埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2302|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
& r- L0 M( T' K* L2 v5 o
0 m' ]3 S2 W) L4 P' {' \) `% M5 S饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
# I9 a# Q. E" @( b# h" V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。7 I* h6 {, {( F+ P( t" J
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
2 u  u9 A3 P0 U) v8 i3 J: F! U
4 c, a, F  F( Y5 I( Nhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html) x/ r+ W1 N7 k. D6 s

9 b9 C1 F: W) [" ?- {致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ a# x# m: g. ~8 S) F% N6 w/ g3 Z; m0 X
英文原信附后,大意如下:
) I* `5 y6 g/ F% B. z5 z4 Q0 P$ y5 v
斐尔,
2 Q2 [6 i  I" q  O       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
. {* h# B. Y5 X) Y: [: Oemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。2 K) `' v4 ?- }$ S0 Q$ T% `/ a+ q
       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( e* L# Q1 a7 r: }8 a
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' J; ^. n- ^. @) ]. w
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。
; G7 g* `; b* e; n& W. y) M       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
# k% l, ^1 _# z) C+ B( }8 |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
/ t9 u: x" R) V' B' F1 i$ G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! ?9 R- \$ x! H4 l1 M- }
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。
8 e" a% d0 j& U- f! f7 n4 E- Q       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
* _8 Y8 F6 w: i. _1 o5 p,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
6 @6 M  A$ _4 I”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
1 Q5 z; S; Q! g% A" {       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
1 S) j- o* b; j, E! i' [# S! I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5 Q: W/ \4 X1 C4 x# d! E. p. Z
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。  i9 ~7 a8 F- o; l
       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/ v7 V6 ?* j, c2 S( `
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: l7 o6 O: B4 O( P2 z* P6 Z
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二3 U% r3 b+ v, P2 D0 p& o
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7 {3 p1 M. V" S+ B3 D
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 G, P: n7 P+ t; t- ~
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 U: m; H* o7 Y, I
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- x) D$ R! i# G! x) J3 P
。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
) {* P# u" z+ z1 u录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。# M. f: k6 Y( T1 |8 J
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: ^9 w) D5 g7 _) ]" z
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
& c& }! S. t/ j$ [5 ?: FWikipedia。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! U# ?+ E& k* g% X" r
同意见的专家。. o8 _6 b, B- u: l$ J; G0 ?4 Q9 b& L# Z
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 L3 n/ U. t8 w; h+ u
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9 @; Z1 I8 h* Y$ J! k0 [" w$ [
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
" t2 e' y( Y0 G8 k5 w《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。/ q1 `6 W# |) z5 D! K% Q; 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); V' g% R' P8 p0 C
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
4 ]7 l: x% |. q8 E/ l《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
+ Y$ \* D7 T/ G; v6 F这些被Callaway忽略。
/ G7 i/ S) z& v, ~2 c  @2 z2 y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, K& c+ u! a- o- f7 M' A/ f
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- M2 A( w5 x- e9 p3 a! B
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。4 s% q, L+ [9 D* g- U& n9 l' b
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; k' j1 e* r, }1 ]  O
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 T) C/ B. G# N6 v
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
2 ?' p, G) k+ `" p2 y4 C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。
/ f% d, l2 t6 O' G+ j% E* B. 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
; c7 u/ O1 h6 p. \+ [/ X- M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
: ~) B$ v# P- u8 R0 _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' M% f" F! p! Q  O
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: d# c" f! q# E' @' o
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
' H2 {/ \, c+ q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6 W' d- x. @7 j  l( X
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
! s- d9 n. A- a: X/ i4 G$ 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
, {- N2 h9 T3 ~& h* m( J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
7 d! S0 N5 x2 e0 C( R% n而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
9 a3 [, I2 o& ?9 z& U, {; s1 j1 L' J2 t我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( P* x' G7 l! ]: v

4 G% z  j% z* }$ t+ f# R
. k5 a, R- P3 X( `* @北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅; \/ \* V8 G! k9 Y# b" N6 ?

