埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1985|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
% L$ ~- t5 o* N: {& m! d2 A5 T
1 L0 X8 q; c4 A5 l饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
( g3 R. }& v2 }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。
" }0 M1 {: d. V6 T9 p总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。$ c, s0 A1 v4 m& }% x) [8 p

) Z  e3 X) |+ |# m, C  p( T1 uhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 x3 J! ~6 Z+ B! C( j8 Q2 @

6 t8 m9 d  U! O; |# |- x致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
; I7 A% Q1 H( x) F. I. c+ A( N8 ~! X
英文原信附后,大意如下:
% V  A! A" e& f$ ~1 Q" C' H6 @! |$ g
斐尔,
3 g  x3 e- W: j1 `% U9 ?       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# H( l% x) p, ~- `1 L  ]
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 Z; h; v: a6 p7 k
       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- n' b9 h$ T1 V6 y4 Q3 f1 }; 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# ]# z$ t; N3 G/ K+ j( [$ m
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。6 H! F9 A  _0 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
2 \/ X' L" T2 ~3 Y* M, ?& v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6 B9 V' l( Y* S, x
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' a% E+ i1 O, m- ~
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。/ A& b3 K# _" @; {) g6 f
       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
0 o& R9 R# l5 ]3 J& w,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
, K9 x1 h( l. F/ L/ I6 f”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
5 w5 e. T) P5 ?( M' G       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
* l, G& S8 Y7 e$ p; L7 Y5 X( |比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快
7 k8 n! E9 O5 r8 D, t# A! m2 ~,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
+ Q# e. M% x* ]9 F8 _       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于( Q. D2 W+ y1 X' Q+ Q
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
9 r5 D$ ~. i3 ^/ s) k& h! o. J0 S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 L: z& ?7 X1 ^  C
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/ m3 V/ i7 k4 x6 U) J( U  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
; ~; i+ T; h9 P) @) x7 I' u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
# p1 E% h) h' \; k7 E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, r  F+ r# Q1 n' S' e. S" B5 c) N
。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
, m2 c; M2 P. F* B( q) h录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。" M6 ~- {3 b" m5 X' \/ _# z# ^6 R
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
) s& I, ?, ]9 |* ]! W1》,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
' N* `. Z0 {' H3 r- [9 f6 o1 kWikipedia。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 j: T' @  p* r  r1 i同意见的专家。6 C: B1 e3 ?  U) B) [0 r
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
1 H+ V' t$ }4 `, A5 J7 m! S: R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3 E0 I: T0 f; V
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2 N0 P4 U" W: g
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。) z" ^/ o" B# V4 H" J7 {0 |7 |
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)' V, O$ [, Q% G" d3 a! 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- |" ~1 q8 J7 t5 ^3 ]9 T0 `
《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
' Q% N. `; u) Z) b/ c0 R3 y这些被Callaway忽略。
) P  _& G* T6 _  C# @: a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2 {0 Y- X7 ~+ z
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
1 ?. Y" l  I1 d教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。1 ?# N& ~2 T; Y; {
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' f0 w& X0 [; |
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3 x# M. v0 F& v3 ~/ R) J& O* S
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" c1 M" d$ ~" j# [1 w3 b1 a4 @8 v
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。' W" X4 M: ]( e: D/ U
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  _) T6 Q2 C! |' 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
; [0 i  A( s5 m2 l/ i5 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" N  Q: K& f" t% n& T& _4 A: v
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
& k% N- A2 e  Q6 ~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6 A3 \) A( H* Y: [
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4 \7 b4 D2 l6 ~1 i7 H
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/ ?' H$ I7 A) f# {8 Y8 _
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- G) C( e9 ?3 F# x5 z% g
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
3 [0 ?+ c1 T7 }' v7 c5 G; V而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
# X& }$ l# ~3 y' K) o; z我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 t- d: Z, L5 J% ~( ]/ V

9 M" c7 V' H) T& ?
8 w/ Y: v2 l& t0 a4 x) c北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) r& L. [7 a" a/ y( @- J

