埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2297|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 - g$ [9 L- l% W% f& o$ G

$ ~' ]# l8 [3 N3 F" V4 n4 X; Q1 y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
; r2 T/ s! ]& G7 I: {) m- w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。
( {; p5 |  T, e1 g4 ~2 X$ b总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
6 t* B) ^- ?. ~3 S% q: M
6 g( u7 i- ^" D& E8 yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html! k- I% K7 A" w$ n+ A$ \  Y

  u' d  D* G2 R) [+ ~4 _致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% K6 G0 |0 o! l. f
9 f2 D4 H& t7 v( M8 e
英文原信附后,大意如下:
$ M, t( ~6 T  ^6 r- `% @% I5 E  R* {# R$ y. v; I, N5 p+ W" o/ }
斐尔,3 ?$ S9 {) Q/ |/ L9 O' X+ n+ A( 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4 y1 @$ I; B6 V
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。6 r+ e6 V+ j0 u% I
       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5 Z- a! q& ?$ r) s# `7 h! E- ~
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
4 m- @, U2 R& o: d- ~+ p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。
; w1 ?5 q# p' d" W6 W$ q5 |! W  }       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: v4 I! m& s. A/ K$ o. O9 k
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
$ N2 k# T2 B3 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; L; D" {- f. o& ?& x8 H  |
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。
: }* Z5 f! y8 [4 W" \       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7 p$ {6 _! H% t
,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3 `' o1 Z9 U* }
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
% q/ g7 _$ e0 O       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
3 ^0 I9 r4 v! P. f, ?8 l! g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5 l7 G3 K: b9 W; n' e
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 \8 f! P, J) y  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
" p) C4 j0 x! ?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4 X$ Z5 z  H9 M' e+ L5 S0 X0 ^
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: }$ Z* L" t6 v+ `( ^
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( g" o8 Z) y% `$ d/ 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/ G8 m  D, @* B' @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
8 G/ I) U* F! A+ {$ H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6 u5 ~" b* H/ S" J6 ]
。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1 N- i8 v* M4 j$ M$ l( O
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* D  f) s- T4 z) Y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
& z& |7 b9 X  h" I1》,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( _$ z& V  e, z
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
1 p: |9 h0 x: z. @2 p, B8 ]同意见的专家。
4 I0 }( G9 H/ U$ E4 p/ w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 d) J2 P4 M5 m9 r" `5 Y8 a0 U2 e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
  @( e) m( O6 t& S/ }% c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
6 S  {' K/ S* a) I9 J3 ^2 f" v《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
& m5 F* [; w: P6 C( xCallaway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)
( \" c4 k6 Q) g2 w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) p8 F# r8 ~6 D' J& d1 l
《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1 Z* \+ ^) ^, q! G, s1 L2 m: E
这些被Callaway忽略。0 i* c+ G/ C2 Y2 Q3 ]( F6 ]6 R
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! D: e% g0 [- W, x8 D! 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
) I5 W" g" n5 V! N  C) c教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。3 }5 M; D0 p5 ^( j0 z# L5 t2 @
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
5 i$ V0 B2 p( S/ F4 v: ?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" y0 T) U# u- S3 e" \6 M' |" f9 b
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
/ u& ~. E6 M) f% O  i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。
1 ]2 r2 \. A# P  @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
% U+ F" Y8 |" C* z7 E) x+ @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
$ f% M2 ?! b4 I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
; p+ G- v) z& M8 y6 t( g. j”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
2 @" s& Q* e: @' O3 E& e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9 f6 K! S7 k- ]' q& q9 I5 |
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- J* I$ q2 h0 A# [0 I/ J
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# b% h; C9 v. H( s% f8 w" T
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
% r, I+ z/ s+ E5 U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0 D. q( L" ]' h' e
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
7 R3 q. b  L( M我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 E  B5 I4 B# A% R4 K# }7 J
- g3 O' a. |7 J: h- }& l
. N* `: u$ h2 E- s北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
& c* k- p3 }$ B' M, _# d# O+ T5 T& A% z6 O
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
. S9 u. z, K$ P! d1 Q! q附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
& k- w# [1 K, ?) X' k附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见% X0 U3 h" n; n! X
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 X' S+ N0 S' K1 K* s
3 W- K3 `! K% L) B2 x0 A: A9 y2 C. k