" c. Q# D9 g8 R0 Q+ c附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结8 G3 T5 ^1 o8 s" S; |& T
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email" y1 A) p1 V4 U
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见2 |# l# ^8 p4 x8 m; W
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 [0 W$ ]/ k4 V4 ?1 p' s
( J% E! o2 z& j  {4 D4 ?, w
4 ]) A) s2 i, u  N$ v. d
* h1 F2 i9 D( x, w% Q: E原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 o* T* O: y9 s% p# I+ m  \Dear Phil,1 w/ I( l$ a% P5 L
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
4 E  ~7 Z# p2 Z- P" Freport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, k8 ?9 K+ h6 `' W, S
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
' }- Q7 G7 T# Oyou.
) O1 |* s( _2 i: `       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
- E9 I: U6 k5 f/ g# Nbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese, \" e( o% \) V
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the4 l1 r' }5 B* r8 _
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- v# B; G2 b- j2 t1 Z6 e8 cpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more0 A. Y: z$ w6 M$ ^, j$ }6 R# o
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
7 Y0 z( e7 T" j7 k, ^  T5 tpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
/ a/ G$ J# Z' K" U* W       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
8 i# ~/ t# I- T4 Kworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
$ b& U7 n7 _+ [0 R8 x0 W" ~0 R7 Y' U) s9 wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
* I/ N7 D: w6 R# A9 q1 a9 a# athat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway" C5 j0 R+ r5 X! L3 N0 d
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping- s& v9 }- q" a( m$ X
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal6 p1 B- Z9 I+ v. f$ i8 \
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,/ S9 G0 F0 m2 x
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
# |3 A$ D) G- G- P3 ^to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
, Y$ u1 `  p$ C! Z1 ~reporting.
# N2 c# v% ?" v: M. k$ \% X/ B0 a9 K       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
+ K! ?: u8 V9 }already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
" c- }, k- \0 \" D' bchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in/ \  \, Q! A$ y. B+ t% Y. M
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A% }+ o" t7 m1 K% x8 q( \
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.3 \; M, S! j8 m: n; ?
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
0 ^# u2 I- |8 gmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
. b2 ?: n: C: ?faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 500 d( T; E  E  ^6 W: R* G* n" U9 v
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
1 J4 D3 ]+ @( u, `event for men, with the second fastest record.
) T: Z6 h5 O1 d2 N       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye9 ]' A- d0 u0 l" @7 g
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
. L( T- R+ @7 _/ T9 ~: myear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 Z- A# ~) P8 B/ W. N. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
( S3 a/ J2 O5 gmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,) V0 j! X( e/ u) U5 m- ~8 l5 w
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
& |0 I$ Z' I, T  ~) u2 j. NLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
1 H, ]+ S) J3 L6 O% f: s. Vbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. a9 N7 Q, ]% D( Nindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower. X; X; r' v8 H* b  \1 U3 X* g
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
# R  O) t8 P2 o  ?1 y- A) Mthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( v8 j6 |1 b& `4 u0 v1 I5 y8 Zher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
! ?/ ~) h  ^/ m6 Q7 _# }1 d3 Che would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
4 d- \5 s0 ~/ ~/ }# f2 N3 ?( lproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other2 G* o! a  y2 Z& H6 V% L( d4 j
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the' y6 Y0 H6 Y3 {: w1 Z7 I, T6 h) O
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the/ N* p$ s: ?6 G4 G
Callaway report.. T# ?8 T) g3 _# l! }7 b1 ^
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more3 I" D1 H9 N5 B# _6 O. U) D$ l& T
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
# g) G+ v1 L- A# ^9 D& }here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
+ A  E2 W) Z" X8 ]of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been- N9 f1 g6 l8 d0 n- M3 }/ V
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the4 {5 J5 b# [7 }* L4 R
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( c. z1 {. Y3 d8 t0 e! {3 b
publicly voiced different opinions.
0 [  J0 q- B7 o9 e9 ZYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
* d0 l  ]% M5 M/ a7 E( }from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 M0 `% }: e& k8 {1 o* r/ iNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" X. Z) c  z- Tpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds1 ~6 U" k9 \8 H8 ~7 K! Q
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy2 i5 v) d$ u1 _8 x+ e
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
; z4 K1 X9 |# W& i% q! tThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think, u/ U( G& L  c& ~& S
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They* ^4 _9 Q7 t% e& |  S
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as( F5 H3 g* A, r! R3 e( f  }; u" Q* x
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that$ z- a, ]. u, ]6 l5 q0 ]& o$ M/ x& x" t
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was7 m- K0 h% }9 i0 o8 `) n
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
/ b# a; T8 N  ~* A) }7 W: W' s3 ~) u( tOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
+ q4 q. L1 d+ W# Mmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the5 p- {; L8 J0 q8 R+ }
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June% |% g* Q8 {* N! y  {. D8 Q3 a
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
5 `. ]8 c+ K& f% m  Y/ S' Zand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting./ l, z. U6 D+ p( Z9 [
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
) [% m; O! Z3 W5 ^! `( @* k8 Jand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( {) M4 v: ?: t+ g9 |
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
2 X+ l) D# J# {2 k/ Z* qNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and) f$ p/ t$ C9 ~5 l1 }0 y8 \
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
2 \0 Z" ^8 a/ m& S5 m: owhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
0 q0 F0 h# m" G. W8 v- T. E. Vrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.' }7 O( F6 I4 }  F& @' n% w# A# v
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
/ ~9 Z7 W1 V# G  I0 {/ x/ ashow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 U- e; \  J1 w5 U5 f
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather+ a# n% c5 B, |: V( d, K
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ L" J1 u; E0 i4 p6 g# C
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 l! B/ u; X  z6 D7 K5 b2 B: Jabout British supremacy.
) {' P& g5 W8 u! P) PThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
* P( C7 B* |2 M1 {1 W% N( Xunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
( b$ p2 @$ j' w; q7 {: J8 I9 [) {% SChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
# I6 t3 a4 m/ U  L: Eour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London, r9 v; o4 l+ N* P* X
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% |7 V7 D. R% t$ j, zYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of8 }$ J6 H, |+ I" p5 Q
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests2 c+ q; t  g# m# o/ q1 K2 y/ N
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,9 t' }( ?" {. u
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly# ?; h. \2 y* C- X. y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like4 O0 k5 Q% x9 ?% Y, q# `
Nature.+ l! V9 z$ f$ ?0 ?6 h  B  {& c
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance' v0 Q! z1 c3 k
the Callaway report.6 V) D% D1 ]( M7 I' @
8 z& ~. D' d$ J) ^4 S( g, j; m1 n# [
Yi5 D% h' w0 k) O8 P6 y
9 r9 f  L% r8 ~
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
8 A# `/ c* W% O" X5 QProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 f0 o( \* J) @- ]& m" k
Beijing, China8 B1 g6 F+ S; y5 r9 T
鲜花(430) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 00:23 | 显示全部楼层
好文,这个才是教授,不是叫兽。
鲜花(4) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 04:01 | 显示全部楼层
高水平·········
鲜花(541) 鸡蛋(13)
发表于 2012-8-5 07:18 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队 追求完美
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
鲜花(6) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-5 19:54 | 显示全部楼层
Callaway报道是种族偏见!!!
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-6 20:16 | 显示全部楼层
FrankSoccer 发表于 2012-8-5 08:18 + O! Q+ q$ E5 t* ~; J( B  C! e
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

