埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2097|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 8 |% `6 E3 @' T' X& P; ]; D, k
4 O3 z% _" X7 s& U
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。0 _8 L6 g, V& a
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。6 x/ \4 |1 ~: Q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
5 g4 L1 ~! u; y9 G4 E: e2 {
7 G- V8 p, `' `. @http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
. t/ P0 \8 `" X9 J$ [/ M* U9 N0 M, r; r4 E2 m4 G
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
8 ]9 W6 ~; o6 T( z; M/ J7 o+ f4 P& q, ]
英文原信附后,大意如下:5 a1 \# m- j0 Z
; {& O# e3 W2 s/ C2 l: d2 U
斐尔,
  P; O/ ~0 A& e( X" v" B0 H       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
8 b" I8 |, w- W" w* ~* Oemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
  u$ X; ?4 ]! ]: Z& 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
' U) R" t! W/ L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7 D+ W, Y2 a5 t4 o: m, O$ O
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。' g) O  q' ~4 r8 y( \6 L8 f5 i8 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, W2 y- S* w! W1 x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
2 d% \0 |& ?+ j4 A. q3 n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# t" f7 w; y# }# {4 r& J( {
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。
  k0 K5 F, c2 }       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$ G4 W' U3 e2 \9 O0 U* C
,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9 ?# w$ B* N, f; f( X8 ]4 K6 g, Z
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, g( F8 n6 y* M6 L- p' t. n
       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 U' S# X) e( l3 |7 W# c4 I7 Y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( R( y) K% M$ T  Q% K/ C6 ~8 j9 P
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。' |6 \% {' y" d5 h  k
       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! }0 u  V7 ?, @; M' ~( A1 |
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 u5 }; n7 {8 g
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
7 ^4 h, [3 A5 U( O/ g9 ^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& A: }/ t# n3 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
$ X0 D+ K, N" t% z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
4 S  K. G8 O, h) f9 a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
' h; ^% @& m3 J% t  n! Q。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
' e* E- R8 ]7 }录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。' P8 ?6 S1 Z) i4 [$ A4 `
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4 k* X( D* ~; f; [% 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
, v# E1 s2 @0 r6 i5 A" Q  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( a$ a" _0 g8 h
同意见的专家。
+ u, A, `' q, l$ w& Z) V( b: X; E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
, M3 H7 F4 q3 J+ [, O! ?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 I/ ], r3 O" v1 L/ P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
/ z2 G8 |: {- `  |1 ^6 e) @《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
6 A. c2 F2 f$ ^& x' rCallaway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), g% u9 W) M. Q; N' L% G
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
' a7 X0 d0 m) c" @1 s8 H4 M1 k《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. M, \2 S1 @! `& k
这些被Callaway忽略。
0 L% t0 d9 Z2 ?4 u* C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
/ m9 ?4 c8 y8 Q  B9 c9 a, C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
+ D8 q- R: {/ }, A& Q教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。  ^( k: M( @3 m1 w6 j3 ~) b* M5 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
/ ]  s* b6 K# ~' Q* p5 G+ c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
$ t& p  p) ^' h. 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
7 x3 J5 {, x3 S+ S) t% o( Z2 C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。& o# o( e) ^. a; C5 |8 s
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0 k, k4 N9 L- v$ z5 B
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
& }4 @2 {0 l( T# F( R1 c3 R  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: R0 w- o) v6 B4 z* n  k
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
" m' o+ n1 j( }' r( O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" v0 z: L) \; F' K$ L% X
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
' R( S7 E6 x! f0 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3 t' ^; Z" @- Z2 V  U
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
& d7 A$ u9 g5 x9 L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+ v( j7 o  X+ d( r
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
& e4 L4 Q' E  O* T1 K9 t我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
/ h+ \: {  \3 U, R
. A2 X0 c) `2 e# M$ O6 b
7 ]) P' C, g9 N! Y* b" g/ K& l北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 {6 E1 F( d/ k' g5 T
$ q9 f) y% V) [8 J9 g5 @
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
" [$ P" i3 H9 u* ~, _  o附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
* N! E. f2 x7 D附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见; W5 W, ?4 O/ r# q& ~
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见; I5 ?2 c+ i8 Q: Q/ \  @( K
: i$ A. q+ n3 y9 H4 b

: S0 t, v8 Z$ Y6 T, l2 b4 S. ~( j( j" \- O
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)2 Y) J( Q. |7 Y9 T/ o' e6 A3 k# C
Dear Phil,
$ l4 {! w- D6 w2 ^5 F! y       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
- q' z9 o2 l1 `report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
0 K0 u5 ]4 I! I8 D! khours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed& R; M: l4 o9 H, k  N
you.+ ~8 O& S+ G  B8 L2 Z
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
& ~; X: y" c2 N$ n- ^brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese+ R0 Q& g: ]9 t% p% a( `
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: k% h) e8 S; @0 o/ v% V0 Eworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ S0 A8 c2 ~( q( u$ s5 F
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
3 Y/ [1 f; R8 Xseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news; j2 J6 j: h3 y
