埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2292|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 ! k, `! s$ Y1 h1 p# m6 \
% j/ @& U- f3 l5 \6 Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
) q. f) ~) O% o: c2 n" H) `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。* @2 @+ L, ?9 L3 Q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。+ W- `1 N0 s. a' o2 S* c, Y

$ d3 @$ g2 {: _7 Z1 Dhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html$ U% e( {% |+ @
: v* r# D$ q: Z& H- j% L
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选/ J1 ~7 r1 K; A7 _

* {4 [# B. o. ~1 j英文原信附后,大意如下:1 q- v# V& {" O: z. ?

! S% K) |( I  l& @& n斐尔,- o1 o# L# F+ p7 C/ V- s: I% _) _, t
       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( J( G0 S" S3 h; S
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。6 S* K8 @7 J$ ]2 f4 F
       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" C4 b2 M. f  Q1 b* a0 P5 ^
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0 \: @( g' ~9 V' `) S1 i
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。4 G& ^4 }9 Z5 G: A
       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
. b6 n* U/ `* @5 d% G& L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 r% {4 e$ o! Q! h9 c. o; \
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
7 B: G8 U6 O# b, y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。. H# J5 l: f2 @. v% ^
       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
8 [$ P3 n1 |4 n,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 Y( L) |, K5 g1 e$ B$ ~5 N”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ d. p9 f$ z" {6 X" W9 M5 b       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
: p% V% z3 z" G* y5 w+ J* ]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, s* k& j, p! c  W( u% w2 H
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. Q9 [* E. w& T- i5 P0 V0 Y6 T
       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  n$ {! M# q. X% |& l
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
* P* f  y; O5 C& j; w- X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 d4 i+ v8 P3 W& @- E# o) ~* Y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
( b4 p5 p1 k( L$ p- ^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! m# t6 Z& u" j
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
7 W# {! |- ]9 c: 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
! r6 k2 s3 z. I5 [& }; 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  ?& [" |" h+ O* v8 M8 U1 L" P8 p
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。7 ]% R1 R. ~5 ~+ y+ h+ B
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( J) ]5 t$ _9 L) _
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. S( s: H# {. Q5 z: d7 g7 f
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, V( D4 ?, K& I* l5 n
同意见的专家。1 \& E* n: ?) ]  Q; s. ]% l0 R6 z3 z
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
2 p9 U: l6 F, k! 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
6 W4 [- _- l  }0 N2 ?* q+ m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; ^$ N1 ^: N. q! X
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" i3 C; B3 M1 F, ^1 q, ^5 I2 hCallaway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)
# l  {0 w) [9 T6 J& Z) f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
5 i1 m: _# i2 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
6 j: M, K% G; ?8 b/ d0 s. ?/ i这些被Callaway忽略。
, ~0 Z; e/ i$ q7 `; K# L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7 {$ |7 ^7 l. e/ u( N( p! J4 O
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4 \# D3 \1 L5 a
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。6 u8 {" |' a* W  \& B1 ^
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% f4 p, G7 a* ?: R( s3 j
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
+ @' o  V3 ]. c8 a' O. M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+ c( D$ |6 u8 P- M& a
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。/ A2 @! S' B6 b. G) l  l
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
, Y2 {( S: D9 d. z' w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
6 L3 L! A+ S6 z$ ?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
! v2 g) W9 ]: |& G”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。4 U* B( m# q; j0 u8 n; g. y
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  H2 [/ D- z4 A8 R2 x* [' W. y( o
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) g! ~) k4 J: b5 X* 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
& N  a) @5 v& u/ Y; D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
3 |2 ^- k. }# k3 J+ S) I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
% r8 k1 [6 q2 J2 [& L$ D而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。% i/ t: B4 |2 P$ v8 a! T: |9 c
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
  A8 d7 _* ^5 S. r5 }5 s  v) |0 ]5 M" p- w) _
$ H6 ^* M$ k* C; M! _
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅  m" t) |6 S  I7 D# S; }: {8 Q

, e& ?1 D, E6 |0 E7 E0 |$ k& a5 k附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
9 H8 U2 S: b( k- j, X+ x- _附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; B: ?! J% i$ c# h! J
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
' r, k- T& Z! ^3 u5 q附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见# j; j& s6 L' o
+ [+ b0 A9 ]. f0 g; w
+ G6 K' ^2 Z) z; E3 i0 W

. `& ~6 E$ ]: m8 v5 s- `9 D& Y原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)$ _( g( J! a4 f4 z
Dear Phil,2 m* ?! |' [# O% j$ j5 F3 l
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
8 P6 c$ T2 l/ \& m  H% Zreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& h5 S- m8 O1 U0 e$ `
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed5 C% |8 Z8 ?) ?  K9 h  V: B- U: O4 `
you.