  `, i- U' Y4 ]; r8 _1 t$ y原文是公开信。
- i% T, F  g1 \# I# `( G( c) s1 Z# Y) O& c: g. I
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
8 X% Y8 l, v. R- `8 F, I原文是公开信。. f' p9 h3 m# Y4 }

3 f( C2 A* c4 a" i' M小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

+ a! z+ q& ^8 S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
* x5 }6 A+ o5 w9 Y如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。. X6 A) K% h7 i" V& D& ?* A

" j! C! n6 X- X0 K. fhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 W+ O! T' t1 v7 f' ?) d- v( D* m: L+ O" [' T
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania( U6 Y3 \. W% D) b% z3 ?+ l0 H
* a" l# ~0 F0 ?3 }' H
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself9 N& e  W) a0 A- p) D- |' M2 @
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- E# u# }4 U9 |  p- v0 Cmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
0 `0 M% ?, O6 m: O/ ~. ~7 W. `is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the! i5 O" O1 h! w7 K- Q+ ]
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general( p  v( `: {# ?
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors) D: _$ o+ G5 j9 K! o- D7 _
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% v# Q9 W/ ]0 Y) |: i1 s1 awhich they blatantly failed to do.: q1 T5 [  B/ m
% b0 R/ ^3 y6 ?* N
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her$ K$ @! q. ^! Z1 E7 }- Q2 n
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
, p2 M7 x5 h; E7 t7 V8 r2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ q: V+ Z0 o7 o
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous* C- J: _3 I" t% P
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an0 t1 r) w8 W8 `) n8 b) r9 Q. m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the7 [, [+ b6 x' r5 Y2 J( T
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to& j( ]6 Q, M% p
be treated as 7 s.
1 X- n1 S; |* u2 e4 B9 Q6 N$ I1 m1 K6 U* K
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 ~2 Q- _. b6 z$ J3 Y% Y* Nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem$ Y; ^. M4 Q+ u* U- s) b4 c
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.; r% Y6 t6 G# c, l
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
9 r. H0 z9 n8 e-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
' Q* H2 Y9 X3 n0 D' WFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an! N+ o8 B2 t( V+ U9 R
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 Z; Z4 @9 v8 n4 U! O# x
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 D) h. q5 D- H! k. S' Rbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound./ c' N/ c9 D6 ~4 N& D

