埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1834|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
+ b; T9 W9 ~2 u+ L) |# e, q
8 C6 V' {+ p3 W8 E  g. \& _0 h饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
% S* S$ @' K- ]- I- w6 m3 g) X% T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。
  r( U0 q, ^; y. F' |+ d总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
  f4 a$ a. x, H) i& A& u# N
: j7 y! k8 Q2 \: N* Khttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html: g% o# y$ M) R* ~
4 O! L1 ?/ \( q- }5 ?0 W
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
$ T0 F& N+ S* r- U1 |8 m+ x5 M6 H
& z; u1 x. }4 s- ^5 G2 M英文原信附后,大意如下:
# }# I5 N6 C. i$ Y8 f1 |3 f5 M, z  O. C& {$ j) ]
斐尔," d$ L- E% ^9 b/ {+ 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( |6 L5 r, s% H! r: m
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
' U& {& e* _" O9 b* \2 b0 e       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
* W' R$ S! q$ ?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 k5 N' s$ M* a8 c1 c5 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。' N  E  P, S/ C( [
       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
9 N# x* N' s: R! A$ j+ z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% q+ x2 t: R2 b% [0 u' T$ j& l& W$ `
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" \6 q* k6 t9 [( z+ 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。- s1 C8 R% Q* D. s; o2 ~7 O+ f3 e! }
       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
* [+ B; b. X' y* u; J: d,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
! `' \! j( ~4 _+ x: c8 h3 |8 i”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
5 x! \4 {: a8 X9 S- b! U       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
' ^7 ]. ?2 o, n' R) _比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快
4 [" Y$ l# Y: N. B* A. n; Q,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. ~6 G3 l- W) J$ r$ M1 M
       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
* m% H, w3 E; J2011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) Z+ k  v: G7 U6 l1 L. Z' T( f  J& I
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
% w# W1 L4 ?  k. 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) H" L& V: ^" k# E
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
2 V% j# C$ s: z, K- h( p; 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
0 \: l* `: w" Q# V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" d* F1 ?+ Z1 x" b: H3 v# d* d
。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
7 ?& K8 P% X! b- F录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
" K! r4 D1 L5 W. e; }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. R& c" O1 U* z* I  A/ i
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
( ]$ v3 T6 ?0 d' O" {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
0 ]" V, C$ \: F/ A8 v: `同意见的专家。
: c" W# X3 y9 N8 _5 _+ O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
2 q: l1 U3 T6 f- b3 s1 L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/ Z# V! d+ e+ p* 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' Y+ g0 ?# z6 t8 e
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。& h! g( t7 y) O6 p9 a
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)1 Y# r& T( {* L, i% f+ h1 h+ H7 |
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
" Q1 K! e/ ~1 d% E. |4 P《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3 g- {# o$ Q; l
这些被Callaway忽略。- U' N% m" ^2 q/ \! R
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: n+ Q( c6 @5 Q- X( {2 {
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" ~6 j9 j) u) D1 g
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。7 H- r  Z6 |7 v5 {4 }5 J
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* I+ X) I# U" {0 W, p( w) z% }
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5 {) I, w+ X# B6 N2 K' Y
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
" h5 b# ^. N! F: x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。
% L! ]- }' q  V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
8 l& V7 F# ?: s6 L& f5 Q3 v2 E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! ?% j3 B6 q8 k. E( O
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. i" ?  I0 |. a9 o
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. E0 B/ F( J( y9 |7 m! l3 a+ j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
  x* B( U4 A- ^) _+ V+ v4 e' ?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
) t( ^( U9 z" t: G1 o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
8 l* E7 R8 U) X& w  Q! _0 ]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/ q# j# \: S& Y$ E
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
% N; Z/ r  {1 }9 e/ F而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 }/ c5 y  \- a3 }+ r我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。/ C. {6 k/ O6 ?) Q7 f

* F* a( n, B  u0 J! Q
5 r) r9 j; n5 g; ]6 T2 @0 i北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
# r, w' W5 Q! a1 s% H5 c: P
) G4 K6 Y( w* z! ?0 Q6 }5 `附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结2 \" T9 v/ H6 k6 J! ~7 a
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
. Q, ^8 ^, P  D) e. e; Y2 _附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
& w3 e# e$ d4 K附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见7 x6 l' @2 S7 e. b, C
) ?6 _! i) M: r& R

