埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1866|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
# ^% R5 ?0 o: ]# N' a+ H+ p, |& c5 P4 a9 x1 j
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。9 R/ e% G7 |. E* `; E
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。
/ V* m8 ^5 Y+ `$ z9 }$ u* l总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。( q/ I/ [0 s9 M5 k! u$ h
4 z# P2 [* ~% c& a
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
. f; O; V- G* J+ M* T0 Y: R  {7 U0 f3 T* h9 a: o
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选+ k9 ^$ g& f  f7 J! \) y& u6 h# V. n

/ J+ a4 f; z6 g( H" y英文原信附后,大意如下:: P( c( k, B/ J, k
3 A1 G" Z! U' {* M& s8 }" u
斐尔,
4 H% C2 y/ n% p# S' 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
6 P3 x# u8 C  u5 C% r7 Wemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。* W9 o0 }6 J! c/ e/ r! P2 v
       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴. Y" l' ?5 o! V( [) G; K) d* R; r2 U
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! @$ _9 W  p$ s% A7 v4 |- p5 r
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。: k9 }( c/ }! t8 O$ {" i. h# K* @: S
       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
6 \9 p4 r/ p9 k% S3 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
  D$ Y: G0 k5 [( O2 @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
, H1 C7 u* ?# ?  U, R' o3 N5 ?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。
* ^; Y: v2 b  ?, j$ _  g" M! 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. d" Q5 P/ k2 N5 k8 P6 F& o
,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
0 U+ X/ T4 Y5 n8 Y, P! I; U# _”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。9 ^+ |. {" z) |  R( 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& D# b2 w5 P5 b- e( K" i' k& u% }0 z
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
9 P4 j) o( \" T  J+ f,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
$ b, A6 r  M: }3 b& F5 Y       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3 s8 I# w, X/ m1 ~$ j
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
. T7 T. Y! E5 b4 a" Y* F8 o! Y. T6 A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. @' F& F3 _" ]! \" J
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
, _) a6 F! {* w3 P300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' H$ J, [8 M% a8 Q
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
2 K: j2 I8 U6 P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; ~/ D2 o- g$ n4 D6 l% Z% ^
。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% D+ r3 q( f4 H; Z) k1 e+ c5 [
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 w3 @9 J3 }- W* M4 m! J" x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5 g% T5 B  l+ x" N1 B9 D' v
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
& M6 e3 F' _5 B2 fWikipedia。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# }+ @3 I- k9 d
同意见的专家。4 q" r; [0 A/ c8 U- V  A3 l
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
3 y/ V( k* Z! r: \% v9 B- F1 j1 c. A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
2 m' l( d& d+ Z% B/ r/ b' @8 t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
5 y) K, M/ Q" f$ u4 i; x- ~《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。, g' ]. }+ S% Y4 w" g6 S$ s2 K
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)
9 o% ~8 U3 U- S: O9 x  e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
, q# G$ V: v- c: Q2 d3 u《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
- R5 J3 J6 V$ h这些被Callaway忽略。. V( w* _+ w2 v4 U
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/ t3 [7 h: s/ h, g4 T+ g& H
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
' U# K9 y; Z% X& D& h教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 ^4 e: I/ m$ d* ~- I2 F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/ B( u9 D9 _3 k' d6 U& V$ P
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; n6 J1 y  V% p9 z* g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4 o" }  R+ K/ {* Z+ K0 j
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。
( B7 C. D! v* w2 k6 N. q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, c* D: {, N* Y* \/ @
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
8 p: a- R+ j' Q/ n4 h代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问7 x* L% g$ n. d1 k( A# A9 N
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。. s0 K7 S5 m: V: P
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 j8 `( ?/ I- x6 Z7 h
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
* Y3 F; Z) k3 F# e/ 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
6 H) _- R( Q" Y" G' o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# z0 U, Z% k4 r3 r7 @1 p
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
$ B* s( C# a5 o而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' |$ |  t. L# X$ }. R
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
2 L: N8 U; [) ^" s1 {  b( z( w* m8 _6 D. V% ^! [
$ Q' k1 p, J; ~
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
( v2 x2 a" I# i% s5 h
. P# H3 ]2 @" s% {" N1 S附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 F2 b) s% ]( p! a* ~附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email  ~  N- o- m+ |0 l( G3 `, R" u1 V
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见, A$ L, o7 p8 j/ Q
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见  a* d. Z# A9 w) Z

