埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2001|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 , I! w. k2 l8 i
9 y! z* ~! A: A7 V
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
: e0 i4 a) u# K1 h3 Y1 m& 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。
" G- U9 z/ g2 m0 B总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# z( n+ I% j' Y' m. R3 S5 X
8 M5 ^! G9 n/ s, j! v
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html: F, t5 k8 }. m% L" j
! X' c" r' T4 p, J6 v
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选1 o- z! P: J+ d9 P

5 l/ ^0 B  D: A7 t  \5 ?! K9 W英文原信附后,大意如下:
- y* Y0 ]: r+ I) {" a3 C
3 ~  S# p* ~1 R8 p2 e斐尔,7 n2 G2 @1 q/ X3 `
       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
1 ~6 o1 `( ~/ M+ Memail的人里面小部分也给我来信。, m# `) r$ k9 ^+ F' p
       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
: L2 K( p5 j8 p3 d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3 ~' G6 {6 _& c" l+ {
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。  X5 u4 v8 u+ c6 ^- d$ W/ b0 N
       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 U! s) k- W* r% f( \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
% [. n% c: w: a0 h, m2 c( 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
8 E6 _# E0 c& r* 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。9 E% U. o9 ?; p& ?/ 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4 t# M9 d+ q; ^: K) D- P
,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
8 o( ^4 [9 L* N/ w) w”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
4 }% h; [8 ^: s1 W( Z       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
8 }, |8 i" C, u2 d5 ~) P/ {" _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# T2 q! [, J; i% @. u) N
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
1 a* _1 V: N4 v: H1 X7 ]( C       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% C, z* y7 J; |2 z0 u. R6 ]# }7 P" v
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; N4 j- q- l0 t0 X
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
/ C* C* ^0 s( \" r3 x$ l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
% I0 A  P' j9 `6 H& Y; v$ F300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
$ ]- R( `7 g2 w; Y) q" 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
* t7 p1 R) h$ D8 d% f+ s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- |5 ?+ _$ r% A- d" Q4 T' B8 `
。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
# X4 o+ Q+ l" P+ n录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。! T  l) [/ ~. b; q9 f
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
' {! q2 }2 M1 |' ?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
# s+ N- N' G- WWikipedia。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9 b; A* z5 `5 n% G+ ^
同意见的专家。7 ?- G5 _) I  ~# M
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
$ C8 C; q! e5 M, m( t+ ~/ w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
7 c2 w) U! I2 m  |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
/ y7 R7 c. {  g) Y! t- C《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。+ C/ t9 \6 _( A( O" c
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)- B" y* ~" D! E0 j. c  E, V. v
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
1 K( B$ z, I% D- y0 I% O0 n( 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
& Y6 a0 K5 p# i这些被Callaway忽略。6 u- K0 n9 W6 r1 f6 }
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
1 F+ Y2 G0 q5 x. K英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
0 x( Y* o3 _* U$ l. Q教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
' G( _: R! ]; D! L0 Q/ ^0 b3 ?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
+ g! l+ M. \' J6 ]# D5 l1 l- n8 q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3 ?7 w7 A7 P/ ]
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
8 S% T$ b, Q% @! y/ B( ?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。. x/ j5 m& y: j$ z. d
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 U- M' U+ I7 [( F' o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
" y2 t' v* M: C( Z) g% K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
* e9 U  n# O/ A0 J”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: V1 s2 A( T/ k3 L# h9 U! l
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
; ~$ I' K6 ]1 Y! ~# n# S& [9 o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
: h8 i8 U) h% r$ X2 z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" n) g8 x1 w/ c- E9 p$ X
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6 b/ g& N- g, S, \; P6 A1 b
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  z* P# \& @9 d8 A! W' |
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。; n. t! P. V( J9 _  s9 x, u6 V
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
4 O# G' C+ z0 U* ]" S6 W' h, M6 J# a
6 B5 q# i; ~8 y
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
1 E- E! n& j  S
& P4 P* h2 W9 g$ q附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' b0 p7 o+ }% F4 g+ n5 I& v; n附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
* \5 n! Y4 q$ m附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见& q# A; L8 j4 {8 U
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 S9 |, q8 h4 L+ Y: J4 M: I
5 ~) H/ @+ f( j/ o$ m0 K) G) T. @; C) v/ L, V
0 N/ ?9 G: V/ i6 T
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
, s! J7 B5 I: H0 P; RDear Phil,
$ x# u8 h, K3 h  J7 T       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s9 A. j9 Q! F) V" _; [
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 203 Y9 r0 S- j" a) y
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
! p) w+ Z  N$ M; _! s% ryou.2 K% [' Y! T; O2 w7 t
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
% g3 s9 z1 B2 d$ F4 u6 Q$ `  Lbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
$ l4 n) F4 g1 _" Treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
- P6 g$ ^0 v6 \world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
7 a' S2 f; F; t8 v  K2 Tpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more; H4 {* U: n5 D! }( L
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news" X* S  J: r. o9 l) l* N3 @
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. D- _+ ~8 E$ L/ n% N" @
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the( i  ~' ?/ O4 D7 S8 U
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
' V6 t1 T; M) U# y. i! dnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish( K% j: Y  g3 C4 K
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway" h; h# T+ T9 z" ~
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping6 E$ S0 n- m; z# W4 W1 `
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! v/ T$ B+ _$ G( `