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
; ^8 C" P3 J7 u" h4 w) t8 g       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' ^3 X5 ^- f) a( x/ M& h" K0 `" [; s
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ [- d) U0 x, U, N1 v. s
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
" ]: h1 N' z, N1 B* ?' dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway( P" Z: e9 _2 D" c
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping1 t4 a6 y' u: }" T# M4 K
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
' [) [: |* v' d% bstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
. r! \0 G( q. \# Q( x1 x4 H' Sand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
* V3 ]8 `: b& \+ gto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news: L4 N- E8 K3 W3 m" X
reporting.  S& A6 G9 \% s6 V
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have1 y/ L0 O0 a, h5 R' B$ t: f
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by- s# H  X3 D; B9 L
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in* a! M+ t# T# e$ S) f3 H* M" T
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A7 G+ X3 R( Q( u4 d: O
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
  @( C8 C4 c, w( ?" w  I       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; C7 r) c: W# a0 q
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds  a  G3 _6 D0 J. q5 A
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
* A" X- }# |# f* a2 [* gmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
) U4 `8 ]* I/ H' L# ~event for men, with the second fastest record.& |( y1 V+ b: r. e3 Z
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
) K& {: Q8 t+ Q! k, pwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
- k* M2 [1 {( a+ o8 z! lyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record+ H+ j3 ]' |; G; }
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4009 K9 k" a7 u: ?( v9 G
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% S, G6 D- f8 ^4 `" I4 x2 Wfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; J# |! x) `3 m& I
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
- o; K9 v; H& {: v7 X" tbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
7 S' `; l# f8 |& hindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
* b  D/ C. s7 xthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than( {: y+ T9 z6 C/ ]$ E$ {
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
: f) r5 I9 p+ D  K9 Y6 ]' }0 u: K5 U' Rher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then: |8 x, o# y; G, p5 [; L9 Z
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# g% |+ P& k# @( |9 G8 n, |problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
# J' V2 Y- M% B0 Aswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
1 g" t/ p  V0 D0 ?  j- pteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the* f/ k9 n- w" q7 Y- u
Callaway report.
' _, @  ?: S- \$ z1 DThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more" g* O) A+ Y/ ?' B6 E3 ~8 ~1 h4 J( }
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 }4 @1 Y7 f& Z) |6 v9 \! Qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description& _4 z  _: `/ n7 D
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
" U3 N6 D. }6 ?$ r* {( Bbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
4 _7 @7 i3 Z- L6 yWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
; t+ V* V7 Y4 ^6 m/ W& U  npublicly voiced different opinions.
9 w# E1 w( u1 r$ v- IYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD* R2 q  o8 p0 v9 |& p
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature* H) i; J8 H) F5 x4 G8 B/ A9 |) x
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent6 v9 P  ^. U# `+ J0 x  V" g" F+ k) M
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
$ u( J, N$ ^# g3 ]# g7 D3 uyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy$ W# j) e& V- H' J& K. t
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.; N0 X9 W5 v% i8 Y- y/ r. s
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think7 e- {& u* G; Z- y
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 u  W; _* P, k3 {" A
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
. J; e) B* t+ M( k: X9 U' hAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that8 H' x/ M! u* k; W5 ^
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
' h$ L+ u; z0 o$ _2 |( f0 usupported by facts neglected by Callaway.  k' O. |& p6 N1 y
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that5 A9 q% c3 d* L0 b2 N+ ?5 N
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
  X$ W' W/ J. g0 m# K- I: R3 z2 oChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June( N" a3 m2 e. L, G9 S6 Z, l( a
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
/ V& `2 J% S: H, H$ F+ sand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.$ X! z- f  O1 m% d# O
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* z8 |: m' o0 }- v3 Oand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 S' O) B2 n/ ^, i8 H
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
  z$ n0 ]$ Y/ R7 I# eNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
; I- K5 I* i6 L. S; Robjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
7 Z' M6 I* \" f% G! |what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
2 ^1 G$ Z+ w, f& {! e. a% {$ N: qrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.+ d4 h% `3 C; |. E1 c% T1 X, ?0 g/ t
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
7 o6 g: h6 B' R6 E7 \show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced: p6 `/ k1 c% U0 x: ^. f
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
$ O0 [. C4 x. H* _) t8 zfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
) h- f% K+ ~4 Hthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' A6 b3 g1 l' R7 n$ M$ h; Q& J
about British supremacy.) ]/ G5 _% X- p  b+ {- v' ]9 a- s
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
8 V; K2 H9 b+ A+ S+ V+ ]unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
  S" I- T* k) x1 f  }. yChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 X4 v7 P) q! ]& G6 D9 v5 y
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( _4 m% B2 I/ ]5 i- ?