7 x% b* u8 b$ h: G7 r5 u1 C原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)9 A8 x! d2 N5 g6 `8 o: v: J
Dear Phil,' C9 Z, N5 r( ~/ R! R% J& u& }# }
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ g4 P' k9 V7 ~. t+ h
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20! a4 J' D+ z, \# ^" \- K& G
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed/ G" ]# W3 \; X8 V
you./ `6 |2 Z% `4 n# M8 f( c* H
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
& i  A: N8 V9 h% Ubrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
) V7 ]) ?8 g2 w- d2 m% Preaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the6 r6 _5 Y5 }# [, Z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
; ~! w6 J  X: G8 ^* x5 E2 jpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 \* i5 C) J/ t! I
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
4 B4 G. ^5 M/ Z% d# l, N- hpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
5 w9 W% h6 d- d! e       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
  N% w: Q: S/ @* uworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a1 E& n5 I! w+ L: n1 t/ L
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish7 S8 ?- J9 J6 p+ f, }- ]
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway  q+ C# @7 P; {7 `' @% L" E) [
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
* [& k- N. m& r; rexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal' Q% w% m- o/ t# o* V
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 g& D5 e# b/ ?1 `and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
" r2 i, c. A: T% H& mto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
- p: O1 i4 B) A0 breporting.
6 h8 C/ }( P0 o$ Q       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
( t( e6 J1 S! b7 Zalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
8 M' F0 X; l+ @: b/ H) I* Zchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
# k, Q$ R. z0 `4 Q2 xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
5 m" ?- q! o+ ]1 Y, i2 c- hpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
3 \# Z1 a2 K; f$ `       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem1 V, q/ c% b2 H7 V, j6 [
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
+ e% Q2 r) z  m7 [" Q& ^faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. B0 s- ^5 G* [; ~. m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same' N+ r  r: K" Y+ j$ E
event for men, with the second fastest record.
3 m2 c# I" L! b' z2 ?' @+ X       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
' F5 \- ?8 N& a8 @$ kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
+ n; w& Q1 `% @" G- ^' C& syear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record- k4 d" @+ [9 s) K  A" p( D
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, {) y6 n2 v/ F  T4 \+ E; y6 H
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 m5 x1 N2 c9 C& @for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than! k7 |3 ?4 X) c+ ?
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed- `3 u8 k# q4 |) u% {$ {
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
  ?6 ^/ M0 }6 }) Kindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
- P8 Y- X" F( J4 Y% Othan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than5 s  P  H1 S: [' R
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
0 m" v0 G' \5 \  Rher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then& x# p( z: Z, s7 f2 |9 }( J
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 P% a! X5 A8 L1 `6 U6 T* t
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other7 V$ o- {) p9 ?' Z
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the6 O/ x) m9 ]; f# K1 H2 L3 U
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) n6 j: v6 h* O! [% n
Callaway report.+ Z; b! ?; s, z$ |
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 ~9 O3 ]+ Z4 E2 f; L% r* v5 i8 Munderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details! i1 E% S  t$ o5 x' D( U
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ \4 k/ Y8 k3 x8 _4 S
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been  Q# H1 b1 C" W7 E
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
/ c- m0 L; u/ V4 WWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had9 Y1 v. r; D: S4 L. w
publicly voiced different opinions.. v; n' M& H  A% }
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD, s  w. Q6 F# ~8 T' [& |  y
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature. O+ F: {( b$ q& ?
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
$ W5 r2 a" C1 y! Hpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
. Q6 Y8 _( x, qyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy# M! O8 [% J+ ?, q, `
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.  t$ K- _: m/ L' j! r* g
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think% ^+ p6 E0 _9 W+ j9 v
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
8 z3 b2 N) d2 R8 h7 x0 j# J! bhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as/ c% I3 |! C, h
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that' N6 g8 Y, n; e. Y
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
- c! A6 p/ T* s4 L; ~supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
' z- ?# @3 X2 M$ U) \One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
: Z- [! J% R3 a1 |0 ]% n) S% Zmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the2 j9 Q! w5 n7 O- W3 U* F' r
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
  x# f' P$ E1 D. H+ H(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she8 F8 a7 @3 ]; j
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
+ b' w$ U. ^: y9 o( ?  HThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science( \8 k+ u' |5 E8 ^. p2 ~. ]
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
' H- a# ~: {' y7 rDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
! u" `3 v+ ^7 {0 n6 k: vNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
' r- s8 }+ ~& u) dobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature- P- d0 ?$ L2 ~/ a; G  i
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to/ N+ k/ W0 G5 o# Y' P1 j, T
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
$ u2 ]) _4 w  J% g; _8 T/ Z- V4 m2 zThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not/ ?4 I- v: u$ F
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 w/ g6 g& [; {" N7 |/ u% Vus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
% h+ i- q' n8 p/ x' }4 k* Ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 U$ C+ y% p) `5 Z( \
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”9 X, {2 O8 w% L. o5 ?9 }
about British supremacy.2 R* c+ g- v( {3 `, M0 J
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many8 d1 ?! v5 F' W: z5 {4 x. y
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
5 f6 K( w6 b1 }1 o# Q& z' g4 cChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by% P& J  _9 I* d: P
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London2 Y6 o& T. M+ \3 f% C" q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.9 q3 Y% }7 T4 z  [7 b# }5 a& ^
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 a5 R' D% s1 w( {* ]: w
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
- j# y% K: t. f, Q6 B. ibefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
1 v9 A3 E+ @) n9 f6 Git is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
  k8 C1 [5 f3 d7 U; X7 @" E; opublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
' l4 A; W- L' i2 wNature.
* W. Q9 u; G, A2 A  V5 i( h$ YI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance6 B" t' H9 j" V2 z
the Callaway report.
. h. V" L1 C* i4 i: t: [
, J& [' ?- I5 U" S" Y6 {4 _  HYi
9 \- w5 a$ i3 ?
0 J7 I4 L: Q( v* rYi Rao, Ph.D.
# ^: K2 N: L4 F$ L# AProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences3 |3 N* Q  t4 k4 e- g
Beijing, China
. L, f+ j! O( U' E
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
3 m1 C9 J! H4 ~. E原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
" r, l; q7 e. n3 i
原文是公开信。8 e; l! Y; I" u  @) D3 L3 C