- y* H5 S" w0 P! n- X  }附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结+ T7 Z7 q' d2 r/ e' c' N+ L
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
2 i7 I1 N# \, u+ Z2 s附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见* c, M1 `( t0 z
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# P0 k* t# t4 n
  p. _* y3 e, W6 u8 Q' X) g% A6 ~2 v5 I5 r& [3 M5 q, J( |1 l6 c9 z
2 M+ _$ |8 h* E0 v5 a2 z+ ^( y  `8 N: `
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ g' l5 m9 L: O$ y" I- [
Dear Phil,- D* g5 u5 @  i7 {
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( N3 v. h0 M/ k0 h' X$ Z& p5 yreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
4 s$ V+ e$ d$ k& T! b+ l' lhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed4 i% U8 P# F3 R. t) y
you.8 h8 H8 t) H- @. U9 `
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have* w* v2 R% Z% z* c/ t+ J/ K
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese, M/ b$ @2 ]3 L" Z7 v
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the% [' i. A. I) v5 S9 i
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature; O% ]2 J( j5 N
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 I9 X( u0 P; z: n' c& ]
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 v" P0 W, i, D9 a+ f
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.5 B* x* {, \* `/ a) j
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' l# ^" d: b, L3 R5 W2 c
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
1 B; {7 t6 g9 K6 V. Xnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 a( B$ h; i" p" D
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
/ d9 H" t* a9 p- J7 u  Zdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
8 r% o5 V; X( oexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
. `# _% J6 X' t1 l' _( z, Istandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,- Z7 P, L& h. B& [# D
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone0 P2 @: Y' Q% i) c! f8 Y
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 x9 p( k) ?- V: u; P
reporting.
; |+ f$ H3 L+ S/ @& f( T6 Q       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have" n- ?' K3 x9 ^* X
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by- m; ?$ _4 G& l9 Q# ?
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in% _1 ]" j8 u1 p$ N# A% _1 r4 Z' F
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A) G9 [) E5 d  n; n: k2 J* N: _1 I
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
- ^3 P7 y0 R* ^( f* O       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem0 t1 r, \' E0 ~, w+ X1 T  q/ G
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
9 \" z& d( X  o' s# n  ~faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
3 K  [2 d  x7 N$ ometers, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
/ {& u1 `' R3 c# J6 L; V" p- Tevent for men, with the second fastest record.3 e2 L/ W/ L% _
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye, ^, [7 q) Q8 N- n7 Q8 E
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
1 s& M: Q/ Q, v/ Syear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
3 x+ _! F. F: k, @$ ]. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
5 n5 f: i" ~% a! L" A/ G8 ]meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
6 {8 t) B' A2 e/ ?5 nfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
4 x# I9 s6 p. b- uLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ h! M7 `  R, P* @
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the/ A0 W% r" ~4 w7 G, h
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
$ N( R" B3 K  ^; O0 }; ]than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
+ F( r* A1 i. ithose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
' m1 n7 R# W; H4 ^, b, `! Z0 R- [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then* K) x5 ?% n/ ~) W0 M# k( u! d
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
; ?! l, v8 m) Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other  v* T/ G3 V8 v2 [# P8 h
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# D# s2 |( n( ^) s2 gteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
1 d+ I' ~6 Q% _, U- uCallaway report.
! X- _% P2 F2 s4 R. |( }There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
( H- c* D8 ]8 a9 \. c8 iunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
) A" }+ q( K6 Ehere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
/ Q" [# v+ [5 h" y# b; @6 Gof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
8 b$ n" @7 D8 j! X/ vbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
1 Z6 x* W$ j" Z- m7 b! w  r" a* VWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had8 `- R. M) m% D* t( a" }
publicly voiced different opinions.2 H0 v) T' u1 C
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
+ r+ I- b; z0 S8 r2 Xfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
# s! R3 f& @5 ?+ _+ W* [Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
( e8 P% Q6 j; zpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds" ^# @. e! M0 J/ H
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 Y5 G- g' L8 v) E
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.1 R8 }; ~) N' w; j, D+ p
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think  M) F4 Z2 O1 n/ `  d
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They& s( R* x+ K* ^; L* S$ W- _0 p! o
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as. y- w- K/ p7 |) G
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that6 k7 m; T+ o# T$ y
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
' i# h. i3 `# X* t$ y. x: dsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
3 s2 D( Q0 J7 C9 i4 h7 l: w* B) b) {One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% x# ]* }- Z! c' N: u& Bmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  {! P5 }) q4 D$ |. T8 D8 t
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
/ V- y/ A5 N9 U0 d- h$ G  N(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she% R( X7 b) i, c& W
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting./ ~4 m3 L4 F6 w& I; O' K6 F' C( r
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science4 w4 @1 L0 _; D% [
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 g9 Z" p" i1 ^
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.4 e" }+ ~  c$ N
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
3 \/ b0 i: u% P7 |objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
( ^! E, x# P4 I8 b6 Uwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to0 p0 F) d3 p5 ~2 h: T- s; r
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.5 _+ O3 `/ A0 c! T2 A
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
5 {0 k  V& c* k9 @9 H% V: ]show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
  g- S) a# T+ N5 J# Yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 [6 h/ L: F( J& Gfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 W5 g$ L# j2 Q* |8 Z! m
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”( z6 y& F' q  r% @. P( P
about British supremacy.: A) B0 B' q+ F# ?4 ?2 A
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many; E/ G1 B* V+ M6 V9 K
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
6 P/ ]& t/ z6 VChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 |$ z3 u+ J, Q' C7 X5 D1 your public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- k+ H0 ^- Y4 fOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases., r9 {/ t7 a- N- }
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
% m  I$ ]: T% Q4 }' p1 V" i% vprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
6 B+ \% E9 J9 a0 Q- T, X, Qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ d& f' `% |4 S& l( W
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly4 N" c) n+ J8 H
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like! b# ]7 E) H: _: E  a
Nature.2 \$ ~% ]. h8 a+ L6 Q9 E; S- f% e
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
3 X5 X- }/ l  Z7 x& tthe Callaway report." b  N0 s; i5 d
5 K, x. V1 g; g
Yi/ H2 z) o# f* f' v3 \
* Y9 m9 I  x) N. G' C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
. O) }9 \) }. f' WProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
, y$ O- [# h1 _% J2 cBeijing, China
2 R, w7 i% m, C+ M( b$ a8 y; S
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!!!
理袁律师事务所
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 W1 _) \! ~% E( Q6 u* F原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

