埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1965|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
; `% m) A, L2 T7 ], A$ j/ u2 ^4 t) [( u( Y- ?+ @7 t0 Q  ~( g) g
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
2 U- H( f+ F: E9 y# h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。- A5 V3 g/ {( P. D/ {, `7 `
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 Z  J7 P5 b: l. b, a3 r2 ~) Q# _3 S7 d
' E! H8 H- q6 q# whttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
9 j2 e2 V( E- I, {. v  `
1 E- c. t4 g5 J, W0 _- k, T; L致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
8 a9 }0 T% p4 i  Y% u  H, f0 k0 e! ^7 f0 Z
英文原信附后,大意如下:
+ P5 |( P, D6 I$ t' f8 r2 N% G) A* U1 v! t
斐尔,: ]  h' m+ J5 w
       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
+ j' Y& p5 P; g" [5 J0 zemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
7 k, s5 c2 z; F# k5 u       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
# j7 G9 V3 E# b4 }4 P& s  E) C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7 U& Z4 q7 T6 z/ _2 k0 S
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。
1 Y. E* r. G! X9 B" G. v& f       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/ G( @9 q; `& w3 s" O0 N
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! j9 @9 V; h9 n
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
, {. z* E1 J' X6 U; {' W5 _4 r" j责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。9 j, Y! ~$ h6 f
       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
* k4 P) G) E/ ],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
5 m1 I3 f6 R3 i" H”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。& H0 r( S& N1 B. T" F
       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! Z) n# k% {+ b/ q& X
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7 P7 L' b6 |5 ^: }1 F
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。0 s; L! X6 `3 ~! K& ]; \. s' V
       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; e! h3 K1 {. u5 J0 O0 X
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" Z( o2 a% |5 v% _- C* T
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
# e& Y7 G: ~) J! N2 G: H0 z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
# ~+ ^9 w( V" R4 c& m300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  H5 G! C" j8 M4 e" [9 H
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* l4 l" }: ^+ m2 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
- z) P2 n: P1 y# X& o# b) u+ 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
2 H+ a1 Z0 n8 X录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
. h/ C% c/ p0 \( S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
) l! Q2 G6 y6 L0 e5 q# V7 s8 i# ~1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
3 [' d, D7 b3 O6 H# iWikipedia。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9 `% f7 G0 E( V# h" x$ Q- v
同意见的专家。
3 d# m7 d" S3 j  ^: v, U3 ]/ _$ M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( p& Q& N) Q+ e7 f( P2 ~/ i# \4 J+ 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7 a8 y6 N5 x/ B. H# F. l5 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
8 o& \/ y) o# F, y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。5 T/ `* O9 G) f* [' T! Y
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)
9 J: _- q: p  ~. ?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 `& ^  g& X+ e* b+ G) p
《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而! |' C3 |8 `8 n6 _7 |; S, Z) O
这些被Callaway忽略。  n% B' @$ e5 J5 ]
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; i5 L- }& r% L9 @
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( A  H6 g& j: ~, t- N' C
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 u1 Z0 o! l+ m) Q& [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& Y- u$ ]6 p: R% \/ N7 z
学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学* Q0 _$ C: C2 |; ?8 h: y
家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文,才有《自然》的
; g9 L5 }0 d0 y% K+ P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。
" O" ]' `; G5 D, A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 _+ U4 _. T3 l% H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
8 h/ l' C) Q$ c. m: c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
' G7 M% P6 m1 p6 S+ m”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
, {+ g4 U7 s; J2 _" A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0 L6 k6 H5 O8 {1 h' }: 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) k5 V5 j5 p( d9 _) I
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+ d$ {6 i2 {$ j: ^% z  L; m
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
4 L4 y3 `. e! ^, ?0 d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2 X! Y! {* V' S( W
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* f& }  h( O( w7 W  `$ e& b我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
, E, h, I# G* \* \/ x
! x- _, M2 t! n
0 M- i/ w8 X! b: X8 a+ J5 T北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
. u# j, t( ?( D8 I$ O8 ?0 T  C7 V% ?; D
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
& u6 j( \: g) W' Z4 M" O附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email& _$ [6 ^) [; S) W, f
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 i$ i6 B$ O# L; \附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
/ S3 L/ A  S# N6 O1 j2 H/ S  t; p4 `4 T! q; v

