埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1860|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 $ N' q7 j7 o0 M  t

1 h9 K% w) I7 m9 x7 U5 J1 L饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。% n* ]- A: d3 x4 ?
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。+ o+ `1 z# S; J& e8 [
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 A( U7 b" x7 n: `0 _; W
- A  i# b% Q9 \& M
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html! A3 D8 T+ z; ^; Q2 O$ d# C6 n

! i( h. w* L1 Q8 s+ `( w致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选6 f' p3 U  s$ @$ l- f
  K4 n3 k4 B6 y
英文原信附后,大意如下:
4 I2 G: t$ r1 k- w+ _8 q+ ?/ \5 W! V* |7 a$ ^7 V3 ^
斐尔," v; [5 g3 D3 g, y) f
       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" D4 s7 Y# P8 |1 K1 `
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
8 C& M" g6 w8 ^! R3 H% ]       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2 l+ W# ?$ E6 g1 \. U
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 i# ^+ `& A0 ?- B6 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。. j/ t7 G# S6 B
       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
2 Z  c$ \- T0 ^' 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4 B/ b2 I* D* W1 i8 y8 Q
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 a% N6 Z* l+ N6 k* Y
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。" z- f' v, ]. U& P
       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9 f) }- I  l5 B: P" Y/ N& l
,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
; R$ q7 ?' J) M3 X  W9 n”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
& y; h) F; d) M! K2 y3 u3 p8 C& P       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" w, ]" i' j1 M7 Y. 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
9 j( ]4 Y  q6 M- f,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。- S0 F0 f3 `5 n
       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
" m. S/ S5 j, z$ S4 ?, b2011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& _2 s- k, @* e) P8 h
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二2 L5 n  ]- Y5 F" w; K+ C
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- A' T2 m+ e- n
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
/ i6 z( D* }3 U) x/ c/ K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- i2 w2 b" B" \8 q3 {" r* j7 S
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
1 j. F# w. p4 Q+ ~" @。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
( ~! P1 X4 \& ^; a录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
7 a5 K4 O5 k9 W- k6 _  }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- p( h* [- ^/ V+ n$ w3 f
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3 l' Y: L( }) X7 t
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
$ D& K  e% R* ?2 Q# v8 [8 P' ^5 h5 x- l同意见的专家。  V2 }* N2 O; Z3 W
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! \5 P  F$ W3 e3 G. N
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' J% w2 P: D/ {/ ]* }9 e, t2 Q6 ]7 \3 V
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8 U: s: {  Y% ]# v6 [0 ^. {. N" k9 c  j, ?
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 U2 h9 \, e4 w
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)- N8 `6 H5 i0 L2 Y+ ^% p
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 p+ P  G9 D" r: q  t) B6 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) @) P0 ?- f1 r2 B
这些被Callaway忽略。. q7 O) S! Z7 X1 ]
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- l  \- {4 [$ R2 W
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
* K/ S" u! w4 z* o( x4 s教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  v. ^) M/ m) }  n' h8 C; K8 Z7 {( g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' J, T( M4 S! H8 v% u
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/ C* b  X" I- t' t- r9 e, \
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
7 d; y' M% u. O" P# p" |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。
. U1 V- m1 b+ @4 x6 J% S! F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
' a' ^8 T8 U" x' F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 T% H/ d9 h% v. _: @+ U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9 Y. q8 ~- y. C! P- A
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
) g' L2 ~, H( `; {7 ?6 ], H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
" j2 @' O) W. N9 \* q, Y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* n- c, b2 P" o* V
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 p# i/ w& b) |9 h- X- v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
5 |: Q/ I3 i+ {: _  J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9 ~8 U3 P& P: ^8 s: l
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。6 A2 ]* B( P: W) ?
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。. Q7 z/ |$ ?( G, N8 a
- g3 e/ G8 L4 ~" D/ r4 g" s' D

/ C. }1 S) K6 c& }- J. J北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅* k) v; j# G2 h; [* V6 }" }8 H# J
0 H& ?( m' F* W# r
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结3 L! ~$ f+ Q0 T: l) ^5 n$ {
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
5 j2 o! s* r6 n8 D6 a$ }; r附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
" Q" o! _- q+ ~3 V& W9 \附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见3 ~; w! U' r4 n  v+ O* C5 S
6 r" t! `( ?/ Y& Z- q5 _