* p7 _' h, H: {) k$ Y: m原文是公开信。4 F( I8 \: R$ p( A* g( X' y

0 v! p4 D! [+ h$ Y- _0 I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 y% P8 C7 ]7 [: u. H) ~原文是公开信。
. ?9 r* a% t$ l3 B6 q0 k% f! t% O; J- K6 a0 d
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

) ]7 R1 b2 ?7 I  r* b7 {' n- d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) Z6 L2 |4 C. T6 F0 G. h, B
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。' z% O. I6 r' H
" ~( N% Y# g; b- M
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
9 D2 v7 f" X8 L+ ?6 C1 l8 n1 U
& e- m. _) B4 y; D* N! V9 I: LFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% m0 D" f) H5 L

! e, B  T4 z  I6 q% SIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
/ t) k# M  t. o2 v, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# E4 U" x& |( c3 y0 J' {! ?magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
: y& {( E9 u# U4 C5 a+ wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
6 h7 i6 l0 h9 P2 f" H' sscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general5 J- Y$ g  v% D
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
; F( o, u* t8 Y. K2 e9 B/ qshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. Y8 q3 l5 `4 O8 R! xwhich they blatantly failed to do.7 I* E8 y/ w4 L( |

4 y$ u& |: C$ o% F9 P+ kFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) N* u9 }4 [5 l4 `Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in8 E. h) A5 z9 a2 X, d
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
" Y" l9 i& i( v. k( Aanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous  `) i/ V0 E: _$ C( @$ k
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
- a/ ~1 J  X% U' ]6 @improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 ^+ C& q1 Z0 V0 Y. f# q! w
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to0 ?* _+ T- I: \$ C7 K' L
be treated as 7 s.3 A9 Q' k" w2 G

1 ~. i) W+ E0 V5 ~9 g# [Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
% g, ?3 u" A. ?4 ostill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem) {3 B. \" v) }- D$ i& Q  v
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! [1 s& }+ Q1 b2 h* a' [/ \7 IAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4004 i# g0 M* `8 ~
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.( O3 H. ^* J. |- Z; {+ I
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
6 g2 p3 o& _6 eelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
& S$ K9 g' F' r. T4 @persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
' L  R" y% ]8 H4 [; y4 W% v0 M7 Ybased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: k; P$ ~# J% m: K* n( Z3 ]
& U* F% i, I" {4 f" l) c' K
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
/ q* l0 Y6 {6 `9 Rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
  r: D7 @& c) @. G9 kthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 \4 U) D/ w, d4 x
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later" x, L8 k3 g+ r4 y4 L) G( T
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s0 O" h, e" g4 R9 O7 d
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
) D- U8 t& @  F, L, Y6 |Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! i  J% G% t. t) h" _6 J! K5 vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other: {; G% p& n! i/ w, i& d
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle- _" q9 Z4 J3 P4 v! n7 e) L7 O
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this5 `5 p! ~0 c" ]5 P9 t
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
, c0 {* H4 A0 |2 h% ?" nfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ N; q( H& M  H' _! B: rfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
7 Z$ {' k) W! q3 e2 i0 _# qaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that* @2 I. ]. _6 A( k! }( i% l' x
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ a, s$ k( J0 V6 J* R

