埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1993|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 - M; P- u! V1 B# \5 W. ^
5 A, `+ H+ _9 c( x7 C
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。1 [: W7 ^, _$ R* Q
就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。0 b8 K; K  k; d; A: V& {- d
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
3 y3 t( k9 o0 m2 m! @. W9 D- E- u! H, ]
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html. n9 J. v) V" Q
( o5 t' w- P( ~; B$ `+ W
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
  k" k# J" ^, w8 W+ ^7 t* I3 n/ y' t- L3 x4 Y4 e
英文原信附后,大意如下:2 H; [3 x8 L0 F* c! u

) c, p9 ?  j6 U' W; t% \斐尔,. S6 R! N# m0 o% J0 f
       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
5 p' T3 }( L# Q7 Nemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
8 K+ q5 T0 h6 `% ~% a% [       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
! V' ]+ o' R, o8 n# ^: q8 O% w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
# {8 T0 p2 h) F1 n  B: {3 d. ]) d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。
5 b1 H% G& G$ f- x6 I' ^- X       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. n1 o' X" f- _2 ?
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
  Y2 {0 ?/ V, |9 V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: [7 @) f" t  y% u" r
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。4 {  z4 y" x+ L/ u0 t0 t1 G- g
       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
& |8 F# N1 Y% d! A$ C" n,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2 L4 t" K' Y* P1 o
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
- r/ b: {3 Q* H& C& [       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
+ ]% d5 B1 L4 Z, k0 Y/ n6 j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
! H! G2 D. Y% u; L* v,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- m( H- r8 D( ]9 d8 d+ t! p5 }8 b5 b       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
; k" I6 c6 D& K/ s  ^' z! X3 A2011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# Q) N9 H. W% o7 X  V
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# N$ E2 T- ?& S8 W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
8 N% G$ x/ u& d% {6 Y, X: |' q300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' |* g+ I& ?% W) \6 K& H$ {) K
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5 P$ Z! {" [7 j+ g% n: Z8 j+ j
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
. Y( A0 K" R$ ?8 \0 K6 B。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
3 R7 x7 v( [% Z- h9 |3 ~  l4 t" T录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 r& c9 x7 m0 [+ a/ [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
7 J0 S! t. R8 u# p1》,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
' S- `. c+ c8 V$ \; \8 ^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! ], W3 c# d# b  g# a! f- X' {
同意见的专家。
) L( j8 f/ r+ \6 p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8 A, C/ z7 N$ D, \; _( {  W- k
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/ x4 @, @; R4 {. M& B
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& e1 G; u# {% @' f3 i" C
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
9 p$ x! O* y- z! L1 oCallaway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)8 H+ e1 K: ]- N/ L
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# V7 ~2 [3 Z5 v" u- Q0 _
《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  U, R/ [% l1 x* ^
这些被Callaway忽略。
; P" D9 z4 {/ |9 w; u4 V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
; ^; \  j% O$ p4 [# X: o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8 f7 @: v7 n) W) [+ V
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 V9 b( w+ k- `. j1 a( O2 R( S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% W4 j& N6 a+ f5 a, B
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. u  N* S! u5 i% E# |* R: d# Q
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 J* c. O7 J: c2 |+ [* m1 }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。
7 J3 c) p! q$ V; l2 c" p, i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3 p3 A! ]; G2 `" M
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" M2 X4 _/ i: _: R  O- F
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
. R. Q. k1 f3 L' [- `, E”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。% A; M$ A2 c1 R# t5 O$ C$ E5 Q. A
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 s7 N) t% K: |
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
! f$ p3 _; M7 s( P5 s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
& {; r1 I- y" s# g: J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1 O" ?; K, r" \" g0 k+ 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( o7 Z9 r$ F2 g& k" c2 I6 j& E
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。. T! M4 @# _+ v4 p; u
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 ^. @8 Q. y( \; w
" _' \/ Z0 x( |2 `1 _" [! {7 {' |4 `
" ]9 E! f( e5 K) ^5 ?" W
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅+ h+ P, o+ q" W! \5 M3 H: S

9 j$ ~  ?1 ^7 z9 w附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
9 T; M! g# E, c+ @  v2 \* D- e附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email# V1 @# H8 P. V) B
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见5 c5 ?: |) N, [
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 q, p7 ]0 _; V$ }1 z4 t
0 j, s- A9 c% Y' d2 L; G) D- o5 ~, p" i  }" I
3 w/ q8 q. l/ o. Z
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
7 i) a% v: Y" [% iDear Phil,
( K, Y* E* q; ^' p* S. Z* ^       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
$ a) ^% d* r3 S0 L5 G  ^0 _" p: Greport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
% l! N3 a! Y1 G* y4 p3 Hhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
, b; |% u- m% o+ y& hyou.2 c# {% Y  q+ [2 j0 F7 `! [& I# ?* _
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
* U9 B) H; h% G; z# I; l; Dbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese9 c. N; T& H6 @+ o, Y
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ P( L5 X0 _) ~& N0 F3 d/ e' Iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