& }% i9 g: Z% r- f
1 D" h( w# G2 V8 ?原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
2 h$ v% p. \+ n1 KDear Phil,
3 e4 @1 t! u: E# O       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ V' V; c6 M1 X3 D
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 206 W/ ?5 h, u; ?, ^& U
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
, F! W2 `4 s, ~5 F6 }( B4 r4 Vyou.' j% A8 c7 j! H7 c( _9 Q
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
$ \8 |) z$ H5 L8 ~brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese# X) ]6 P, c  I9 d9 M1 j, W
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the& v8 i; ], f, k# [: `) H$ p% o. @# Q
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
, P" i" ]+ t+ qpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more; f$ U; ?7 x' o) F+ t1 [
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: i4 D% r7 Q2 `& G6 u
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
; m* z2 L/ T. x7 C       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the1 ~0 E% l6 @9 p8 z5 d6 @0 v
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a( [! [" P) H$ Y, x7 Y
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish2 T; `- P# Y- G" y
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
7 }# q$ ], E: ?# C) c: e5 rdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
& @1 L; T& t) @" r" Bexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
; f/ T' c. i7 c3 ^7 v) d0 ostandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
( X# h+ O; ~( P$ S+ v6 xand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone6 c( Q  |' _6 H1 s3 s; Y1 s8 {! J' }) w
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) w! }& \- S' X8 E; I6 |7 W$ Ureporting.4 F  Y1 ^2 ^1 r- [) v0 e
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
( ?/ D+ y. \6 R  V4 Oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
9 R* b& K" l" r& n% U" achanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in9 V9 ~* B% R, h/ n
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ \- H) z; O  j- cpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
; u) U" ~) X1 U) d; L       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
3 ?0 p" u/ z& l- Hmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds! Q# M8 a% j7 \0 q* `( [
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50; ]/ G! v& o( @# a
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ G7 J: P7 [' Eevent for men, with the second fastest record.
0 r0 m* b* S. T7 R% B       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 ^: t. w0 F' i& Gwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16# `# V& ^7 \$ @7 G, e( Q7 F! `
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
, \) `  ]' L$ A+ L6 C& y. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400; l% t! I+ ~7 D8 Y8 {" d" i% ?
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
* H4 D  v! i# f/ ]% l! z  Cfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than7 X( M8 j& O8 X8 _0 J
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed* k/ Z) G+ g. O; N( d
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: e+ p: Z8 C- k8 k  @( B3 iindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower0 Y/ u2 `- V  e. ?) A
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. G/ u% w) G* L5 f6 h' Ethose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
3 }" g2 z( M) V0 G* z. G0 Nher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
9 D2 X4 m4 [. L% l$ l) S$ q& \! \" Phe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “7 z0 Y7 t$ O6 p
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
* l* A- B; w% R. f7 N0 `swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% y( o2 j6 Q; `3 `1 g, G
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
* F) q- E5 u+ `5 e$ Y5 lCallaway report.. d2 Y$ Q  t# A4 n& c1 u+ m% G; |
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
) y( B5 E0 ^1 G6 Lunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
' c$ t6 t4 e8 ~% y% q0 |here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 i1 @% n; Z% ^of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been! u8 X' U6 c! Y
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the6 z, C7 G8 g" Y* S/ |& o( v
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had- ]7 s8 z- L  _; J( }
publicly voiced different opinions.' P, j* N$ X' u0 o. W
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD3 I7 s2 w  U& l: @: M
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
- [/ P4 m9 z: E& }; y0 }# O& MNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ b7 o- W/ n* p! i( E; O1 j; |
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
( P5 x' |' m+ Q' R  E: v6 N6 {( ]you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
: K3 S2 L# `5 C/ A. W4 eof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.; }& Q4 B4 y1 g$ p
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! y* O$ q; t' y% Z* P* h' Hthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They. y4 o% B$ _7 B. R, S+ v. Q' g
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as9 ]6 u7 @# l+ P* P- N7 a
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
2 Q( V) G9 b0 L* Q( J7 H$ Zthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was: y: P4 s3 c) G5 C/ o+ O5 [$ e
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.7 G, s- Q, i( d
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
( Q8 U4 a- `) A# @6 ?1 N0 @+ omany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
0 ^5 n# m& j" C8 @Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June  \2 Z9 o8 P5 p
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: S5 y3 k) l0 W3 H3 oand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ e7 ^7 v7 U  h8 t+ j# O. r
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science, }# c7 z: N9 k& O2 {7 y
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
# l9 [' c/ `4 ], w; S. oDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; l* f6 }* `8 c' z4 e/ }- j& x/ VNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
6 c# _4 O+ V2 v+ P( Cobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature% x& f2 q) p3 q2 v' N0 d
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
  d$ A1 @, P, r2 t# r4 R$ Z& x# M0 Orepair the damage caused by your news reporters.8 m& F6 j8 L% i4 E7 |
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not) R8 ^4 [3 @3 R! r+ B
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced  n  `* r/ \, e% h; G+ A9 c
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
4 o( L9 B/ h6 ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that  \- c( g( s5 e' {7 W0 T
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”7 o4 J4 X6 c* ^5 s" _+ l
about British supremacy.
1 P& r. Q# q7 d) R9 FThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
6 r. K+ v- W+ C' W. Z7 C8 Dunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more9 g5 b. M2 P8 {. z1 x6 Y9 h
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
+ O# Q$ ]2 v9 ^) }) _0 eour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. G1 r6 p, w& h6 j  a6 [Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
. ?' |( y! ~& {" v( `1 L) XYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
! X+ y- P) X$ X% ~+ @# qprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests7 C! C2 A, s: Q# y- V9 v
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,6 _# A* P6 m- M6 y( C
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly% \9 V2 T  b5 v, o4 {. R- v- w
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like0 ?& E1 W4 L8 M; G# u1 A/ U$ G9 m
Nature., u; K: l$ g( ]; m5 _: ^3 c! r2 h
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
( N1 F$ n4 e5 }6 y( K4 \the Callaway report.8 n! \2 p; ]: a* U