' Q) h2 c3 T, q) A5 }Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
" i# E1 c, e! N- X" u# O- k% xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 e6 O3 ^: v+ y$ k6 S9 gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 n" X* I3 K( \: Z0 W0 w3 L) x), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
  ?' l  l9 y& F( c4 w0 d4 [out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
: c" W" H4 ]- _7 ~& H2 HLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 i1 n/ c6 q6 l; g
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, x1 G. j, D4 q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in; ^% r6 ^5 e8 q/ s: L# {: R+ t& _  ]
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
1 a# o- Y* ]" G. _5 c3 V0 @. Jworks.
# M: t$ D, [) u; b2 `; H& i) k- m, a# o9 C6 w  I- }* ^
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
4 C* r4 {& c8 P8 V5 yimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this- f% M- C$ A4 ^& k0 C- l/ R
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 B% j, @7 c4 E2 L7 Q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
: f# _8 N' ?$ V9 [- @2 z" @papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, k0 L+ @1 Q* ?1 Z9 s: p
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One  Z+ }9 t' K7 d9 M+ J8 w
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
- U8 Y/ V, w5 d% f, b$ [demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works  o8 P# }8 @8 z" u8 i
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( @* I4 j1 F/ z: a
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 D$ I' P, J/ h: K6 Y
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he% w% |7 y+ z) w$ Q& M
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly9 {9 q4 f* k4 q& X- _
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the. k: x, \; X! I/ O0 i
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 N3 y& x7 B8 `2 d* O7 U" |( h1 Euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
' O4 U* v' p3 a. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ a& N  N! M/ y+ F, m/ p+ T. Kdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" t- I8 A! K# r2 a8 j6 h/ ], _4 C
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a/ f* S& F) }8 C
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 n- Q: V* g6 V- I0 A: k$ T* k
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a/ `: c) t5 {8 C. [  P4 \
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:2 h2 V  T, X2 _
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, X3 F) h) _0 q) V1 ^6 l1 E
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 g3 Y. e8 w( a7 |probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
# ?/ ?9 q+ d: l$ O. l2 N) |athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
" J, E0 f% g& D& S2 ~chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. |' P6 A+ ]( R0 b: }+ ALet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 p, O6 N% G4 g
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 @5 F& N( S' O; o7 deight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.; K- p$ E% u. `# e  h
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
& N- C0 d: I: G9 p+ C0 d+ f& Z( z; w: ~
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-$ A9 s* ?; w" P: S7 k# n
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 ~6 T0 Y2 V  ~! @. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 @% A/ b/ O9 r$ i# X' D, i2 M
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London  n( U# n* W- d4 r7 a: b
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for  M5 g0 {, c7 c: c3 Y- y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic) w4 \% W  c( n
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope/ M4 A1 `& ?4 Q4 R# k, p* h& i
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 y* A% m, V+ E1 G
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
4 v/ J0 I& P+ i3 H9 `% L) Hpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
' V& R" b  Z3 x
  x% b5 X# z: @6 u% z# U/ iOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, E$ {3 R/ Q9 F$ `5 ^- T5 Pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
8 Z% N) G* I& e2 s) _% p$ J$ Y/ K9 o0 bsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a4 S; ?& Z) n# W. @4 ^: T1 G
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ y/ q( n  i: m1 f' D/ ]
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your: P1 _! B3 z: R) d
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," c5 |. M7 m% X3 o3 W! d9 c
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
- T* [% q0 M! @7 J1 s+ n' _+ Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
0 l  b$ ]  y  d+ b' m" D' dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; W$ i- r6 O6 c2 wreporting 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, 2026-2-2 01:16 , Processed in 0.208044 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