埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1838|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, q$ O$ g' W- o% A1 V

; }, l2 G) L- g8 A饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
* o# y' ]( {: `. A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。; u! M1 `4 d( D+ B( [
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 V: E& V" t+ _6 l1 O  Y1 h
2 C6 V- k. L2 V
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
, I9 @( W" k* k& {
# |6 H5 A# K* s) z6 _  F1 B致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
1 F. m( v* X5 G. \* K* ]6 r# w0 b, ]
英文原信附后,大意如下:
( c8 x" O9 D2 f, B. l  @6 i1 n1 U1 {
斐尔,
! R# Z3 ~: m- b& g2 h       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6 m$ n9 @# F% c! R( g
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
% R0 a8 d4 b$ e4 E. {       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
1 D% ^, v1 W" W0 m2 z/ j' ^7 ~. L6 z3 J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
6 J1 |: w) r+ 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。9 V  p% _+ v4 C" v
       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞- c* D. }  U. w) {
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7 a" x' g+ D3 Y2 Z3 _& h5 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 {% y* d# C
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。
5 t( b8 R* D' W' P: T9 k% ^- S: h       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" \& s; T  ?( s, E% X7 q
,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8 R% c8 C8 P. r! C7 Z% b
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 G6 I/ C" z5 M' H; s4 Z( P0 z+ 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
; E& k" L' C5 ^! E  \# [; I( P( e& @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& l/ z% V! @( i5 O
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。) I/ L" v" C0 p' J- f9 X, h
       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
& l0 x( N5 m9 ^* |' L$ r3 }1 `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
; i3 y6 b, X. w- |. S0 P  m- i+ |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
* V4 u* _0 V5 w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
5 s5 f, F' `, W: f& D7 }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
9 l1 w% J6 z: F* ^8 ^: v! q: 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3 C& N! ^+ J! h6 @' a1 e
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
; ^6 E4 r0 ^( t6 \- H! k: a。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
0 u  z  E% Q2 X  k录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。4 I9 o1 ?, X% M3 v) D$ M
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2 I* L: l3 x- R; 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( O6 U$ l+ X1 K- ]" {8 c7 Z
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+ n% b  \  H  \/ s. }& S) S
同意见的专家。/ M. v! Z, A9 m! D0 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9 o1 N8 R" Y5 ]  b' B5 h; r
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/ ?  e" o' ]( r0 E% O9 n+ |6 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
( E7 R8 o2 [, w# U《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
7 @3 w9 X+ p& U% F- k" uCallaway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)
( |# E7 a% k% E7 k) Q5 L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5 ~# C* n5 a' N6 s# c" L, F
《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. g# g) f, O2 V9 T8 ^* ]% A( g
这些被Callaway忽略。
9 Y# f1 C0 [/ Y3 G( F/ X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( F. l6 {- \& a4 d
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0 g5 ]6 j9 `5 c. R* ~) `
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
+ o$ d1 c% D( H7 S0 O/ t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; p& \; }7 {; G
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  n+ h/ ~+ G7 a3 l+ z
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0 ?* f: C( ?7 |; {8 q
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。
& m( E/ j5 V9 M- U2 [3 \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: }$ t7 Q" ^1 |% z
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
- Q! b% k4 {: _/ K+ U. v9 p( }2 b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
5 t6 t6 i  j6 q" |, ]+ z”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。# L! P4 G5 Q( r0 M2 G+ ~
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 e, A- V9 w1 N9 @4 j+ l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
0 ~5 Y) y) b. F/ l* F: W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
. H1 t6 K( K: s3 q" D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& Z- z. J3 N) {* Q) A
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- k% K; x; z- C3 Z, Q3 `
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
) Z6 Q2 v. w6 t: F% T我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 W' [0 j% t* {3 j  n5 R1 Y, q  U6 ?0 `9 j1 O# Q- S9 J
# N) c! c+ {% |: }' g5 G
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: A! G7 E& z8 i: x, ]
2 J+ {0 `. {) V' u4 O( f3 D
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: s& {; d/ s) |+ I9 b
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email6 d' Q+ c2 _5 s
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 S+ O0 f- }. J8 E* t  e8 ]附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见$ C, ?" _8 ^3 n- P
" u1 {2 e- _* k! u$ F