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,8 N; f" [& m% R' y, E. T2 A
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone0 L7 w' P% u) j5 D
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
8 j6 a: @  F2 J3 Y$ g- H% r2 xreporting.
9 C/ `5 O; W5 P3 i% k       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have6 Z, f+ b3 o# x, j
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 Y# O  C/ w+ m" }. f
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in& [7 _5 ^( M/ }$ [0 w
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A' E  G0 Y" P6 V- d# _
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
: _& ~1 v+ P( y! b4 I9 z, E       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 d8 z) L$ v+ N5 U4 rmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
0 ^1 K; b: K9 U+ H4 o8 ]  Xfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50! v# f6 {1 a, A
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
# S) _: N" O3 |( cevent for men, with the second fastest record." X: C% U$ h6 W) [3 P' v
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
# q+ T4 k9 G4 Pwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
& p% A! [1 d% @8 Cyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
2 K5 \: v/ W/ z9 O; F. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
2 c) f+ Q# H' r. q- h& bmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
; C$ s; z; q' @9 Ifor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
$ a* @) g! _( ~- _* P& ALochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
- z4 T# T+ O. wbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 q0 P) f8 I# nindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower! {5 m8 }8 F# I7 o
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
( ~; m7 {: g) ?+ O$ I1 xthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was. v" t8 I5 [4 q
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then$ R6 M, K. P8 z" `0 |4 ^+ s
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “  V1 z$ E/ B0 S$ \( U
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other. f8 r$ \# v" ^+ N# S- Q
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the; a9 o3 b* K2 @. _: R
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: A& A* z9 \3 ^7 ICallaway report.
5 H' r" q) I2 j" S. U8 }There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 w! h7 W' ?, e& Z
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details/ D, m/ r7 `; o' z8 J" o
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( T% T8 E% d/ S' \  x( m1 G, V
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been6 [! Y( H9 K: D
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the( p; F% P0 B2 s( s4 [& [
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
2 \! z# E! M2 O5 W3 ^4 q( X* opublicly voiced different opinions.
- ^* K9 q9 |# `- Q% t. M/ ?You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
7 f1 @+ Z/ F# wfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
- `) w; m; L: U2 S/ zNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
4 x, [+ k& _& F, M- w. mpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
+ W9 F5 j* @# qyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
6 V3 h5 R2 k2 W5 O7 tof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.1 w7 C1 f$ C* u
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' W% K: S4 M9 U& v! R3 z& P
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They; E- q6 I# X% l( h. P( Z* r4 N$ N
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' m  h6 G5 w' t$ V( }& J6 rAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
2 L; ^& X( E. A- ]9 A" D* Hthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
) ]% s) {6 H) z6 P6 N( xsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
6 H7 Q/ }! F! fOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
2 o% |- E( s- V2 N5 mmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the' J  H% [; @+ d* w* g+ T
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
% P* P, P% n$ g! O7 D# g(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she0 M: l6 V% c/ J
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting." P: X" U7 a9 q. l* G
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& g4 h5 K$ i, B0 T2 [; r. pand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and' I9 f' |* @) C' H5 o5 C1 R
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.( W' h# s. c$ S9 p! O) S" o
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
5 z) h. L2 m2 u: D' c6 ]  F0 [objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature4 F. ]! N6 \# G
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to3 s  k/ L( Z0 A8 ]0 U! k
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.( g' q# ?: W5 d2 S7 u! ?
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
5 C# R  G7 J6 ~8 I" u/ {show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 `. C3 I7 t$ F, \5 ~
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 B/ P9 M+ e, I  C
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" A8 O1 B" d8 P4 r: \3 `
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( J! n, R8 W9 x+ o4 I( |4 r! W& S% Fabout British supremacy.7 p4 D* F7 T; y5 ^1 q3 k" p! G
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many, q* @& G* M4 \) O  z
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more2 {8 s0 V/ t9 h" v+ g$ s% a/ S
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
" t8 N' h: W" |* x& }our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London- E- E5 [6 p/ N5 Y# H9 Z
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
/ [1 R! H9 }& F# ~. iYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
' q1 {' `3 a& p- yprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
& z7 n% _0 e6 t& [4 _before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
' H# C* ~& j1 x, p# V, `; iit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly6 P4 h5 {0 V: B1 ~( n/ B& m+ e
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
4 B( t3 x) `! z8 s4 N& u2 q) t: dNature.5 `+ g0 e% K- o0 A. S( q
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance! ^9 m( A- ?; m+ p  e- `1 @
the Callaway report.
; @; K7 t( I5 i! r& ]& p: F
9 v; o; a: [5 |$ x% T6 QYi
( T6 M- t' R7 _: N# S# I! ~- e' r1 s% H+ i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.' Z$ R' B0 X7 N/ v
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% q7 n- u2 @& i' z4 k
Beijing, China
4 {' `% W: D1 u) U  V% T
理袁律师事务所
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!!!
理袁律师事务所
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
6 {' c" G, u- d原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
" Q( |' q( T( C
原文是公开信。$ F2 g% T" D7 X$ s

