埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1845|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   `/ j' o8 h: J

; e6 _7 G4 }  h7 f饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
1 O% d6 P* H4 ~4 `+ N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。
2 y* a- E% I! g总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
( s/ [& N+ |$ [% p
. r7 w$ A; y' Z" l1 W- g! g5 Nhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
6 c$ }# R2 L- P6 z9 n6 J4 Z+ i6 f0 f' D
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
  O7 Q2 m+ i% Z% P2 F6 N* P+ t3 \! D' X
英文原信附后,大意如下:
, B4 V. Q" \9 a+ J1 V- E0 X+ D' n  N! T5 x: C! m
斐尔,
+ a; A( N( A8 W% f- P3 N, s       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
% B: ^) F& v, k1 f1 q: @5 `1 _email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
5 @6 L3 }6 \, ^3 d* T       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
; B# N, _% P7 R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
$ P* A# G1 I9 |0 p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。- Y  W% D6 O0 q4 {8 P$ W& `
       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
/ M8 b, E- V/ f1 b2 a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% f+ ^6 j+ n/ E. r' x! @( t
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; K8 I7 x1 O7 ~$ }( O
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。, N1 D3 P1 ^( F+ X! Z
       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
  G  h: h+ Y3 m+ e7 X,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
, R) S" c' f; f) v+ D( H”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
: Z/ u1 d5 ~+ T( @5 r2 S       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
% h' i: T2 X* m, O1 H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6 s1 w/ P# {0 R4 j1 `; F  Q
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
0 Q  r* e2 `" s, Q6 j2 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
1 j, M% C. n; W+ e" 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. v8 Y( M2 \4 I. 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
( f5 `0 c8 z" A- s% M+ ~$ r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0 E$ J1 h, T9 H/ H+ ]! }
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# D0 A( F2 e1 u% X; B
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1 B+ Q, X5 ]  J$ C2 t+ {$ _0 O! l
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
% Q4 Y& x5 {! t% Y。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
9 s4 K% Q5 O- V5 J( u录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。& [3 d% {' K* K
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, g* |7 B( [8 I0 y
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$ Y. N- Z, @5 O/ i
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
, E# f  k" T  T同意见的专家。
3 ^9 L* ~* q* y. \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4 |0 H* M) g  X% @
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/ F* B" O+ c# h1 I
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/ @1 q2 {1 R; C3 k# o
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
+ ]2 Y2 k7 c/ i4 Z& XCallaway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 G4 z9 h# l3 {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
# a' U7 S3 m, I6 E" o9 u: V3 d《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
. S! ]7 y+ C. v这些被Callaway忽略。% ?" y- |. d0 W: M  |4 O
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
$ ~, c) w& E+ J( V) }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
" i2 @2 r) Z" c) ~教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: Z" k4 Z4 v5 h9 r1 u$ _. k
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* ?1 Q9 z  P1 z1 T1 F$ S2 U# ]
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
8 z5 c* ]. ?9 L9 N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
  u5 s5 ^- m# J0 p# j; `" n, m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。$ A& \4 W3 ~# W/ ], E& Q3 a6 c* N
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; w$ C% X! V- s; G) K7 c6 Q
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# [- z2 X) f' M6 w
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
9 K* O( @" g, K/ i”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 J  Y6 n3 o9 x% i  h- [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
4 q% E/ Y: T6 ~+ f# B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2 F/ F5 `6 e* h% O3 ~1 u
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
4 i/ K' O* m5 a/ N2 N4 t  n( m6 B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
; T4 ]0 n8 A' X. I0 D* p" @' i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5 t& [1 K- S! M
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ K! _1 F* [6 L1 `% [& I我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。  \. ]+ T6 e: I, r  `' V7 T) z8 a
. X: o4 l9 o1 Q5 A& C
- g  h* c3 B# ~0 a2 N8 t* @$ I; ^
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅5 B) X  x. b* I+ i% s9 D
  D' X1 t0 h8 j9 ?
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
4 r0 O) ?! a/ e7 i( Q附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
. h$ R" v! p- x  I& [1 u! a附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见! x$ l4 }, f; g8 c, P9 f$ M( }
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见  k+ c* b' {% e2 w

' o. ^$ I8 s! `$ t; Z4 ]' |' o( W7 w6 o

+ j7 R% w2 {( O: ^6 Z原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
+ F+ X0 h* F' ?( P: @Dear Phil,
: u, v" H6 Q+ v# `& L; m4 @$ ~       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
6 |4 J' i3 j/ ^0 x' J9 T7 U2 `report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
/ a/ }% T: b& D; ^hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed" A+ f  w$ T0 H* X3 D
you.
