埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2308|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
1 j7 @1 [0 D+ W% f% |0 z
4 t" a0 G# A- c$ o( D/ X饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# [, I% c5 i1 Y: r  P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。! I( Z% s! |) ]4 W% N- O
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
0 f3 @% C3 d- l  M1 {$ x  I/ ?' I" F+ P& w. X* _
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html5 b8 {. r" o  F
* ~3 g% L. ~7 L
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选3 F9 _* z" g4 x3 Q* a# W( e

! ]) K6 y7 @% Y  g4 O! d. V9 I+ b0 o英文原信附后,大意如下:
% I+ r8 E9 V( M
7 s* f: ^6 L/ G0 {; I, \% L1 f斐尔,
: X/ l0 B1 K' G' J5 t( |/ e6 U# }       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( _2 ?% F. f! ]! Q) B
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。1 N8 m, R7 K& w9 l3 ^) a! f: ~0 a$ n
       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
. N2 Z3 a; \. Z3 `$ {- Y9 s+ G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
- ^  U+ g0 }8 P( ?/ t$ G2 N* Q' T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 |  r0 t  n" t2 V       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* O$ E. ~$ O0 N8 [% [- b9 f& g
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* g4 \8 z3 Q9 k+ z, h4 ?
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" W3 P1 _( [" S2 E
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。
: G- h$ m- j4 b* ]+ D+ s+ j: u0 x       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
6 }* F  L2 F# r5 m0 @  ]* v,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
! h' v# g* q8 [' K& v”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。* q* R# @% h  M+ a  z& I, g( w: ?
       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 Q; y0 K' \" V- t# _* ~+ t比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快9 Z  Q; L/ |& c
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
! v2 f0 C6 u6 C. 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& L# A! _, W8 e& n  U. h
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6 L' Q0 F* o+ r$ h5 e4 j' 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米是世界第二4 z8 l- `" c( Z) d, L- v
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% K: @! O  c4 k+ r) Q! U( ]
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
: L, S# ?! p& Q) v+ Y4 L4 l1 c! c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
7 y. `  a8 y+ |2 B3 M5 f5 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) O; [, B8 o( f% Z4 Y8 T# U9 X$ e
。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# S2 N- N& [0 _+ z$ T
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
' F7 H' J6 ]$ k* F8 i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
" ?* j% b, r- d4 F: f1》,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4 w( z) o+ J# U7 J' x' U# J
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
* C: k+ ]% l  Y+ G6 X同意见的专家。
7 L+ N# H8 a  q+ K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/ ?& s* q; v; e, w1 h
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
: g7 b* B2 p0 R  g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
; _# R, @* B6 ^7 O《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。8 {/ t) y& u1 {  A, 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)7 m' q* Z5 \; B4 a
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9 }; V* Z  g1 J, L  p( ]4 c
《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6 n: |. g0 v7 j7 d* j( a
这些被Callaway忽略。1 T, _7 e0 J4 ]* f2 c8 D- n, I
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 V" P8 B3 y8 `9 {
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
; y* ], l! B& _6 ^- q+ c教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
% _4 Z+ c' N& ~6 ^! Q" {) [( v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7 i- _5 Z3 r3 \: N$ T
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2 @6 [. X: ~# P6 U/ p, c/ ]
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: r3 h, B- k3 L# }% u0 L
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。9 u  ~  I# h' D; b1 }  o* U/ 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) Z7 l5 @5 A* |+ x0 v7 X
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" Y" ^) Z* m& J! t" @/ I6 z9 \$ z
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# V- ]! @8 o6 e" v7 l6 d
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。  w3 \, H% A! T, N0 s! B
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9 }- v" u" R6 k6 F
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
7 Q7 n: |; g0 b# o* T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
. ?) u& ~2 e* l1 Z4 A) U; Z) Y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& \$ U9 I. Q" X% ?
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# j; e/ O; U/ J  Z1 S6 n9 f. J
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。7 ~  M  v" n" R* r8 E4 _0 P: n& @
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。% r" c$ t4 n9 F) T  g# _

! C9 L0 \$ l5 W: [& B, y
9 i0 C8 |2 N! @北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
, U1 N6 }$ l- ]8 m5 p
: |$ }& J8 b9 E) ~附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- ]: w/ e0 @, c+ Y) q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email2 f3 I" M$ C6 e5 {0 A* j
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见5 B& r$ L4 G+ O1 {
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见7 G8 u- x# [5 v* F5 K2 [

