埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2184|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 3 N5 Z/ l& C1 p, D& Y3 W

; [% \( f& D  j, x6 P饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
5 F% `4 z" J! n6 b; R0 A6 \, a: l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。
) F2 |: T$ x: U# z. p5 u) y9 Q6 q$ f) J* a总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
, M. n( _4 ?- U* M, N- ~+ h3 L* Y5 V6 r8 A" T4 N
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html" }* J6 n( Y( X% ^  t9 x- e6 H0 {/ a
$ |6 y9 i8 z* ?& _; f9 ]7 H8 X
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选3 U7 T! k" e9 x
5 M+ c, D6 V2 ]6 p1 J
英文原信附后,大意如下:
! k  f% {" P' ]' s6 z- A5 j. Q4 p8 |& V. z! {# {; ?
斐尔,3 `2 @0 c) n3 W' B& x
       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
/ x) y& |1 V: l' A) jemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
3 q0 `% y) g( }" u5 u% z, H       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
; E  U; |: z9 H4 j# ~6 B2 J8 p2 V& j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
) c& C( T& x" `5 e( r2 X& J3 _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。1 ]1 l2 _. c3 M1 f* s% t
       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
, w! U# V7 P+ c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
/ h& _! H- t' C  g, R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 b6 w1 ?/ a. L6 q! a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。
, B, [1 ~9 J  d: p) f& O0 @$ _       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; i$ f; s/ T+ S
,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
& F& Q5 G* O0 V: e8 x. G”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。" z/ o8 K0 o! ]2 k# V
       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9 ^$ {8 J: R: V! ]8 d& [$ y4 R
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 }$ Q" P6 ?6 b8 J4 ^0 Z' g  s,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
/ v6 H& k  O5 o. r       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) y- F7 A* T# t( ]
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8 E: N5 x' k- \
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
- o$ x" n. G" B0 F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; R1 R& ]- ?- a3 s
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' \/ t+ G$ z3 U' V+ s& E+ X
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
- @/ e! p. @4 s. e7 t4 w2 Y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
; y6 w7 l  O+ Z' C" j。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& H1 I" W+ h9 O+ g! T( T7 Z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
8 A7 Y6 X( y# r2 S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
# M& o2 ~% x7 \3 p. l1》,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
# y, q! l, R, @& w- XWikipedia。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  w: P! ^2 [! [$ g
同意见的专家。
) o+ N8 P( e! A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4 X7 B  l1 T# x) ?
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: \4 q4 @+ a) r0 ^# x1 p* k  |
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
. Z6 H. N; k' s) {  R( a! g2 }《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。( r( s" ~8 \2 p0 ~5 E
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)
- r' W$ F2 Q6 y5 m/ a8 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, W8 t( v9 O& j; T% v. U8 D7 S8 v
《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
/ K3 F$ U$ A1 `& e: U( x5 Y0 u. w这些被Callaway忽略。
7 n: V2 K9 P* H$ }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
$ |* `, c" ]' `: M# E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
' [& ^* V4 z. Y, h教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
: N+ H8 K+ j" P: {+ @: C" t" d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
. R1 |( p  B* z! L0 z0 q. F# {7 x* l$ ~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
1 Q. o8 H* ^& Z4 ?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& s3 o2 \0 m0 _$ r3 f( q: v/ g
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。# _; s0 H$ P  d7 O
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
2 g; n: Y( H. }# H# ^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 d: c1 r3 E+ u  s$ q  I' B
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0 z, \& \4 T0 ]: g% Y& H9 b/ z6 D) X
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。/ x+ s, K. n; R2 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: s9 C8 B- N5 K. _' N9 y  z
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
( k: }/ M: S+ A  E8 N- q题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁5 L* v% y$ p- @) ], e
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
# A0 A) w: Q- z8 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3 R: \0 n4 w0 U0 z# o& F" P8 r
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* y9 [2 |8 d9 _) w# v3 O3 h! @我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& g) P- ?. x; A+ q% K/ W
& A$ b/ z% y1 R- X# g  Z

0 h4 b  C4 q3 v北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅4 e# t) \( n% F2 r$ ^

; z0 J8 y  |$ Y; {( _附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
  d) c2 H& G% U  i. W3 V1 R: d" r附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email- f4 b" U/ N1 i5 W" J
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 }  @, J2 I9 P附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: v/ }7 ^9 A: E7 p

