埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2115|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 ( I2 F+ e& Q& g: A+ A3 ]8 u0 `

6 S0 L: P$ \+ X饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
5 ~: o$ ]8 E7 A$ i! B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。
, X4 S5 R/ V0 O" v. g总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
, l' i5 i2 S& d$ P+ B* q9 A8 C
5 T( \; e, D, I6 L* rhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
1 j1 i% l/ d. j2 ]" d
4 X5 l8 T9 \: v1 [! Q8 u致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
3 F/ A4 N6 J2 w5 s! T+ J
$ O; `5 x# P* O; F  @英文原信附后,大意如下:
; g8 W' Q9 m  K" [' i* y" B- P' `  H- A9 y* P
斐尔,
9 Q& w" A) t, x: D) v       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
5 Y4 b3 h, {& Z5 e7 Qemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: n) a# b& ]2 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2 _0 |6 x* h( r. ~- X6 U' p+ V0 m
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
! A# G; }5 m9 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。
- m; m$ o% C% z& `       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5 N$ z: {, B% m
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# g) u, b/ ]$ K2 n! l
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
3 k9 v9 J1 j% [4 a+ ], \# A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。9 B. G$ m. u% g7 ~  H7 u
       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
7 Z  W# ]  _" A,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9 X; u* a' p0 ^* V* z3 R! l# a' h* s  ]
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。- e) N4 b3 b& H
       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
0 ^9 V8 N- }" O# U1 W3 K) x- F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! k1 Q/ O4 p) B# p
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。' U$ c$ g) e& O2 ]
       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 E1 t- Q$ q  G" q) u. X$ U4 \+ J
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
0 ~- d6 H- P+ B) u. ~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
1 O2 C6 M4 m& o; [8 k3 v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
3 X" G7 q) m0 @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' h  Y. R, O% C7 T- t, l
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
% I# n7 `2 G4 a3 d6 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
" ]4 K( I% `; W2 H; r。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
- L# u/ t8 x2 j8 G, S- z录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 `* c# Q$ q1 e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
( e3 t' q; O" D; |8 y* Q1》,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1 B# d3 D- J) B4 M
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7 _+ [9 p+ J* K% b
同意见的专家。" U! P; K5 N: }* o" m
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" d( v. D; t4 y6 N# L
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 {( G! U1 p7 K/ {* S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
0 F3 C* s4 m2 t. y8 Z6 @8 ~《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
7 k. t! U% f) tCallaway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). p# o5 Q% c% h+ ]+ T% o, \) l. b1 W. c
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+ n5 E1 o8 K, x4 O
《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
$ ^2 d% d. V( v$ Y这些被Callaway忽略。/ a, l" J0 U0 ^0 k
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
6 u7 y' Z: {6 G, n- L/ ]' B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 y4 K) R. @/ H1 L教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 c6 w- J  N: p# O4 F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0 P/ k! b0 {  ^. H. q( A
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: F5 X$ m/ g: s+ W* t  {" j) P' b
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
) @# |8 n4 O" J5 Q4 x6 w: G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。( ~; X! L0 R2 i+ M; ~; p
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4 a; \/ ]2 [/ g
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 ]2 w$ K( q& J4 T  y4 Y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 U/ y2 k  P9 U5 {5 G4 u
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。% p+ @7 C# s) C
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6 v% u( u0 F* b: v. Q
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4 W" q$ e0 z3 _* E' w9 _; p
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  r5 m% g9 ?' ~$ ?" F
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2 h; ~: W6 h' u! S3 ?4 o% _
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: v  U5 ~2 l; l2 L8 ^2 A# g
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。; h  _/ b1 B+ V1 e" B
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。# n$ R" w4 \$ o, v
- I! U/ m0 Y( ~3 }: ^# ~

, A9 {' R" }$ Z北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: [4 w, ^! i+ _* a3 u

6 d0 P* _4 l$ `. S9 ~附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结# w; e, ^+ M# x  D0 T
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; ~+ d+ ~* B8 W9 l2 q! v, I; y' h
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见* `; v; Y0 S. |) r, X
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 \; {8 T0 |: ?' F+ G5 i
9 u' J/ ^' g6 u- C  y$ Y9 i4 N) L! W- g  h3 k) @* j* K

4 M/ q2 m+ l' S0 F原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
  }4 J  ^- R  M2 XDear Phil,1 j( D3 I5 w0 }1 Z9 \+ y# }# s
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s% i* {& a+ k& T: k& q- f
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
* s0 v: C5 ]  jhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed9 Q) I/ O) x9 _
you./ V( v" [$ n4 H- m- n2 f' m
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( n0 [9 n/ L/ e$ y( Z- G3 n, Mbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese4 D' C5 {% m& d2 z. w3 J
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
( ?3 X' g: }6 b! Bworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# F" Q3 Z: C1 o+ ~% p; P, E
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. I( C: ^0 U  l' s/ Y: ?0 @! }, |seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news8 E- K9 y6 g7 q- Z4 `2 P$ N% C# O
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.0 E  d. z/ i9 _9 N* {3 @
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
: z# \  g- }" q+ tworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" I2 r. {# ?- vnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
2 c2 |: l$ G2 G# M8 J, nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway0 p& `8 m2 a1 t" U$ U
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
: D' }6 P% Y7 d# c. }explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal* j( r/ ?/ x0 r3 z8 v. e
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible," i# e9 W1 w3 G7 I, ^& A/ P% O
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone8 i% C* S$ Y" s2 @# v/ T
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news+ ]- D% \' F% R9 n: {. v& g
reporting.