& v4 v& `! D8 u( R7 j, v. z% j9 L0 N1 e: w& G$ Q+ s4 E$ [

; I! W8 }. l7 w0 ?原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)# R9 W) s+ D$ s: V: h. x
Dear Phil,
8 P  W0 G* H; J% r       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
  _$ e2 j5 ~% T0 Rreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
7 K8 D9 M' o* s( Xhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed; Z9 n$ W; }) o6 M" r
you., d3 `& H; L( z% P- Z5 F( S
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
% V& Q3 k  `/ l; Bbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese- w( n* e$ Z9 x. F1 s, z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the, A4 \, R$ F( b; k' I6 u
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
2 g; w" O7 w! z, u$ i' Epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
2 i, F0 j8 A0 Cseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: g8 d' h# s. Q5 x* R
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
: D9 |+ P( x' t$ R9 C/ `6 ^       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the% D2 m' L! {* V8 ~& o: V- b- E
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
9 l9 N  @/ Q( b' q) hnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
8 Z5 C" O( g- q9 _  c% w2 L8 X2 O5 Pthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 B" G: N7 a2 Y/ r$ f! `did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  P, t, P. V/ n5 w! {6 r: oexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
7 R0 f9 G; X/ G! |' _2 w, ~standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,- ?4 ~; ], x# r
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
0 c$ |! K! L% o% `  R- Bto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news7 L* w! r$ f; {; C0 u' w
reporting.; F' ^' \) P" c
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have' C, g# {* d7 }6 n2 W* d3 T
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
* Z' c8 L/ d- F& B; x2 _changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in1 X9 Q: b* A4 t, o2 L5 h# Q  e
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ C$ u1 O  l5 m8 t: cpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.; n! y7 [. t9 a+ G8 n0 ~/ {* y
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem' d! I4 x% w* T; n& s5 f+ Z; V
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
( ^9 R! L& w! y9 q% E6 l/ u8 y& |% Kfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50) b7 K; y5 i; p0 U& I
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
7 U5 D1 Y, B5 W, A0 ?/ Kevent for men, with the second fastest record.% |0 U- j+ |8 d/ ?/ v1 d
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
1 b+ j' s  d# K- G2 kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16* b5 B( p8 k% C1 I
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
$ p; k( t3 f; j+ p% O0 t& |. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. I: S7 L3 \! rmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,8 y% M  P/ v% E1 H- Z( B- \% ~
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
/ ?. u% m  O9 k! b% MLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
0 f( w' x! s# T, F/ zbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 g1 m+ d- J0 }% t0 }individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower" s* z% p: L8 e: O
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
4 T" n2 D% }# G" `1 p5 i; othose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was7 g- h( Y7 `5 H2 O/ g9 b: ?
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
) u9 S0 W. g  b& n' Yhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
% M+ P* K' V8 Sproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other# Q# C2 a/ I. r8 Y4 ]2 r! x1 v7 k$ ~2 _
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
/ m. r! h! q& rteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
+ v- e  ~  @9 g" O9 F6 ~' n0 WCallaway report.
  p3 h) U3 G( h* ~2 P: I9 bThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
" _, `4 n8 Y5 N" Cunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details" _, J+ L: `% E) B
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description4 S3 O5 R" U6 p% c) i! g4 q3 Y3 j
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been) H! {  p6 ?5 \& ?; s7 b2 G
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the+ Y) @  w$ {  Z! f5 b0 M2 g9 q5 d) U
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
7 n' \0 I) J! n! Y6 Lpublicly voiced different opinions.
+ ]- W" U/ A5 G( \) r/ i+ N5 {" hYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD8 ], _1 J  ]) C
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* v; r8 ^' f' X6 @$ l9 ?" c  LNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) ]- K! b/ ?4 u1 Apostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds+ i, C5 @. O# L
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy! \2 |6 J& l' z; _3 H+ d  |* K9 B# f) x
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, V5 _; n1 ~% p% x8 m  |There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think* N' y* l! E* M
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 U  X5 J6 r2 V& ?" O
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, y* S/ Z4 P. d9 B) _
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
9 S! o0 I! N( pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was0 I& q; k6 e# i" s
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
* `9 i0 U; I1 `7 ]7 B& k" BOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that4 ~. y$ F/ t2 }& Q# L9 D$ L
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the( s- l1 f- d4 t$ R
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
3 K1 X2 H4 I1 C(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she+ V5 n7 E+ M% w8 t8 v  Y  R
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  r7 h' _$ \1 q4 y' D
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
2 O3 h" p' i' I0 Land your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and) M1 S8 Z0 ~) F, N% _
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.3 M, e3 }+ |/ K0 w, f
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
& _1 x; o6 V1 G6 g% Cobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
% e# W+ X# Z7 f& k- `" A2 Wwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
; U9 D; I* k3 T3 brepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
& K' s- B$ \- F/ o& {The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not7 O, K' e+ j. j" a% @" e" \
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
+ T+ p+ y6 J: Jus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather; W  d6 X7 M4 U& V8 k4 d
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that; `; e# R$ I5 ]  |$ T3 Z2 Y
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”8 g1 |4 k) {( \* n; a9 p6 |
about British supremacy.
* Q* l/ X3 e2 U; zThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) @; [, l8 p* \2 y9 \- Eunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more  V% Q$ X' P6 o' o# P' N% u9 g
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
& m1 P. n/ ?4 m7 Zour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London6 c9 w3 z0 T( W9 N
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
7 X) \5 a1 f+ y+ W- ~& \Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of$ z: L: a8 b( F8 [: e
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 V; ^4 Q' M% L) @, Bbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
0 t( N. d$ K. q! uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
+ r  I$ j7 o; w! j' ~6 |publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like- ?, m9 L* B0 l0 @7 h( e9 ~
Nature.
" @9 k- Y9 l' R7 p6 M& r8 o- QI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance7 n& z+ x: N' Y: k- D& E! j0 A  w
the Callaway report.& D; Z& C! }6 P- M1 n9 {- `
/ l; y' \0 G. u& O: M* B( u
Yi
7 p9 u) Q, h: T
& h/ K# g/ z" sYi Rao, Ph.D.. R/ S4 i8 M! }. O
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences* z5 k4 I6 k/ }/ u0 E" x/ X7 n
Beijing, China" A7 n: V. a. d: ^' z# L! U
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
理袁律师事务所
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
& U% J0 F" ]& B原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