% }; ~# `1 Y, k! M; u
. J+ a3 S! Q0 Z1 W0 g
9 k, t+ M9 n3 h原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)" B+ F( v4 C: q& ]  M. x5 b2 D( u
Dear Phil,
) z, q5 q: `! g7 q& |' [% _       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
5 n5 C5 V. A0 d- a3 w1 A% ~* Greport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
# ]5 g3 ]3 c, H0 k  X% @hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
5 o$ S' m  C5 V7 v+ u- R$ tyou.& f% b* s) {1 x$ D
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have' |9 i( w9 f4 K. o% L0 d1 [
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
0 K- T) |9 {$ ~8 _" Ireaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; P2 W, }5 K& I
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
: N7 P" g' S2 }publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more3 G; ?- Q, |3 e( Q% d; f
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news6 `4 l. `; |9 ^/ g
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
  B: X  H" d% V% F       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the. H! p) d  }$ ^, v9 j
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
- {* K0 b" s. w' J4 t8 mnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 l" h) N- v; b  \. C1 R) {1 ]
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
7 y* ?4 J# Z5 G* g) |* w- A- z4 F. ndid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping: g! Z4 R0 N; J7 P, H7 r2 [$ D
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal1 }  a. n6 a5 r: ^7 ]9 y) l
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 V( l( V, B% l- q
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
& ?4 |) r4 V+ c* I# D8 j; y4 Cto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 A" w/ X# M6 B# b0 E+ Qreporting.
/ b- `; S+ r$ @5 ?6 v! S+ D$ \) ^       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have2 m3 t* l( J( i: [: A: ^0 t
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
) i, [3 ^& ^3 _/ T; R- F. S4 vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; u+ Z3 `" U$ {: B! ~sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
8 G9 S: H+ ^% s( Q2 wpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.7 S8 k) {/ X1 D: z, u9 `
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: m" X- ~& _/ C9 z% I# ^2 w1 y- o% Z
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
$ |# g! }7 B; L5 g; K9 Q; }$ K3 o- Cfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50; y+ h" w, x7 v* t$ U! ^
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same' `% s& J+ m  W+ v6 ^: }- |
event for men, with the second fastest record.' C( U& Z3 e8 @/ }9 N6 P
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
: f0 f  x$ Y& g  Z/ J0 j/ |was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
# L; p9 H5 `0 D8 D2 {5 [year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) ]( v) Y' @# I# ^. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
0 P- u: X( E5 @8 n  E6 H9 q- Cmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
! k9 A2 v) @0 Dfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than  c! n# u. Y3 a) X
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
4 Z6 i: i3 i2 h5 @  ~behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
6 t3 l6 t  L% oindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower  Z2 |' w' ]4 z' \. |% r2 h3 S
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
# f% N5 `3 w' T5 Nthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was4 O* R, l$ K, D2 y# n) r& q
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then/ b5 E% _8 ~0 Y7 A# Q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 Z- x, z  U: O" T
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other  \. T7 Y# D/ v# f& M
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
1 y& U9 |2 ^0 ]8 M! p8 ~$ Xteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the% h* S- o( f% {2 [8 f
Callaway report.
' B' g, w6 H$ w& e) m3 a9 CThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
! C$ l/ A* J& ?  m) Z3 Aunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
8 r  d: y; j% D6 Rhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
; C& i6 d: M" R) B1 Z( y* Mof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
1 ?( N" o; u2 Zbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the! N* I) O7 v4 b9 f( ]3 K& `# u
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& @% k8 E% w: ^( }1 A) ?6 m/ h
publicly voiced different opinions.8 b# T, b7 B4 g6 p5 o( i3 T% U
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ h9 n7 I1 P% g' O4 V4 K- ]
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature- Z6 |$ ]& _# V  A9 S
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent; \, a1 h9 Y. y* x
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: v, ~# P0 Z: H! v6 h+ S
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy1 t* X- p( M' U) u! U
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.0 X4 V' B: T5 K5 o+ p
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think3 V+ E% Q6 R: B' \6 a, l
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
' F; {9 U$ H( a$ n  O# |1 Fhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
2 ?( ~- @2 j4 u4 ~& NAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
& f$ p# W' z' R& E. Q/ q# Xthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
. f  |9 W" {" w, k2 [% \0 Qsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
, l; u% C' x2 O' l6 j0 n: X, o2 TOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that: @9 S( @) t" @! Y0 Z
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ y* _  V5 t! S) h$ W" C7 Q3 `
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June4 x( ]2 i' r2 h
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
9 K. K. O! s+ e2 U- u& A  b  eand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
; G' q9 p* o- S( [* I8 F& R  h3 {1 ^5 zThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science( e* B( R5 ?' D+ c' Q/ ~* P5 I
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
2 h) D9 D  J; }7 J5 R2 i7 Y$ I% Y) N1 NDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.7 Y# j3 V% b9 N' T+ g1 w8 E5 r
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
% |; k* c" B# j) N6 g# xobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature3 w! o! R* y3 n- P
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" q6 |8 F& d) S6 V# @7 l9 |0 [repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
3 h; W1 U: j1 D: o6 ~The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not& T; y# j2 o5 [8 t4 X4 Q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
! Z* g# M4 z. Y$ j9 Yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather3 l/ j! M" @/ q: e( `$ [5 w1 f( x0 n" p
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that( N* J6 U0 O( W: h* ^5 h
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”1 {5 k, f" W) K8 r" c6 H% i
about British supremacy.
# T* Z& P9 E) n7 {: BThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many$ ^8 p1 p# {0 W8 v
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more6 Z' p$ t1 Y; T9 Z3 _* |
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
& T+ o: V8 G: P8 B* p' B( rour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London3 d& U; [5 v5 \) a
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.: T3 C! L1 @0 S$ G' M9 L  c
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of* Q; T& i$ M3 o3 _/ d1 s
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
/ `' e$ ^; ?0 |* b: Jbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
8 h  C5 C$ |. D0 Eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly% F1 U9 c$ Z* M4 O3 E
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like9 [/ ~$ _2 D' j" B
Nature.
3 w2 `3 H2 u4 w& v. RI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
9 {* [  q6 Y* C& V/ Lthe Callaway report.
. m. n; |1 ~4 J/ x: T, k  r$ j  M
Yi
  C9 O* K5 O# J, Y$ R; R) g1 U9 q) T4 h. `2 b+ U) x& f
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
. N& h, K& C5 cProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
' I  I8 }. I! N9 x: kBeijing, China
1 G" U4 {4 F6 n+ T
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?
大型搬家
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 + m4 _7 {8 j" X  G
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
0 S! s* ]: j1 I- S
原文是公开信。4 F6 q6 Y2 P% z  [
- W% I# Y" R# O9 ^
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
$ Z" C1 i$ r5 ^6 R9 @原文是公开信。. z4 }; o! R+ K7 @$ B8 s- P  m

