埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1964|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
6 S6 H! G5 e9 J- s# Y' i  h+ d2 `' [5 D3 U' ?7 W; R
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
2 f4 v& |1 k' 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。
3 o  k$ B/ k" B3 ^/ o: x5 U( j- @总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
% C6 r: M8 ]1 A' q
3 |: C: |" o( Y2 E2 Q5 L2 R# y2 |http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html; p' R$ H% g" w

! ]% t% @# }( z; w# b# P5 G致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选1 |& y  E/ L- J

# X5 v/ Q) T* y/ L' w% R英文原信附后,大意如下:
" m. F5 G; z$ C; _
$ l; B0 D+ ^4 [- ^. c6 d斐尔,5 |6 a2 X. D% b, ]" Y: s
       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
: l8 \$ ?% [- U4 Zemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& D; R( x/ _5 O& k% I  Z       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% C# l3 |* }# q9 d9 B. j( G) j9 |
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
5 ~2 L+ m: C+ }; f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。( N6 n. `' }3 U# A- c$ `* i- @. D* d
       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( j+ [( H) o( @1 t& O4 ~$ p
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
1 `8 J% M" E! g, b. q! m5 P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
  @* M7 J; P8 h' G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。
; g! e% G4 z& S* t       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- F7 `$ i2 o0 N3 Q7 W, M7 E
,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
! ~# D4 @" K+ T, U$ e( d”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。7 r: X* K7 Q7 [9 K1 _
       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, D8 f+ U% f1 H  [4 z7 b
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
' S' O$ n9 a  M) }; w,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; _7 _# V/ g& Q0 u) q
       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2 x# J$ c' B% U
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5 R5 t2 P) F8 g8 A$ [$ r$ G8 |* k) d
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 t+ X2 h7 H- V& Q2 \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 i/ {' J% m# G300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* i- R" A# L& ^8 X) O
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
! s7 K- w9 y5 N1 s) Q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+ ^# |& F- G$ c9 [5 H
。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8 m/ r. r+ u/ V
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。4 C4 p! |' e- g% m7 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$ [& ?' `) G6 k1 V
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. h+ E3 n# ^1 @
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  t) B1 D: _+ E8 F6 N) M$ `9 s
同意见的专家。
3 n! ^- a6 P) O9 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
' W: J+ O9 Z! n  I. k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 a) D% S. k" o" ]; k) U
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" M) H! X6 B/ B; W% \0 m) J
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。- A* A' v; m9 b+ K4 c
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)8 s% G# M0 k) A3 e/ 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
# X0 U: Y* Z. j8 u/ f8 w( T; @《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% I3 ]8 `6 k9 w6 }
这些被Callaway忽略。
4 A* R: Y9 W2 J+ e) B( `* N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
8 A; J( }/ n) a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9 C% a. @- C- O+ ]
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。8 F, \3 r+ O4 e! 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
# i7 I9 M5 U8 X$ @' c8 ~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
1 z, i6 Q* h5 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
, G% n0 {8 H, z+ e3 ~# H, z0 @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。
$ v5 N! c+ a3 G* b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* _/ G$ ], ]$ B. t- k; `+ t6 v5 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
  L5 K& h; _4 ?9 X& Y0 b* c. P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 O( b# G3 E
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( L5 \5 e+ B" z4 I  c% m: ?* ]
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) X$ K$ ^( G- Q2 K3 X$ `: N
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3 b2 E* J2 L# H; A+ K! b5 n
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: v$ E3 t9 l& C/ X$ G
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1 N% p  j7 m: ?
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5 J  b2 i7 f9 h% k+ V" i: p% N
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 L9 S4 _4 x+ [* k, O" y, e& ?我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 l  c% D! z% ^3 Y! H9 w3 T; N

. A/ ?- f  t2 J) \! |8 w! U3 f2 N: j& {0 v4 N2 p
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅$ _7 [9 h; @" g

( _# j& y% n; p- ]0 C5 s! O6 H2 F附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
; e/ R- F1 @4 ~% N附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email- X0 m+ k# V% f# k& V) n  _
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 z0 r: A0 h9 p" l- H9 A% J附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见" _# |: K8 F7 l  R4 o% |6 _2 d

