埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1862|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
/ ?0 i. f5 m- Q* g# T! ?& I3 n' l8 K
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
- \& b& A9 i2 U8 n# F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。  X, D+ |! x$ y3 w/ ]9 V0 A
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。9 r1 O& @, v! ]6 ?

/ Q: p" b1 Q5 @http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
7 o3 B" f1 J- [- s5 t! A5 x0 b1 L. E( |" h7 Z' m- a0 [
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
: W' N- [) B" m' h! [# t0 Z5 y2 V2 J( q) T
英文原信附后,大意如下:
& n9 T5 s, u! m+ ?( l$ c0 ^  \, t/ f  o2 r6 p2 {
斐尔,
: M  W( S! j5 Q! _       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+ M  q( B! G; Q# P4 c' r0 C3 W/ K
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。" \- M# T! Q" ]" D* F, p
       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9 A- @. r2 A+ J& X; ]
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" ~1 ]: B# X0 X) D
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。
2 y) u5 g0 [7 ?! r$ ]& V! t  L       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
& T" m; b  ^5 q" a8 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" z- G7 h2 l$ O' [' t- R
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
, c' d% O% F3 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。
( k" T1 [0 `. T/ c" S6 M       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
, Q2 G, z- \7 b,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, A2 f8 v4 @" B) \1 z3 u' f. u
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, H9 O  A5 P+ ]0 o( T' ~
       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! T" U. X" ?# K% x# p$ f* O! Z
比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快
5 {$ u0 l; A2 P/ g, E,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。( E! y9 L9 P' P1 P5 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& W5 |' b, {/ M
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
3 ], _" L* Y- F6 R合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二6 Z6 V1 u  C1 E/ \
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  R# |: J/ A2 C3 q  n3 G* x, ^5 {. D
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六$ ~7 ~' `. j! q, E. R
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
' w3 E% `( m  t% o5 ~% B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
4 I6 v3 \4 I' b+ 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* _; }3 O: E# p' i8 D$ b& G
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 D  Q3 E0 A- v- h" k& C还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件* }9 H- C+ Q( e6 `
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
% {$ T5 S0 X8 e7 C* Z& AWikipedia。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
- N6 Q1 i6 {9 |, {4 r& z* e同意见的专家。, T: J; C' x7 j
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
& Z% F1 [2 G/ |4 G/ S0 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6 u2 \9 a- g% N, [# r
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; J& N' e9 a! [! |+ L7 F' F
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。0 T* K4 s$ O" j8 f
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)& O8 q( Q8 A9 p4 }2 c% O
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8 A+ @" ]& ?3 Q2 w
《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 r  o. k7 \$ o* g/ c; b0 i2 v
这些被Callaway忽略。& Y8 L9 K; }1 h8 A- T) {2 O- i3 f/ O
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
& u* L( h6 y/ j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3 B% n2 e. P1 p. I
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。+ D1 u: n3 f  g, s
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- v( ]7 R! z, \" Y
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
4 h  ~' \. {* w1 D$ X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
3 J5 ~, S5 x1 ~; t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。
+ W$ S- E' u& Q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7 s) U9 _% R: ^$ N" t3 s0 W
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
2 u. e  l! G% z$ T; }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% U1 P  p1 k$ g
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。; R' L: B$ h4 P; {! s8 `
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- W2 b$ ^, N- Y  L  C. D
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& @5 [* w2 L/ 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
3 v: G/ y) t" Y. l7 X' P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* Q3 F4 O! Z  t
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8 n3 }' R# o' r: V6 ]+ o5 h
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。  L1 w0 v" E8 n4 s4 V3 s$ D
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。+ @/ |% S  I" U
) H# `% J3 h+ l' @) T
* o" J4 T& _2 M) R  y$ W
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
  s. p( Z6 t6 h
2 v4 x% O& \3 p2 K9 i$ c% h9 u附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
$ F9 G: w2 [) W! W2 B8 P2 ]附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
8 f8 w6 x2 Q  r2 y: i9 G附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
" q2 q" J$ b4 A) {! e附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见7 `. O% Y& h+ f- x4 U