1 P" l$ B* e! L) ^; f8 F9 U+ F  J3 s* t

# m8 E; p9 {7 f" k原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)/ c$ v% ?) ~: ]. U# f) V
Dear Phil,9 ]' V/ q) |) M, ]" N) R
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s2 t* A) R! B+ ^7 }3 n
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20) L1 `3 g: O* {5 P. e
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
/ V) s  {  q! F6 m1 P9 s* n- Jyou.9 j: V. v' m- h7 u/ P: E4 {
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, F' B! Z. {. P* s2 Tbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese- d- r' Z6 j) P5 k
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the5 ~. q0 E( ~* W9 k6 N
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
. V4 U4 A1 y' M  c4 P* d, ?  Rpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
+ A' C$ z0 |, \" Q9 ]8 qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
- F& D% M9 i2 I/ ?* p# z) c: l4 ypieces much more than the regular Western news media would.& }" ?3 \' Y3 P; `
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the: X- w7 q4 e9 u( x
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
* L/ f: \1 l  w5 ?+ hnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish5 o; ~* ^0 V* r$ B3 A
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway2 y8 ~- x+ b0 s3 j
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
+ ?# H- h8 [2 l! M* l; S+ F$ a" xexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal% K& M3 `" ?2 q0 @( n
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
8 V" W, G5 O4 O) x8 }and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone" z0 B6 P, s$ R. b/ q4 R
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news/ v7 {1 p2 x2 l5 ?. Q% Q) @, [. W
reporting.
' H' ^* G. S/ T" t- t       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
4 ^0 T2 _: G2 m3 Y  ^5 P4 j. Balready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
  `9 q1 s  c* q" [changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
- _4 W* P0 ^% \sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A+ }& A1 U( u: d: {8 R
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.& C8 t0 K3 N( x3 u& g
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem7 N! u: q* }4 p
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds# y& ]. e! Y. ?' h, q
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
, Y5 T) n& j, a: I6 L4 smeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
7 s6 F. x- `/ ?) O& Tevent for men, with the second fastest record.! \; y- o7 f1 o! P$ n/ q+ z
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye# |# W" D+ U2 E( O$ T8 u" ?5 ^+ h
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
, U1 }' m7 J1 c+ v: Hyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record6 v: M9 Z" v( ?: |
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 x1 L+ K. D, t$ A' l" g% ~
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,! w! Z# A6 R& C& C+ y, {; H; [1 M
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
  e+ r5 c* p% f3 \1 r$ nLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
9 {0 C: d. v, d& W* c2 ^) s+ zbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the. V: q' L/ Z6 W4 t# }2 ^. Q9 j
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
" e4 _. n* V: S# {7 Q# Mthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
4 l& |) ]4 [$ q0 q) Tthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was1 Y# k; k3 [8 u/ c) C! k! d2 H7 }
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
! G9 H& t- t  E" H7 j4 She would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “5 U* ]9 K+ \! O/ _6 q. Z' M
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 D7 g2 O# P, l0 q- e9 V
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: P( i: v4 b$ q# Mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
) j( |' \" Q$ u/ I  G% ACallaway report.
2 j0 b! r9 {1 s. _* |There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more$ k1 I$ v. P" n5 m; }( S. [9 H
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details6 M7 _& U; L/ b5 E! f
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description" s# f1 K1 d) D& @& O
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
3 q* O% S9 V; C1 e2 {: G/ u3 Cbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the8 s" D' `# {9 _' \4 ?
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
! N$ e2 Z2 T7 a; W1 Zpublicly voiced different opinions.
) A/ j- F+ _- W' GYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
& O% q( v: W% ufrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
/ l0 x7 a2 \! o2 w. [Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent* P% Y/ L/ T- I% m9 B7 K/ E3 H# k
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds# y. M7 r' A9 _) M. l( A
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy/ E; J( R: j' H1 V# @
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
- L' B9 L$ ]* G9 D" N1 dThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
$ w( a% H  c0 ^- W4 Kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They! x- C6 w) q, G9 `
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
, x  S/ p5 _8 M. m) \. ZAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
  u/ I! M1 {6 r% s) k) W+ u  vthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was, g' o& m2 L2 F1 w. Z9 @$ H
supported by facts neglected by Callaway./ c4 ]- B" n* c" ]; U% b
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that" x8 D8 }' P& N6 G7 n: _+ T2 o7 r+ u
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the8 J0 ~" z+ I7 X) d, }& ?  l! @* _
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June. s' ~5 {2 r0 j' [
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
( {3 r1 h4 ~/ f% N9 F/ oand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.: C$ r4 E! E4 P9 J- p
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
" s5 u3 M. F: p, W" Pand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and7 }1 M2 K& r# _
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.5 ^0 A: @8 f2 f4 B$ q  ]9 A
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and# b3 C+ k' j. @+ l+ I
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
% J+ K5 f- W6 _/ T3 c  Q' L, T& Kwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
+ G4 d5 L. a" q/ w2 B! _3 q5 W1 Trepair the damage caused by your news reporters.6 N  E5 |+ c, V* w
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not* O; D) m* ?: \1 s
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced, Q$ T9 l# j2 \" ~! {
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
4 }4 ~% _: o& v  p: p! y0 X/ Ofresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that4 Q- M! G; o$ f! b
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
, p; b  x, i1 u$ w6 Z1 @1 H  Dabout British supremacy.
% O( v+ S& S* N) Y$ o. M( JThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 ?  g3 T7 S" D9 a4 c$ {( d) Kunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more3 T1 I; y( o7 j0 V- W8 _
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
( V6 m' ^1 p/ }& ?# ]! d# ]/ m3 Gour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London1 _, {$ g- X/ M; X$ M0 V8 W
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.) o- g  i* _  O0 C# d
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
/ t8 E6 B. |& i) J6 Y, B0 }+ Cprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 Y! w# M! ?# |, k' j/ Tbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,+ S+ {1 A3 |; `7 u8 A1 f. f0 Z
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
% }0 ^2 q$ \, _* f1 x; S7 Mpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
/ m& J2 j: P, W( TNature./ o9 r3 P5 D9 k! P4 c
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; g6 u: ^: r+ Q2 A8 kthe Callaway report.3 t% A; \1 n4 ?/ L& Q

