z+ h/ I; c* @. @- d1 Ccrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ O0 C7 `  H5 R& \) V
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly, N1 g* C' O  w9 q/ s/ W. H
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& H% n0 x) ]. @
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 Z/ d: ?$ e8 t9 h, \
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 W8 O3 e3 s5 j5 x; n7 [3 G. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
0 N8 |( K. U, G+ Ndoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may; j. O' P: P- O( t8 s% k
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a, ~+ l9 r( T6 K$ }7 t2 D% @
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
* Y. O( Y7 e1 t, q; B" n8 a! Uhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a5 G* i% e# I* u/ O8 }7 f
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 K5 l  |3 p* t# p: l( c6 v; gother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. q/ o/ M2 [6 `$ E0 r; }
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ F5 w" D' p& d' g/ U# yprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 w7 j: p- T* ?' `/ Hathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: P, Y4 `2 V+ r" y0 v% m
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* F" K5 a' v$ l% o2 S& Q' ^Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping, m; W& H8 U0 A6 `- @& R
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; i7 T& W; _3 C: ~$ @2 a9 t3 ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.6 g8 F4 O7 Y& O! g' ~! O
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 a2 M0 K. E; V) _/ g) [" V; k! l7 \: g; C  ?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' }$ `! t9 U" c
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 _) l$ f1 @- Z3 R1 n( v
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for* I) Q3 z9 l2 L! s9 X$ {' T
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London! P+ k# i) m0 p# a1 a0 S  [
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ y' P  l3 I+ v4 j/ i4 U" M" k, jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, D+ g8 |4 z$ Z2 j5 z3 {games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope# l- L# d- B$ E3 U, T- k8 k
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* R8 f% ?7 E3 l( yplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this; Q$ x7 h6 p1 H
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
) e1 A0 [/ H3 W# I  b2 \. v/ G/ C( b- X% q8 i
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (( h) a9 g  |' E! f2 D
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too* U* V8 l- ]. e2 G4 W
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
! h' {* u- x7 a% c% rsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide) ^+ O% M* m1 }6 v, V/ d# m6 P
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
5 j4 R: F# [" V+ G0 Yinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
! ^" [0 E# f1 s2 q) p9 aexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, Y* l0 D8 D* |  U; d: p
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal, X# t( r. C( B! s
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or' E7 M1 P4 \7 a2 O% ~# \
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, 2026-4-26 02:08 , Processed in 0.153976 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