埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2252|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 4 Y, j$ g9 k! s) x

. v% L% Q3 r, H饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。  s6 b* k: X8 L
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。: D$ I" t% L( y! F
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
  @  n. c% [! B& k+ u# W5 Q! I# n2 d+ b3 i. ^
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html) ~* R8 C6 P2 q2 D* Q! w, C! X

7 ?8 B# z3 `3 R* k  T致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选( H- a8 S; u' p) O5 _
6 S/ g% A- O# d
英文原信附后,大意如下:6 g% i& U3 `# p- @2 R

" {8 h3 x- a  N斐尔,: l$ `! s( |+ d* @+ J& e& a
       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
* ^7 K; n( V7 @0 ?email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
3 o& E3 [/ D  ?* T; }: E( W' M0 I       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3 E) Z$ {' q) W$ C0 M
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4 n8 x2 y: W$ u! g
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。
6 h! c2 k' R' J! 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
( R0 J( v2 H* E+ ~# y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
! m5 V* J( S. j" b) X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# X' H$ z& t, Z2 S; r' S
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。
) z+ t' v& Q7 \+ P' X4 j% ~# @/ i       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
; m& |7 {3 l$ z/ r, o,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% L2 E! i' U+ V3 B
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
$ }" v, W) _7 f7 \: V       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" P1 c( I2 ?/ l4 G7 G1 N1 s- x- W( _
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( j, Q$ u7 t# x1 y- F3 I
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
4 m" F5 @6 c9 u. z       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
9 Z. }$ p$ O9 I9 D- `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
+ o2 A. K0 A, I2 d) R* R; B) V' B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
. {  V! f# u- n1 N6 H! _7 u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# e9 ~) u" ]% H; s
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) T# B/ G' r0 N9 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: {8 Y3 N& ^6 X
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
, [& f9 W% M' X8 W。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
& G1 J2 u( y" h6 y8 Z/ H8 q( ]录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。( H" r( q+ j  }0 C& p$ u
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
! z" b) V5 }. x( X4 P0 u1》,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
* q; q0 Q8 ]' NWikipedia。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6 Q( g# q: S  X- x' |1 y
同意见的专家。
: r! F$ B* h. |2 i8 C* K! w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
/ p9 }* j8 N+ \) _$ k# P0 Y! V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* y7 h9 ?) ^+ ?8 Z( C
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
7 y: I' E5 q' Y) y# ^《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。- v) Y6 k5 e, T  v9 U, _
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)" u$ B& t4 ], s$ A4 H6 I6 ?
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
) L7 N8 ~' J1 T% w* c4 S' `/ 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+ o9 q' O' a# ]: }+ t6 v
这些被Callaway忽略。* A& m) Z2 l7 y) K/ e
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3 X; h" A+ B2 g( M/ I8 r) T8 x
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
2 g! U% D2 w% Z教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。" C$ y! `- I9 z( e& N3 ?
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
* o' f1 t5 }# j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
  {9 R5 T0 ^2 \* i: P& X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
6 S; u" l+ q$ N- [' S# Q3 _+ W) a, ~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  m0 U+ g6 z" {; ]% w5 z3 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
2 J) z* h- a3 \5 c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
! ?& q5 i3 z" K) z- x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7 Y4 W' q" p! [; A1 W5 p, i
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。) V' r  u; t5 m% W0 B" h3 T
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1 A0 Y0 t) H% t- ?' `
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: i+ X  _# D% n4 y$ }& g
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* h% m" w; m7 X) M0 I
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
* e2 n: `$ @& u. _2 \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
( B( V7 x& s, l0 U; y而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。  Y) L" v' c; c3 k, {* t
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。$ h7 [! C+ G8 l/ r" |

4 ]  G2 }: K! W) H! t/ q/ P
" w4 N( g2 N. O北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) r6 J- |! T$ x, U4 k5 q

2 G1 E! m7 @+ ]1 @4 I3 B附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结. `6 u5 C4 s% N& S: |) W, k+ K( s4 d( Q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
/ }$ U+ e- t! P1 |附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 x6 i2 r: w" E- x' x$ n9 O. ?& l, U附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见5 Q( j/ m& v0 C+ u, t. G
3 X1 I! v' h( Q
# H$ P4 @) I. P4 Z  z