; [: R7 U; S5 S6 v) f- [原文是公开信。/ W) i- J4 R8 `7 Z  v

. d0 ^) ^" }, y9 R0 v' `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 ) u$ H2 j' |! {9 c
原文是公开信。8 L1 b/ H% `9 B: j* m' [3 h# @

9 p* {4 x( J4 u/ y% T# y小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

  M: r, B. P9 W% y6 r9 l# x# I1 Y" F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 JIANG6 R( d" r! H4 i! F
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
* b1 s9 K/ Q% Y, b
! L! P- q! x. I" H: W- z6 _( Chttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
! P( E9 A' p9 Z' S2 Q& n
! f/ d5 v' z* e) o1 BFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& I8 D4 M" n8 R# G- q7 l
4 B0 K- s* I. v5 p5 y% _( D1 Z# mIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 b5 T5 o2 \. y0 r, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( j* b7 i8 e3 |. M4 K5 cmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this9 F3 f% r% b' c# y
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 y% v- n. {* d) }
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
4 ]( V& ~1 h* b8 d( Fpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
  c! x" B, v, }' T( _should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
5 T5 j! m" j$ Z( Q1 hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
8 |3 \9 A7 z% y# l* c" k. Z8 b
* w- Q# Q- j# ?' d& PFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
. ]0 J, d& B2 N4 S; T1 eOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
6 V; r3 v6 Y: V6 T2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
1 \1 ]9 v# ~/ Aanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous( K  V& i" k. p  N
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an" j! s* g. D) C5 Y& W
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 K# r5 V  a# q" m5 M! q# hdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
/ h/ u: K; l. ?/ P" E8 j( ]' P6 Wbe treated as 7 s.# d( i! a* s2 g( a. @! [0 x