% e' s' a2 C3 }( l
" L* ?) T- `' }; N8 ?" K. C原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
* @! G1 @0 M4 n& p; tDear Phil,$ x% }+ B4 F! r$ L# S. Q* I9 J0 R# S
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
/ `- \  I% S/ l  t+ Ireport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
- y% _" K0 N) {: q' g: thours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
$ A+ |3 ]# }+ }6 _. ^7 K  Lyou.
( e5 Y7 F1 `! l! i* x9 B/ }       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have$ v+ \! C4 f* S* E; i$ F
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese1 t1 C5 X& r7 B0 U1 G% K1 M! }* b
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ @1 U9 k4 r3 z* v; b( c: C4 Iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
' {' |2 Y# w/ W* Y& rpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more. W# a6 n& v! V6 f
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
* c2 N2 f/ T+ T5 Z$ r! Xpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.; ^" l. @! [2 A0 c6 I: z
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
; B8 n7 Q9 O( s" M7 _0 z; Sworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
0 u# a* a9 e3 _: Bnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! o3 b( y9 \# a% }4 v7 ethat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
% q. u+ y1 V5 f9 z- [did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping+ F. f' `: R2 Q- B+ F( P, s: S
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
( W' ?4 a9 U* Jstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: T' _1 ~0 X. Fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
: P" k& L0 T( v9 i- wto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news9 K7 A7 d) v: p  Z8 Z& H3 F
reporting.
7 D, b7 m# l7 b* w- f* ]       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
$ l+ b; ]2 n3 n) i# Valready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
5 B) C* S0 v' i/ D: k- Y  E  schanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
# x1 X$ k0 s$ ]3 j  isports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A. Y' K1 R) }) Q2 }; [
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
1 w' _1 ~5 i( R) X% p+ d5 d2 H       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
0 O5 N+ [4 c7 ^; N. {more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
' O1 p' J4 I7 |& Bfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. A* `9 m) l+ S( T: e; G
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same1 F" u1 s4 ]  b3 e5 ^' ?" @/ l
event for men, with the second fastest record.
7 B9 `- H4 c4 x3 `, |8 G/ m       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
+ V- b& |! |2 o; O% }was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 160 T4 I# a# `5 p" \
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
+ r& u  n% X8 c$ O" a7 J. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400- D3 I- C! [, K( z8 J
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
( }- K0 l' l  v8 Y: }+ F, J" Efor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than7 X7 G! M  b" W( g
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed- c: {+ P' r, i
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& B  M; C$ X) V8 i+ Windividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ O; G% e1 _8 O( T5 p
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
, ?/ z5 N+ e( R) _" K( g- k  k4 \those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
. w2 ?1 u4 k7 F0 p3 f- Gher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
/ {0 R- v# z. h9 phe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 J9 z8 l4 A& a/ ]$ ^% _1 ~2 M& M; A
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other! _2 B# x( P+ `: Q
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
. ?. x; I: }, P4 Z! a. X% steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the& x0 Z' j$ c+ m+ u
Callaway report.
$ E; o! L" b, m2 x6 `There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more, [' H# W# D) N7 U  |
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
: I2 T& _7 N# ~2 W/ [here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description0 ?. H, {9 [4 L& r
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
* b! ~0 Q; U) N$ qbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
8 Y2 s% S6 S' z$ X8 BWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had) P- j0 l* Y9 @, ]9 y  u) i
publicly voiced different opinions.4 o3 r5 y. @5 t& S: a
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ {+ S* N8 A7 T1 x
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" T, \; J% V7 [6 x8 v7 c3 gNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
* p. _! [) W7 J4 z. R9 b  R3 D; Xpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
$ G5 P& R% t8 n% Iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 J- I: I8 f5 R  }6 Y& gof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
# f. r1 a: i7 w0 S' k- l7 T! F6 IThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think* L" m8 W3 O) X8 f: Z; S
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 o( N$ M% U) S; jhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as( q- c: s/ ^$ r& y
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
, P- L' E' D# L9 q9 v4 Qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was6 Y- k6 M5 d7 @8 M  w# m" K
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.6 [6 d) f+ @( A7 D) P
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
" A/ h/ z/ \7 ?5 u9 G5 lmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the) ]: g  H' ~- l5 e% L
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
* G8 z8 T( V2 X$ Y; q/ ^# n(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 h  W$ x, M/ ]- ~* Rand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.8 ?8 w2 b/ Y" `. T
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
3 T2 J+ v3 q" A& gand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
) c' v7 ~# @2 u" j$ HDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
4 @) {4 L% n9 S% bNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
- m) W; A- |6 r2 U2 ?& M( L9 Eobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
3 p1 T4 F) C, C' Vwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to/ R6 A8 [# H- C3 }' a% M$ d5 o
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, H# f3 R: j& E1 ?4 G5 V7 @" OThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
8 {: {5 ^9 z5 H+ H6 S9 n% U; vshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced- f) G; [8 Z; E& j8 Q6 ?5 }
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
4 U% L2 Y( u2 H% t2 Mfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
( Z2 m; L8 i9 J: Wthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( e4 h, [( o# s- e3 Mabout British supremacy./ Y+ T3 |3 @" ~' D" X" h( Z! L
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
. j3 k0 |; w, z8 J/ o$ t+ f5 Sunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more- f5 V- {( w/ D3 T. h
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by" d5 I2 I6 K8 T
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
+ k- y: L0 P  Y! vOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases." F+ S  _; t7 K
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
  d  D! `$ a- b( J( P  T! uprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
" ~8 ~& b# K% c3 d! Hbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
* a8 H  ^! x+ @, x! @6 P% y- {+ tit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
4 A) X* ?# _  ^; p1 L3 e1 [9 F6 {publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like0 `. z1 O. s; r8 z2 R& u
Nature., I& m( N8 [4 w0 N# p! ^
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 G- u. z! ]- E+ Z9 [/ U
the Callaway report.
( ~! p" s! e; Q2 Z
2 ?/ C  u, P( sYi4 @$ r8 J! C1 @  K8 X% @5 X( d1 F