; S' X' q! t7 B; V  j8 hYi
6 Y& L5 F- d9 M. R2 B" P& X, _+ _
Yi Rao, Ph.D.; C4 k" }$ ]' X7 O
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences3 E% j1 s6 i) I) Q
Beijing, China
  Z$ ?/ p% ~; h' e) J
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 * l6 g* U) [  O9 U
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

9 h: _! ~5 \8 q: l原文是公开信。. s/ o6 s" _: k- D" Q% y

0 t- J3 j+ T- p' k7 \  k3 Z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
4 n4 S# b) q7 B1 C; g# m原文是公开信。( |$ B: N, H+ T: x& X  z

) H, H+ P# s7 O2 J7 i小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

7 M+ N' |! k( F. T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
4 l% o6 j8 n$ P1 \; l5 q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' x/ ~# X# I6 `: P0 B; Z) N( F
3 O8 {2 R$ s* G7 [  N, E6 L. y6 L) c; P$ Yhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: q# C% F/ a' H$ E* ^

+ z& R* c8 q6 fFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% C9 K/ ]  }4 }% U3 ?

$ w1 U0 X7 m' X% H' |1 UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself. k, L2 E/ O2 g% @* z3 s0 L. \& e
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 g0 g  V' q. L# L  |% C4 Dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 C2 x/ ~! M1 Bis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' p$ M3 `1 l, O1 Qscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
5 R% W2 z8 |4 A) _( ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" Q4 ]/ R2 \% ]# g+ W0 T' [6 l
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: z  n* {7 U  r$ _, Y% c
which they blatantly failed to do.2 W6 v9 V! j! d0 \