. b- o! J# }7 C  |9 _6 K5 F* c6 @5 Y
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送). J- y4 L( k+ Q# ]  h8 O3 Q+ d
Dear Phil,, f& S. i: a. y
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s) V* K* a( H1 m
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) G4 h. J7 G; P0 k) D5 ~3 X, ?% R3 ^hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
  w: D& C: W( E2 Kyou.
+ t% C8 \; }1 c       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 n, j1 i$ l1 U4 n8 m; @
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
2 `) h6 k3 x  H( v0 r0 x9 S: F. qreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
2 p# c1 _" T) L% H! n& N5 Y! Qworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature8 N: N* R) {6 k3 |+ a
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 H* K1 P3 [7 }5 U! Z0 E5 j: N
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
. }5 ~  N5 o' M/ V, R8 D, a5 F( @pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.0 b4 k3 c  U# J
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the, y# V6 K1 {& X* p+ v( _
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a" B& A+ D: F% M
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 `. Q6 o& b0 D% F7 ethat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. T% p2 E" m7 S" s5 u( k7 i% D7 J
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
' x3 I' Y. ^; O: kexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
2 ^# _6 _% H; U/ {( Z; r( ustandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,9 r( X8 [+ u3 [6 C
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone& J8 U% |; r! B' [  ]( B8 C
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
* A* S1 z- c$ T1 a- E! K% x% B) ireporting.1 {# n3 n' D/ o8 N( F8 f
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have" b  R4 f2 x' G4 \+ @% a& ]0 G
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by! e2 u: f/ D( Y  D- Z
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in6 Z6 n& J2 ]* u$ N* k
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A, e5 L4 W7 K6 r) F  P4 C1 G4 A
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
6 O% q1 m0 E2 D0 K1 R" C1 j       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem$ C/ q3 ^) d# V4 Q0 U. ^: R1 E' `6 z$ p: M
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
7 v5 d: A$ e0 o8 l' U) ufaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50: u- W; Q# ?0 f# r( x) ?
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same9 _5 K9 p! h, J( S$ p5 |0 K+ |
event for men, with the second fastest record.2 E$ n* y; S: t. k! G$ x
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 b; ?( _* i% a. l: g: ~was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
# \+ |, {' s5 v8 ayear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record  ?* S0 a: ]" P
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400; M  M3 I" Q, D* c- W5 ~
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
5 s4 @6 z( I; M6 r( R/ ]for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) ]% s* s2 f$ a8 A6 |Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed# \' S) h# `# i
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
  ], ]! W5 p$ \, B  r8 uindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
8 m1 C$ ~3 I4 k% Mthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
3 F( z  G) G1 R% ?! Zthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was: q+ m. D  m* Y' w3 e: O/ \6 K
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
! {* f- D' t# Uhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) `5 X: |  L6 [' W6 Nproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other- T9 o/ U' }) B
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the; U$ D; ]! @+ k. `7 A
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the$ A" s4 h4 {9 w5 z1 ^, _
Callaway report.. I: ^1 l" m+ U! w- G- P, C  r
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
) X( J1 \+ p( s% D. u- v0 }+ D- M% xunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details* |1 J6 P1 J6 E8 A, b; l2 _, ?/ D
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
  U% F5 x- x6 [# a1 q9 Iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
* j3 l% X( P; t3 c7 Wbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the6 W2 F+ F8 Q3 o# p  _5 m! d$ C& L
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
$ Q% ^/ x" p; C; m. d* v$ Epublicly voiced different opinions.% r/ I" t" W0 ^+ X! P* {$ w
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
! w8 S9 }2 e6 n3 Rfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
4 h3 [, z: b' S' }! i) U, uNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent8 h% K. f" q; Y$ G) t: }
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds/ ~8 C" t1 j# Y: {. G; t  C5 Z* M
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  u. U9 f- p, ?! |7 F
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.! V: ?4 j& k; U; ]8 d
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
- D( a' W& l! d- u: E  w' a$ Athat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They7 [) ~0 i* \! \3 {; I
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as" Q) }! y' j+ r5 E
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
3 x0 t# ^' _0 F! |1 \) C$ Ethe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was" W5 g7 a$ {0 a+ N, X  T0 |$ z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.2 v4 ^. L7 w0 k
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
5 W6 @$ W1 W3 s& Y2 M  M, ]many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the6 D7 p! k6 O) Z% v+ \$ |* I
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" O/ y2 U4 l9 e$ ^6 g$ `" p8 ?(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ c0 k" ]6 B5 Y& x: V1 S9 |and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ W! C" B: t$ @5 B8 tThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
" l& t9 z) X1 u; M$ A, H& R8 W) Tand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and: t, W! P3 t; s( B
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
3 h) t4 W9 ~2 `' L0 \% c; eNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and3 ]7 r+ e6 \" b. M; t0 Y
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
: f! D  D% \3 ?what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to2 \* Z) q! P$ C4 g& ^
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
2 c1 Q2 S! `* B3 hThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
% X/ T9 B  `* a; N, E+ \& Xshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced$ w& b1 z/ u' `6 M
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather( `* `% S4 z+ y$ z4 [
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that6 }: `7 k1 b# v1 \8 a& e
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”$ v7 [2 P9 q2 o
about British supremacy.
5 c3 ~0 I; s3 o" z/ M% c3 R4 LThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
- s! c) @4 ^$ Y! Z6 iunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
# X% a  R: y. ^. PChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
: w; P% i7 x; hour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% C) L1 M! d) |" m& B) o* ?Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.  [6 m# d: A: W* U4 T$ {
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 G1 C" C- V& K) }2 I/ u0 @
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
% r/ B/ P# u6 N4 g% {3 ]before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ b- ^: N9 W$ z6 k& x9 L6 ~% ]
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
1 f2 U! J+ L) v; z0 n6 Apublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
# h* }5 O" \* hNature.
6 g0 \- G. z. j' b% II hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance, b+ D* `1 l% e% r) l( T- A
the Callaway report./ A7 a0 Y; H  `2 C1 }& r/ Y! P4 D
* a2 G$ U& E& @/ M  j+ F$ N; [
Yi
2 S% A6 k4 X5 `  p+ |  u+ p/ H" N, [/ f: e
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
* K& P4 ?! c5 RProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
+ W# j/ F( z' mBeijing, China
+ s  Q: o" o/ M+ g& z1 n
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 ( D* E$ \& _- O5 @5 n2 q
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