; z/ e* y9 d- \! S- T( W7 x  j& ^: j/ {
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送), p6 h8 Q6 T! b4 V  q+ a' Z& e: O# n
Dear Phil,
6 I- W) C8 ?/ W: V       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
. f* ?/ A" g" v  oreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 L/ Q4 a: z' \* R# N( \: [hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed" Q; z% f! F7 u% i, p. g
you.
' O5 p7 ^7 C3 a" L       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have, b+ M6 g5 _  i! X
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
& m- Q, t- s* G0 q% g. o. P) _# K- [& k; Jreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the8 Y: v. A  g  q6 X
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature: [' F3 b. P2 B* Y0 s0 J! W
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# S8 V8 \& F3 r3 o8 C1 |5 sseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news  H  v9 ~6 c7 O! ?) W  p
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
; r6 t% M* N2 a% [' }       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
# d9 o# ?6 \' f# `8 L# gworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
7 c- E/ M! V" N' B  c* S/ F( v4 Wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish% u) E! F: a6 t7 P0 V; P- I$ J
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway9 P0 K- @" ~6 l% O( g3 A0 u6 k
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping& Q* E2 }7 X! ^& T
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal9 }1 ~( h  ]1 V; G
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,4 S6 C9 x4 R; G# P# `
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone4 ]6 R- D* i' ~. _; w  U+ z. }% U
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news5 a2 g: t& ~7 C% ?. ]0 W0 H& p
reporting.
; B& K* [' ]; [/ ?0 m3 |( d1 ]       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have! [, I, F" R' J2 F" f/ q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 h' r$ p6 k* D/ }, K
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in3 m8 |( z  O' d" x! k$ O
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
( [" \! J6 u' @, j! i  ^$ l; zpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.3 g$ f) D& v+ P+ X$ `
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem/ [/ P, t8 o% e2 _7 [4 [
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
' a: e5 M( Z* h# G. p1 J8 M1 i9 w5 ?faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
% U$ z% w0 }+ c$ Fmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
" o7 W2 `' ]$ D5 |8 Jevent for men, with the second fastest record.% c' a$ ~+ X, y% i- Q
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
6 T) e. O/ T: U5 \6 t' m& U1 l; Zwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
. q5 m9 ~6 h6 F; Eyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 l+ V+ l* H4 x7 R" n. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
# ?  z! L# D6 ~) K# b0 vmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
' z! X2 k! a* f# z" l* a# Lfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) X+ D/ a% b5 o* i8 y8 L+ R* T% qLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
+ K9 {+ ]1 x4 y. ]behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the5 X. ?: w1 ^! O9 x$ v/ E. P
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
* x! x% ^7 s  Y$ L4 v  z* ]! fthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
8 F; x: q8 }& u5 k" B1 Qthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
$ K) F! f/ H% O: m3 r! `her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
. `" x" m" |- ~: A1 N/ S' t/ \he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 U6 d  z/ {9 |, K1 C
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other4 ^/ M  c8 Q& r0 \$ y4 A
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
$ E5 Q) B7 C# \2 \teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
, a7 f) a/ w$ t3 B$ z$ tCallaway report.  r" o  E: k) f/ o" q  u
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more" S2 R4 \: q0 N( n: m
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details2 d% N( l( ~& T; M( I, F
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# h% R" p2 m: i% J2 J( v: Y7 xof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been( E- @* P7 w7 [/ [) a
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the/ |' v4 n; B, p; J# Y3 S
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; c! A5 s8 e4 E' o
publicly voiced different opinions.
+ Y7 }5 N( H. H' h$ a! m2 \; {You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
& h  B: J, I6 u9 cfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature- [9 C, x2 @: M2 `1 f7 c
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent% R4 V" V3 y2 _( k- m& n, r
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds$ G0 n2 {  x0 V  I# Y' P, B( I" W2 o
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; U6 y- V  D7 U% tof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* b- |9 C: e# E. W- b) C5 Q: Z
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think5 a4 Z! z' a# X# R
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They) @! B5 u5 |4 Y( K
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as% g9 X4 ~6 h6 U2 K7 Z# a
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that& ^( _# F) c5 T0 f
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was- e, s/ R0 [) P& I
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.# n2 I9 d: e" C
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that! i& v" w. O4 l0 Z) A8 y9 W
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
) W5 F9 d$ n( O2 U  q5 jChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June& t1 V* t0 l5 m
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 l' Z" S: h0 {
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.. n; L+ U7 N/ `! ~2 D( H+ k9 {: O
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science4 w  w- x. q# R! @" e
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( _2 H  U+ y$ P3 A# L4 ]
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.4 C9 O% n; v! a
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and9 {- i1 ], Q+ V7 U; `/ u+ {' q
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
$ V( r: J6 I: z7 C; D+ r3 @what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
* u& F0 T% q8 H+ Brepair the damage caused by your news reporters.1 ^7 e7 b4 T! ~& X- u9 V, v
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not) v6 r  f) E  E3 t" l( E  y
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced. H" v( X4 D8 @/ v8 U
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather/ A( v% N' W( d& E* j9 i% J* J
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that) r4 v1 _- U1 [+ d: `" N6 k
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( ^- U5 C+ S' h: l5 Gabout British supremacy.6 N8 `3 Q6 ?2 J, ?$ n
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
6 F* F4 P; ]& M2 G/ q; [4 c" vunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more: k+ N  Z+ W' P, y' j5 R5 {8 x
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
; k  Z) o: u2 A; l* j: ?3 U6 Rour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- ?5 C  e8 T; I" fOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; a, N" E4 A$ f2 r! M, g, Y' O) h0 y
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
2 @- `* m9 z" I2 }2 |4 sprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests% b/ H7 w8 ^. k: C7 f6 P$ c% ], a
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
  q8 R3 L3 i/ Y" D, zit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ Q8 j5 L/ @3 ?7 S9 {8 U
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
" e! D! n8 p0 E3 P/ N. DNature.+ w- R+ C; o; N' r7 d' `- @$ T
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
+ V) F" ^( o( }the Callaway report., P) L0 [/ p5 e) y8 h& R