0 d+ E  K! e+ x" V5 _First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
( C! t* |( g( l- Q- YOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& F1 o& t/ F6 a% \7 T3 k, r; ~( T- ]
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
% q1 G6 C1 S6 R8 h! r- S9 R# Q; Aanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
6 M) e7 r% o" ]  s" G( y+ dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 c: Z9 B2 B0 K/ `8 Fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the5 _, U1 A, \% {8 e
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to7 ~8 o, Y3 e6 q9 V5 Q2 M
be treated as 7 s.1 J) ]; K( q/ E$ C7 K
! ]* l7 G+ g9 b8 G. R8 V
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 O' m7 t3 @3 n( s  C* M# N
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
! E: w, s7 d& P7 `impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ u+ b* s: t% T9 Q& g6 GAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400/ P7 e) {$ w. m3 R
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 A3 d/ E3 y% s8 L( hFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
+ ~% R: l, C+ A: b; delite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and- v& u; F* P* e" `+ N$ w7 r8 F1 F/ m
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
3 ~5 J6 O" o& A( ybased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- u/ U  I. K4 ]* [1 k6 i' q
3 R+ {+ q% B! v7 X- x6 IThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook5 l9 S! [7 g) W6 s8 }2 ~: v
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
- y, S; {( x! p5 Dthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 b! N+ G& L' F) f& A2 U  @8 ~( ^he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
2 a5 g% Y) {, @' j- c/ fevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s0 ~3 n4 B9 ^7 D2 F& m' i! s
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ E5 i2 u5 u9 mFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another/ v' v1 Y2 E9 M$ F/ ^
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other/ g' \* O$ G, n+ C
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ M% W( _5 P6 B& g
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
+ p- C0 [" Q5 B& ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
! [( {5 ?6 y& P  lfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 y, W  v, f0 h6 }7 i$ dfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
8 [0 _7 F2 B9 X1 p9 v" Z: Jaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% s/ R% Q# O' a: S# aimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, B5 r/ t; T7 C. Y8 M& A# L& f# O$ A
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
1 K% Q- [! R' ~0 zfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 C6 a+ K* A( E3 @5 C3 j" O
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
8 R) a3 x9 x. E, Y), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
  k* j1 [) D2 [' @% [" J1 `out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
' D) e/ ^/ U. }4 FLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind% n% I( O" F* ~5 k6 h
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
$ D- @* x% c) S9 w# t; ?1 flogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# D% V8 M, l# a9 J2 U& Y' J+ Xevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science. Q) i2 Y. @  \# q
works.8 S# O9 d5 ^1 {% R7 Z

' a5 j) `/ G1 K  QFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
% M& p: k% Y7 @4 w) Q/ P% a2 mimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this: U2 G5 X9 m5 P: E" B
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
: C# t# w/ w9 d1 b8 b5 lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" U6 L9 L" C% g, F& ]1 G6 A
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and. q4 k! `. f4 l( e% m* h
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 X' J+ x& @0 `8 s  d5 P% B. ncannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to3 S& F+ g0 H) Z' z
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% t! u# T" v% g9 ~% J
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample1 |; K9 ~# R5 y" B3 C
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
. U5 R0 ]; @" B5 Hcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
  w* _- q. c/ ?! Bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
* N3 t! w6 C: g9 l9 Q1 v$ radvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
# t; @; ~% `" Rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not; w  a; x& H2 @. h1 `- x+ d
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
3 v, k  x6 p2 d" \( R. d. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
' F8 R* i' C/ o$ F, {+ j- Idoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
% R) E& K0 e5 l( E' c% h  kbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; |5 R& N: E: @+ n+ Y5 A
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 F0 ?+ b) M, s% A: E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
( b# D3 q- F) {, y9 N. Y: {drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
9 Q" A" g3 `1 T- i! Y! H6 ?other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 G6 Y& c' K- `: m4 {& s$ j% n, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
# D/ ~4 J( n- M2 e* k- Lprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
- T. D  Y  ?# J! Y  i$ P' f7 \* bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ A( q% Y. k1 A- O8 c* o- D+ [) Q$ R
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" y. \" r% z8 |4 w# G9 c
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 p4 H- g. Y0 lagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
, D( o' L6 O1 ~4 T8 neight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 k) T1 H5 w' J0 f, T* {0 P. Z
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?8 v& L: f5 t- E; U$ D8 m

' T6 E) d4 y+ n5 KSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-4 T. i8 L0 E8 M5 V; b3 t% i
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
9 J3 ]6 F$ G0 f. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
* _' Q# ]0 u  o" L0 U- dOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London; x9 [( M: [4 f. i3 E  b
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for. N$ a3 s) n# O) [
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic0 c# E4 k4 u. @8 s
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope- u" q5 W2 }. V" o% k; g
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 ?/ ]2 h9 J$ O& N! _2 O" E- N
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: l; H; k+ m, a: bpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
6 ^6 e/ x6 [. M( E  r( v/ i, g4 i, V9 Z* ]
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! B8 N% }( i+ `2 p* A
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 }1 u9 l$ q' g) p3 ^
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a' u- Q6 c$ _& p3 v
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide3 X/ E, h& @) x9 g
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 G7 E( w$ j# Q
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,' `& Z1 r, X& G: C
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 J, i8 }* i+ z; n! m9 h+ nargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal9 c7 i. `+ @8 g1 p
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
- _% ^7 J$ w+ H9 }/ rreporting 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, 2025-12-2 07:12 , Processed in 0.170413 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