& {7 ^/ Y9 @) o; r- C9 x" @) m  i( Q; v

! s2 s! e3 t9 G8 T" _. u* j% g5 q原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)" b/ E+ J1 ?4 ]4 E  |- B5 O1 Q
Dear Phil,
3 ?, @' F. U# U# j# }4 @; R8 g2 k       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s8 T) Y' Y* x6 ~" D) h4 }9 H; H
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20% K' p+ ?& @8 v" Y/ S5 ~9 s# T
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed: i. m& J8 c5 g( _  G4 X4 O" {
you.+ I0 _! B0 ^# I6 e* W
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 F' i3 F( O4 \4 M9 `5 ^- I
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese( G" y0 p/ q0 F) W' ?/ u
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the  N9 ]# {5 R- ?! b! r* f
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
) L7 j! J+ w2 H- ^6 y4 j. r; s+ kpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
) r9 ]. u& o) n$ {+ Y1 _$ Qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
* J5 y0 y- z7 @! i) M" Gpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
8 Y. Q9 p4 x$ G% P( N7 o( K# T* Q       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the- o# P1 }; D( N. B9 h' D7 s# r
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a+ ~2 U# i& X1 ~/ E
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish& R0 Y8 J+ C  P( {9 B
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway9 @# b! N# r. @/ f% x" d
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
7 M9 I9 K/ R3 x3 U: }5 d$ ^explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal9 g; t% C7 r! t3 j" u, {; |) Q5 q2 z. _
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,% B) m, q& |* x4 G- c
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 f7 j2 e! |0 |" o! ]
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 J! N. y# t$ @2 U- Y# \; Sreporting.6 m0 O. I$ o$ W
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have- N7 l9 u4 B5 k2 [( S0 j
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 @, X1 f, Z& t, W, {- ^4 T
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in6 @- l5 I7 I6 h3 Q4 e
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A# ]" N  k5 B8 a1 v+ e# w
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.9 @' G+ ~8 t/ M: f! |
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem8 T) Y7 S3 R; w# i( H
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds; Q$ h5 n+ j, N# \. S3 T# j
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
0 k( ^' v8 N/ Fmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same5 q% Z: U& D  ]: N
event for men, with the second fastest record.6 I2 e! ?% ~) Z! Q
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye4 I0 z" t/ [5 V9 ]  {8 |
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
1 A7 Y2 d2 _: I$ ayear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record. j# ?+ Z% n/ j4 x" y$ A7 N% l
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400  r+ G2 O! j4 {$ ?7 [( J3 h1 V
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 w  [: h- H6 I+ i0 Sfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" I, A. [" J$ f: v- J
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
% ?8 a4 f( a: G4 K1 [* D5 f- z# Ibehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the) L7 _9 v1 q7 t
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower9 h2 {9 x) \7 N5 a
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than# D$ _* d. g3 L; A
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
3 `: x6 i5 m' t8 `8 g3 W+ [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( b- D1 ]* N% g2 N0 @, Q6 c1 N( q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
* n7 U  @3 @" z( x8 `. L, Wproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
1 ]  P* j! ]% v+ Uswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
$ T( [) c! G+ v5 Z& Q! u, h! @5 Iteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
# O1 D, T* `" {7 F# ]2 B' ~0 pCallaway report.
- T# T' ^  E* Z: y7 M2 T0 GThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
# s2 O- U, ]( R0 j+ k2 runderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* f) E2 V: D& i" I- V, x! D  Z: }here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 |2 ]: U; `1 Z; ^+ v$ A: l7 @of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been; z. D5 o2 f( a" Z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
! ~7 @6 K; V5 U9 v. MWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
3 d# o6 o+ N$ q, a4 c8 Tpublicly voiced different opinions.  i% t. ?/ w% Q6 E8 ]  W4 R
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD* \9 `6 E- w) y1 e4 O# m
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 ^" l; A8 n, X! BNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent; n/ G1 Q5 ~2 D+ h9 e/ T
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds% }) d4 h7 A0 q: I/ z* V
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy: J9 i! t4 x" Q) I, D) O  z
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
4 [  m: ~; m$ h2 e, bThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
2 A. N, a1 b" R5 H+ `8 g& Pthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 y2 u2 R" Z8 m- m" F
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 c& T8 g. w4 f% c; C( j3 s2 X2 E- e$ Q
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that6 K" J/ z+ b  ?
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was- _2 F- @8 H4 A
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& B3 x# \9 D% u1 q) E6 xOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
6 O' z8 Q9 P2 U) V+ H" p/ Jmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
+ F/ |/ S; s  `+ S+ n% XChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
0 A2 G: o, H+ b  {; ]4 G(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
9 ]8 g* E2 F" ^. rand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
% V! c  l5 ]: Z) ^- cThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
/ g$ D9 \/ z3 O1 A; F  e3 j- h9 U! hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and2 i3 \) U+ ?; @3 p7 b5 Q7 E& ]$ Q" ~
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.3 I9 n" _0 d5 l* P
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and* s+ D! Z( U+ F3 ?# H8 v8 }6 M
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature) |7 |' g, s# b8 A
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to) j# |- V' B! l8 P! V
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
8 v" j  ~& q- {8 ^; wThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not: W7 ^8 v+ _0 W8 h$ G4 s
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced- L- K% n0 m4 x2 E* U
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather+ ?  m  }* ]9 E
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ g% m$ V# V5 s5 l# h
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' O% X5 _3 [' q" ]% O0 Y$ r
about British supremacy./ l  l+ a+ X4 k4 w7 Y# ^
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many! z/ U- `3 a' o5 i( `$ p+ }* a3 R
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more% U  X7 m! h) a1 A5 e* i$ Z  s0 |
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
% ?8 J' Q: y5 M$ B) P7 V. eour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London- [: W9 V1 `( u. J$ O
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 R& c& q9 S( g/ D7 h& Z0 f8 t
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
! X  l* Z, `; p0 |4 ^, v1 pprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 O9 q5 `. H/ w. z2 e: K, Xbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
0 a: t/ u% Y. U9 hit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly' I! n" w6 X* t8 o5 ~
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like6 J# D; Q# u$ g. i- z9 }
Nature.$ D% x. v9 p2 R( R
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance# p( N* S% E! \# E* [
the Callaway report.
$ j1 o2 U. l' W% j& e* ?
. |2 R: v: ?3 f: C; BYi
, ^- I) d0 Q7 B: D5 P) v( K
0 ^4 y9 j; h, G% g( ~5 d% JYi Rao, Ph.D.
1 n/ N( b# ~+ YProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
$ J, M9 `4 G. |Beijing, China
3 e( v; }4 S0 I! R
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
9 [( Q: A: I; j( ]; r原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