2 t9 Q& T( ]& P" V  h0 n小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

! q* g& r/ M  t2 n% m0 ^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# F) x0 \9 d$ G5 L# E' T
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
( v; T( L& F  w* [2 h7 {( H: N! m3 C$ S, |& t
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! M; N# `# |, S0 u; C% A  X) G% ~
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania# g( R0 P6 R* A6 }1 P5 S
3 Q4 D7 i& o* g9 ^0 x( t- c
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
# u1 o# h3 d5 y2 a0 g) A$ {, K, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
8 ^7 H+ [" y; o+ x1 D0 O* j6 _8 [magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this7 |0 z0 T" x4 D+ k: _2 ]0 q/ Y4 {
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 e8 H; r/ p- l
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) N! ^' X( a5 S
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors) z5 C7 {. V  `  H
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# k5 ^! B! [6 [6 n$ P$ q( ^which they blatantly failed to do.
& o" T' N2 [2 u! A# H3 R/ c( F- Z/ H. X
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her  H; c' S( P: g/ a4 C: S) o
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in2 q" M4 Y! r+ a% f0 _5 ?  H
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ P2 J) \5 Y. t" D8 r2 D( J2 ?+ H; g' V4 w
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ L' e$ A: r3 w
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an$ x4 n6 d: ~- n8 A- C8 S% \9 j
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the; V' q, V  X. d) h. f
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
" D# A8 \" `' M  i6 \: gbe treated as 7 s.+ ~8 I) Y2 J( K& `