4 A+ ?* a7 M7 {  y7 j! VYi& l) f7 Z% ^9 S* B' O* v5 S

! X. S9 }! q# R8 JYi Rao, Ph.D.' J0 q6 r2 i# U9 d* B; a
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
! K! t% {6 T1 M  xBeijing, China
$ U5 e0 h/ P, ?1 q6 B
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
& t; B0 M+ l, R, Y4 {$ \原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

2 U8 c5 t3 i! o2 o) J* d- O0 Q# n原文是公开信。/ `$ `( p' n( H

5 M8 A9 `0 B0 L3 h' M4 U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
- S; ]" k$ e) i; ]" R- M1 J原文是公开信。
' H' g6 @( e6 U$ i$ Y2 k! @* R  h# Q3 J
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
6 S' H; G+ y8 M8 X# J
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" `/ `; C% v! j$ R
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
0 x# q. h4 Y6 `4 ~. {+ d6 {: d) \& R
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: u: `3 Y" J$ x1 i

+ v3 d/ l# z( O% ?/ A- r6 hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania* O) ^5 X5 K7 o" N
1 u( z, s* t6 P$ c
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) D; A9 K: B0 _, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
+ V. Z) Q8 I4 E  Q: D! Fmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
  `  d2 k" w  j6 ?is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
5 }! g1 J2 U' @$ u2 yscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general: I1 L4 x0 v9 c4 ]) X$ d% y
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 Z6 j( P4 N6 r  ?; t5 U& Q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 e& p* B  l! @3 z( h7 H4 L2 x" u4 G. Twhich they blatantly failed to do.
4 b0 e$ l" @9 m& e; y8 P7 x" J; R4 R; e  ?9 `
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
2 M, h' p: r8 H1 h# wOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in5 a/ Q/ u& G0 k/ W+ i3 ^, {
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 v* o5 i" B" b: ]0 O( Z
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous* U! d: K3 `4 L; ?
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, [8 @" {1 x4 J6 I9 y
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the+ Q. p( _) K' T  Y- Z0 Y8 r2 ^
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to0 r+ _8 ]; S8 G# }
be treated as 7 s.
2 n# i$ K& J+ t) [% V) y0 Q
$ p0 I+ V) o- b5 `, i' `Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& R; B1 I& e1 n; J/ A4 @still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
' A9 z/ j! C) O6 F  \impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.* V  y9 Y+ Z$ q1 X; \- r4 t
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
& N( I" Z5 S  f; H& r-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16., e0 M6 w  _& |9 P
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an6 P* V8 K5 B2 x7 g5 v
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ n$ z1 o. B; D4 \persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 k- _' D: |1 q, \based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 m0 ]. C6 \4 M. @7 R0 x