! ?; o/ ]. E4 ]+ I       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
' G4 F( b* r/ p% t1 Kalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by2 r1 ]1 ^: q% B/ w
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 L+ G' B5 r1 y7 U) j" m
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 N) l" j( h) _- Q% F& q
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
( i; m8 N( p0 m# R' M9 C       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem0 {( N6 v* @& |. a4 L* e
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds0 U( h* D6 L) Q' q/ z
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
5 |* i! g% F$ B2 w5 V1 \meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same- l* f" c: Y. r/ C7 b0 p+ I$ ~
event for men, with the second fastest record.9 g! ^2 c/ A- G) w$ {/ I' S: F
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye) `' q8 S# G. p4 z
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16% a4 H/ s1 z9 ^$ Y# A8 `: u
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record* |9 l5 g+ {& w2 U5 B$ h* X
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400" H& G, }' J2 V6 A- l
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,8 W3 s+ ^/ f/ A* N
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than2 H: E5 B+ H- T# s, g7 E: q$ N3 z7 ?
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed2 n8 k& F' Y1 @: ]7 F! g9 z6 t
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
$ T- ^( c9 F9 c8 C0 s; Windividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
, U8 h* ^2 Z) X4 _/ q& G( ?than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than5 y8 D2 u8 L% v9 w- u# V' M
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
) F* ^; I# t" g; o9 u5 q+ l0 Nher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then% z/ j) }4 r, W% i% W$ b( A
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “: x# `' l: K- C9 `/ ^  T
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
3 `2 w$ V% ]* u- `5 Vswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
9 y6 g4 L% c9 G3 A2 y9 s( eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
+ K; N/ \1 @) w3 N" q  c6 f: LCallaway report.. i. w: L+ a: _5 w4 A
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
$ M3 M" A! p  d3 x6 s( q+ U( {) a  Zunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
0 l" A+ b3 z5 \6 y% j. b1 d! rhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' [' V% }2 u2 M. Q5 d/ qof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been; ^/ g+ W6 v0 }/ G# {7 o( o  l
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
8 u! G5 p" a- H1 b. lWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had* Q! C' T3 L. x
publicly voiced different opinions.
( ]$ P% u) f4 j$ RYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
" e6 |& v& w1 X" i8 |( ^- I, m1 Nfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
! a* o$ E# ]  |8 L5 y7 O, z) CNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
* B$ \2 W& i+ N# i, r2 ~postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds5 w! N2 u2 H7 z- m1 q* y
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
0 Z  n9 T3 z6 v3 k/ \) @of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.9 w9 ~8 |0 U: M+ N+ f& C
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think- H8 l' H( o5 z1 j! X
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They; D; s: W: m0 q1 [
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
2 M. n9 E8 ]8 g2 X$ y9 HAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that! X+ u- Q" g) I; @2 U
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was6 |" A; u- c) L: F, W
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.1 F- ?, e4 b  `5 w! e
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
: Z8 K5 a) m) a7 fmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# o1 C, }7 ]/ ~7 |
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June6 x, Y- b" ~- d# p
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
/ u1 s8 _8 z0 C: c: [+ Zand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
. ^/ \$ ~% T9 X" Y4 L- wThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science! T5 m% L/ p/ f9 j% P/ b8 B
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ X4 G* ~3 x% {- j/ s: E# B' T
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.& L: Q* M9 `; r4 M2 n, ^/ a
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and  \! w/ L; w7 g* z- K# g$ W% E4 m
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( B, i$ M$ M! A# B7 @' y3 n- O
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
3 o( \' K5 l) b( |repair the damage caused by your news reporters.6 k2 P$ ?# F7 G& z, Y+ w  {