( l1 i9 z/ {' \publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more, T2 b1 f: i0 V) l
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
, E% S. H) j) R4 r7 _: Rpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.* Q$ o* o4 U1 E2 C) P( s
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the: F  [' }" H0 f7 X8 [( U
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
/ z, f7 e' d- G6 q) S! Qnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- [! U) E& X7 n% F6 x( S9 I# \that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. h2 @. U" v  V+ Q+ o/ i
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping5 q: q, s( J0 R
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
8 `  j9 D1 L6 D% u/ V" Ustandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,  D/ b9 A2 Z8 n4 G& {
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone4 x& D! j# b) f& |" q3 Z" w0 e
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news+ m& z+ @( Y2 ~% y' N7 w$ n: Y& @  h
reporting., v# _/ o9 }8 C
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
3 U% U, d% k' a2 a( u, ^; zalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by7 U: H8 ?; L0 m! x. O7 z. X; W8 }
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in# K9 ~3 r( O2 y, c* X1 j4 J
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A9 C* x9 r  s' F# A) n
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.8 P: V& M; s2 ]1 F/ h7 ?2 w
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem% B- t& N( x+ }7 L0 q
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 Z( y+ `+ V- V) L3 m% R  D! q
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
: W9 C" O7 b5 W$ {0 Dmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
% [* O; w% m1 J5 t4 f* J! Fevent for men, with the second fastest record.
. a6 |9 E+ V/ C, c1 `7 R" s( r7 Z       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
; v0 S2 C4 W0 b+ I* r' Nwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16# N0 M' D8 Q7 V
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
' K) V3 F0 h0 z! B! O& ~) z7 D2 W. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 w" j: i8 @$ N: m- _: ^meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 f- q! }3 W& F: k% u9 Dfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" J5 a( Q: u' g1 Y& t- O4 R3 W
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
, w, p) T9 L9 i) n) sbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the4 M- V: Q+ p% @) r( c& ?
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
; z) N; W% u, y" nthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than% D" E2 I& e* i& ]: Q8 S# ]$ r
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was! ]0 u. q% V4 P" Z4 T7 p9 ~
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then6 G, W9 ?7 i. I7 e1 w! M
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) k  G# i* U, S9 y! t! b( mproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 r% k' y% Y; J4 @
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the$ ~3 k& p: T3 |; P$ j9 B$ j
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: w; y# M7 h& ~Callaway report.
4 O3 x/ ?) n+ S6 UThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
6 ~- K( ?% }8 p* p3 ^understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details  l4 f! U) h5 s! E3 G& o+ x- k
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
& K) z' F+ e& C. @of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
# ~) @1 D* u# W8 B% h7 Ybetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
3 w' V# w# j3 H7 i$ MWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
; {# z  W$ |2 v- r8 ^) C  n# Ppublicly voiced different opinions.; d4 A# X3 ]& `2 A
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
: V# V% Z. M3 C: r. H7 B% X0 ffrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
5 f2 q8 B8 t- E/ p! \Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
6 ~8 n' a( H# T: t1 y4 c( Ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds  f7 P7 z0 y9 e! |1 ]; T
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy8 }5 H: T+ Z2 H$ S/ W! @
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.2 d# v9 e( K1 k1 H( w+ [
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think0 a' h! j! u3 A2 ]+ g% y$ x# i
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They, v6 q0 ^: d9 v8 G% T$ D4 U
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as/ T6 l& }) {- @) M0 I
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that" Q7 r% g) u! b/ ?; E8 h$ @
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was0 [! f4 q: [" D8 n3 W, `( X
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
+ |7 K  o8 Y1 OOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that* ^* D: z) _& Q4 l8 e* W/ f% {# s
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
$ n5 r/ l0 j2 F5 a; d$ L3 BChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June% i% g$ {5 L5 n2 M# ?& ]
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
) V$ \6 o, Z7 C* D* rand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.7 g# f. ^% r) p6 K$ f; C0 \
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science4 z1 @7 Y& w! c  S5 ^
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; f/ R5 t4 \: C
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
# `/ }4 H; D0 t5 G6 k# B. G9 i- ^5 ~3 vNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
( u! ~) t  W% S5 q( R1 iobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 Z3 @5 F7 W) g
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to( f. {4 l+ N- [  W
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
1 _7 c/ ]1 |) o' \# eThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not5 D# A7 j" s; a+ J
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
& O" z. K, E7 ?# p, ]. _/ }% Fus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather0 A. F( d# B9 L0 d, S
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that8 D  |' B. R7 L$ W
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”6 ~( U7 o% k9 n0 }9 a8 W, N
about British supremacy.