/ c( e# N& e) o1 }* u原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
1 B7 K. M, U( e% ?Dear Phil,
5 w2 B& x- M" E9 J$ Y5 \* \* \       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s. a1 Y+ `; ]8 o8 }  s5 Q3 [
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& s& _1 {0 N+ [& _3 f% r1 r
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
8 _9 O" L9 Y1 @- Ryou.
( f: X! ]1 `8 O7 X: p. n% \       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
* ]$ X/ c' M% |3 S1 D6 ?. zbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
% Z. g+ h8 ~! p, K1 B% r. Kreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
" I  B0 V/ h6 B, Zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature' G0 f  S4 @! y7 D2 Q$ x9 u  @/ w
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more7 S( l4 [' |4 i! M; k' S' k
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
8 |) A9 q) Y: x7 kpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.( A* K/ H  ?% |9 ^  N, r
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the! B1 T& l& L/ r+ F+ e% D' M
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 R) |# F2 \) u- cnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish: K  e+ o; M* @# |8 @/ ?
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 ]( z" V9 |/ s4 {% G! O! M5 Q, |' \
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
3 x  ]- L8 y3 r9 cexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
/ @; `3 Z, q; g. L8 i8 f. i& w4 ~standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
+ j5 X7 A: n9 Q# Z  S+ W& m: qand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone1 M7 L. C( U- v3 t
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) b& H- B) y4 Mreporting.5 M4 W$ v8 h; x' D# y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have( r5 [% z* T3 g* k: v
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by. ~1 y: Q3 P+ T, _, o
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in# |$ C- t! [3 j5 y3 c
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
1 u# D; _9 D4 V- J4 W2 k; Hpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
3 r$ o( V$ w! m0 ^! I; S4 z       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem* U* ]# G8 N4 N4 N1 I1 Z4 p
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
9 f8 b# [3 b, Z0 Dfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
2 B% r& f8 M3 \+ N' ?* L+ Xmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ }# D9 ~2 w* K, R* C# Cevent for men, with the second fastest record.
: {* d$ y5 k; M7 b1 O: j       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye: [1 `( @  v' }' @( e
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
( R5 x3 L2 Z1 tyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record  V/ M  ~8 L- b  O
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 D; o) r( g  {3 imeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
$ [. R4 m) m; Q, R4 afor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
7 D( j* \( N7 U  N# m0 h3 ELochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed" [+ }! V& c0 @9 H
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
2 M8 Z) J2 G& ~0 B+ Sindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
$ T6 e" G- G" q# s2 N, Z- i! j) Tthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
3 R! [) v- \) Dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
6 C1 U, P7 M4 g/ G" T0 G- Iher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
: j% a: Q" D9 f- k+ {he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
; h* s5 R2 W. B3 x2 P3 }problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other2 N, W, L& _5 S
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
% s/ q. @9 y& U, |/ x* U* Ateens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
+ }$ |4 u5 t! J" Y3 pCallaway report.
0 @8 h) }/ d; K# _4 ?9 Y" mThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more' \9 l0 ?" _2 [: t2 F
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details* L5 x) d" p: q' n
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
" }7 T9 X7 B3 O2 ]3 m( R8 q' xof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
) \! Z* n4 H% G7 Xbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the2 q5 C' u& [" ?/ U8 b; [0 ~
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
! L, K. m% A% S6 Q, [3 a! }8 m* l6 cpublicly voiced different opinions.
* ?+ `( i  o( c: ]You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
6 l6 z2 ]! W* d& P/ @% kfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature( ~9 O+ Z# g  Y; I" z1 @$ I
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
# K+ V" @2 [/ ]8 }  y* m. ^postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 d/ i. s& n! \you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy1 b3 n0 U1 t' ]+ B# o( G1 l
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
2 p- c# O% ?: y1 y( A& k1 _0 OThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think  a- L0 c! W6 L: l- W* D' Q8 u* h& u
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
+ L) d, L2 S: x1 s" rhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as7 r& Z- L/ J  j  j3 [
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that; b- i' S( K# K8 i0 Z
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was) e; Q) L, h0 [! k  R) J$ n1 B: ]2 N
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.; G2 n( m) j) `. o2 F" z
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" Y" ^2 l- ]( D1 v" L& U$ Amany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
! G$ Z# |8 j0 M2 o1 n% ?6 t7 KChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
) I- p3 s* h1 s0 T(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she. B% M/ `( w. d6 n, z
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ L3 l8 C/ m- X) G. ?
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- h# k; ?, \$ P# z8 p/ O; S' Gand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 m; V  u4 L' C! ~5 \& Z, Z8 \$ V
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
$ W- l5 `: I! b8 Y6 S) rNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
. v% b! R4 a) F$ nobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature  E! \, I: Z1 O) V/ q9 x
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to# Y2 G, c/ p+ l9 [5 a7 \1 e
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
9 c: [3 W2 O  m$ I  @* aThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
1 ~+ @: y) J9 N3 Gshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
: x; @6 T4 k' {5 ous to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
' }9 F' }# e: b. t6 P1 t5 Wfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that1 V, z  r- ?/ o$ d$ T5 G
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
' s/ M6 |; ~0 Zabout British supremacy.! t0 L" h+ I9 Y! v2 Q( l+ k9 A
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) _2 A8 [( \- c+ H, Z# V% C' Kunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
% [# J" e' _& eChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* C: Q" V- m# h* W, r/ Four public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London7 a3 e! M$ R9 y+ t, `
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ e) F6 x/ O+ l( h. b5 u
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of% Q8 ]# k& B: ~( B1 ?; E" B% R! ^
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 ~/ D- V! `! J) w0 B, e+ mbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, C5 _, I! u3 [/ u, J* \2 t4 Ait is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
3 C5 R9 |5 t$ D. ^publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ I/ v  Q( i( G! P. M
Nature.
$ k6 x' A* Q4 m  DI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
6 z! g2 z  @0 a1 t4 d; N0 xthe Callaway report.
) o3 |: s# C8 A4 L$ z, S
' \! i' a' S- a8 @Yi
" Z9 M9 x& q0 L
' v. [3 n2 U# O; }" Q+ v4 _8 OYi Rao, Ph.D.8 ]0 z7 h8 @+ @  b3 A
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences9 t$ N0 k* U; b' a+ a- H
Beijing, China
3 Z8 Y; ~& F, s, Q% h6 k
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 7 W$ F) J: g) n9 V( V
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