0 g0 B- Z7 X2 d# c       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have8 V  @8 _2 W* I8 R7 H6 r2 X
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese: p: f" D" x: z9 w
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the3 L, g1 z# j* x  w/ z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 b1 _$ ?; {9 [1 V& P- }
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
( c7 ^5 t  y# B+ p; xseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news8 }3 r0 ~8 u" B* F9 L& O& u. P
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.% L8 ^, m9 ~5 I( l; o& z. E
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
' x- \% p0 @4 j; z: h1 ^3 X5 u% @7 Nworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% A4 y4 z1 g) S! anegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish$ Y0 `2 j! p. r
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 J0 \" q: c) t, V1 @2 Z+ A
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
+ Z7 b0 i# c& z* H" p1 vexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal+ Q: V5 e3 ?! u8 n1 R
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
- g/ q: M9 ^* L0 n- Z3 Xand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone* ~, U6 ^' h; Y8 S/ c( {- g; h
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
2 e! b9 e& W$ xreporting.) j1 a* {% U' e+ O# R3 m/ g' E
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! I5 G$ k& S  x5 g$ yalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
3 L' s0 l( ?1 r& W) Vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
( {5 @3 ?2 r/ I' `/ ^3 M, |/ xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A- l7 l# I0 p' q" L# L. E% P" E
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! K4 u+ ~( s+ j) h' I3 m  }
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem8 p; N9 p2 P* X! @
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
: \" f% I# S, G+ }faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
6 C$ W  f& r( o" w/ a, dmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ p& g5 z$ v. c. F4 |
event for men, with the second fastest record.
7 b4 {% e' g, i       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye. g) ^5 e  Q! ?. v( Q, K: y
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
* q& e- F, y6 H7 c4 oyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
! Z5 U3 a$ R6 W6 o3 X. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400* ?+ y7 t: h) U/ r$ p: l- L% }
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
; A0 q% F0 |# w% i4 Rfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than5 W) D9 v2 R3 O4 q. m4 R
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
+ j7 d( f# l- c0 ybehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
6 @3 w$ R/ c# d3 y: M$ ]individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower! O9 L& r* o+ @; z- X! q
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
2 x3 U( a: ]" h5 D$ F1 i$ Zthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
! d2 @' b& w  t" k8 h/ o4 mher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
# d$ B) L6 x  U; Z% Bhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “% P" E! Y/ P  z. z4 j7 l
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other: R7 ?7 m8 B9 o
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the7 J  f) N9 G! @; b6 x
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the- q; f9 ?5 }0 A' Z) R
Callaway report.
. e1 J  {; K; N2 e& O4 IThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
* q  c  c0 l5 U& p/ b4 c0 h& cunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
# X2 m% b  }8 ~+ N8 o+ Ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# E- d$ u8 T3 H5 p; z4 yof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- d. x7 I# T$ M7 R3 ]) v& Xbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the: d2 j0 r/ N& g( H! p$ a, v
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had8 D' g' i3 c8 P3 c
publicly voiced different opinions.2 v8 R( D3 D% a5 }- W2 w1 |+ O
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 o: c. [) z3 `5 Q/ v) i- R
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature4 a/ D" p- D% @! e) @" Y
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
! g% ^& h, \% D0 F: y6 q9 o7 hpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds# K' ^$ z; v0 {. z( ^
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy" `: K( |0 n% K7 q3 ^
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