1 r3 I. U3 M# P( J+ \4 a       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
4 v. G" g9 @6 v! X& E  I+ j) |1 b: o* o9 dbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' O& o* ~' B4 S: f8 t  breaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
3 j2 c: @" z1 U3 Aworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
* c* S( q3 I3 v- q' w! h7 G1 ypublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ u) R8 E; `0 u& [2 |9 Z4 [
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ L; E( x$ H5 u  K. Z* Rpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.# D9 W$ Q5 \. ~/ r
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
  a9 u  @: Q, G8 }& l2 j& cworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a3 \  }5 x* a8 C# C
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
" W% }& |! A' c) A5 V# gthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
, R& h8 X$ |; l4 M' xdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping( u& a# M' {! U
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
' Z6 P6 M. c: s( R/ [standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
* m: w& V' t* y/ Wand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
" ~. D2 j# N# R- x  e- M$ j4 L. Kto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
8 r# f7 D, N2 y$ d2 P: q5 creporting.
: A- R2 z8 {) Z, G: B! K       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
2 W/ s- }) _8 S& Q) h5 oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by: p+ f) n1 A7 p3 W; w, C8 F
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
) Z5 V4 I: x2 [2 o5 _sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
0 V  J# U4 C! N& o/ Z0 y1 ]6 xpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts./ c' A: C6 ^& r( S
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ N6 \: ]9 H5 e" G& zmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
* l  m& Y, y( A& @, Q3 Mfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 506 }/ n! i9 e" r. B& x' ?
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same/ q# \: z' h, J. V5 S9 W
event for men, with the second fastest record.
  h$ O/ ?8 T& c( J$ q       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye1 C% |$ D6 ?0 w0 N- ?  o
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16" x' k! X" w* F
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
' W1 k; _. Y" G" h" U. b; n/ k$ y. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, A4 d8 P* t: }; b( u$ U7 J% G
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
4 J% v- I! f! Q8 Dfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than+ D, b. l4 V# k
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
, D7 j8 g4 @6 ~( ^# cbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
, D% }  ~2 l+ D; n9 V0 k* qindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
+ h9 K8 R, O' y- athan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
+ x8 O/ m. a3 w0 Jthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was" C$ |6 e5 z8 i4 Z0 {( {
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
' `3 u. H! n5 V2 o' e1 dhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
/ J2 _8 D* ~, Bproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
! Y1 C2 }8 B$ k. z% k) K) @( Y$ X5 xswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the7 D: E% Z( w4 r! n  {
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the( W% h! G( x1 I9 P
Callaway report.8 K, L" o1 q$ c7 v" |" J# [. q! J
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more$ s' p! a) u# H' E
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
0 q# _7 H$ G7 L. |) [1 P* xhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description1 {* t! T/ i5 W8 @7 {3 n
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
) }! x1 ?2 Y9 n; L! B- Vbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
8 D& h' k8 `& u! F+ ^  [Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ \9 A9 L; {/ u; n; C- }publicly voiced different opinions.3 Q. T4 r% x7 z+ Y- t% @' E9 M
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
4 n6 B) t  H8 `3 Dfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
8 B2 T) B' m) }: v0 k3 M. e" mNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
/ _# L* r5 l. w6 l6 qpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
( x1 Q- f' ]/ T+ G5 L1 }6 |2 w! zyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* p6 B; f$ ^) t1 q1 y
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
) J# c  H$ `8 nThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
; H- q1 k8 U% }6 Nthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They) I, ~1 i4 h. t- {* u4 W
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
) o) r0 T* M+ Y2 AAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that' Z8 K% Q8 P1 }: i
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was! K/ Y1 X9 w4 v2 ]9 Y% v& t
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.( V9 P% z2 M6 m% m+ N9 V
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% i" E, t% ]7 X% gmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
/ i) I0 g1 k3 z  ^) u0 zChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June& d: W5 B$ x% o6 D0 s7 g$ z" k; z  `! O
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she% f! @7 |+ J+ R3 l5 v! M. ~
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
0 f3 W; G0 e( S% S; i7 Z" VThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ [, V; r2 h6 Y' j* @( m* K
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
0 T3 k5 x& F/ n0 x; c2 ?Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
: |( r$ M+ }! YNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and. e: T# u0 W7 p, t! `) s8 o* z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature: t, e0 |' p1 b7 f. S" K4 f5 e. M