4 _! r2 O; j4 K. V" g9 G& V6 FThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook& x% s- O* h5 o7 d( ?' a' J3 ~
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
4 [" d' ~- Y( u7 g2 w7 Pthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
1 v6 J" y& _& C, Fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
2 P( B, O' S: ^( w( F: L7 Hevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( y/ `0 I/ J* x9 i  P- I4 W7 b% S7 nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 r+ {$ b, Z5 f+ Y1 D% t
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
8 [& o6 ^  D% s! ^1 ~topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; c6 Y* A+ q8 w; H$ e% m
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  w) {2 t+ e' O# e, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& {1 Y; @+ A( O3 E. xstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ i' O" ^$ f- o, c. S7 R
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
$ [5 x6 \, \* n% y2 D9 `faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting# j- ]1 j- Z" Y+ p
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
5 \  Q; v* [% r9 t8 C$ e) N# N: q* dimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.6 a0 }5 l" o3 ^( O) \, Z
, j: R- ^% E4 ]3 ~: ]) S
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. ^0 \% l6 d1 [6 M% Sfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% c% y5 E4 _! m/ B1 j  o8 ~+ U6 ^
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
3 d& q5 I. s+ f# M/ g# _), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns# b9 r7 m% C) p& `, l: T
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
  l) r7 }5 w# A( ELochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind2 L( k* m1 H4 g* b, \& K1 g4 O( [
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
6 H1 C+ J6 o( G2 W! K- u; Rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" V4 o; ]; F7 T1 X6 Z1 \every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science! ]  {1 a+ R7 u1 ^* g
works.
4 o9 {0 ]3 e0 M/ I( i" `! o8 E& }& m- C3 q. q, V' `# g- E
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% a* i1 ?3 |% k; V* L
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
/ Q- ]( j# ]$ G5 B) m9 K9 w) _kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
3 l) |) b5 T- d  h% ustandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
; q6 D+ y4 B6 _- G4 apapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
( I4 ]- I/ t1 w! Z4 y. Nreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One7 b5 l, d7 m. T. y; ^6 y/ s
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 O: j7 p0 A, xdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 o1 v5 N6 r+ I1 l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample7 E. G0 M/ _/ X
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
. [# {5 l9 M" c' e' B6 }- gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
1 X8 S# y5 p  p( y* b1 k" o3 vwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly) p7 n7 S; \/ G1 N# |9 T8 `4 y' }
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 O, X' h( P, D0 {4 h6 t
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
  _+ z& B, A  Ruse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
# j5 K1 W/ |7 a9 g. H  A. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are' u; p. ], j/ S! K" ?5 ?
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may% m* Z; u4 q/ q# U" ?! K) H
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
2 g5 \1 m  L7 i& V( h$ o: Ehearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
, e/ {* M. g  S  N$ f9 ]7 Q  Ohas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. @+ P, Z4 K0 X2 \drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:0 D2 e- z3 F: y3 T- z2 |( [6 R
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
$ c/ M! p5 R. W; S, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
( M9 Z5 M% z* q. xprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& C) l1 v  b( [6 g- f. R/ B& j( Jathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 r/ h" t' O9 i, n- c
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
3 c; F1 a1 j8 s: iLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping; [2 n- ?% V1 K
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
# O! v$ T( \. E* L6 \eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., k4 z/ P& N" F* y7 B
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
$ Y5 u( E( ?6 B2 m% q7 u4 j2 E2 J7 W+ c! B8 C" \/ ?2 s- z
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ Z. O- h0 P9 v) z5 W- G/ F7 F8 q# Xcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention  U9 c( p" H/ ]1 G1 ~5 a
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 M9 H; C1 X3 e0 X2 x! j8 r
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* t- d9 I! z) QOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for9 f# }5 P# |! ~
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic% i! M" H; S# D5 R* {! r
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope. j; N9 [5 a! ~3 h# g. R- n/ R
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' k& {, n% p- s( n
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this. [. L( ]/ `2 L
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.- ?* f; ^. b8 k0 ?! c& v

- T* z; x% b4 o$ f4 V4 T* rOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ E  h  p" H! ]7 R" g1 ~
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too2 E6 f% V7 d/ R. I$ N( q
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a4 C( K+ N6 p2 I1 m  ~3 r( m
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ X8 V' ?# Z2 \: [( e/ p0 j
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% ]6 a4 y- b$ j0 c. S! }* B! w9 Xinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 E3 }. s6 p+ R- M, }explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
! @  Q: X% g' Q$ targument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
8 o# u5 {5 ?6 b9 Usuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& A9 f( g) Q: J
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, 2026-5-6 15:57 , Processed in 0.142275 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