0 D) _, y0 T2 ZThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
. e$ i' U. ]9 y4 A% f7 dunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
) f2 K% |( Z6 X8 l9 A# G2 P$ k: }Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
6 E5 }, Y& W8 L) E/ lour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 X2 A7 \* a5 T# V+ m- z: zOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 c+ I# P) z" {, u# t% P! ~
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of7 E3 E4 \& M- ~
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
4 X  p5 k4 Z$ d+ tbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- S3 r& \7 k& ]  P+ u4 Yit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly0 n- ]% J, t& C. D
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like' c) ]$ _2 C& K
Nature.
4 H# j. I/ m) r% H7 ~I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
  J: j6 a8 E7 i7 F  Lthe Callaway report.
, P& g# u* K8 ^9 V  W7 |  s. T/ t: j1 m* B
Yi
4 W" ~5 S1 H& z9 C" c& O- ~% g$ N; q4 P) ^
Yi Rao, Ph.D.# R1 Y  k$ V6 E' h. l) P
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences0 S9 S! b9 M. C6 H
Beijing, China
) O  I* Z8 D) |! p  s+ f# R
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 p, W% w9 e! s/ W( @+ @4 j+ k* \4 j# W原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

8 a1 K, [! q& O/ O7 N0 i% [& V# _原文是公开信。
  @" V4 e; W# p. A9 h) K
) V5 {! e7 V. {2 Y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 5 X2 j) a) Y: z0 X0 v9 `
原文是公开信。
  X9 i. M0 _0 N; P# W3 \9 R( w5 e) Y9 b
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 R' {- ~! f3 c/ ^% X0 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 JIANG
& |5 F! e5 B: s5 e# ^; n如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。  h4 b( |/ s7 E
% U# k; F+ f) d8 a$ k6 X
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ H# b8 D% D, Q5 h
$ G" b+ Z) u3 t) F3 O3 BFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
4 T  `- Q/ E6 u# a% S* @9 O
. z. k1 U5 F: M7 }! iIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 X% ~9 G# i% d, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
$ x7 h8 |$ B) n. s, gmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
7 b( ^  L' Q) I& n) gis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
0 Y3 l# e4 _) ]3 u( ~2 Wscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general4 _& r3 O+ h7 W8 ^
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- _. _! \/ d7 F% Yshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# c* a3 S' i  w2 C! D( e+ R) ewhich they blatantly failed to do.
6 Z8 O7 W+ u* z+ l" d5 {. `
4 S$ P0 C% w6 {# }First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her8 ~4 V" b; |( n1 ^0 X2 R" k
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' t( r+ A9 L$ N8 U9 Y! ^) X' l7 X
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ Y1 }( J4 m. \- Qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 Q" D2 ]7 }0 j9 p8 w' ~
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an3 Y) @4 ]! u/ o- f( L
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! x7 \8 C8 s7 Sdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 X  C& J& c% f2 i# y0 w
be treated as 7 s.