7 \( Y8 v+ |) }! }: e' u- z原文是公开信。7 _, q1 b1 r% b# u7 |: i# e, @& d6 K

7 u4 p$ ^7 n, X3 a- y% W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 ( v$ H) \8 B. e
原文是公开信。
: a! L! V5 J/ o* A+ O/ g* h7 k. |+ c
3 d, U- @2 i' m) s" D* L8 S& y, @  b小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
9 r- k! N) \/ y& `8 P+ K, M
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
' ^& e4 T6 p( w# i/ F8 T如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
0 J7 x6 S7 F0 v+ h! N/ }0 [3 i4 \/ H7 Z! [/ j
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
  n. Y/ M& l, v/ x6 L+ [8 |9 r
2 W8 k/ I" e: H: s9 H. q1 ~FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania. I) `# p: n2 g+ [9 G
$ |/ H0 v6 }: a) g# F
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself: u5 u) J3 n% ~6 H
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 F+ d) C- I# L  b0 ~magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this; L5 E! }4 Z' @  c. k
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the, e6 m) d1 {5 I6 V  F2 \
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
' o6 n5 T! {  r$ |- f9 k! lpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
0 G. ]6 i, [0 L8 E& o. G2 g" J, S" jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,7 t# L9 {* _. Y  L: U& x& l
which they blatantly failed to do.
$ d( S* Y, P, K- Z% G. b( R3 p6 k
; L$ q4 f$ K- W% Z# UFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ N3 D5 [6 g) e  k6 gOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* L2 g2 v# W8 S7 z; r# z- t2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& N/ p' H  E3 b2 ~4 h
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
6 v$ b2 }4 V+ Y' o. Rpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, B! H0 W# X: W3 Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the7 r  n7 e6 l. r$ p
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ v# k* }9 S/ N7 m2 }# n! Fbe treated as 7 s.4 v' C2 V: W- b