( S3 h, z6 I  k! C3 m9 b, S原文是公开信。; A4 D6 f: ^+ x  @1 P

0 g! w1 ^# e+ J' {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
: ]+ C* l# W& A% s( Y* r3 _原文是公开信。
: [# \" `2 \" U* C
6 X6 S6 E! f8 q" Z5 X( U1 e& e3 R小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

6 P! _# q& M  X. z1 h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
( e% q/ @% Z) I; Y$ @+ q, |如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
3 h) G) T' _( b$ s8 n. `7 V# C  i( a6 }, B, b$ K
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html& E" m$ Q7 M  j/ D0 |( N- \+ \

: [8 z" [# P) y7 n- T) E7 j3 p, K& qFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 C* b3 Q: ?3 w9 d+ C# P

" O4 Z+ J& ~3 k1 tIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
( |1 `, z  @% P: t! K, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ l& r" o* S: R5 u% u5 ~
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
0 g  N+ }* e5 v+ [, P' Pis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the* b; z9 n0 `' Z0 H; x# \3 J7 y# B: L/ Z
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* v" P& R5 x* q0 {
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
" l: M  u; }- ~. m8 T5 ]should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 O; o/ V% S6 C: R* P# a
which they blatantly failed to do.- M0 V3 r4 X  V- }, r. [8 W

! n9 y. M2 O9 }" K6 F6 q/ i! MFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
1 z5 m% R6 t9 I* T1 `) o0 zOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in  N; a4 R' n6 a4 j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: |: `$ g( y5 @" z( ~; U  S- \  hanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
5 y/ q, Y9 \0 q' Xpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 b7 `4 h* u, T  N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
0 X4 @9 R8 W% z1 o/ Xdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to/ x# Z, s* w. A* |
be treated as 7 s.5 N+ o1 V( v  V* @4 c% }; O) G