8 `, I8 I& o4 [5 m9 T' JThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
8 K3 p# Z0 t0 e, |0 f: ?. Cexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
1 h  \$ I. r) z3 x' z5 ythe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so) K2 A$ X; S6 [
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) N, ?- d" d6 A. E! y: x' z
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ `, a, f! W  s' t7 N+ U
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
2 E, f% |; N- ~+ V  u# cFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another' j$ f" m. z9 s8 X, W
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ E0 T9 X8 K9 v3 ^4 y
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
8 [: D& S. z% n( E9 x, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; y  c+ O) c7 e$ Pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 G7 r& O1 U$ J4 r9 vfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
: G/ Z, g4 x0 G9 }faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' B& P8 Q% A7 d1 R  E
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
+ P" }) X: ~# m8 k5 kimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.6 v, O# a6 }- i; X

: w/ y$ `6 x7 {) RFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ b% t! @$ Q3 _% |' y2 u
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 i/ A. b8 T% x2 v8 Y  Os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s! e0 R; N; b; ^* D1 Z$ Z7 c! f
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns6 i0 m, F, w* N1 g9 E2 C
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
. m3 Q6 t  W% E: H4 KLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind  }0 F8 f; V! I' @  N
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ @% p9 Y( p1 Nlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! T, D: \0 S8 s) q5 D9 C2 kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science2 @4 }" p" p8 ~
works.
) w$ v/ `$ X1 v6 S9 N
  C* N. T, ~7 S6 eFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 o8 ?0 M; K" l/ T
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 L' l8 k3 R7 W& Okind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
; I' W, ^0 }1 F' w3 nstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! d3 {9 B* |6 z- [; B  N8 a/ f3 e; Qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, e4 p1 L% k! S) ]$ E
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) |, l/ r+ x- [6 Y, T' ]cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to# p9 P4 m; K* t
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
1 @; D$ E& ~/ Z" _0 ~8 k5 sto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( |) L( k7 K5 n. T5 A$ V
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is' W2 w) N1 z$ C  P3 f7 w4 {$ I
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& N/ A1 J7 N( U6 @1 M/ {! B" Q
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
- o/ W3 j: c% V8 N  J8 _) P) ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the- G) x2 ~, G, c! `9 M1 q
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 j; ~5 o" ]* L' K3 S# v7 U7 |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 o2 ^- f7 P* A& v( r0 M! P5 Y0 Y. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
, Q5 v* J; Q2 J% r1 xdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may3 i9 U/ P0 c4 B1 W' w$ n1 ]( @' \7 ?' a
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 A* G4 Y; {- d1 ihearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
$ Q0 {- M7 I; [5 s7 C' zhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
/ a; B4 C/ }( h' \" g6 w7 udrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* w" M9 K2 Q* [7 U3 x" r
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
: g3 P' Q8 u, `' G2 K) @, F, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
1 w1 N) M3 ~, b' t  a* ~7 Jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
6 W! E3 D6 d8 f% B% t9 i+ U$ Rathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
" v; f9 F  @  D7 ]% Dchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 {5 W3 ^# q. P6 |3 v
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
* Y. }4 M4 V$ B) \. j$ lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
  V5 q  j$ s$ Xeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% K( K# }* s1 N! U
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 F: s+ t( A1 p/ _6 X5 T; k" h2 y+ a
0 [9 S4 f6 z- k  v' \2 F7 iSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ r, ]+ U8 c$ X& i0 `0 W' `
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention& ?- T8 `9 L- ~: J6 `) d
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 c( `! k! B, j$ \  O. R" `Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: D0 e  @8 ~7 ROlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for$ Y3 ]2 V3 ]; `, G2 C' s
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic+ _) P5 x0 ~; {6 q+ T
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope$ X+ ?( {% e" G9 Z( u: E. a0 f8 b
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 L  N; ~; H6 T6 [player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 u5 H; S: l2 P- h. ^1 I) h
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
  Q% l6 p, u% w: T! r# U# d" a1 [- d" Y
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (& g/ Z% o, }7 P5 G6 ~
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too; \" q( F( F% ]! k$ Y) Y& T
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 O! X) I9 O  A' j8 @: `; m1 l
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide' {4 f" F/ X4 L+ S  U
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
8 ~. [0 C* G# y# Jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 R( x3 K& L  N) rexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your6 K9 N: ?, b1 C  P4 B) ^5 r- `
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal3 z5 Y! |5 V/ I+ z5 Z" P
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or* y3 I8 e' I& p, s2 i% V/ u' |7 F2 W, N
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, 2026-5-8 14:54 , Processed in 0.136466 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