埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2305|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
- g$ ]. g$ f. r3 E, J' x' e& R) x7 x  `# H
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
8 ]7 c% r9 b. h& G1 j# 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。
/ Z# V" d- u3 v+ {8 D- l8 l$ G总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。: w! y4 w. X, A' |) S4 f

' o% u1 v; Q/ s% a% ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! `& k8 h/ l' M% m6 I' a) k4 V( x' p: T
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
" b' D0 v" ~6 v! j0 `$ q1 ]/ a) W1 u3 W% b* {
英文原信附后,大意如下:6 X4 y+ V6 S# M; u9 f# I# i

8 `6 c# v0 d6 i斐尔,' ]! K" s0 M- `! o7 [2 P. Y
       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 z/ z- {. s0 \0 V" Memail的人里面小部分也给我来信。* n2 }) a- b( u& ^* a" g2 P$ C4 p3 I. j
       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+ P: Z. n- U* Z) [
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
  ~" V' ~2 v# b) _0 c6 T3 r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。
8 \7 G! F; p9 x6 L" ^4 K6 T       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- E  g9 U! V# x4 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9 b; ^9 O0 N; \6 D
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
) g1 {5 t8 W+ O' h( g  ]# Y% A* n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。' ?% n: |* r; E
       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
, P9 W% v: \3 i; B* ?' l1 |,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; I2 @1 Z" s& _  c0 {
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
& V6 y5 Q* C. Z5 c! v  d       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: X/ Q% o% f& G" r$ f- o
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
$ \" F9 X' ^. N3 }* x,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
5 L, Y6 ?! V, Q/ U3 h( E( k       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& R  Z' w5 @) ^4 g, j
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. k, r) X$ E, N0 C) b# q
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& u+ ^( P& Z/ {( J, T8 Q2 Y
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4 B# l! z) {. ^5 ?7 O5 U
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. ?/ g# _# x; I8 C! a& e6 V! n! I
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+ r( [. @- V. ~* ~+ j, 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  W# S0 n. g' ~+ \/ 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
; j7 B+ W% l, p; a  ?' C. T& z录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
# w! l& A, l4 n3 s0 q+ n$ c' O+ q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, ^* Y% z' N) q) S
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
# m- [* u" Z; r& Q% x# {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
: H3 o6 x! |% T0 B同意见的专家。
0 M1 U) W# C  ]' c( j  C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
& g' b8 k2 d0 I) B. d8 E9 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2 U! l0 [0 @  \, N( Z- M) 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3 \. j5 o. x: d+ S5 I% D
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。; r) q1 a/ j2 q' K! 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)  Z: v( ?" J* J" b) ?
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9 D: x6 S( x. Q, a; S3 [8 P4 |5 I0 O3 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
3 t' p+ ~$ ]7 |6 ?7 k8 z这些被Callaway忽略。) s: R* Q' i$ {/ T) j! L# }& L
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' ]/ m* q$ u& w4 M) C' K
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
) _) H9 x( v! k# U6 ]  ]教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。  `0 }) O" j- [) s4 i; F+ \' L
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
2 ^; b) }5 }% t  s0 h; r% `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 _1 Q  h3 d- z7 I9 D8 g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 v+ |7 f5 ~: L1 f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。/ @9 v, J8 ~3 s% l
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
6 M4 j9 Y9 }* m) T: \7 {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4 J* C6 d7 K, T7 d4 U7 [
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
' c7 N" r5 Y; Q2 ]# z”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
9 O% V& S; h9 O/ e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
/ m4 e& V+ D% O/ X! |1 w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
; A1 t% q  f  x0 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- g$ I" a& F1 y0 o3 R7 x
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/ v: v- B6 o. k
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 ^7 @' Q/ R9 d' [5 _: v而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
. s/ _0 C  w3 b' H我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 w! f+ P6 M, P- K; X+ _( B) c
. j* [/ V- q* Y4 q3 Y4 Z& _: {/ x6 _" {0 y  `8 c+ r
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅0 o1 u' n5 x; c$ X

0 O: b: L$ F4 {* D; V9 t% v附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结5 h! K9 U& H5 p* _" k( d
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
4 O* c7 ]. ^6 \$ \8 c* j0 i/ l$ w附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
: F3 p! R! \6 I  c, U1 ^7 h附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 w, `& Y7 ~  V3 p
1 s& K$ q) g* E! o1 I0 N$ x% c# t% T/ y) p2 V