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.6 U! x$ D/ @) Z: w0 i
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
8 ~# P- A6 a* D' xprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
" |: n  \1 T3 q6 \* v. cbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 ~2 V& [$ {3 D$ w6 hit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly* {% S7 w1 Q' F: a
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) E& l5 G* z( s$ P1 ^Nature.
% D, j6 O" C$ }" T3 L0 kI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance' o( L+ W* I4 F1 ?5 b
the Callaway report.) G0 d/ A7 e9 H: ]9 Q% Y8 l
2 z) `+ X; n' J8 T$ z; w" k7 T2 s8 k
Yi
+ q1 T# w  i; p4 c
3 g+ k* @' l, ?Yi Rao, Ph.D.
. R6 g7 j3 V& H9 M# j' J( a4 BProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences: \. K, |; e+ \4 u4 D# s
Beijing, China
  G2 j( T- j( B* R" v$ g
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 4 M  s& v: V" I8 m% D6 v# G/ @
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
) i8 k+ f, A4 G$ \  _& n! l
原文是公开信。
/ B4 r7 _; h* h4 u2 _! E  u9 {4 }* d: g! @( d5 p2 l4 Y# G5 L
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 # j$ R) t! W0 b0 U9 q, @+ H
原文是公开信。" G/ A5 v! R! Q% }- {' P0 J5 Q* N

! C# }! i' w9 W; f6 [# u) O小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

: w7 V! z% O1 r- }. g# B: y0 {' ^8 p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
理袁律师事务所
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
7 R/ x! J$ p9 r  H如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。8 }, d. T5 @- ^( H! @' J8 J
& P, r1 `% f0 j9 P" v7 L! A/ g
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html7 Y  M  `, Q$ _6 x+ @

# T4 r8 {2 R3 G5 H; PFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania7 [/ f# L5 h) Y7 j
% K1 y& G) ~  _* R( S
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
3 Y& X* F. J, J' F# }, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 ~3 d% k; _# s. v
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this9 T/ t! M9 D; }% y3 M% U; a( o
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) ?6 s. K7 G" escrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( j  }6 r- E/ a( |$ C
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( K2 u% @1 P0 \, q- [should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,4 P3 L3 H2 }: R) k% x4 }% T
which they blatantly failed to do.
5 c5 A2 w+ [8 T: @& I8 b* B0 E% J3 I% D
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her* k6 D! r3 C" x2 V2 f
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ g9 z# e  L. o. J+ ^1 B
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “) ]5 d# ?- h( H: g
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 r9 ~8 Z$ n4 M2 g- H5 Q- Npersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
- I) W. {1 n/ }) G' Zimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the. k& m% s( S) y; c
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 g/ ^0 I4 {4 W
be treated as 7 s.
