埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1876|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
* E1 h2 Y* z3 ~( j6 @6 p. v9 g- |/ C( q+ z7 a! Y; z4 d! a* {
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。8 W! ]7 k# D4 S$ F& b5 r
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。
) g. }* i: z* a: P总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 ^+ U9 h9 n7 Z3 y  q& |8 ]0 e9 u& c8 `* w- w. d7 |& [
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html/ L9 C) F+ L3 i3 h8 S+ J, `
2 m* O% J, m) T% J  X
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选( m0 P2 S6 P- J1 P5 D8 K

- T5 s8 O" y6 Z7 F; y' K英文原信附后,大意如下:: X5 F" f- V' ?. P4 w
4 ~' m+ v" B9 v
斐尔,) o1 i# y8 W. h# n3 X; v. 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# z) l! [$ v( b- q  Z$ V0 Q
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。( {& i/ A5 P  ~2 {
       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 W5 N7 Z7 d. v
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/ S- }8 z4 m; n2 M% {8 c
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。$ R7 y. S2 i7 F8 o1 b* L; A3 Q% K
       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) I8 l  Y# L' V8 M3 ?1 E
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
! Z9 F! F: a% a8 Z- M- @8 {& x9 A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
4 t; E- {& ~! ^3 e7 s0 ]1 X7 L& d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 I0 }! S# N5 n6 l, `5 T; r       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
! C( Z/ K5 h/ L6 Y2 F$ h+ Z3 Z,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
$ f' A2 W$ N! K) V% o”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。* F7 A% w5 ^/ z1 F0 s7 {+ `" l
       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
( H0 G( W9 N9 z* j& j0 X1 V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
0 i7 K* L  `8 }1 z4 i( h$ Y,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。) o$ p9 V# b# @# J0 T
       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* |' Z" X0 u; a/ @. F
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# b+ h0 `! g* L" s. p0 ]
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
! G" [- f1 N) G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- U+ [# Z' S! ?5 b6 M4 `
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 `0 ?$ {$ u' _! p9 g' @) w7 R' q4 a
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+ g7 W  r7 o+ P( y
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# y" r% s" x4 J" W0 j* j
。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
( a- _  g/ v+ \. I$ Q录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。0 P5 D0 C" e3 E3 Z" Q7 _! H
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$ p7 f+ c) ?' r! w" ?
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
* q/ L* I) N2 i2 \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! |3 P3 F; `) O2 ]
同意见的专家。
7 ?& f; t' t% A4 `4 ^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/ q! p6 O" j+ ~3 I& [3 W8 a
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
* l& S$ R8 V5 D3 n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
/ i9 H9 L7 N3 z! I& a, o# R1 S  q) o& o《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
# Z* Y9 d" z. M6 R4 {; Y% ZCallaway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)
3 [9 z: `5 r5 P3 x! ]7 J* y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  K: y- J0 e5 e$ w" t6 \
《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! a/ K9 j+ F# n+ l2 `* S; Y
这些被Callaway忽略。# k6 S) f( g2 I8 K! s
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
, q, t! t8 _# y- n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$ Y* t7 [$ j; W9 Y
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。* _8 n. ]  b; _( d* Z* Z
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/ S9 {  N) e8 H7 b- }  V+ G! Z9 @. @
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: A1 X5 P, Z# L, M
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% L; E6 G4 ?# W
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。
0 g8 t% e$ Y! X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
) l$ _: v- \$ y. T, I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
1 Z( f! `! e2 r4 {( {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3 {/ T, v! U5 T+ j
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
- |" X- I: f, w* Z* x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
( G" e) b# t% G6 K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
7 S( {1 l* K' Y$ z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6 @4 r* h! @  c+ g% I4 b. i
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次7 G- b1 U' e% }1 Y2 K# V8 ]
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
$ e+ n, A3 G4 Q8 _6 f. \# H而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
% v4 b* R& t1 R- |4 t2 V3 }" W我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
0 h2 x$ s2 m+ H, f/ `, j1 f+ `5 F9 X7 q9 b/ Q2 D

% d9 g* o) ?) u" F北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅9 E# U. \& E' @8 r% H# W/ n
/ C% B# y4 k& `4 s; E) {
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
7 J7 S& g  s1 m! B附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
: Q, R0 M7 t: v$ L: g# l3 n5 @* a附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见4 E# j% n7 W- s; A* g) c5 @
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见- r; z6 |: v' }5 g6 f( p