; q# |4 H/ Z. r* LYi7 A5 M# H4 `6 b' K: P
: U) I1 w+ |7 [1 H3 e! w  T; ]
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
9 E: n, R6 [, B( n3 gProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences" f: s" s) M7 z8 b0 k: V0 x
Beijing, China% W3 B: u0 |* N5 |1 u% f
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·········
大型搬家
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
大型搬家
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18
6 N0 \3 O7 r; Y* ]原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

- a/ k! t) Z6 ~& w4 J原文是公开信。- z7 u+ a$ W/ F+ @
$ c) _$ w& ~: s
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
. K6 T+ p8 F( t, z# m9 _原文是公开信。
1 U6 Y- M$ z6 o! |5 ?7 ]) r% }9 C. ^" r: C2 Q$ `  c0 k  x8 b5 E
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
: a6 F! k" s, s/ M+ k! D* ~
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
: p$ y% k( p, Z如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
  t) K/ |& t" K0 y/ J! a7 t7 z- A, |; K; q9 p
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html" ^6 G- J9 w( L: G

+ |6 z' N; a$ I* |' y5 v" Y5 e& q" LFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
0 c4 N: A7 G5 W5 I: p6 u6 N, U& w! B7 K1 k. _. U" N- I2 \
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself; i7 J& f- |8 F# T3 ?$ q, n4 M
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 E1 y: e  K+ s6 |" K
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this  w* ]- N' e: K& _6 ]! I2 \
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the- V6 T7 y. _8 u
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ A# m7 A/ G) ]0 K
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" i; }/ L; b' [" U, fshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,  U+ g/ L' B6 D2 a5 U
which they blatantly failed to do.8 F  J( Q% M3 |/ C% i1 R3 B

0 I2 R. {6 r. A) d* t+ GFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 M* a* h/ w: Z' n
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in+ F5 ?5 W1 d4 \# T/ \
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ z! P$ I" S- Q9 T( U1 x* U
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 s! l  j0 v3 b0 T1 `( A
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
" r& |( R3 ~& W( I6 S$ Iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# ?- `" c( q! }1 g) ^6 Fdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to1 ~: d" `# p* F# V
be treated as 7 s.: U. u0 X9 l$ Z& W( y1 W1 V' l

# g/ K/ Q2 m1 e2 B; W; ^. CSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is( q. o' [) s1 A, v+ i
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, }% M9 d: `' p$ T1 G. A$ y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' V2 p0 i1 f, o
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
# E+ W$ p4 q3 F+ q-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; [2 E: v3 @% f/ s& w3 G3 p# w4 N
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: ]( `2 z6 N9 |# y; `+ R% r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and' f7 j* n2 S3 \. Z6 V
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) H8 B. |( f' x7 Q) b) `6 T+ _5 {$ x
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.: q2 T( u; J: }" y* H