# B* J( d- Y6 P, a9 f( gThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think7 N: o: Z3 t6 E0 w; S0 T! l
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They+ K2 s% _: O' k' x
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as" {' ~* v4 f1 w; g; l7 l8 o
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
2 s5 H+ S# s1 i3 k; I& @the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
& L* S9 n+ m0 Q4 l' A% m0 K  _supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% f* {% ]+ r5 `One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
, q# f4 d! z; I  ~! @' Z+ M0 Wmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the( H8 W# y0 }7 ]' \5 J1 P- K
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
* ~% ^9 y& {* H( D# F(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she# {6 ~7 ~: m- g
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ L! }. L: c6 v; j" LThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
" ?: x$ ~4 q9 g* S& oand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, R" r+ U% n/ D) p% Z& f% ]2 U+ `
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.$ B% p& Y- p; O& r# ~& i
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and0 n5 S- y3 v* V* X6 a4 ?  `; K; `
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature4 T7 R" C( u# y6 m: k% y) |
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
6 A5 a- D1 d" Arepair the damage caused by your news reporters." e- {; Y8 {/ q
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
$ q1 F& s" Q: {show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
" c/ g' q7 B; D) u- hus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: y& L3 \7 _2 h* S  p2 F/ N% F
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
* t) D6 ?7 N4 Y; ]this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”) c9 n% q6 b, w: x* |  L
about British supremacy., k' Q6 U" ]% d: ~0 Q! C: A
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
; t, l4 H. l1 V! N; q8 wunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
: k8 e7 y+ z$ ?; n% E5 qChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, L! g- j- a0 A1 t" J( l9 Mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% T+ C/ o6 c6 R, x& k6 o/ iOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.! n% h" f0 o. _
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of7 K  z0 N3 y" R
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests- L2 j- @4 m2 b& \
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
* C0 C! z( a  i% o, Eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly1 D4 H% c% Y# c6 w
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! S# W5 _# b7 S& bNature., V. S4 a9 p. J
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
1 G1 N7 t) I$ M' B& ?4 uthe Callaway report.& M/ O6 y* c) a5 O/ u& A( |( n

  {1 d3 D5 @8 {, d( |" M2 `Yi
! Q5 \2 M; i: r$ c, o
$ M9 E- J0 E. J9 _& N/ Z* e  s; K, MYi Rao, Ph.D.
. ~; ], _. [$ t9 TProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences5 G8 Y7 {! a. ~/ P* ]1 M4 @$ \: Q; A
Beijing, China& u4 ]; c$ m* O& o! ]2 |
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 $ i- h; S0 V# @' v7 c1 g
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
4 f3 [6 m; ~9 ]0 H  I: Y
原文是公开信。
3 }- T, a5 |: u2 z5 x9 Q7 S( q& T$ C$ ?0 c4 e" _
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
6 G" ?. h; f9 t原文是公开信。' k" \, V+ x5 \$ W' f; {6 }
- Y% U$ r. X) p8 p1 N1 [; y: _7 Z
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
9 s6 j  I# H8 U7 f0 t; d5 |
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 JIANG3 q( m# U9 R) |- @
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' Y0 ^4 ]( M* _% `1 y! \  p2 }: Y3 N
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 g! h) F9 Q  v2 t" q, U7 u8 p0 T/ E. r7 L. v) I5 `2 H( ?; }; T8 n6 i
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
9 c/ j$ m4 Y, f5 `. z8 l
2 s3 o! E6 l4 d7 N8 v: r$ aIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself( Y" r& A+ D! W5 M5 `! G
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 L7 a+ O7 g! `0 N
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this) T0 p& z+ w/ U% l
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ D5 K9 [7 @( p6 u6 u; o: \4 Mscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
  v% o" ]1 |+ U2 J/ C5 Q: Zpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors, Z1 X7 E5 w/ _! g; c3 D0 n; W
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! x* c. F' |% ]8 S
which they blatantly failed to do.