, R/ o$ ^0 [+ v: d. a( j: y8 ~
2 h& s# o0 t" U6 |2 t1 f0 P# m  X+ n3 S, d, f* P! U8 f! g
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
& r4 D4 p' S4 _7 f: [! [Dear Phil,% J7 j, @% X7 T$ X. d% A5 x$ }
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s  \' X2 e/ U- H. c8 m
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 209 h) Z; Q, j5 a# ?) a
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 T: G- q, M6 L2 Gyou.# m1 o2 O9 G* d* X  J! |
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have! R; t6 m  F) ~9 _' w9 w& J5 _$ O
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
- |+ `: N# x8 Q8 c7 [readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the9 O) R1 z6 t+ n0 _2 u: U
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ H+ j1 i" ^3 r( M5 q7 ~publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
! r% U) k" k6 _) N, j) h' `7 M7 [seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
) Y. }* ~' y" l& c0 H3 H, ?1 s9 G, [pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.2 ]% m3 L( R6 L# r. c
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the( R5 |5 {' `# k: F* ?# _7 `( r
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a0 O1 V, r0 V* H
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish# {& s) O. V) _# B& {
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
' C8 l- [7 ~: d6 F2 Q: Ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( x' [5 V" s* z3 O. ~explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal" M  F* m2 D- V
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
$ H% M4 g; X$ Kand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
  _6 Q' p: z% Xto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
& p  {" `8 T' oreporting.
% k! j' h1 M' e1 `/ a/ [% M       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have' j/ j& `: E" }& D- |" d4 V
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 ~8 [9 s2 A0 ?* y, ~! X
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in$ g$ t) Z' {/ P* {2 X: p) _1 O
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A/ j+ x" h9 x2 [5 c/ h4 u. U, D. R
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
( x& q# a( U4 I, J& g" N       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem  V' i: B! f6 _, Z. T, @. N1 @
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ A6 k; d5 Q2 [) T' P
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50( X; l) W+ h! [: C' e
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
8 @" s. Y1 D$ ~* q6 x/ I5 W  Hevent for men, with the second fastest record.3 u% C" q  n5 A, N
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
1 z- _- j' c2 d+ v" rwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( P" u% \/ Y  d' D! k- i" {
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 U: _) w' u6 x; u* [. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
# K9 L% G1 t$ k, A! Wmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
/ @4 H9 S! v5 f2 t) d$ [6 Ffor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" f( _8 W1 p7 M: m6 ]1 L
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed5 ?% D9 R1 x4 r7 _
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
8 _) a* l7 S" U: [individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower/ Y. j+ \1 J2 n  [; m* r4 w' S
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 P" S1 c7 X$ I# J; e; A- T
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was; F. j1 L7 a) i" y; {. r
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
# U4 T5 d7 Y" Y' hhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
0 y2 |* n" P, C: c' D/ hproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
# z8 ~: K9 p$ W# P' Y: Gswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
0 \2 H, V8 D* J9 U$ M3 iteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the# r  l6 p* J! A$ O
Callaway report.
0 C! d: ?% Z( GThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
. v5 i: r" H: c' O7 o  kunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
8 r. }- g3 [8 g9 K' Ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 P9 V3 ^" q. Uof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 M! P3 N  W" z& M9 @
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the- P) v, T$ Q/ a5 u
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had0 q! o$ J) i6 i+ L8 {+ u
publicly voiced different opinions." R& L7 ^8 G; w: D. @
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
) V- @& h5 Z( k3 g* l% U2 xfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 R% W% P5 M2 NNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
* A4 Q6 g/ h; N" B# `0 ?2 xpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds/ }& R2 h8 m/ t5 s7 ]
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 L3 Z7 z$ I% \  z/ Lof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.9 R, ]& X/ n# |7 B: |2 S
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) p4 ~# i1 t& s
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
; V. J$ T! ~+ U" l# j. e4 Jhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as. p, L2 c$ {5 c2 Q. h  X
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
$ }' W& ^' H6 s, n- ]4 q* Jthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
1 @/ v; L, v6 h: J% V* E8 Csupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
: N% l4 a0 Z8 V5 d: i1 l2 U" ]% BOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that# H% {5 y7 s. Y! G# |
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the: y5 ~; K6 [/ ?6 k$ E9 ^& F8 F0 b5 t
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June2 Q) B& o4 j% b
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ `: L2 J0 o  q& m  C* D% G" Wand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
1 l+ l: a3 n8 T( V( r2 k# D. @; m6 |The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* g! H; U2 [: n+ J4 Nand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; `2 X5 }  q3 q+ V
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
% o; K- @  o; G' D& XNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
, e; ?! a- o$ pobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature  J# l) F$ f+ m# `: `6 r
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to1 h- G- {- f6 v  I/ k
repair the damage caused by your news reporters., v( _- k) H9 w0 {
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not% P/ d' M  z5 R# n, R# H
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' f* G2 e' L7 C7 L0 T" Gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
8 I5 v5 A. {6 r# H2 W7 ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
9 x! v! b$ g' Q+ c2 s3 q6 `- q' ?this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”! U0 `( [: `) r4 e& p1 Q
about British supremacy.
2 R  }+ m7 m+ f2 X" X! VThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many0 M' q. l# F  Q$ b8 b' ?- N
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more# j2 F& ~3 F  v& k- ~' y
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
7 A7 ~* T3 L" n0 U) Nour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
$ E! q8 P. B, i" [5 H2 C8 sOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 Y- W7 S6 W3 z, [, U2 A
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) U$ d) _3 e# Eprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests! A  [- F3 p5 q0 n
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' t3 Q. A5 v& c  z3 p( I  g) z& p
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- m$ k; V) m' i0 x' Upublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
% g' ^3 {- F- W# O: x  t$ vNature.
  U5 |1 ~3 F8 c3 G4 N& Y1 {7 R( WI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance( V3 ^( _6 u+ e. H
the Callaway report.1 I! @2 _/ }& p6 S" U; X
) F3 W2 h' E5 U% B1 c
Yi1 Q( Z; X* Q+ Q. [! N0 P) Q
& a" q  S' L; m; O1 s$ e( s
Yi Rao, Ph.D.8 B% @7 u0 C, F& o6 e
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences1 V" ], x3 l  ~# C
Beijing, China
8 R& @8 u' I* a( h* h
大型搬家
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 2 `( l- w* @0 R* [7 {! u) t
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