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not0 J- y3 w+ [6 p( s2 n( \
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced7 D0 N7 L1 ~& `! G8 H. E
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather, _9 T% T6 h5 I8 Q, b
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that) M; F& O- X5 [
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
# x* V# n7 T, q0 V$ Kabout British supremacy.
9 }  w/ \3 L6 o7 g. n8 rThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
1 u1 r# i" @6 Z. Q" C1 Kunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more) C$ n6 M7 h; ]2 |
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
' N9 f- N% u: ~our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
$ F6 a# q: v1 K' D! G. BOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
4 |, e# B$ z* k! s  t; Z/ T$ M2 {& ZYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of0 @, Y' Q0 ^7 E) b9 h
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests% r. J% T& X" ~: w2 J1 Q- _/ B/ t; f
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 i6 y. B$ L) c: e  u" U0 qit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ o5 l: D0 k: j7 _6 P  f# ^1 c$ T
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
1 M( y' y0 C" k# j) d) P3 h' R% bNature.& h0 f* T( n, V' F* ~1 o
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
6 S8 c# F9 e7 Rthe Callaway report.' C" f# C0 w$ U  N& |7 \
- N$ D/ d* g1 M* N
Yi' y* E+ m, ^; ~: ]/ |
+ L& @$ \* B& z  {/ V
Yi Rao, Ph.D.$ F7 M# D9 d' ]1 X3 _) _! {1 [/ g  R
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences5 g- z5 ]- V3 H0 V3 s
Beijing, China
# C/ F6 h% c" m0 c6 o2 O5 S
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 6 P7 T3 Z4 ~7 {; V
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
0 |7 F+ J7 c' e' X3 p: C# o
原文是公开信。$ D/ S- i! X8 J1 q) x+ Q
# a, w" F: i; Q4 g1 F: n. [; i
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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 3 E; U; B% |- `, }5 }" ~  h
原文是公开信。
; U: Q  n* u& R6 y  G
& ~! A0 e) M  l2 G$ I, ~小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
* ^% Y( c- }8 w7 I' v
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 JIANG7 e& O: Q  Z% B# y
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' ^# h" L3 k% ]) F
7 E" l; c( [* k: l( J  thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html5 A% j4 ?, M' s8 [% r0 Z1 j7 k# C
9 }% [3 v' a4 R& h! A+ x, `: O4 h
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania& K6 }4 \% |8 J' D( ]- i7 h- U
$ G- h7 N9 t6 y& ~' N6 D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself& y  A: g& S: f0 u, @% V1 V
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( L" w. F* N  E/ ?magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
7 _+ G8 o: t: I% b; {8 ~4 ]is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
1 z) g/ D- t$ Y' }; Q/ S+ A0 Dscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general  r6 o" P+ Y( J1 C# X
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ h/ E' C4 a1 t: p
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,  `0 O- u" G8 r% `( L
which they blatantly failed to do.