' J; g: z* P/ n! S7 O# a1 w
7 i3 H4 z: T( s5 z7 X
! s% b: U# G; L# ~1 T  B原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
5 L4 v* m) M# g/ d0 |& v' t+ gDear Phil,6 Y/ ]0 F4 _, I0 Z+ e. u
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
4 V7 `/ [+ P& ~9 L% jreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
: H5 c6 E6 ~0 k9 _* nhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed/ l6 e8 N- v, q
you.
4 b8 c" x) i& }( m$ r       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
" t6 X9 f* \- r& G' G& [brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese) q1 @. |+ E6 N; Z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
3 n% Y% ]! s9 C. r" O/ Dworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
' c% R) _/ ^1 v- o: }% b. `) x$ apublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more$ n8 |) T7 S' |; s4 S& d
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news/ E9 t! d/ e8 y( ]4 [
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
- @, u4 w* {- A0 o& L- G       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the6 ~  \. `, `# E! {; o- S
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
, S% j. T# o6 R$ V4 }1 Rnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
. E* _' l2 Y0 rthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway( g8 u' q5 c/ D* u7 @
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
7 M4 f$ Q- M) Gexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal. p4 e( d# ^( i0 Y
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
- S3 s& T3 J: xand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 U, L5 |$ w0 F! Jto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; D1 Q6 U( D0 H. K4 }1 Areporting.- [) _. k/ n; Z3 g' B
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have. |  h8 m1 x# t% A# ^' d0 ~
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by( @7 n! `( g) K) b9 _# Y
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
/ x6 _9 u) V) f; {$ z/ vsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A$ M3 O3 T& m% P, N3 U! ^
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
) A, {+ a5 |6 n% C  j       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
0 y0 D. x& [' Gmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds. L( R5 L& p( h
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
, x+ U5 D: v/ bmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same' @" P4 `3 a, a9 n- E: A
event for men, with the second fastest record.' p2 e/ S) B3 ?( |1 o
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
% U% {* G2 e# }7 swas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( m0 ^" y$ e  N4 {' Z/ n* l
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record# m5 j& J- c9 W' `* P8 G5 G' p
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. f, P; c" c6 b4 bmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters," G, h0 M3 g$ A' h# C& W
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than: l9 a8 E' x1 ?# L
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
1 v  v  u! I5 r3 w- O, obehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the. W% j1 X( n2 R% w; }7 F  m& L
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 d. q% j+ o! G
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than; @, o) c+ m& K) _- h* ^1 _
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was( \$ b9 a8 J  i$ m3 K: t+ I: r* t
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
$ y. l( x. w3 \% x: Ehe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
& ?9 r' N  k8 Y. m# k* w4 @4 P3 ?problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 Z' i& ?1 |, D6 b
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
! ^+ z. c6 r0 s; l1 i6 R( H( f* Eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the+ x2 l" C9 t( l; O$ l
Callaway report.2 Z- X3 w; u1 T# O6 Q+ j4 R
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more! i7 f$ _* d. H8 i
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* F1 C" U+ |: m# e8 Q1 {6 p3 Rhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description* g( K# n, }4 R/ N. Z3 h
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been5 J6 K4 I) c/ {6 Z& p' V2 I
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) @9 m- k2 ]) o2 e, K: f+ b; n
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( e4 Y& F/ s% q6 Z
publicly voiced different opinions.3 k' X5 `) T$ f/ h  w/ o9 _
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 \$ s: j$ N0 e' K8 w4 ]8 F0 `2 Y6 l
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature- ~: h. U1 b) G( Z. [. u  M  Z
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
3 }" T( R% M+ z" t: o0 Ppostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
& ^, r, P1 I% M0 l( dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy' j7 g0 q! `( ~6 v
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
. T9 Z8 E' N- V% m9 |( vThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 F6 s3 c8 Y& G, p, ?that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They4 n/ O" s9 m. j3 [% ]* m2 \( x+ K
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 h( h  v% A8 E' S  r) d$ g
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that$ G" m$ B1 _4 @; ]4 y/ R
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
  q$ e5 F* Q! u2 Q* u& K6 R$ qsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.5 G. F% s( r- c( }
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that6 @4 C" u- B* i& a
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the% H4 L# @/ z* I6 J7 B
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June5 ]( @$ u6 u: ?7 M# Y
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 [' W' i* P3 L5 I* q3 ^  q2 w8 _and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
0 ]2 v8 @! x9 h$ AThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
8 E7 ?! X) e! Y; S9 K( [1 A- k& O# }; P' hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
1 f( N" W. D& G7 \Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world." J7 ?, A; m' W: i. E
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
/ Y7 L3 U, s0 }! K# d( P# d+ O2 U- X5 mobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature2 n8 Z: f! }/ R' I" ?
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 r% u9 R$ {0 D6 Nrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
# d$ }  ?& N, S* M! YThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not& P& S; G6 s# ~4 j
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced% `: l4 o5 d0 {: I
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 s# W0 w$ q" v5 I& B6 v/ w( {fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
" U) @0 X  B6 S2 Hthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”. E8 L8 c6 |9 c* D$ p
about British supremacy.0 V" r) H/ {* L- ~8 Y! W+ @" s
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many/ R2 X9 f9 H1 L; P3 A
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
# ~8 ^% y( v% F" m% T* f% nChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by; y( K  b1 K3 ^# C- P8 U! o
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London+ X& l/ C' X! `3 b: E% N% w
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
$ @2 @; x, a1 p; R" O( M& q4 TYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 ^( }+ E& y% z8 N1 [/ j
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests1 Z( k4 N& G# @( R& t4 K
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,& T! a; I  o; k  h( E& {
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
, \* g5 G" q! {3 {7 l1 U, Hpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like4 {: A4 y2 G* w% T% K
Nature.
" ^9 o/ ]9 t; L6 d# @+ [& ]" ?I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance( n7 ]; m4 \" K; F1 F5 `9 g
the Callaway report.
- o6 ]5 |$ G5 K
+ R/ y4 n' G2 A% N- l! U- aYi
7 E, d# E% l5 n5 }" A
' K+ T6 F( T4 F& y4 m5 P& {Yi Rao, Ph.D.) D7 o, @# ?$ I5 a5 U* s
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
9 u' |: e  G% U( l7 hBeijing, China6 f7 V  v5 |- l, S9 f" `7 p+ A& 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 T, k! z5 ~; P4 p) Z: W" V: p
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
1 w  h: n' J; i0 L3 I: [
原文是公开信。
' H0 ^" t" s$ F/ B( v" j  g- w( P# A/ X$ E. B
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: y3 V2 ~& {$ f- c
原文是公开信。+ r$ ~  n& A! S1 k2 G) d& {