9 J6 F( c" v* R, f( u/ A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 F/ ]5 f% h! c; I/ D
原文是公开信。( J3 @( B5 Z* Q% r! N

0 N9 o/ |/ d5 `6 @小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

* l" |5 ?4 r* P, a! p8 n3 x0 t0 u谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
) F; ?: B! h$ o" _& p; S5 O如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
( R1 b$ o8 s1 p  U- }& g: [+ Q
1 ~0 |5 {% A) I0 x: ohttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 x& u' p+ v# g' M& U" e% v5 w

0 H) Q  z! q$ L2 LFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania2 T1 [% H5 T! j! D! m
" k; ~. F) ]" G# w/ `$ U. i) Q+ [
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
# u7 B, l3 ^) I3 V' ?, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
" Y4 Y3 n& z- Lmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this2 f; M' \7 ~" b  s) ^
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: ^7 H6 [* L, e1 P0 n4 G3 ?scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ N% P1 G; _: G1 y6 A/ Bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
$ u* F+ Y1 G# e5 `& V' m; P) ]should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! C3 }' k( Y/ Y6 a. K# }! ~
which they blatantly failed to do.
+ p* N0 B8 H( [; |  N* U1 B5 o% E% w
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 x1 a) y0 \  EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in! B5 A# H3 }4 R4 R# K( J
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “/ v: O! k( r0 l5 ?
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous  L/ y- r4 Y% |$ {# @
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 {  r( M4 {7 r# Pimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
: G! x8 J2 p6 L) R9 X: i9 ddifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) E# g( H, Y5 Y# x3 |* xbe treated as 7 s.
/ c# j% Y  [( H! h  B$ P' d4 u8 {) T1 M- c" O7 e
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& L3 P; K! q8 y6 r/ p9 `: ^5 Gstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
' r% @2 G# C2 G# ]# A' h1 ]$ I9 pimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
- F/ D& q* X* C3 Q& lAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; M% f6 C& A, S% u4 p4 i) ^+ _-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.( P. Q* [: _9 q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
; i9 K9 V6 P9 Y/ N- |# ]: P; I6 Xelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and8 W* f2 [3 J, @) I
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ A0 r1 O* i2 \% x8 s- W; jbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ o* ~6 H' a2 {* J6 c/ b