1 X) J* @2 x/ U0 v/ v$ ^原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)/ G6 I* l7 V! Q. l7 I
Dear Phil,3 S+ N3 @5 y7 a) _4 u2 l+ ]" a
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s% ^& E1 g5 i! Y4 t3 N
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
9 _5 i1 d4 y8 b% Ehours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
! y' N9 X4 x+ v8 Y7 Y" Z# E: hyou.4 i6 f6 J4 T  B/ \
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have, ~2 H3 O. V# ?! L9 D  Y
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese# }2 z& Q0 A4 R4 l7 Z* X, t
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the4 _+ ^9 y1 I5 t) {& w1 q. H0 Z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature( Z- |  u, O% p  f) v4 l
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
1 ?7 Y3 U" \9 z9 F& useriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
7 A0 K8 r# D2 P. j; ]pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.9 P3 n5 v! o( E9 t: |. ]" ~
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
3 j+ |% j2 C0 q  H% C0 b. oworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a# |$ w, Z8 V# \% d8 S
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! w* A5 [* N- V4 h# ?that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
) ~( G: E" K/ }; u; zdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
6 A5 T; W9 x0 ^- Qexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
  ?1 M/ f/ c! E. l( \7 `standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. \* j; ^' k& |/ i+ q6 l+ s8 k
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
3 |# w2 ?3 `3 O9 m" kto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news( x+ m# ?$ Q+ L4 B- F+ O' p
reporting.
/ w3 V7 v) I3 V, I& ^       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have* ?) f3 p' D2 q# e
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by7 n9 ~. B  d1 q4 ^& y# j
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in% Y( f$ a5 t) v  z7 u: D) Z% q
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A. w( o4 A  W" J/ k
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 T! ~2 _( n6 n* M( `* `5 _
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
! X! J7 i7 _, `/ _4 T, u, zmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds0 d0 ?0 i( \5 r7 _# L& t- X
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
# ~) F7 a0 X( o( W' bmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
0 v. K1 ~9 T: T0 H5 oevent for men, with the second fastest record.
8 n# k$ T8 }; B# i. u$ F0 ~+ H$ n       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye& _2 W1 x4 K/ N, [& N7 }: X2 D
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
0 r" q' K- g( d( Vyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record- a. h9 A: r; C) t
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
+ L: L8 x0 H% \  K  T4 r% Wmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,* i3 f, r7 ?0 O6 h+ `
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
. U$ d& X: G' a$ L9 e/ zLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ n# U8 a0 F! A8 W
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
4 ~# v  _' o% i# c! findividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower1 R3 e1 i6 Z* x6 K9 g' j
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than. h8 S6 J2 j  k! M) }2 }( L# V
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was% c0 u) n2 u. j% ?
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then+ T- G, y0 N7 P* m2 x# ~
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 N# d$ @+ L) k. Z- _
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' I  @- [0 p& N& U: Q" r$ e6 Gswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
2 |$ o4 T( k$ M9 steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
* s3 C" p( z, {5 y; ECallaway report." h8 m+ g) s2 }* Y
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
; r# e( y- ^/ \9 m5 G9 Kunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
" q, P1 H" R+ U3 i9 g; S' v$ Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description7 P" e' s. ]4 b, W: O7 J
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
) {" @, ?5 ^. V) W, obetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
, J( V4 e  ^: H3 Q  }+ Z8 gWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
3 a$ W! W/ k6 h  o9 U; e; j% b9 |- Jpublicly voiced different opinions.
2 }( g) n' a3 D: d- p9 z$ v5 [You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
/ Q6 R, I/ z/ m: {from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' X  I5 }+ P. _2 ~+ GNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent5 [1 M. V' m6 j, w1 w
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds7 N6 n  u1 M" r: v0 t9 w7 b
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy% m) x, m$ y& D2 f4 _2 I+ k5 K. y; Q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
3 |0 g/ c: E- MThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 e" r2 ]# p4 ?# o; X  E0 k# b
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
) M# h1 N8 n. }have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 j1 r6 ?* x$ ?% |) X: x  L
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that5 E; E+ a9 w" ?3 h* B) ?
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was4 j& D9 W  I- V6 e$ k5 t, m, l
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.2 w) V7 e; G+ C' y4 c
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% F  K8 H- ?- d+ c- W2 smany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  ?6 {, l2 b  d3 a& {
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
$ _6 f) ~$ q) C. W) |- X5 d2 g(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
  [2 w9 q3 t9 W! ?3 I# l! j$ p. Iand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! L9 N( Q2 F/ b( ZThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
7 x+ f2 b" p1 V1 yand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and3 d! a# w$ |, q# J8 u  p) K, X6 N# K
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.! v) G6 X( k8 i
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
6 H: f, \- M  {0 f# Wobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
! h6 T) L4 U& u9 V0 S: Zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to) t! v  m$ y, p/ P, r
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.' F) R+ b& _! ?7 {4 a+ M" f) \
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not1 B. Y) r$ d2 |/ @! q5 K
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
  ~3 T! |, ^' K9 v* wus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
" `, I; x: z; s: U- X/ I, A2 x. C) dfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
1 e+ v- e! `) Y- G! T) v! m* zthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 a! z- u" S' e% [, qabout British supremacy.
: P% P  y" R, l* Z5 yThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many% L# |6 v$ v" W  t& Q
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
# a( a' S* \* ?Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
" W) y! z( M1 a1 H2 J& Nour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) p0 P( [* n" c9 w5 M# ^: S. x) M+ ~
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
+ W8 f. h  o# s5 |Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of& B3 f) v0 b2 U- U, U1 U* r, }
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests* C4 \# d8 L+ j# H: b  X; O
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,5 W. a" [3 T, V3 p0 C; s
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly" Y# B9 M# s0 z% B9 {6 d
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
* g0 U' q# ^! {3 I8 _8 TNature." V3 p% `& y. z5 |4 F
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
7 L; {5 j% |+ t1 h/ S5 N9 R& A  ?the Callaway report.# w0 ]; {& U/ [2 @0 R% O' h! ?& t+ j7 b# i
( x: }- j8 W, F+ d% Q7 D" @
Yi
5 f/ e: J% ?8 i0 E7 V3 l; d
- [; f) V& ?7 D+ ~" B/ u7 `. NYi Rao, Ph.D.
6 [! y: B8 }- q& Q3 r- nProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! M) |) u0 I! H+ M  O6 I  `
Beijing, China4 P' B/ u3 k% N3 Y& {# 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 / d8 t( O3 c0 L! p7 ], O9 D
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