2 }  V, E6 U& w* i! H
+ ^2 l3 h: H% xSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
. a; `5 x+ j$ n* Q; xstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem) u( \$ J) Y0 h4 x0 T: f
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
* r0 L7 d2 B6 U8 \An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% f) E- e- x  W6 G& Z4 q5 l& w
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
. v' q3 C6 P* H; J7 O( pFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an! O' e, F  E0 D4 }
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and/ Y! m, g1 m8 f$ U( F! C
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
- T) d8 z' _  r$ J! nbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
, y6 B0 K- K8 r+ V9 ]. W$ x" o9 i' h2 a9 n) B/ D
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
3 P( x& Y* b& U# d8 |example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
( ]7 S& n  ?2 |the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so/ n% K% _2 P' z4 O$ R4 G  M6 A
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
* Q1 S0 \6 j+ f4 R3 b4 t0 H+ Aevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
/ W: g. T8 `8 w3 [% L% w  `. d+ ~best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* |7 s$ ]% w0 }
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another: Z5 j, ?% U  Z5 e
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 B- C0 b7 G9 O* Ohand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* }4 @& @  K2 y1 b1 }, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ N$ J6 Z( z2 i% h8 B* q! hstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( W( h  z- \7 m6 ~8 vfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. r; j4 |; k. ?3 x7 _4 R
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ _; d8 [, w5 J- z2 N8 J. M, v
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 ?; |- P4 _4 z0 {' ?7 V5 M
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
" z9 ^, N$ E. c" ^. k
% W% }0 C) P" N  P. eFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are) `/ |! G( a# p: [
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.930 @# F4 O6 Q+ r/ z6 x( R
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
. }9 B1 z6 k9 f8 H/ T# i& q), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
* t: e  A# L4 h" R9 a, dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) `0 P8 V6 u2 `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 O8 C! e6 ?, _$ }$ H0 ]6 D
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' G* U' Y; j# F9 K8 X" M
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
( J4 Z: I! v; G' k2 U5 E5 Qevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science  r' a8 C) j' R/ u4 d+ L
works.
; E7 q0 ?- i/ Y! w5 M- \
: s  t( I8 O: m- F% r7 J' G9 bFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- w& M8 N1 M, R* c
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this) d% ?9 _5 r* N5 ~) ~7 {
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ g; {5 j, n' Y5 @) t( g/ j0 {
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 L* f& u1 N3 d$ lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* F6 k4 O2 @2 c
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One6 h2 t/ Y3 O8 D- o
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: W0 p) B- _0 i' W+ e9 ydemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" a; i  |. F. L9 K$ s  N* b1 W
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
# t$ u) N0 F7 _! |3 c; e; Fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is# d8 H% y+ t4 a0 l2 I" e
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he7 s- r" M4 G2 V- p/ z* W8 Z( {/ R
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
# @: Z0 E9 Q, i7 ?+ z( Y" |0 Vadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& \, v; U7 w* A! O: o9 S
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
8 e! p6 U0 S5 p( j' J8 Cuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
8 w! I/ d: p( c" n- F( s. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 g' l$ C* |0 v) _8 v3 [
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) n" F, k# _+ Zbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# E7 M2 [5 G' M0 q% n- Khearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
( s2 \! X5 e. C3 }" uhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
* V, V. D( x4 S$ Xdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:( G$ U- w0 O" z9 ?- s0 a# x
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
' O$ x, p$ q9 O, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is5 X4 T  M+ y& k4 c0 y# r& B
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an" I- G3 P) L9 J5 y$ h+ L4 p- A
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
/ h4 S+ f! g/ |% n! {. Ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
! Z$ C6 E* Q( U( f9 @% @Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 l- ]( ~( _( A$ aagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 P; q4 q* B$ v2 V" Z0 L4 u" H
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- e# Q3 `+ k: c, g& Z- K
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?, o+ U8 |3 P8 n* L$ \+ N2 E8 l

+ r" g' q" M2 i0 PSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 ]3 V8 k9 U/ Y+ m' R- J( Hcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 f; N( g7 _$ [. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( M' m# f9 f1 Z; a6 {& _Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
6 Q- t2 L$ w% w/ r& rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
4 U/ s5 ]3 u* H' F& P- R! Mdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic4 Y7 c2 ?: |$ |
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope5 T/ |$ F* o3 i$ i
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a! [* q# u' E, s( Q3 M; H, V
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this7 o5 N0 w- m' y$ v% Z' X# r! T
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
, k: w+ t- [! f- e7 R
0 |/ ?& r$ M6 q, }. sOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! j2 b- u+ g+ @$ }: A, m. O
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too) G5 [3 c: U% j0 Y0 [1 Z+ S. U* _
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
# K8 ]7 _) p: Bsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
1 B4 F9 v4 r  C. ?0 w0 H( O1 Wall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 H7 C; Z& C3 h  o
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,& D4 i  E/ O6 X8 q" L
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your6 s- h  Z8 d( E; \* E* @" `
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
) y$ U$ Y/ O& E+ b# qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. z4 m4 ?( i, Z7 {& {- c' j2 r
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, 2026-3-3 18:06 , Processed in 0.143204 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