  p9 E, ?. w$ |3 q% {- D6 G  ?  pYi Rao, Ph.D.9 p, f# ?' g7 S+ D) n4 b
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
: \! v) R- a8 y4 y# }) tBeijing, China8 U) W9 ~4 p; O& 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!!!
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
3 W' H7 a+ ~, M% Q( v原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

) ?  i- h2 ~5 ]/ q$ q" r! a原文是公开信。+ c4 D/ A4 j" {( K: r& }

) Y, h5 ?; W* e* R. X# q小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
理袁律师事务所
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 ; K1 L7 Z4 \; p& ^7 n0 e5 ]
原文是公开信。/ }/ {! o+ p) Q( _8 }

0 G6 P; f5 T2 W6 F6 q) g  m小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

$ o* Q( E& H( A9 \! }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 JIANG0 g' b" Q% n/ M
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- Q' L: t/ b9 K
: x7 t9 r/ Y2 o9 `7 T% U, M
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
" F" ~6 P( q# z1 b( Y. P, |. g. f
* N/ b! ?, ^4 [5 d% WFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania: D* j# z- F4 M0 \
1 z1 D  m5 Q7 `! l6 ]9 j0 l
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself, a$ c! ^4 q" T4 {- B
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
; k* e4 y" D) @0 @magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this3 t! v# N" s6 M) U
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
! |" X" I7 n+ ^+ Rscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* O/ f7 m: @( B' E
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors8 R( e( \: U" c, Q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 y! }1 @4 t, S8 iwhich they blatantly failed to do.
& K9 q# \( r; z3 D! z/ Y- @4 }  d+ X
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
  {1 s! \4 b& h: iOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
  `* O1 v5 c# a& }+ g9 B- l" D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “/ p* ]/ k6 r( E$ a+ {1 C
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
3 ~- p! ^" l3 cpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( x# i7 I/ U1 O' B2 g0 {0 i
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the6 @# L1 z$ w. N! B* h5 {" M, p
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* L1 j; f' |0 g9 k' E3 K, dbe treated as 7 s.5 f- o+ T( A0 C1 m