" K8 P& W& W( U) mSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ i& B5 a9 T! w$ `* ^! a8 @% xstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
2 C. N/ n9 }: _+ k1 K; h( ]/ Vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.7 x5 q) y- A( a! t. k
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! \4 [9 z2 W6 n' y' e" |$ G-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.: ~. Z4 Y- m4 c. r' o
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
, X+ ~9 a% E' a1 }elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ V! U3 o; \. @, S4 _! T
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
/ D2 n2 P0 N1 Z2 w  _/ @# Abased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.) C0 G, T6 R3 q5 E6 A
$ M% i7 G% @8 x: _2 u7 G" D$ O& t2 S
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ n, U! I4 q" s: x+ H% r5 hexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
, z5 `) Q/ n: t, o; sthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so# m9 M! J+ M4 U  F5 p
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
6 c1 }  K1 a  p( ~" P+ h+ e5 eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
) i: ^0 r6 U$ x: X* k( ~5 tbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World- g9 e: f: W* s" B
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
" `6 ?# A* l% O: d4 Jtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 O' P/ `* {9 t' z) u
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle6 @9 v2 }9 s! y# j2 X4 F/ l
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. |6 `- m9 |2 k" B. K
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds# N$ `2 |+ K9 @. A0 @: U7 a
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam& y8 _# m. h1 M
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting/ Z! ~- f  o" {- H" s3 V( I
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that$ ^2 u$ V1 a5 ]0 k
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." L3 M; k+ ~% d. O1 S7 S  Q
- Y( d4 H0 w" }. ]) j
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are% M1 U4 k$ E1 _  C: T
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 Y: m. v& s5 q5 h) ]8 q7 Ts) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 [2 R$ h% N3 ~! d
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
, j5 j! z' X% p# l8 {out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
1 j1 U) X% `4 m3 [/ NLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
/ P9 Q, h4 G8 u: f' H4 r2 W/ e. Iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it& \* l: M# e1 o4 V
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) C* W1 I6 W, p5 d: Q3 X" ?every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science  M; P& x% ]  a0 E7 u
works.
# N3 J+ I: s: G9 c/ Y7 c* j5 v6 S& f6 @( ?6 D7 \7 U( ]+ Y: H* C& k3 C8 u
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) w# R  K7 p: Q$ i0 \# S, h* A& jimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this, T. n6 X1 R( h! x8 Q# r* |# q% Y# X' H
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. [+ j4 s9 y  e! Tstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. Y' s) s) C: W! g1 Rpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ f. ?' o( v3 u( d6 h9 l/ l* ^  c. Treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, A4 y! m* j4 i2 L9 |. X1 z
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to4 x4 r. ~( {6 T) p6 r( C7 ^# q
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' k* a8 h2 e% p5 J5 \6 ~
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample4 U4 _% \) ?/ X( K' `* W
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( u  F5 N# _, j# R) L* `crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& j# V+ F. R& y' C  f9 Pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 M4 E. X2 X$ y( u
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
  n- U* M. o5 B, ]4 g  @1 mpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not  E' U, ]4 h& E9 Z2 o. q6 m5 k
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
4 F; I! G) {2 k- o$ [" d& ]( N+ J# R. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
. u# x+ U) O' _doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may1 i  L' Z& P- X, ]) s3 D
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 V* z: Y3 H# b9 J& ?2 v7 Shearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye9 l+ q/ \# w- J: W' J
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
9 R( x4 p- c$ sdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 R" G- i/ ?8 ?
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
1 v6 a! J9 x6 n  r) h, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
6 m; X9 t4 s- V2 q8 Vprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
; \* Y5 K: j- U1 t: @0 U( tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight5 H0 v& b' f; v2 |& M6 `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) e3 |- E& A! OLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& h; `3 v% I2 Hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
' z% Z# s1 v5 O5 H  U8 _eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.  i" v1 J, w) k# F+ t
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?+ R; M$ |: S7 w# L3 W% @

& u+ F! D3 r4 J) |1 WSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
4 T* n3 N& D% M, ?: E4 Y5 Bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 b0 _$ j8 T2 s4 l8 C1 r7 @' Y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
7 L. O5 e$ l6 W4 C  u4 gOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
  n/ S& Y8 ^6 C7 aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 x* v3 \  ]) |& m& e% \- U! p4 H9 udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
5 @3 t$ N& Q$ T7 Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope- d! H3 @. q& z# \" @
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a/ j4 r: w$ @. h/ q# G( l5 ~4 M- M
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this1 _+ ?1 B, p. o8 f
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
/ ]6 V1 Q- x) n5 y8 f- m$ F3 D( _. i% T$ W: w1 U+ B5 a
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (3 ~3 j. r7 w! i( v  h$ x0 F
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too  W! h8 {/ b8 C- p
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ p1 m3 |) F5 ~, tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide3 }" Q( z6 L1 q- B9 X6 P/ J
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
6 c5 V8 O3 m0 B# `interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 x5 T- F  q3 z" D1 f
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your/ N/ [" u( q" Z* S; U, B6 L4 I
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
* d  u+ g) b9 e# G# G  nsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or% E7 H2 W! q3 _1 P9 l
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, 2026-4-21 03:59 , Processed in 0.093610 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