, |6 M" V, a) K- W9 K# I/ {3 Y( P- i小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

/ R# `" Z; u7 H6 Z! e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 JIANG8 n; N& n  K2 B+ g4 [
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: e4 A8 K! u4 w# k
' i' N& F' t, a: ^8 fhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( [/ \6 S, h5 ^) I1 W8 p

, t1 V2 A8 ^5 i4 S9 KFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
7 ^0 W8 j# Q, a0 w) R% O
  d* M( W4 @0 _/ k+ b; MIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself& ]" f3 z" ~$ \6 }' D5 w7 A) Q# y
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science" _: I5 P- Y$ u% z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" A: K6 w9 `& ~" K% ^2 @: v; f- [4 ^is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the( Y: ^8 x9 p6 p# c
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general7 @; c+ q. ^2 Y# V! d9 J' I
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors* ~" G  @. v) d( o- v& B- l
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
& J* Y( p, r7 Q/ X* Owhich they blatantly failed to do.
( r4 S/ r. H# E$ s* L$ o- C
' f' m2 V" F5 \First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her4 ]+ V1 l0 _& ^, P
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in; `; w8 e* i2 u+ C
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 Z5 `: Z6 ?7 k* O
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
* X- W* l: o$ N& j1 y! gpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
) l. ]3 q& _) f" Q- c9 a5 l, ]improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the" h7 v) E3 J$ h& [* ~' l3 v
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to/ D: V# N+ h* H# x5 w+ j
be treated as 7 s.
" O3 C" |0 R+ g# V! n
; m0 j3 ^) m) k2 O1 A  ASecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
# g) S" \) o6 D- h& }still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% g9 }/ w$ A% q- K& I/ Z) F
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.% I3 A6 _" [. j, P3 Y( @
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; Z2 M7 T' L5 m' a-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.  Q& A5 b0 }' Y3 ]+ x' F8 @# u9 y  O
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
) t+ |7 C: k+ b  [) B, Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and, ?( z4 t1 l# O) F- T- T2 A
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
+ G/ z, {1 }) B* w3 zbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.- A( N0 E) m5 ?% a/ C4 m# w