- D0 H# A3 x5 w* |2 BThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- R  ~  A2 n& n( l7 Y" `
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in* R, a- Q( m: G; w- I3 ]
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" t& i* |- V, U. c! E! i
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
7 g% u- J! _) Q  Z# v0 n8 J$ Vevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: |- ?6 y9 X% r3 a3 W: Z( Obest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
. U9 a- M+ I$ g  ], ?Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
, P  z1 T3 @  g; H- X0 f- Atopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
2 @  b! M; z; E$ T" K' ]7 }. bhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
7 c9 a5 q+ @  I. s0 X: ^, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this( Q/ `4 U- [: K# p$ Y8 ^, h+ Q4 x% Z
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 w2 V: t: l9 ]( {% l; |faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
, c" _5 L, x2 v0 p3 ?faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. |1 Z: Z6 v! Q( G7 J
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
6 f; M0 ]6 E+ J1 |& x8 k& L# }. gimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
  n- Y! H) w1 C( ^) \/ p
8 l/ j$ M6 f' J/ {0 Q6 \- LFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
* A, s' Q/ W! ]" x3 B9 {3 u. }6 Pfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( [. ^  V$ q  f- G0 es) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s9 m- S# j* x: P3 T$ j+ I; L
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
( A2 ~/ Q9 @' u+ U* N, P" {& H; Bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
3 [6 I$ I) v, r3 b3 |9 [, ~Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind0 G6 {# p& m6 q9 X4 Q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
& U! z7 W2 ^$ s) O6 i7 {/ z' L5 @logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" E2 F) N+ D# c  }% hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
* \0 y& y8 t1 i: n; Yworks.- B) y0 E$ l& q# p  Z. [  e1 o! {- D

0 `( w; V" a; c# UFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% o4 x) o0 s: }" l
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" j% R) C9 A; l" J& f2 P7 P5 h. G& K
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
+ p$ Q+ C. B8 D% tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ i, V1 \, o* z  |" e0 n* Opapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
4 q& ^+ ?4 U' l+ q! F6 Jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; k4 P2 E3 G" c9 L! s) A: C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. ]5 T% q9 o$ f, `demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works. ~. K/ I8 H( ~
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample+ a$ Q$ m$ J8 n- i! p2 [2 k% k
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
4 B7 H# J* F* g+ P# J0 Q1 l! {crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he- E/ |0 |, T( m: i+ [; b
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
0 {4 }1 _$ [! \$ w/ f' Q. ~. h. e% _* gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
9 ~) s* E* M  \past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 s8 T1 W; W0 r; Y* q
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation5 [, V! d( \9 p4 ^% F
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are9 T3 A- G0 j% X; H; h# L; f" s
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
4 _. [6 \. \( y5 G$ e7 ]be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
( Y. X4 ?9 X( Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
, N0 ]1 d( B* q! `* l, @) Mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a  X" V5 f. S+ N8 H6 t1 V+ o) [
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
7 \  k7 b, o$ D. a# X1 Xother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# k1 Q% S. X- A6 n, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 Z# ?, e: I3 U
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
  O9 e1 p9 ^# P. M% N$ tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight, @/ h& ^9 b7 d1 l
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; P* u4 b& Y) e$ `; ^+ {Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
9 i* t/ u# X! y* K3 w: C  yagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# X) C2 f1 P% J1 i
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
8 }2 @; D0 o% P$ F) A" G3 @( h( ?Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?8 r- ~  R; D# B+ I! d! O4 I
9 U: P' g5 m# ]) M1 a. L( v4 R0 h, A
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
3 P1 R' h- ?3 D- A0 a4 S( P- kcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention  Y7 J0 o7 D0 i5 l8 l
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( }, ^9 ^" @+ E1 S, R
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; G7 o$ ?* G6 y7 U) i& u" ]
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
2 \0 \1 g& ~3 {+ z; y! Udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' C, c5 q  i( H: P! h4 W8 G
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
7 c6 Q4 E. v* j; X4 [& ahave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a/ L) _& C- L& `. b' n; k4 C- U
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, K2 Z/ q! \0 d: ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: I* Y) Y8 U2 e
9 @4 P8 \' D' MOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
9 `( g8 W: \& M0 a3 h' Xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 f& X& ^& ^% n$ H# M; W- [& usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 y6 s" l. t4 f# E$ _0 Wsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
; D& f6 S' \% S6 _! A( oall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 d) L( i# w5 S( \7 i# k
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
8 Y9 T) @( M/ f7 u$ I$ g4 wexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your# w( @5 c) @# [6 n( d
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal, v' }4 r  a: x; l! N: `
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or  P) q! e5 p* x" _5 `
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, 2026-5-5 01:52 , Processed in 0.139213 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