4 H9 v4 N+ n+ Q% L: ^2 e原文是公开信。3 Q! Y! u! }9 F6 d# E4 W

, v2 `( [; u8 r' q* b/ z$ 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- F: }% @9 `; T# S# N- A  e原文是公开信。1 P; u  p) n% r, _

  r: V1 W2 o; n( r小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

) _8 ^% q6 q& q0 m1 z2 N1 ^* X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, A7 _: c) X( V
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
8 |- K' N2 O" w- p0 J- q1 ^# y
0 u* F% O) H. c; {http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
) h4 w+ a1 g' b" `
8 A  X4 g) E; {$ T' OFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, h6 D7 o/ N! Z! C

8 d% F4 g8 |+ p2 _It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
+ x3 C3 q& ?: w( k, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 j# N8 C. R. P
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% I& R- N5 Z" [3 W2 G" b
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the& M7 t" U$ O' F# O2 N, h) r
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
  g" u) C4 V2 w* cpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' M9 C' ]7 W$ D6 Q; pshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,- @, p% p8 B1 U( ^, m# q
which they blatantly failed to do.5 L  B/ b5 Y6 ]  i, x

, ?) o, L& j2 R* `% YFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her3 p! @6 O. [+ f, L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in! f, r: R4 r/ R4 I5 f- u
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “- R) j" {5 X$ f8 F2 ?( E6 k
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
$ e7 }0 m: V0 l% _3 I, [  fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
' r( V. q6 R- c. eimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
3 [7 {3 k2 E+ `difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
1 W. ?" x! c1 n1 x3 {+ j. _% u0 ebe treated as 7 s.
% B: f# \4 \$ C% x7 d0 U% W' J0 }; e, N) P
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is! G2 i3 b4 V/ x3 Z0 Q  V. Y% x
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 z$ s* a' }  f) X2 Zimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. J( i- K  r2 G9 F+ @" `
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
3 L- g+ {8 W  B( ~) _, T8 F; `9 Z-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% H  ]6 c1 ?5 ]9 O, r% Z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an! Z& H5 K9 l8 w
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) Q6 t3 B6 N0 }$ F6 d
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% o& I) w! o3 n0 ^% Lbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 f( e+ h* }: w* F