! ^0 ?4 E3 o( |; Z9 i% USecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! R6 E4 b; V+ _# s! u0 Y7 [# U/ {# f7 ]still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
9 R% \. K, r/ [impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.3 v: e% U3 I) C7 ?9 L9 q' |; |
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
0 p" }9 A9 S8 m# {5 F! b7 W-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
( L4 A7 H: P; M3 sFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an" `9 e% P1 F6 e- h+ l
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% q# F5 h$ z2 z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”. `! ^' i2 M4 r+ E' P4 ^
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.0 i4 z. O/ }: [7 ]7 F! |  b
- U  h! e0 G- i% @0 p# |! w9 e/ K
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ G1 b- c/ t. y# j2 l1 wexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
3 E$ h$ ^3 Q' ]- Y" t9 Gthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
  D7 @1 E" s! Khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
$ Z3 u4 K4 R( L  v, ?4 pevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 B8 r2 Q" `" I& ]best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World, A, U; s0 y3 w; i7 n8 r% g% O
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another- Y% k7 M1 v7 I5 O) q. H8 u
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
5 o! b- U; o4 J7 n- ^2 w2 C" S+ G- ahand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& Y# [+ p5 U* |( a( w  u2 n, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
  c, M$ K3 q# c$ Nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds. p0 J1 E& T( R* S7 i
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam5 N! ^  }! I: r7 x) L/ l8 \
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. M0 j/ }3 ^  j3 k6 f' q( iaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. i7 G( v: `4 k" ?" E- n) O5 Kimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
9 M) _1 ?0 J0 s- S, }6 f! d  s' E/ M1 q2 |! X4 P8 G+ M, V
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
2 }- f1 Z! x: b$ f% t& Qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
- T( ]' W  n8 l: {s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' R' k. C3 P% t3 T) ]4 F), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
, J1 J: y" X3 Z9 k7 N8 L- V; Kout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* s( F$ D; x8 E# y4 M5 d6 iLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
5 Z( h' E) w7 ?7 @( Q" ?of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it2 j. W8 C: l6 Y4 f. x0 \$ v
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" O# e6 B0 F+ \+ s1 m. A
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
4 g8 F- L/ n/ y+ }8 @works.* u; {) C4 Q# h9 v& U
4 ?4 ^& F9 [$ q" O
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and: K9 ]) T. \; {# x! q6 _
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
4 n7 e. I7 L1 t; y: Zkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that1 e+ P! C, x4 \3 j/ ]& H: k" E
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" I7 u2 \! o4 ^% @2 f0 a6 m7 t
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; l* p/ b. Y- X8 x" }; h9 F
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One' y* z6 q7 I& y/ Y+ Y% {& U! C, |- g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* H/ I' z0 Z* J7 u) Z4 jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
  A- q) ^( q$ bto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample+ P! C# s3 @. \' P* g9 o; F
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 c) |/ c3 ^" A% T& }: I  Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
. Q) M' R5 }" I+ j( k/ f( kwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
& L. ^' I: C9 i5 L7 v, r1 Cadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
' \; ]4 i' q9 W8 J' ~# jpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not3 p8 K* D) R. Q7 ~
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
9 K* I& S# A; W, e! k0 l7 r. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 d- }3 S' f2 P0 I: u. idoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may; V0 ?% e  o6 f: m
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 [5 ]: S0 z5 U% j" g8 S* `7 W
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 _0 Y7 c! p! o, }' Z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" f0 @. ~' ~7 H/ j6 c
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ _6 u$ a) \) s6 H4 e
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect8 v+ O, O/ N$ R# t9 e' E4 E* b/ ~
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 C4 l6 y& e$ F6 K" L5 qprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
+ N8 ^+ I5 D' l" W/ m7 iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& s$ ]5 D+ ~* W# V2 ]* X9 }chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 ~1 S8 w3 F" J# r8 C
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& A( Z9 U4 f0 _* D$ R
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 q; _+ `. N& _# U8 d! n- q
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.1 e' [+ y. N" z7 o/ e
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. i  _' T4 v4 J1 z9 h( h- K
0 @) x5 x- k9 T: r$ |; Z0 [Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
0 D, ~/ ^3 x6 Ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ W& Q  |: n, I- i
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
0 t- `3 _, e. q2 I. r) tOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London3 g, d# T1 [; s/ G) m2 E
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for# v2 E1 }/ d' O- F. O
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 y  A4 R3 j9 S  n1 u& K, E
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope' t, s: F+ z, ~0 q# z/ K9 g
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" I* X; e9 h, d# `& f( R
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
9 y5 h* O/ D! H1 W4 d4 ^! K/ L( E9 apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
( M: W' C" ]# v' d: k: \2 H
) }% N" y% R: }. ?. |( pOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
, u+ i  @; {1 L/ y4 P! i* R/ Iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! L0 `0 i  }1 N4 |" osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
  I! A2 B" [6 ysuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
) [. ~4 G3 z: ~all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your! Y' E& r9 w5 s6 z
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,6 \# A9 T1 g4 Y2 y7 L7 T
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your6 n/ E7 @# P0 L/ H& j/ v8 _
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( z! l: _9 n( f2 H" U5 s) L6 D7 c/ S
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or* F+ I( ], g1 V/ X
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, 2026-4-8 03:25 , Processed in 0.103489 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