( P+ N7 W+ u2 m2 @原文是公开信。
! ?) C# l% J5 |" s: K' O+ H  N* K# R; a) 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
' Q9 E0 `) T7 u0 G/ _' K原文是公开信。
' f9 e# r. z. X& u4 w5 P) S$ m# a/ ?6 I, P4 |
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
5 t+ M5 Z/ j$ [: B) X; b' N7 }
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
) I/ @4 d0 `% c9 z: I- W9 A如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
5 S4 R! B  R2 v9 B6 f# I% G3 ?. G+ t1 G2 Z/ {+ z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 t1 Q6 [8 A0 n- e& g9 V8 u0 o/ p/ d. a  C; L4 x8 I) r
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# F/ g8 m, c, t! f+ f1 e& r3 U3 y  [$ J6 b- I
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ q+ T3 }2 g: n" T4 B5 A3 t, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science5 [# n  r/ A- Q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this5 U/ o' X$ X$ Y3 ^. m1 R" h
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
! l3 Q( u& y; bscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ w. Y; X# O+ N2 `9 C
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
1 P& v' v$ }+ ~% F- n3 w" Nshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,* n* w1 {# F! ~
which they blatantly failed to do.) A* V! i4 r1 W9 @# p7 }3 c

- B& ?* _/ q& e6 V1 I7 `3 Z4 @First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ I5 S' F% L9 y+ cOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
6 ?) }, V% X  b3 P) x: F0 d, d2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 f  p- B/ h/ f, e2 e) G! q+ K
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
$ B  s3 Y; n. D" g* l8 Tpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an& k! o" V) C; T  Y% A2 b( v( z" V
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
; K6 C! k" [7 t3 P2 U- \; Wdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% z" H  V* S/ r  O, l+ z, Y. G
be treated as 7 s.0 @( \# _" N* O! c: S, u

' f, Q) V) l' ~* J  d3 w1 dSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
4 {2 i, K8 {0 X% t) N) }  e2 Q9 s5 Nstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem! R- N/ G9 p% w! g6 W. |' x3 x
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& O6 ^. j5 M* _2 D( b0 ?0 G4 rAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 u% y0 v9 u" `, Z5 e9 v' W
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16." N/ l; w% m5 R8 V% T
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 l' {+ V' _# w# V- l
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 m, P; \$ H/ @5 O0 j2 K
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 U0 m' F% `5 h: Z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 z, ~& Z4 @& d( e+ t% n% o