  Q# _5 c3 t/ H' A  ]7 L原文是公开信。
  J( Z* }# O# D: y% y! L2 i( S3 P/ l. }! t0 V% m, m4 E
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 * m/ S3 K. O$ p# m- L! t
原文是公开信。
' h4 M! M4 H4 t0 \9 K
4 M7 C. |  {/ M3 w6 I8 a小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
/ @2 P; w/ z/ S* b* Z
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 JIANG4 n' V+ s' `4 l/ |
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 }* [, J  W& W
0 `! d' c5 u3 _1 v
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: ]" w! ]" E( ~2 t" B* X0 \7 `
( S+ W$ B$ u! U# @
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
9 ]" r0 f% l# N3 u9 [% X0 ]% u) C5 Q1 o% ~) w1 I7 X' q. M' \
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 v. H# t' P2 I, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
% _! D8 q" A$ L# J) X+ @+ b+ u$ ~magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
5 ]2 ~8 Y) P4 g. `( |is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" ~+ {( [# Z% u* X/ {* l' `scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
" \) d1 l( d: y3 t% S% \populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
- p, h* _" {$ s/ }& h6 @9 D2 j  Ushould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,; t# b6 `9 o% Z1 c/ y" ^+ ^
which they blatantly failed to do.4 s$ c2 V; K& G6 z
8 A, \% r) ?$ d4 \' v
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
" Y) M: J9 I( t" z: d) i( I1 r4 XOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
0 }5 U/ [5 N( @' l) i2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “" h: z7 D& l# b
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! I# X  ^, a& _  m! |! F' G. ?
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an/ t. T* L9 n9 C  P) s8 q
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the* c0 }7 I4 g3 G) J5 U. v- r4 d
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) h3 ^% J* a9 h6 n) j& Lbe treated as 7 s.
! W. s' o, E- M- u$ J8 E. m5 o9 l3 o2 q% O
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is( B9 B7 e0 l& u% n, }
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& [" i* Q( f  k9 Y, Q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., w: B4 J" O6 M  E# i+ ?) O3 @
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 j5 C+ P9 q# y9 u9 m-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
, L8 K( p' Q" ZFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# j! n1 r+ _5 |  E% L5 V( ^elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
2 W; E& Y( U. u. M. Zpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
3 m9 h# [5 u$ S' D1 obased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.* |5 x3 P0 u" Q3 m" D& R" {