" D: |% E! ~2 o; H! `' MSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 U9 a0 h& A0 y5 \" istill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
+ n3 A8 Q- K$ w2 k) D. Q0 N, gimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
4 [! I1 A: D- p% ^, ^- wAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& E7 K0 Z0 h: u/ r4 i8 M-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
' J+ S% O# O' i/ LFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 z. ?6 S! Z, @: Y  x2 ]
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and  s/ y( s1 R2 s/ n- l3 A3 A9 J
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”4 c. Z; k0 H- ~# B0 c3 Z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& \- |& E1 O/ t% r% }6 j0 I) p* S3 ^8 c4 e
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
: p) F0 X8 O/ w3 rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 q$ K! f1 [* h  [
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. Y# a6 o0 N6 k2 c& dhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
8 h4 n! r8 j1 [7 I+ V# D" Nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: O& j. E. Z8 j* o) {9 e, X% s+ @* h+ Pbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* F8 M. Z9 B5 M) g2 c0 HFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
) l+ {; I  O& u% H) \topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# F. p7 H6 ]* Z5 z2 [: Jhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle5 H8 ?( d: J2 H* m
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. h" ?! C' C$ K$ p3 m4 l3 ~& `5 k
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) R: x* a; ~: ]. e1 t& O3 yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
# ]8 [& w% m* U0 c5 [faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
" V5 s: i5 l/ d# }aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* f# n8 }3 A7 A8 [! Dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 ^% u, g" u' z
2 [8 f3 r, N: I3 m6 wFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" n. L' A) Z* k" c
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 d! B3 j$ I  C" c5 b  Fs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s+ o: W1 S% O0 K  l# G7 _* @
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ }, N; r( K' ?. R- k1 Jout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% }1 |+ H( e+ q# p( h& Q! j3 g# ULochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; i) t; j' A8 f' c9 I
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it3 x3 Q( s1 `/ a
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
/ \$ t) s$ L. l+ v  Fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) l  n9 v9 O: [+ W0 w# Mworks.5 h) y5 g6 P9 u8 J7 E7 X

8 P! \2 @. z' D" `+ M; ?' dFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and, B: X" N: ~" {1 e5 a& J9 }$ s
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
* y. ]& r! v8 o3 B& ^! T5 tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
' X% Z; _! u- S" y8 ^& @* Q, d. xstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific* u; ^0 B) R; S. H, |9 U
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 a0 v& d6 X' Y1 K* C2 K# `reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; j7 H1 f. ?; U! a7 I) Ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to. n; g1 b8 G0 [% e3 w* Q3 m1 O# X1 f
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works& H; `  `5 U1 `
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
) c, Q8 B" M6 ^' a9 w# s4 {' pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 H, A; J, U; R4 Q7 Q# U, icrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( w" U$ @6 u% @/ S1 z* h4 qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* p! q% o7 s2 [+ V& a) j
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the) ]( L4 @3 F/ a1 O; U5 L8 F7 ~& x
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 l- D9 F9 h) K9 G/ z9 k$ {
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation# H! Y$ n6 o, L9 \' q
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are) N( R2 D4 I$ u. v# k
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ t; u1 x1 E+ ^8 c, H' Cbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a3 q- |. Q! ]6 u0 b, l/ q
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
6 ?: z8 l" s. n/ Rhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& U! h& J6 B6 `; t2 kdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& `6 r# m+ M; D; N( r2 v8 gother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 r  H4 B7 W1 R4 D3 \' X# A; ?1 V. _, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is: z9 k5 B3 g) q9 S' q
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
) B% W- `; e: \$ R  L: d+ dathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 `, k* V3 {1 ~, t5 p; I/ ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. P/ L. [+ o3 A2 H- C( [Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
  O5 ^# h* v; ?4 r$ Wagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
, k3 T0 c/ I- p3 _3 N. ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% D5 P, l: G4 U
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
) e9 u; q- K0 Q9 u% e" U
0 O! c; D5 f( h+ c5 v  m9 SSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 u0 q* @( Z# D, ~+ G8 S/ B( Rcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention5 J4 o$ h0 d/ n. w* C7 j8 y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( N5 B( W1 F) U5 g0 W9 SOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
& b4 ~! P* i) _9 KOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for& g/ G$ X, |. Y; Q. c2 z* {: W
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic  z, |0 T$ _3 O0 q$ j. Y
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope  t! A2 u* _, o( M, f& o; h3 B
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a. E) b3 A# b4 Y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
" G: y' i  J# o( l. E- Apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
1 \4 `* x: S9 n4 \# L$ h$ D. Q1 }
5 j  ?$ P+ w. d) K6 x7 w9 h) pOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (# X+ Q" |$ J+ E* i. y' V
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
+ q5 J4 u; m" L: O  M1 V( o' Rsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 [( Q6 J- L  P6 u6 p0 q7 a7 W
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 _9 p  s. R' Y) k& w3 tall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ I4 B% l* K# I; {3 @; a& T
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. T! S4 g, B" q2 r% P0 fexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. ~4 q7 E7 ]5 J8 ?' B
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' k( u$ W6 O2 C! f4 m, V
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
- q' o. X3 o, {+ q$ |: |  g. s/ ereporting 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, 2025-12-4 07:40 , Processed in 0.141211 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