  v$ O: V5 R' d# t$ |0 ?% x9 o$ @8 T5 l/ D1 K, Y1 [0 g
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is' i! k2 N( J/ X
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, f) g) }8 w2 S" J# s$ A8 `
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.* G5 {6 E# D* b. z- ~8 Q
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400& L/ c& x1 e4 v" i4 h3 B
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
; y4 W" r, D' r$ j8 D( `% oFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; `, N9 E5 P& a
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) G5 m$ ]* a/ ]. `3 g- S
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& o& r& [# l1 f) u0 c
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.7 j1 N3 a8 N& ^/ }" b! p! @- O- {

5 _! A- a5 j; f# [0 }Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. m9 a% c9 Q+ \$ E/ [7 C5 {
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& E$ e) D' t# S$ N' X
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) Y0 A) t" ]. ?) U" che chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
+ d; T8 S3 q& I5 Y( zevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 ^% \; e% h& Rbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
9 n& K5 d9 V$ W8 Q' }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. L) r) |; u  a: C! b3 D1 Btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other0 |8 l; H2 a2 i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& U( E6 f# e2 f3 ?' e& S) F8 g, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ A) Z4 x  Q$ i% Estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds( @! [' x% Z0 F) {+ c. r. O
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. A/ t: @  p+ ^7 |$ Mfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% T* r; n  J! l, e) kaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% h( q- @( a: ?" d. H3 oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; @) B$ `1 x( w- `
3 H6 N8 h' y6 z$ r$ ^7 `% T! F1 HFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ V) g3 h6 x7 \
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 x2 e  h1 i( e1 z& N
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s5 [3 ], L, `1 G9 x( Q! @
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
1 S7 q5 {# p$ X8 \- l# k# r; _$ l4 }out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: l3 C( r) a- ?
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
, a: ~+ ?; J# q7 O8 cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 R  O* J1 c& [6 K0 _6 s9 p$ q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# e8 b( ~6 X2 e6 z4 L! @every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, d  t5 q" t3 D6 ?. }/ M5 D: z; lworks." o$ ?& W# W7 S/ n; W

" m3 S% |1 t! n  f# Z/ _" f% bFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 b5 p# K0 g% B. I3 ?0 Z( a6 @
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
$ V$ k$ Y2 e4 }) Y- X$ R  Ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 {8 F& N7 V, v; R  J
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific0 m- ~- X' U7 `
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
# u  I1 o( \# |5 Z. Vreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 T  A! u" H8 @
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 e9 T4 ~. U+ ^& O
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works- A( n' g/ |; ^& B) I9 \8 }. w( P2 Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
, O0 R- L  k  t! V4 q  _is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" a0 i0 f3 f0 t- I  H8 bcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he4 @8 `4 o/ D1 R& T2 Q* e
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 s3 a& U+ j. I) o* S  eadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& ?5 Y- B0 O# Q& D2 q. P; b
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not9 F0 ?, V9 u5 S1 t' h# @7 R
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( D/ C. z  v# ?/ \* n3 p1 O5 l; K. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are( D) c7 U5 @' s+ {- Z/ }  j& l* h  L
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 ]6 o& V8 e0 A% h' `be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a2 J1 x, k+ v, A# ^( m. E
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 a8 _# {  l9 H% o2 o3 e) q
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a, I2 t1 l/ [$ G; C. h! ]' t6 E
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- y  g" G6 B/ l0 `" X! l& @other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect# e6 z; {; B/ a2 y/ t& B' x
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is5 T* ?: v' S8 Y4 \9 I' L
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( n( C1 E, m1 Wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight3 M* ?* s3 A) k) E! m5 ~& W! G
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) K: f2 K: A! X* Z* Y
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ w. q: w0 U0 @agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
6 t% G" V* T) a/ G( M$ neight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: Z' \  D9 d- P- W  ?. X* x2 kInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: f; F; d& ^& u3 p* d! j2 ?1 l
% p3 I8 J5 I- T* N8 ]- ISixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-# M8 k% p! c3 g! c! G9 i% `) t
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
9 K# F- ]* h! p) `. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 X! h' b, _+ j+ Q
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London- b7 E: S: k  O9 c) n
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ N$ O3 I) V8 C8 J  L
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic$ |3 S; O" C0 P) @
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope! d% ^: B" x0 [- x& s7 H, T
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* w' ^" v6 s" j% Nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% l1 t6 j- \8 B( O& n1 hpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
4 w# F: ~  p' ~. n0 u% v
# Z6 u  x1 Q, `7 s" MOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (7 u1 ~8 z. k% ~
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. q! s" q9 q/ q3 e8 qsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 G. u) R- D; j8 Asuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 R' D; y& @& @! E0 t; [
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  ]) W- b- q/ T/ k& ^/ X) ^
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,! c5 n' f4 R; M+ Y
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 w. O) e) `, o. t
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal. h% w  v3 k. N! X! X9 |6 \7 r
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; R; {* d+ b% i" g3 \, I; ?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, 2026-2-4 13:22 , Processed in 0.167311 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