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to* N: I. |) M$ R& P/ C1 P: z
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
. [4 ^. R7 q; D9 x- tThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not( K" ]; n0 U; J. o# G
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 I4 q4 P2 b: m* Z
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
1 c& y) z& G6 d  D# b: P7 pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that* W" V- J# j8 A. F- c( G( V
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
/ A1 t' v4 q4 g& D, ~0 s) m; Mabout British supremacy., @  Y% L5 s+ E
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
, o* h( l; S! u, c2 N& Z# J: u) iunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
5 Q0 H7 s1 n( IChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by. X0 G3 Q8 [9 S  L. r) h) y- e
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
: t4 |6 o& H! |Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
+ e6 _. r# X  m: F3 `Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of3 p/ L& t+ o  W! Y; p, Y/ x! K4 F1 F
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests' N9 V8 ^1 l' d2 r2 K# Z! r- g
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
& _0 M* T( s+ P7 G: Eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly4 V1 [9 [, }. c4 f" @' D
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) m9 L% H% Q% q+ CNature.
7 i, o5 ?; a( v7 k' K5 iI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance$ _$ y( `8 C" c# j5 K7 K
the Callaway report.& G1 W, h. p7 g" T9 q+ n
7 L1 G8 F& B3 n: A
Yi
) q! z, w: H) [1 T6 f0 M- d- L6 q
3 t0 a- {* d7 l7 UYi Rao, Ph.D.  r8 T' |+ y/ x" T
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
! s5 ?/ G/ G7 ^' i' T7 cBeijing, China% U/ F% c3 Y9 j% ?
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
/ ]7 s+ m; I4 v原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

( T8 i) G; e; S$ Y( n9 V# J" m原文是公开信。
5 C5 J  O+ G4 L
' V9 C  K$ J4 C/ g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 1 A5 K$ b- w. [8 q
原文是公开信。
7 m! |3 i4 l7 I4 a0 n2 |1 T4 z: H3 k! F" e1 L
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
2 _0 H' q5 o: }" w$ G7 E( J2 W* g
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
大型搬家
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
0 F! z& {8 h8 y2 i+ J如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: \2 C" Z6 O7 Y! m; I/ K1 z
% _, J( a' _/ shttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 D+ o0 C; }3 g" W- {
1 w* e' N4 I2 x* p$ }0 WFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! R- d( b' o' K( h6 n: P" D, }, ?/ V# P; o6 M
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 i9 X- @2 s5 I  G) u: U, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
; M$ W+ x/ m) j3 \& v( o  jmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this2 h! u  Y" B1 x/ b
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the# y$ y8 o' q  d+ R4 {
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( h& j8 X. ?; V2 N
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 k4 t  Y) z. h/ I2 w) w5 Ashould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,1 z$ X4 Q( d5 |3 L, N
which they blatantly failed to do.
" N( r# R8 x% H1 V: W0 S1 k3 ]. s4 E4 D2 C, `
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ I: Q( {2 ?# kOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
. b0 x. U" o$ p6 i( I3 a2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 ~/ e) Q% J9 \$ o0 \0 N( Hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 O) Z7 q: F( k; M
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 U" }5 ~1 g5 x* g1 ^
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
4 ~' c% l0 p/ tdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 o* f1 \0 q3 D
be treated as 7 s.
# i( K1 S. `+ u
9 X0 c1 Z8 L9 MSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
. ]+ I, w/ I% R* _6 y8 N; x" Kstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
9 ?; Q, h6 n9 j5 ^7 P% P# Fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.0 P# k3 p4 ^& n6 z4 P! ]% z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% W" X# V! ]+ ]$ K# C# t
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 p, _  s' [* l) [" XFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
( I: D( X/ ~7 u, j0 u( Delite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 K9 T% F% r' E$ ?persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”7 E% w- e" p; Y
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
1 T. N5 e1 i! |: f$ W
. ~1 ?" s* @, N) F7 z" N  CThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
( V" D4 `8 @2 G# g' c( O/ C7 Y! ?example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
* J8 _- `; N1 Jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! c' \) l& J5 v' E- j
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
4 ]0 K; M% {% k% fevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* _( Q4 |0 q% ]1 J
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
8 N# O! u: x" LFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% i) X% E, o  f# f+ `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. E7 o: v$ h5 ?! g5 p
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  Z1 [) J" \2 D0 r* P1 c, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ U; j5 u5 ]2 A4 S2 A
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds3 x( q( t8 N% s) x( |1 X
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
' E, h! ^! \. r) Z4 F) k' U9 o) efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. c# \: }  ^. |9 ?: @4 ]
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that* q4 \8 @* I3 B
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 f2 T/ v5 d$ b1 Z2 ?