! x& K4 U! ^# t: f+ z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 $ B" K9 R) U1 X6 R5 K! a: |
原文是公开信。* y$ k$ `  ~& K' q  Y) P+ o# e( u

% }' t! `/ K& m6 p8 r小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

; Y; W: f# K& J- {/ Y9 E; ~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. i5 R. u1 p2 [& j6 t
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- F" g/ V" U$ h% l, ^5 {
* W: B+ E: u. H0 n! ]# I
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html7 x3 b: i+ ^3 m9 B7 {+ f

5 w) N0 m+ Z  |9 _2 M% ZFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania4 _( O, q" K6 O2 V" L8 o4 N! N

1 z8 C! u: J, M: }# ^' FIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 C. a! W% I' @  K
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science! Z: Y7 r( B5 s
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
0 }! j( K1 `$ |9 ^! _9 {! qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; D& Q5 q- [0 A* O* ~5 B! R
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" \8 h+ ^" b4 Jpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
# X: s& {' y5 o* Dshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# v  Y8 N# G+ x. K! z
which they blatantly failed to do.8 b, b# C% U( A

# `2 ^4 p/ B* {$ z: i+ w( ]& @, \) OFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) U$ a) p* d9 I) n' Q* dOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in. i$ b6 I' r2 v" m/ L9 Y; |( [
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “0 l6 X8 _8 G4 j* m
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
- @. I  h% \& P, d8 y3 ~6 ^' N1 v/ ~* Opersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
3 [3 @7 g4 N$ j* J" l* J$ O( r, ?improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the! |4 k; {2 r4 {. ^6 e: Q6 p
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' k- W: e% k% i2 a' C2 c! N
be treated as 7 s.  q$ d+ L: J5 y0 w3 }& A* L; R* K
8 S# k5 M4 p9 ?; F* f
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ `2 M* H3 g0 D% P, @still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
# o/ C4 n" M( `. L6 Vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.4 `9 n2 B. V  e* k
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
0 g+ X' G- q% O! M# a: n, r-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; a  ^1 l/ ]2 Q# r0 X2 k7 D; U! C( V
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
) s& y2 X2 ?  y0 S# |elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
/ ~% X  ]8 D+ Lpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, I+ L/ ^% l% Y! S4 Xbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
/ B8 l; L) I4 U* L' ~; k
) r  D6 o' f- p% @% b) @2 [/ \0 eThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
, L5 H9 X7 [1 t6 w+ [example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in0 _! d2 t' B. v5 ]/ y- g
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so% r8 x: R6 g  J7 O1 \* b
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later7 Y- E2 }/ m6 V6 p+ H( O6 ?
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& O+ f" z; G$ j8 @& g9 Hbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
$ U0 K, H! j' V/ k  }) HFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 x! C- ~0 M3 H/ K# ~" i. g6 Vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
$ q4 z; C2 e; @& ~7 M5 |5 Yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
! C5 G$ C0 o' @1 ?) d# a6 x, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this) y. z9 V4 C& q& \9 n
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
* ?1 X" p* n' _faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam2 o6 M, @' g* N: Z, F8 n
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
- V: Z' y- g0 y8 U& Saside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that  W. i1 G! K' W, B' q
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# V8 n& @  f: L- T+ X