9 B0 c% R; H- n! ^1 f. v: l( B) l$ h! @) ~
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
9 e* i5 v! L0 K2 K# X* hOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in7 j7 T  l& l! U
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ o2 g* e  W4 G  _anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
& c( G+ a/ b/ d9 |! Y) {+ Z: A8 j  n6 \personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
0 c% k+ ^' c3 Q! `8 yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ Z3 D: p$ v  P. q
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
, w! l7 U" u) g! E. `2 c8 gbe treated as 7 s.* y; e# _% B' r: ^: C& d0 Z

; \" f8 ]4 F  d2 i6 m2 P( JSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- J7 K: |' n9 A. A) R' p2 [still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 I; p! D# U$ B8 fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.: n' E) K5 }3 H6 m
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
- f8 ^% z2 g. j4 {-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 z0 J0 ^, N1 q6 bFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ x9 V6 V/ A! j8 `- ]3 \! o$ Q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and- [; I$ o4 I( `2 I: n" t
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
3 Y; O, O. N# ?, Y6 ubased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& v1 G' H  E9 H4 j* `; S0 `3 z5 }
# o# |/ Z+ Q% V7 ^: B6 V* dThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 z) U7 R% ?2 l& [" a% _9 v
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in; m" [* H9 Q; x: f  _/ i. n' b0 [4 k
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 T) k% `. r6 Q6 u- ^1 d0 _) hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later, C  ~8 ?, X2 K$ h8 b% B! t( d
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
+ o# N! t+ H# y- H8 o6 `best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
. l0 c0 D, w7 P( J& _Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another+ ]$ k, h* I8 h" g' [! l+ V( q- Z
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
: _. z9 O* @* k6 l" y+ @, chand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) \, g8 _+ a* g; ]/ h! y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
/ d8 f6 V) B- x- }$ x+ J$ l# ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 a4 \0 E( P* j7 Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam7 R6 k2 t( w1 V- @
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting" f8 K/ M; c0 p$ L( f
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
" m3 W, P% `! `, y/ r& P1 _implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
, R0 h' c, Q1 X' R+ d) {
8 G+ {9 ]; o( [2 @& b1 O1 BFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
( a- Z% O  M) o6 Q+ gfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 F# ?- c9 r+ ~1 ys) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' X9 Y  I' M" T) H6 C2 r), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns7 a7 C4 p' f* _6 D: \4 g
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: d8 m  m4 j9 c" w- R
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 X9 B1 B; E6 g# D% f# m
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it7 m6 J" `8 R2 b3 Y, O
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
7 V$ ]) ~  W3 U0 I* O& w2 Tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science$ ^/ X) t6 z0 _7 ]9 c1 g$ H1 z
works.
/ e8 q6 t, u' m; D) [/ d0 q/ y6 H4 `+ u4 Y! k6 o
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! N1 c0 R- r" h9 @0 ]# j4 G
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 Z) l) K& A# s4 q' _0 }" I$ @1 _
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
6 X4 h8 F2 n+ Z: o# Q2 n1 _standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 A, y1 s) v+ [9 }  |papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and9 L6 ~8 n5 a& |7 o) _+ M8 I
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
# h  V5 e: y- R7 R/ H7 @4 Ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ l' |& T" b9 u3 X  k
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ D' z  X' [+ r. w4 S6 Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
! t& {2 _  t- b2 M( T% J4 @is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ d% v$ ^! o1 V+ x% G! Vcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% q) \% B/ m# @2 Z! f0 kwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly! B8 U5 s' B% S4 L6 ^& ?3 w
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
1 \! ], c8 G4 o" vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not" Q- B! o: D6 @6 ~4 {
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
% n- O7 v7 N: i. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
: I8 M8 @! G1 m6 F  c6 Qdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
. C. e; R% G- e! K3 {be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- y+ V/ d* v! z4 D( m
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
3 z$ i/ [9 Q6 A" Q' C+ rhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- E2 g" H  Z+ H
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
& ~% P8 h$ m! `0 w* h; gother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
! O( s% Q0 ?. ^6 M; c, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
9 B; D, J# X/ i# ~6 k) }$ p+ d8 bprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 q% {' A! W) w: e5 q
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight! f, _& {& a; [8 z7 U! W4 }
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
  _: l& N6 e" gLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping8 i" X* s2 a! f' g+ r7 P+ W
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* l, t" L, q! W4 w) t& U
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) F+ J' x5 n; ^+ `* m. A5 ]5 r! BInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! q8 G9 w# {. S- g+ A" z. H
# m' x6 R3 h: r: ^' V
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
7 Y# Z3 b' p) h% m  i  n! f( bcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention) X) g# L0 W! l  X" ]
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
, s3 I5 P4 E! E2 xOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 G9 Z& X. l  k8 d# A
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for2 O- X, T; @5 G6 r. @0 Q: x
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic( c' Q+ q5 G4 {& U, V* `' T  T  o' S, J
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope4 [! B  i" v5 \' G# I/ ?6 i/ O
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& U# {7 t6 i% ^- O0 L  yplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" x6 q) i$ `+ f: |  O
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
  O% n. n! H6 |
" w/ ?8 F) p0 L# c, w5 f& [2 }9 [2 nOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: I4 h! `  A6 e
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ ^8 F2 y+ ?" n) G* C9 ]5 n1 v3 l
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a" M5 E9 H4 Y; a8 x  x
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide) H1 g2 A" B6 N
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your9 l; d& c% U% q( B, N; r
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 w1 }. \6 R) y+ ]) o7 b4 i
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your5 u& [6 s0 q( r0 A- y! Z1 k
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal  v, M: C  B) ~4 z6 I4 J/ [) T* \3 d4 c
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& T4 r5 o& g; s! t, nreporting 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, 2026-3-10 13:18 , Processed in 0.128960 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