9 X* R$ C& Q& _$ R' S/ l3 t) gThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook2 _" S1 g% l0 I* q- ]
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! q+ d7 w0 L" S9 x
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
8 ~. @" k( M0 h$ u7 a+ vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ K7 y! Y5 V* k* c8 u3 w% k# `4 e" O
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s6 E2 Y$ Q2 z/ t" `( q9 H6 f
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World1 m' }5 {! _. I; G
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
  W" f1 s5 U  Z3 `5 T" i2 Htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 @+ o6 U3 a" ?2 o4 shand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: j" [. u( @) S$ i6 _, h' {, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this3 r! E  N, e" b' h8 r/ c4 T& ]" U
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 c& J7 A1 m8 [  s" ~- k1 o* R; O
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! f6 Z6 |+ [# R7 Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 V3 }9 c0 f* ^/ m
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that5 @% _( r( P0 z% L+ E1 ~
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# B  l$ m) J/ ~. ~+ V& P( C7 |
6 B% X6 G. F" t0 N6 i, i3 t% `
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ g: t0 i" L8 o
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93( g; h0 j+ B$ G+ S1 m- k9 F8 L
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s/ C# x) U5 ?- H) j
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 j- R+ q# F6 Q1 \* [  A  N, E) N
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,; m, y) G7 n0 Q$ O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
- B/ X4 a8 L0 Q: xof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, f5 r4 J* E! C8 n
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! @1 i. K, }; w+ U* y2 Qevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science* Z. `) t6 {+ A* b9 X! Z' E
works.
$ M' X/ Y/ [% N2 m9 n8 F; u! W% E4 e
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and: W) q. v& l- U! t5 s8 K( @
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ i4 N6 }2 W; K+ w0 D, U  B0 k! v) B2 X5 C
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
8 N% R) k& A0 ^% Z" X9 V' ?standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 p) R2 W! z( x3 d; n4 j% a1 N, B0 rpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ {. J4 ]0 S$ c% b% ^% R2 a  }- nreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
# k( g3 t- l" }! w, |" xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
/ f4 Z7 V) T+ P: q* b# k4 i# Pdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
) l- U" B$ R, J7 X! B2 _2 `7 d+ Sto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
. n, h- V; }( }5 k: lis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
& v1 m- F& c( C  \% Ccrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, Y- k9 t* R' Cwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly4 f1 r) c$ C$ L- j
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the" l4 v' R; G6 e/ Y
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not' c' O  v& K' o9 @
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
7 ^1 j1 `% @/ x. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
# L+ F8 ]3 T% ]5 [0 v8 y) }  sdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- m! n! V& s" G5 L9 wbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! i3 i0 j1 I6 l8 A' z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
- b9 I0 z1 e! M2 H1 X1 bhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
+ @) ^' ~- }2 o7 X/ [0 G$ {drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 j9 ~8 Z- ^* E9 z( J) hother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' s2 _, ^$ e: y- {
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is" l$ h" T* _# R( U1 j' B
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an% u! `2 s; P. i7 I3 J  ]
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( K$ U" e$ x. j; x( `4 mchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ a, H% `: \- |% k) B- jLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ K/ A, M% e: J: e1 E
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for2 o# Y' z, f3 E
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.8 r: |$ C$ \: X( Y: b
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?  U5 Z( i7 U, f4 A4 }. r/ _) O

8 Q' |! C8 J( @7 p( ~( ?7 @Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
" c* J/ F9 [" S% S4 vcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
  z5 K5 x2 e# t* V- `. @: M& J. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 `# H: K' T- y% F/ ?7 z" MOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
. v- }1 o) d9 O3 h: lOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for" T9 l7 K4 w% c/ i* |
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
. B. Z% q' N' ^+ }3 O) W( D( c, Ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
4 W8 }( d7 R( I: f7 n- y+ u) v; B4 Fhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
' O; z2 X! L& R0 u) d3 V3 pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% P& t7 j. z" @6 o3 C+ n* P0 lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.3 c3 J! k+ D( U+ d& L+ S
& V; Z4 m& d! g' b
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
. C5 o2 s- M7 q0 [3 {. ]intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ X8 W, C7 F8 h8 F2 X" a! ~
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ D$ r6 o8 R1 Y0 z( t: G5 V
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide/ R- G8 {* L, P* ]5 q% v1 c; u
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your/ B/ ?7 f3 ]; c& l! `
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 w6 [  [6 y) Y; o& o/ J' y
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 Z% A2 G: _4 e! @& k/ \argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal1 R5 g* M! Q2 G: Z! G/ L1 j! ^
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 \2 c* P6 I! o8 Y
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, 2025-12-7 05:16 , Processed in 0.242876 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