7 O$ ^) _4 m0 R6 [0 [8 U% \' d. E8 bSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is/ a) Q+ ~0 F- P8 n% k
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem  J: y5 y, L5 o# d
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) u" {2 c. _1 S. K  _9 uAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
4 n! v9 }/ V5 K7 c9 T7 T; l-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; i* R7 F; `' ?5 Z8 y# y
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 O1 |: @6 G) w7 b& a1 E0 w
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and5 a; m. [7 T& P3 ~, u+ U) d* T6 R# [
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”! R7 _+ {* ]  K; G  N: ]3 A
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ P$ A! [& s. r4 y& D9 X2 @; s8 V
6 {+ R2 E( B- B+ L' H* B. wThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook  s1 D0 l0 H, G2 s$ t
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 ]6 N9 l7 ^. b7 m& M( `* y6 c
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so% x" H8 Z' Q2 Q$ v" j! \
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: s- g& p4 T: ]7 l# Revents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s9 }- r6 q# R+ N- B4 S( M$ ]
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
( M3 Z0 u& }9 ]* c9 _Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% u/ K* |$ O  s
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( w3 d% R! L. I# G# B
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle% G3 H. b% ?0 w1 B
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! h% t4 B. z& r" astrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds- k  y9 m9 u1 u# E8 r
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 h; E" y9 c" ]& Y- hfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting4 A3 F  h  f3 z% n5 F
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 Y) w+ F1 ~3 p4 P7 A# |
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 I0 A  P; \, G( g: O- o$ V' {& |
1 E- U+ [' `' A! N1 D, v6 I$ KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are  B5 f$ b" ]8 d$ z+ |
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 @) q, k5 L2 n3 j8 S- l
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s3 i8 N5 P$ H8 P6 V& f4 S- o( W, r- m
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. _  B) n8 H9 v* aout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
  \0 l" h- |. Y+ ~7 wLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
3 O- |$ V% l& J5 Y# ~5 Aof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 {: A3 ^1 y7 m4 i4 y! K  B& U
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
0 d* k/ c, j/ K! k9 f( zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science* @( `& H( W5 q+ ~4 B8 Z  Z
works.3 \! g5 Q2 P; d: \7 G3 Q# Q
0 B' B- K$ W5 [! G  ~
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and' s. w" C. v! ?( b& _4 y* ~" o. E/ e
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this- o  W( }" j% i8 ?- x. D* B
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
) x/ t+ Q# @. G: ?: {& H; O( Cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific4 U) q  q3 e5 S. ]$ d! d
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and4 b3 f) I  X" A) O! Y
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One. p) t. q( \0 Z/ v. Z, I9 W7 m
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ H+ I; G' l  e+ L  o7 S1 s6 N. h
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works+ p" B- t- ^, ]# ^$ @
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
0 H$ ]$ n7 d( y. [' l, [3 ~3 |$ @is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 A) f$ d! A5 Q8 ]7 d( Ocrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he6 {8 {3 L* D- x0 d! X4 S
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly& W6 |$ I* d# ~9 i
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 t6 Z  m7 P+ L4 P
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not. j+ N! {( N3 |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation5 X: Y3 d  F  W1 C; v/ x  h
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are( p  B/ `, c6 d6 D4 G
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
9 }" X% |. @4 ~6 ~be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
  P; J0 l/ Z) J8 R; o$ o6 `0 ~* ohearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 m; t& G' E  k% g
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
7 `+ P2 J6 u% S3 z+ w7 J# x3 tdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ z* I) {. R7 Y, U5 dother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect; I# l6 j3 Q5 R, _
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
: Z1 m! q3 S+ y2 S1 h/ }, kprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an# R* f0 O9 y5 O+ G4 o& e
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight/ [$ Z7 i- J7 D; c+ b) ^& o
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* h3 @# z8 ?  DLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping. t6 y: i( D. ]4 b6 I$ X0 `' i
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for' w5 M# p8 c. n& N4 y' Y
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
4 n! A7 L! o  i( E& B& _2 MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
' s& a  p; X" v
9 E0 w4 }2 g$ r( q# S0 OSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
4 m8 S4 e  b0 X+ y5 ncompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention$ n1 v) V7 e8 m9 t9 u2 x
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
7 \3 w. J  F  iOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 C# Q- _2 f+ Q+ ^8 F- C/ M: YOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 V& V: e4 p; u0 K, o
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic9 G: L0 Y4 _" B1 w1 ?$ O' g. [8 y
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope  K9 R/ d0 x2 K+ a3 x. q6 n1 N: B$ P
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a$ G: \' o: P: B4 Z. z
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
$ t* v% O3 F& G) X' e7 F- ?possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.* h8 x- U- L% O& t

( k4 q7 x: j( c" ~7 FOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
; K5 D( ^( D4 \1 kintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
' i3 R3 `" \% Z# Q) J7 B( ksuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 a7 q1 j, z" t( w2 Z* dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 R6 C& [: K* o' l) q+ M
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
% f7 m. @# t2 M& v) X6 ^2 ?interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
* q6 m  c" }, c' F, j& S- \explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your4 v  a; f4 \6 F$ M
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
" e- P) U6 N9 {8 w& c1 Isuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( l1 n( h) b  I, q8 c
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, 2025-11-25 15:23 , Processed in 0.177561 second(s), 21 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