. Z7 p8 @& I' b5 K. T* ^# CThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook2 A/ Z: |+ |, [% n! y! \& ?% w- r
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ m) N# z0 Y8 ~1 Z+ i
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so7 _$ g+ M9 r. B+ H
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ B2 ^! x+ I! W
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s' ]' Y! h- V0 x
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* ?0 O" f8 j7 O5 XFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. `% ?% K: j: c& q5 T* ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( D* P8 c& @8 U- ]) l+ J
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle  E% e, T4 P; A: `
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this4 \* o) @- i$ o% M" k
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
: i$ f4 B. j8 r0 c" Q5 Efaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
1 s# c* {% [8 @" {) v* hfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
; O6 C$ [8 N/ n$ faside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that5 ]8 J5 N/ \3 A3 H8 O; o1 G
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.4 B* S7 S, ^! C7 e; B

4 d* m! c2 E; o. J( C" P0 q% `+ EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are: [: R, E7 F/ O. S' g. p
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) C/ m* f+ O2 A' C
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' k1 L  A- |+ g7 }), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
! B: ?6 X& B' Xout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,+ O, K- H9 b* z6 L
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* K3 z: V! @6 ?5 N! wof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 j# |9 L5 i, C# e0 glogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in& G* g9 Y# U# D/ a  l( _# s/ D
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science. ?0 q3 E' @; l7 Q5 d
works.
% z/ l: x2 ~9 i  t# \  r& i4 r/ D2 E8 l
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( j1 S3 a# j5 j6 Z8 L9 U! Eimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this* e: Y; z) n0 Q# F
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
' V4 F8 ]8 w4 ^standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
5 {: w& Q" C, u- [+ L% ]3 Q, \papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! \$ m7 }. n' j7 treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One4 X3 S" u& H$ o; a' `% C' c( a9 g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& F5 c6 P. s. r0 Jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ F. Y) n; u% }& n" n# X. k  g
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 w8 C  @4 H7 z' Qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is9 p8 n' E1 E, v! ^# P' o6 D
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
6 I% H/ Z6 c: h3 b. qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly- S% R3 P' x: {+ k1 T& j7 V9 z* t
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: n5 r2 a8 P& O) z6 O1 F
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
9 ?" h8 n5 C( z* X# \use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation6 u4 J4 A/ b! J3 e, b' |. a. ^
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are  T' n7 s4 p" `& x& F
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may( E8 M5 M/ m: A
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a& N, D) a1 a5 o' ~5 R: Y# ]- [
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye! \# Q  }; L5 N0 O
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" n+ i  ?/ J2 ]1 Z8 b- U# s
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
8 F% X- b) @1 F' p6 j" ?' Q0 ?other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect0 c4 Z# W/ A1 z) N# m4 O, H' u( q' [
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is  b" \; ?5 N6 Q1 u' _+ P6 P
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% l* @$ ~: T  _  q5 k. Q
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# W' D+ t' G0 R7 rchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 D4 D$ A# o7 \9 H6 g7 dLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping) @) w3 ~7 K/ n
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for; U+ O6 w* d, u% p9 _8 C) S$ T
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances." y3 Z9 d. q: H. _4 H
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( i) P. q  P* o# ]) @. q

2 m6 P7 E% ]( B& @Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
. O# s; E) ?( Y9 ?competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
' f' \2 C$ Z1 ?# ~. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
; j/ R! w. v+ }* P' a9 b8 AOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
# j; q! b  {4 ]3 R: z  dOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
, t! C9 L$ \/ Ydoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic+ y, P- Y. [0 j' k
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope6 _3 H! B, t$ Q: Z" W9 Z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& V( t2 K% e" p0 dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
+ o% C! l0 K% d4 h$ Kpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.' D# {$ M' k% r* W9 @$ Q* b' R0 _

. ~, g# l' @2 \& f+ i' t* N: oOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! g" K& q7 |! ?) I4 G- x. F
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
- q* X( P  Y! S: a, J+ fsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 \1 Y& A+ S  M0 t+ @% P1 V* P7 msuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" V$ W" [" r7 n" uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( U$ A5 K/ `3 X& j; @. ^) Kinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,  y# `$ O. k9 I: a, q% h0 w9 c4 `
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 Y2 s2 n( C; y6 [9 t+ d( x
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* }' ?/ T6 I( {+ c, Q. X
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or) {6 U' ]* w$ P7 `
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, 2025-11-24 02:54 , Processed in 0.124718 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