7 P+ `! o7 j' }0 s, d2 w2 VFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" F, t# x" G* [6 k+ n. ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
, q3 T# }. Z3 V$ S% e0 f7 ], ^s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s- K: \/ S5 _2 |# I# W0 C
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns" N$ y+ P, E, c" ~4 m% l7 F; S7 W
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,( X7 Q7 b& b! h8 K9 k  I% M
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind" U* [' [/ z" v. h$ T
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it# i! }& g7 T% c6 \8 L4 \7 P7 n& [8 |
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" T4 N7 e( F1 y) |' c* A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! I* D9 b& M. s. ?+ J* {0 j
works.
$ i/ @. n; G4 {' z  E, l! ?
" Y' P5 R. P# T8 i+ NFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
5 T: k* B) B6 b- f9 Jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 b4 ?0 i/ H1 ?8 {0 o2 k
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ I9 x) U$ M5 v0 O, ^
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific) ?* H- Q4 d8 k  r0 k0 Y
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
9 B+ K  M% f: [reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One+ O/ D8 q" X3 H8 Z0 W
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; p5 a3 q. n7 _3 ~- m: h: G  s1 ~8 d' Z
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
; z" R5 A2 A5 f) a% t) q1 C3 L4 xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, b1 \2 q8 |5 c/ \; r
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is( D5 I' ]# r8 U  t& g$ q) x2 m
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ ]: _) A/ j8 n* B, c1 |
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* k$ ?% x- z3 N
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the0 V, N% {3 t5 P0 [
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- a, S- {9 c. Y- ~/ _) z$ Euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 b4 d' K3 Y# O; r- B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 E) P# S) K; t6 s; S6 }9 gdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- r% f. y6 w9 wbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
& h. G2 |, N9 `. F  c) |hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
4 B; k( Q% D! u& T2 k( G5 fhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
6 u+ O( L$ n. T/ B( b; Wdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
* `/ i% Q# r6 Z8 `" {( {other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* ^$ ]/ o' `& p2 `9 y0 p; \
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! O) I# }5 y6 F4 e
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 a% W- S! ?4 p) o, e5 B) C7 G
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& ?0 {# r1 H4 `5 ]chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 ^$ l+ Q* {; JLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
- u2 N" t+ u  \! Iagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
6 n: P: O  O! z; ?3 ]) F3 J+ N* Height years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
# v! g, N7 q! _6 W6 C; nInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?; D/ X0 J/ @& J7 J+ j' e5 i; K/ e
+ N; c1 Q  z! t$ d4 o1 O% o
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
. M8 g4 u0 R- ]4 H, Tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
: Q) C# h7 y" t; _- b+ C& w. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
9 E/ v* J* x# c& B' x2 yOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
6 A5 e9 y4 C% C. ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 Z+ t. U6 @+ Q
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
+ u6 W5 Q9 |/ m2 i" C  W5 r6 @games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
. g6 A. r1 |" B8 Ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a( a+ H1 `4 ^3 ]5 T
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this- d2 e# @0 G" Y* P
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
$ V/ [- x5 V2 I( z, @
" k/ r& _5 U* m. oOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (& S8 M( f# @) r. Y0 h4 Z
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too# S  w% {0 J! b" J9 E) k* n# I
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a7 i: k4 ~% A4 @+ c
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
# k9 ?- I9 F  a, Z/ p- vall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  n) x7 U. y& Z6 [3 m+ t7 M
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
( _2 i' }; m/ R; qexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your' ~2 }. a- I7 O$ I/ E5 I4 |. `9 I
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal$ o; a" M1 Z2 Z$ U* n! h
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
$ ?9 ?; _( u4 z% `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, 2026-5-2 20:43 , Processed in 0.168346 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