( h  D7 _7 K) m. ~$ t
6 I* c" U& V7 ?First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ e9 }! a8 L% Y$ R# p9 KOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ M4 Z5 g( i% F
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
! ^+ r: G6 c8 E. o  H; vanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous3 C3 [& U7 }! G
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
0 M" a8 \; j  {8 }& `# Yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
- p1 B% n$ v" h+ m9 x6 \difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
0 W, V4 J: c# Sbe treated as 7 s.8 v6 S' P5 J! _4 ?( ]( O- B- F& ~: p

0 Q' i) g3 v  J; k$ Z9 V  \9 x% a& H0 R' ?Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ R% u- W. I5 e/ {$ M3 Zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem) M6 S- F8 `" A1 v# f& |( J
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.# h' a" _8 F1 M+ p5 z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400/ G1 q" R: A, E' i1 v6 M. ~$ b5 p3 C
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* o2 C$ a$ b' \  m! c% o- h* Q$ KFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
$ _, p5 N* |5 q" h/ @& I0 c: aelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and" Y2 T$ n: v. E1 i8 p
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# f" C# f+ _. d4 q/ Ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 X2 n! U3 W4 ]5 Y/ m
& q7 H& R0 @, |+ [4 w" I9 s* e. W+ Q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
9 e  O1 o) L3 f8 w, vexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
$ i9 P. X9 {% j- Ethe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) h/ E' T' g# h0 s% W; p% Ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later4 M8 W4 u, a+ m6 W* |
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& y; `* g0 V8 U' x2 r$ F3 q
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* C, W4 S7 y5 a# f0 T6 _& t5 n
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
$ v  A* r7 }' ~6 E+ i* ?7 Z* Btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other. M. _, d& K- `  M0 R( j7 a
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
* @, ?: p) r" p6 s) Y; z6 D. n, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) j+ }5 o1 m9 m7 [. D5 estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds+ f4 X0 a) M# Y4 v9 k( J+ T1 q
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
- }' e" _2 e$ i/ b2 G1 V, g+ ifaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
! E2 ]% X) o; i$ [aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; }0 N; P, P% C/ t4 k, w! o
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
5 ]! t  U, o: A2 B- u0 H5 u
& S; k4 K9 L# l& i% bFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
  E  v1 g) j5 F8 u8 ~7 c$ Ifour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* k# C8 ^2 C  E+ f* @
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
% {& X: e; A5 v+ p( K+ e% ~), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns# Z4 W3 b6 Q1 P, i6 d! f
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,0 T! g+ ?  D; l# P6 l8 f
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* S* G! s) g" x' I7 _. Y5 kof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
! [' h# o" b9 H( C" Wlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
+ o6 G* F  Q3 D) Q0 O8 Fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! T9 d( l3 Q! r8 |9 b% ]  Kworks.
# J( w- ?+ F' B' m+ p6 j3 |6 t  c8 Y
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 r4 G) y* _5 [, N/ B
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
' j1 i3 S- N0 G7 t9 Fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
9 O* K, ]$ o; D- ]4 D  C- y5 cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific+ m, Z( Y0 s0 Q$ t
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and' g0 l" x- o! E! m: T
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! W! V% W& l( e; B9 Xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
) W1 W7 K1 i: ~! r; e% e, wdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works  i; T0 \2 W0 g* g1 d# @" a
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 Z* J( Q$ Y, g' Z( Y' ~is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is0 {% W' _! P; S4 U
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& {7 F( ~" p7 P- l# d8 iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly- R0 q7 ?6 g" L8 D
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
; B* f, ?& v: H5 Y% h" A; dpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 ^! Y: E4 E, x1 o  @+ Ouse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: m+ k0 U6 x- f3 _
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
! o8 f/ J- ~/ s; j7 d1 |- @doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) u/ {! w+ {9 t. ~: Z: G
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, `0 U. b/ i+ I- D# q: S) B' N* qhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* |5 u5 A( F( D% f- G
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
; g9 j, O( _/ \# L, Ddrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:' V* {6 s5 n/ r) G
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect1 Q2 B- s" X: C9 |: l: ^7 {0 L
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
  b$ g* H& p) Iprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
; w2 M1 J6 Q" A0 R5 O1 Jathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 d' |$ V, p3 B' S( }3 \1 rchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?2 p1 V& g1 [: T+ t+ t
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 y4 x5 _" Q$ S) }, S
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
- p1 O. y" a9 l5 [% ?( D$ qeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
. H( N: H4 }, dInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 ^! K3 r/ {8 f. [" E9 t$ o7 x' c6 g. `. v8 t, ]( @
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
! b  c% o: ?  O9 Q0 q8 Vcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
' O+ @2 O; b, {3 l. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for6 l* i+ b, p: D2 B& S$ y6 C1 c
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
) G; _% E" N+ h6 dOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for' J5 d" r8 @) U
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 l' c/ I. }9 M4 N0 j9 _games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope6 Z/ z- |3 @( T
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& M+ |- d4 A8 e7 E0 C
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
- V) ^3 p& q+ |( ppossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
* O) g1 l0 }1 F
* l1 o% C" d# hOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (& D  p. i# I* C  E1 c+ E
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, o+ }' _( u  e& D! X6 usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a9 z3 A+ t( O, |. k
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide) M4 M. Q- n$ s& P+ S& S" W
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( N0 \) p% V8 i8 Sinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
) @* A% w) m3 ]2 Y/ T! Jexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% {9 X0 J8 _0 H3 \8 D' D  eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal: f. J) d; E  L9 H
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or# `4 H7 z, Q9 Q8 F* e
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, 2025-11-26 09:18 , Processed in 0.179755 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