  U, w% J* Z# P5 vSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is# z: Z, a9 s8 q! n7 A& i
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem1 o2 p* H+ \, A9 c# t
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
  ^  ^/ s4 O+ ?5 F* q; m+ HAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# a) x9 N  \- m
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
8 ]" `. w- q" v- l' z+ U$ wFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an- W. ^# @" S4 L
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
% `* g8 n2 O$ T. I8 t( k4 vpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
5 |; P! I/ J& e4 I# G( obased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
" h2 O! M6 v* j
+ ~' Y5 v2 l- s0 Q1 y6 q- d9 xThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# Y; p" n7 _+ {9 J" I: s$ zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ ^) H5 `5 C8 @8 b! P8 k& @
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so4 m" w# K8 M0 W+ l& @0 F
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( [" |  z# x# Y! L8 [
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
. R" N$ f& X- j" T& R8 [! n* ebest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World9 U+ d+ I/ @" V0 X# G+ ~( P
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another; t/ l, E1 T. ~1 n4 Q+ p! r( L$ l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other  ~; r8 ?* N9 e% Y0 A5 q: S
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& `) C7 i* G8 M( I, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this/ [0 K9 q: u8 {1 X2 D5 X
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 G9 e4 _( ?3 Z3 x
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam4 |. f0 `8 H) e0 |
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% f2 D, _' o. g/ N! taside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ {, T7 Q6 j  s& G
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 f( T  M: p, G0 }
: g; m. S' Y8 y$ {& z" oFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are. W+ O. y* t! n6 Y; z; g
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 Z5 n5 v, x$ ]! U7 Gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s; Y6 C0 ?* A/ e- p' A* k" r
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
( d! m) E* R+ Cout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* S5 Y) j, _  O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: p3 B2 k; p1 e  Y3 ]of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
- u  O& @$ Y7 r. J4 E+ B; z; flogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) v5 `" M: r5 e- P" \. v) x- Tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science& Z0 L* b; |3 E) q) T
works.' U8 S, U- w' S: M
7 w4 b7 W7 U8 `) c) ~
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 {9 v) w7 ^# P1 M% f0 M, ^
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
" O+ y5 j1 h' O( H5 E7 W5 ?; Nkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that# v% Q' G4 W$ u% P' @
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) F- l' m2 n1 F+ `5 d: ?! v; Lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
; z5 `' a- Z8 S5 s6 y* N$ Previewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One6 ^0 ]+ u2 ]2 \
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 Q3 ~  A. s0 @5 D9 k, B0 gdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
! d+ s1 ~$ F8 z" F" ~6 ito a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ h/ y2 ?$ _% e5 G- J9 @! Nis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is1 d5 K2 W. F4 T1 [# c
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he4 y. f# E) t7 C+ y4 W
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( {6 F  _' b" I+ ^/ r4 u4 l% w
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; O( C1 G8 _+ ]% p) t; F8 M
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not9 ^, g' l- j, d/ Y" S4 z
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation( N2 ]; |) S0 |7 L2 \, a
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
' G- [* @5 U8 r( ndoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may% X6 K8 ]9 u4 I" a
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
1 ^! B! K8 ?* Ghearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 V  K# E& |0 }5 I. o. L; ?
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% ~2 v1 J& o: F, F; Q, H0 H' f' b; m8 ~
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:2 l- k/ x$ q7 }* b) ^
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* l# V! a# Z$ J1 E, ?1 p, m
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ H! ]! I/ q; x! M# Wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an) @# \$ Y# j( E1 |$ p
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; W0 o3 m5 a  R
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?! p  I3 B3 P, \, d& {0 i$ Y: ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# h! m" R# Y2 }/ }# h1 Pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 M+ H! w4 O3 ?2 N  i1 S. E5 Meight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ r- }: r" W% z& b% x
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
  O8 h9 p! O$ F# T! ?
8 ~3 ~2 u  w( f! a9 S; u0 F0 |7 ]. ]Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
" r& F! y6 M: z! B$ f0 Icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention6 v0 G/ K5 {# H3 X8 j7 l
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ k- r4 U2 s" v2 J, iOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
- \1 r" m" H/ Q: y/ aOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
4 b6 d' y9 C% g8 d/ _doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 T- U! `. x4 t" Z
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
$ |) B# ^% P% C( t8 u, d& w: t7 Xhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: b) Y4 D0 Y' J( w, {. U) ]
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# u. E" {, i  ~5 j
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.& ]# o- ^+ j4 `( V6 i: J
/ k9 z, q7 G" \0 K
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- `0 L7 x0 G; C0 `. W  d- O6 `
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 ?  @/ T' S: @2 \9 ssuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
6 ~: R" }" H- O% U0 U: vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
8 b7 W) d; R: v/ _# Rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
5 a8 M1 i$ s+ m. Y7 uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
/ p) D5 m% l+ Q( L1 D6 x$ _explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; G6 h; n+ S+ p' a' ^7 K  Iargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
* H( p# E$ K4 p# ]such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
3 d" E! v6 G; V* hreporting 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, 2026-1-26 05:53 , Processed in 0.146889 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