& F5 h# Q" u& eThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
) @; Y7 y1 @7 D, Y# P/ U7 Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
  `. p  H, P- \9 j1 n& e! Zthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 ?& e4 _+ n! {; P( I1 D. _
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
! K2 I5 R8 w- j% s4 Vevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 T) k4 c9 P0 sbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
; ~5 E  R# a/ O7 d5 lFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
) z* ]5 _3 R: vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
% `5 k& N0 r5 M* v9 A8 i5 Uhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& l3 y" Z2 M/ Y+ }3 x' S$ j# A* p, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
" Y; e* S# b# ?strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
' Y7 y" Z/ E8 q2 c3 mfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
" I% e& f( n6 q% T# `% D0 }faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ h0 ^7 i  ^9 g% w) X# ?3 h
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that( b# [. ^# }; X) h; v3 F2 {  F
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.6 K0 h% {8 q! X" U
5 V$ e% x# l+ T5 s* O' i* d0 U
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ M6 d  ~" w1 I8 E, z/ v+ E5 M
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! n  B6 k$ ~3 B% B* p
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s7 ?+ v, J, b5 S0 E  j% p3 W5 f) N* @
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% P% f2 Y8 x, [( @7 V5 I" @# d4 R& Tout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' E+ |. w9 `5 o: M8 L9 YLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
0 T: K8 _* I6 }$ W8 u' oof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 y( _3 ?; k) b1 r* N, Xlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in$ c3 Y/ A7 H0 _* @' J
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
8 ]' X7 v" Z8 w+ D4 F1 ^works.
' T7 u/ {8 f9 Z) I% K% o2 ?* a8 T% `' ?2 O
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
/ v& J) w+ Q( rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this! l9 o9 G+ [& w) j
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
7 E3 c; @1 [' I4 r: \! p7 q7 kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
0 R2 }4 Y8 J% V4 z5 _5 M, mpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
( S+ i) Q- N" Q9 Kreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) n' i6 z: A8 U" A" ?cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to- z% q: w& l* b& O% h) N2 ~( y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works2 i+ R+ w( {$ j5 d, P) k1 ^
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* V. R( }6 Z- w3 y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
) H- H- J4 w. Wcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he( h9 i7 @& K4 V% z
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 S$ D$ L; a' V  S3 \advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the1 D: W, ^- a1 A; w( m8 \
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not7 m6 U0 j% t; D
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* r" C- \$ K6 b1 A. |9 E
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are! r* _/ M: y3 H& w' Y" Q( I
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may: Z  |( e8 u0 L8 K  m3 X) k2 }  W" g0 d9 m
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
1 h7 `+ G% C3 m$ R4 ohearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
' W! {- g9 m' r0 a0 `has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a5 Y; V2 h( ], q& p( a
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
/ t9 Y+ ~* q0 J/ S; Kother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect5 ?6 _0 ?# o5 |7 p' g
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
& I2 e7 U1 o% z# m4 E# i, Nprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
. F, M( \) R) Z2 p8 t: o8 Pathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# A) M8 ~% A* e0 f7 K% @. D6 Nchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
7 T( r/ m* V' b2 p( K: C( _Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping9 d2 x; s9 n3 K
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
3 P0 E. z- L; U% n% z6 |eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 D+ A' P8 {* {+ r0 K
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?# J, K9 a2 x1 E1 U; b
$ x- g3 S. ?* B9 `) ]6 ?. V
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ \/ M- y, c- y
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 _" T2 K. k; D
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
  F% a5 ], N" S  ~4 c0 d  q& cOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
4 H& ?, o4 j+ e( Z* [Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; F& y  H( \% U6 M5 b
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 M( u9 C: |5 E1 g% }/ zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
+ s/ G& c: d' X& _2 ahave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a5 C) \3 a8 ~) B( A
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
' E: n6 ]) Q: y, R  {possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.  N0 W  F0 O5 m2 n( z

- |+ Z  \, Q0 m0 kOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (# C. }, M2 ^+ T* Q0 d! O
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 z. ^+ @, _: y6 ^# {4 Osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a2 E; D7 S1 I- {1 h( [( X
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide  @4 P6 ~: A+ P: ^
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
$ A7 T. B' J- Y4 j; Ointerpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. ]6 O4 `, v: g' d, ?
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your% i1 _& M6 o5 m2 E9 J
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 H) I# V7 x* t
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or" R; {' k+ _  O7 e& b: l
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, 2026-1-25 23:29 , Processed in 0.137431 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