9 U; f6 G8 ]1 e3 J* iThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
5 t+ d$ i4 w2 L9 `0 u( bexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in1 k1 ^. X' O1 U/ {( Y/ X; Y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 h& c: Q) H, @' U1 g
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
# {7 q, G9 v# d# O( s/ aevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 |2 a9 n: @2 l, S5 gbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ ~$ T( d* X* \" S& @Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% }; L! [1 B+ P+ X
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 t- _# u( H  ~) f3 R) _3 \$ Bhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle& G1 b& P4 @1 q0 }- g# l; J
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
: [3 [5 M7 p* M& _3 F" Ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 u, m, l* Y8 w" d
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! u% p. d% Q# I# G9 F* Sfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting# p8 b3 O5 K! k4 `: S  ^. S0 ^' v/ r
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that7 d% {; u8 s, w
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.: E4 |: ?" f. N- a

* b: z8 D+ z, DFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! j' U8 z7 e  W. N! S1 b
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( @+ k8 G9 k1 k; o. os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
( T: w7 r4 G6 A- N7 T), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns0 ]& ]# J# Z' p& {; d" |
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
$ H9 u9 _$ x3 t4 h& J: H* dLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* C6 F3 L$ S4 Q# n3 q, H8 g8 F$ pof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 d: ^$ Y$ Z* G$ R: o( Z; c) ?
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
" e6 f; |- f" ?5 k( N0 O* c$ Z) y* ievery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# g) S2 u4 H: {, N8 q: tworks.' Z% {& ?& O/ \: t& E- ^) L) R$ U

' d9 A5 L8 g8 b+ D8 t, @Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 i( Q+ }4 s" y- x5 G/ f3 @
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 e  k, x: e2 g: m
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
$ E+ H% q: m9 ^( r6 V, kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; c" y- S6 c# j* r, Z$ g- U" g
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
. K0 @# p. N. t/ V' Mreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
  R  W4 ~* C7 u3 E+ y. d" Lcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
8 ?* v& _& o* `demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
2 r0 Z) y) G+ ~to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample0 e0 _% P$ y2 K1 J4 e
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is1 q" ?  d/ Q3 a
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 M# _& `- v" }  u
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* U8 h. D6 q1 p
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
" @8 p1 N: w, k2 r6 B% hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not, |, k; Z  V# d# y) x8 c1 `
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation! b9 f- F# x( ]+ m$ _
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are) o' }3 B3 [3 B
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* i: W8 \. `" c9 r
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) j( ~7 j( a; a
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
! Z3 i1 S8 i3 W# |& F$ `& }5 Yhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, f, E# {1 e  O0 [- J) Ldrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
. ^' G; P8 n* u' @8 }1 bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, |* r* M4 v! x* |0 d
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
# n3 h& q% b1 Z- ]probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& u  e" A0 v7 k- l/ |0 e3 u
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 C% L9 J3 {$ h$ N) f$ D* t
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?7 Y- a6 |, I- o. I& k
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
- p2 J# [  n5 A. z$ J3 }9 z1 Iagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& r" |2 D: c% X1 o9 u; [/ e( Deight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
2 B( [6 C) K5 _: [0 Z2 Y) [Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?8 R! a9 D: @  Y: i5 J

- i7 c1 z; {  R# hSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
8 {% Y+ D- e) A0 J- Mcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* T. b, a* q! P) |- R# t
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
' B' h9 U8 M9 i5 ]/ X) a7 POlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, p, ]! u  }& L3 s3 YOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for# Y! ^! |" ~( \3 w5 z- e& a0 T
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic# M/ A  g1 o0 `8 G/ c* \
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
4 P2 |8 o: i* H* _8 w$ whave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, N# G1 x. ?" I. o4 y8 Aplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this8 _* b8 e! U# t! _0 t& \
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
, b  e1 Z+ }* J2 Z1 j) @- }8 x0 R1 O$ `! `3 i8 ^7 ~' a
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (9 T* E& E- u) j1 @2 g# I8 N% D
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: F8 L2 ?$ K, V4 W7 K8 O
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 \( u, h# f6 @1 u. dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( m- u4 ]2 t  ball the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 e* B9 Q4 n( D8 ?5 }
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,4 G! Q, K! Z1 C! `3 f3 Y
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your1 M1 J9 p7 |% N  p7 Q3 v
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal/ x5 M/ F2 X1 g8 F
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 f& X2 q% y* f& |! Q( t, {$ Preporting 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, 2025-12-3 02:47 , Processed in 0.125420 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