8 V# u6 f7 D5 E0 V0 TFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
' u9 G6 ?- e% L5 V( @" d  e% e, P' \four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
7 q1 V7 T" o* d8 e% [s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
7 @2 Q& r& x% `1 M* @1 H6 h), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 p! [) L7 M2 l1 I' Z9 t) \& eout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,( s5 W' I( v3 h4 Y. {3 ?
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: V; J- Y. ]7 z0 O; A% v9 L2 ^  _
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it( h8 M6 W6 t1 v5 ?
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 S3 g# |" P9 X3 x' }. x( h) I* Tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! I4 L" o% ~% K' {works.6 Z6 b  h8 b5 l
- T5 m* \/ z2 p& V4 X/ Q4 g2 h
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and' y* d+ ]- ~; `. [( a- {. w7 h
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! G5 V, B6 A, B+ B7 Y6 f& Z
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
9 L2 a" x6 U7 i" \& L; y5 O: pstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific3 S* p+ x! V/ W9 B* ]
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* p) c8 \0 F$ g! n- H6 jreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
7 A; j0 T+ T" \& z& f" n5 `1 G# o4 Wcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 z4 O; z7 B* _# D! o. P* _; Y& F
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
% P2 `- R/ ^9 k+ F! @to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
+ p. {" J* E6 g5 y% Lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
& {) q7 Q' F" R  o. ]1 D0 x% G* F% Jcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he7 G$ s: e6 t  p/ W
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 [: w; K7 ?/ Y0 ~5 r- t- G. w0 _
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
) w! P, t! x% j& C  M/ H6 f6 `past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
) h# v: x+ |+ ~$ ]0 H3 e3 O, \; Yuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
3 s; E, c0 Q+ x  T+ Q, h. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, k( w9 W, M0 @- W) H/ ~. b7 `
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 D9 q  W3 ^2 q" F# U: {be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( m9 P' }' ?; u% r: ?
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
, K. R# `8 u! f% u7 Chas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a* I: ^+ |- B7 G! L8 Z
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ G, x, b5 E; C& O0 ]other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect  U7 j  \0 ^; d7 T2 I1 c  ?
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is( I& `$ d% U7 q3 v) r9 x# g
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
( @& O2 S& H2 p; p: }athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight& c0 |8 D4 B" i
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" j4 b6 u8 H# @* L  \
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping; e# X$ w" V1 T1 N
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
+ h! \2 C. q2 seight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
+ u( Y0 S9 r& }# z+ oInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?5 r1 S; t' k; C! T9 ^3 C
- E/ c+ c: ?, \$ v1 d
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; ~  b0 }: u. |, ^+ ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
* u1 _  \& w& X. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
% ~, o. X. s- D' V1 q: A8 C! M; yOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% h. _  |" |5 O7 e/ v& u* j8 b( ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 i( S- |8 @7 t- d: a3 C3 O
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic; _/ \% l2 J/ d# D# V* x
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
7 _9 V" c" a1 f' R% ]$ m- D! zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 m, _7 s4 i, Q2 h, }3 O
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) V% Z! h5 ?# `# x4 a
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., ~: ?1 @. H1 Y, N" {

. P: R( J" A+ e4 M* n& D: HOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 a$ ]! @/ F. D2 Z2 C. p- wintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, d/ ?! F# S1 ^$ E4 {6 {suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a  C, Q7 q5 C9 i7 N
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
# r' k7 {7 i  A" |! a5 Kall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
4 t0 s5 z! C& ainterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
$ A* \" U3 B/ Vexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 Y3 B. p0 ^, d2 B
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
+ C' \/ r/ g/ p( i* zsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or3 ]/ s1 L' j8 r. u8 Q9 g. B
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, 2026-2-8 00:38 , Processed in 0.187905 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