9 O( Q% F8 y( x8 NThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
! {: u+ J! ?- Bexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
2 C' v9 z4 {- X; H- N% gthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so- l6 t# @; B1 N: A
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later7 l% J* R& L0 R- U
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ C  u4 S. s6 c: A1 A: ~" K& Z, u1 Mbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! K- _, p7 D! T* F, b5 R, ?
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
$ p8 T4 A: @$ M' n7 dtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other+ W# o& @8 r: p" q6 Z+ m
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
( H# Z! O2 F) W& t7 Z6 V. T, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this# d' E8 N% u- `! u7 X/ [: c) b
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
& D4 p# M- n9 |- ]! s+ a9 vfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam, ~3 W3 Y/ H, u2 ]
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
5 l5 f1 I0 `( x2 t3 Q/ Y! P2 daside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
' h( P: G: q! j# Simplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
1 \& Q8 |* K" Y( \9 q% ~) a4 F# @1 g  s2 \8 y+ \& J! t+ V
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! ]( @- }; g, r- K$ G5 Z$ o
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
5 e) ?1 U0 L! n& }: V. }s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
  g! l1 o; g1 b* S  [9 U  h$ t2 P), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ v! F4 l7 I' |- ^
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,  {) T) B- P  m8 e5 y9 ?
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind; {2 b8 U# z! X; I- j+ H! U2 j
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
6 ~+ ?6 l' R: l$ @logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" W. T0 b1 ~! B$ @: P6 s1 \# Y, J, z
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
2 l2 V% n& X# t9 Nworks.
! M& I7 z" J( i/ h3 M2 f$ [0 u& z1 u* g" D0 [
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; x, y; u# ]4 a5 e- aimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% U  P/ K, Z2 {" ukind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 D8 V0 x* ?/ M+ D- i' qstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 q3 e* R7 q' G1 m2 e" k6 |  epapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ G1 G5 F' f4 E0 k7 Zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* }' Q# j1 ]9 F$ W
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
3 v$ I5 S% K1 \8 v) A" d7 ^" ndemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% }- Q3 M5 \5 \( ~. l  B5 u
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
. S8 B' i, k# |7 @3 fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ T) ]# P2 _" U& P/ w/ D7 h, \crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
# T( D' f( S$ b/ a# E. G. Y0 Ewrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly; r9 R( E* n& z2 T( H
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the7 I% G" p; z# l/ K" P% Y! C
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
' Y2 o1 y2 _$ h7 T# N3 Guse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" }: I/ ?- J/ K: S' G. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 U; f7 M: J1 B4 ~
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may5 ?" Q% T9 c( \; m1 l) U
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
; S9 o# ?# U# w! C9 Uhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
4 f$ N! ^: g! y9 e+ \* y0 |has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 ]$ C& O9 U' I6 j8 I; r. e
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 j2 e  ]8 ~9 Q' A
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 m) i% F1 b" h, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 e. u; K& {4 g5 F$ ?: f' |) bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 I+ x. z6 ]# C& Q! fathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
. [4 N. f: u$ t1 z& U* Z  x8 n/ G8 lchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?* f/ ?/ `+ e/ [5 v8 u, y5 M
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping) r  x% n% ?$ j" `% n. j7 }9 w8 e
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
  E$ V+ W/ j' L0 ~5 G  o5 jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
" O. M* v& d" W* d4 vInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. r' Q/ u) L$ n: d$ U) ?! J$ ]
  _7 M, [1 P4 o' |2 Y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
9 ~7 z- V1 ^" N  ^+ Wcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
) f3 P7 a: v# p% [8 z7 p! p3 }. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
1 W3 N1 R2 V6 q2 J+ R6 gOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London4 B+ O7 L# K6 N% s
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
! t5 [  B! e9 p  H5 G) J$ |- g) Sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic( N4 l: o% w" p2 F( N( W& ]! u' a7 r% p
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
/ l8 I& X0 K% s$ `* I% Xhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
5 k0 y0 {1 C, r! Qplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
& b9 f5 j' i. c( O  |' U2 F1 Npossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.$ m2 @" P. Z5 O+ N* R8 U

: [& q3 r* Y6 C$ h3 I6 K8 HOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 u2 @; ~3 ~- s
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
7 N/ h0 p6 R$ Hsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 H7 |- [7 X& Isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
, Y4 ]. F/ _* N( A7 s" Jall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your! S/ P# u# y6 ^' G/ b5 R" t+ a' W
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
) \5 m3 M4 |8 N) _9 ?explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
! q+ v- q8 j! U. y9 Q8 z8 J7 Q; Margument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal* [7 r+ H- d$ {5 b- r" }7 q/ y
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
" ~) B$ O8 c2 u* dreporting 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, 2026-5-7 19:41 , Processed in 0.180186 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