埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2063|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
" Y5 k1 y. D! q5 S+ L: u* a) `$ a, o
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
, p7 m  z* R0 A# }% _- }9 D! P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。
7 U7 I: }8 l3 e9 d! u  U总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
- D0 p$ _/ `) b; S% j
. r! }$ r) B& l8 rhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
' S$ [8 W! F1 {% N7 a
. R. }+ Z8 B7 L2 g致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
0 M( E& H: a8 p, c9 v" ~
) s4 z/ e% b# o: s英文原信附后,大意如下:
# H- \1 z3 h6 ~. P0 _2 s8 }
- I4 s$ ?; a1 \2 A斐尔,) q- f( x: C$ X7 \5 s: e- c
       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: B6 ]3 K* @6 ?- P
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 d# D4 Q1 s/ C3 O; k; t
       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
3 Q% z( ]  j( ?: o' S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% x" A1 O  V9 V; O
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。* Z* W% y2 t' W9 V
       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
: V. ]/ @* N4 I5 t# U1 l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 C( _6 \0 a! @1 ?* g' i& }$ x7 y
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
9 |! k! A0 w& Y7 w2 r  A) f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。
" O1 U+ l+ v" @) S0 |; d8 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( r7 Q1 R; d8 ^% E: q" d) ?
,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- m) T3 q* |) V4 [' {$ I
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, ~8 i7 e2 p( o; J3 J  z; [- Z
       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
, @* K* M/ I, e- _! f; C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3 b7 L6 U$ L) T7 N2 E! n2 P
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。/ y' O0 n% v) t( r" y$ U6 Z
       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0 \) k+ i$ G3 X+ z
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
6 ^. M+ I- x3 X" T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& K. r7 Z* I4 C& E1 d' 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
1 J2 F# s6 @, i  k300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
5 h8 Z4 H' J, H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
$ Q0 o' \. s+ q) D# 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
! p+ w) T  b& F。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
' v2 w4 i6 |4 L3 ?6 @# R录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。: N+ \" ]0 @6 n5 I: E5 G5 c# 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
: ^- |% N9 a8 I: L1》,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
! g% O1 z* L  JWikipedia。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
% b* \" ~* h- u: v$ @" v3 G/ G同意见的专家。
2 V2 g1 R" P5 G1 y2 q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- ]) H9 f* D* F: u/ e$ c
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. X3 n1 ?/ o* N, z- k
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) F3 h* A  {0 A( z3 w7 v: k( n
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。; L$ [" U7 A6 P: I. w- Y
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)
, b5 W0 W+ k; c( a) Z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
' A) p& k0 j; [* h+ B0 d《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. r) y& q* a1 \2 r1 F& u
这些被Callaway忽略。4 u5 V- S7 j7 ^& c: x
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* }& T9 K" l4 r6 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
1 U- F7 A- p' X8 O' ]" u- M8 X教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。5 _% N& E0 [5 L7 `  j
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
6 [+ T: q! P" D. h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+ ]& _* Y. h, z4 T
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  p5 |, j. `  S7 I  s
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。3 v' h; P+ r7 |, t' c# y  n- @
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/ }0 h& U: E! ?$ K3 ]& c8 `
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; x  O6 {& Y, d, ]
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 Z) V! J. |4 m”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
) }: B# ?+ o1 `( d! \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( ~. m# q1 ?3 t2 v" e5 X
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+ d& t( Y* _1 r$ r+ R, _5 k
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* F6 @( {$ x9 I6 i1 ^: k6 @
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* b: f9 {1 E  s6 m) c
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
+ U4 p2 t& L7 N% y: P6 A而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 p4 Y! H( O% c, d我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
- j2 V5 H# V* s! n  y. ^" G' Q3 ~# j! H7 w# q; v- c
3 ?6 f% e; k1 y! `1 s# s9 \
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅3 ^4 G( Q  z: r9 r- O
" l! b& S- v& j) S
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- c, A) q( P/ _: ~! K
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
! e/ g# G1 }( ~- D附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见) |8 O; a" R) @- b
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
; C6 E, ~: Q. l4 L  Z& w4 z  K  B0 b- E- N* f0 K; x* W
6 J8 _8 W$ O: h# a6 z
& C) p, _8 g; l% b: ~, v
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
$ a9 S; x% V& _& i0 J/ xDear Phil,7 [- Z/ M$ w' L( o
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
' J: X% |0 K  K# r1 t3 z( F' l% sreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
& t6 A+ i: Q7 f7 f  a$ T" {7 {hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
# q+ Q$ y1 |/ N- f( E) Gyou., y& r6 n6 I- L( b9 `5 B
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have+ {! k4 @; d/ i. n; `
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
7 P% m% v5 ?6 x/ ~readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
  v! {" p: \  x3 Cworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ c4 {# I0 _* |' @
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more. X  c/ S& n5 O7 k; x
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
: I: |9 {6 Y3 w  D) O$ mpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.2 ^( ]' @9 ?/ r2 i4 R+ u6 j2 c
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the9 {! {0 I9 W: Q
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
: {9 R  ?/ ^- _negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
$ `& q8 t: T# [" M9 n! n0 Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
# j2 c6 s- V. Y; Ndid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping9 ^/ H1 f, N% [- G
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal; }- v' q! |  Q( s! r: q: u
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,( Z5 U; }. W8 a1 t0 ]
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
% J5 O! f" W) ?! sto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news; r, i: ^; _7 m4 r( ]9 G
reporting.
" j. K* M( T" d1 T: f0 `. W) [7 F       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
3 g" a5 Z6 u: \1 nalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by3 [; M! F, ], v! v' ~
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in' K( t5 X5 d; H( ~2 n( I6 |' D1 `
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 u$ n. m7 v) l1 W
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* b. b7 F! y7 t( y" b9 l       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem* n6 F: K! [. |7 k4 D' V& Z+ F
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
7 F  t  c! [' M. W% S7 E* o2 n$ wfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50' L( ]2 o5 U' l' N3 u; T
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same( r, ~& W8 t- j+ B+ v" ^5 ]
event for men, with the second fastest record.5 J2 y5 @3 O" r
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
; C# B) k/ ^  S( X3 gwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 161 B9 c! N; i" E% R9 ^( g
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record0 H# ^7 f! O& _3 v/ o: d! {- s% s
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, A  |7 i2 p% V0 C# L0 d
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
. ?/ w' ~) K$ s) Y/ I8 afor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* n  _- S! a% F
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed. v. J; |; Y" D
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. h6 H) c( r+ D+ {% cindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower6 x, n3 V* \" ^- l8 h  ^% M" K; a
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than; C9 S5 r2 M; t0 J4 }2 ?9 {3 I5 N
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was4 R; x0 G1 l6 y6 J* |
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
. z6 b" x" \. w0 u" [  I5 G3 @) }he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
0 o; V  l/ i& F1 T) p& s3 E- U$ xproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 R, X1 G7 |0 D0 O! w& C5 _
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 g5 F3 }/ Q: V$ G1 r
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& W# N5 _. X4 ]Callaway report.
, T9 b2 \. O; `: PThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more! a- j6 t8 `) K' k
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details/ m; P3 p  e+ n6 S
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
6 @6 f; x4 E' F$ o9 O) o) Wof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been& ?, y+ Q3 \8 {3 N/ Q' u) y( C
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
* Q: z* Y9 p! N" OWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
0 c: e! S( Q9 u2 c. }) c! g" rpublicly voiced different opinions.* M& V3 y( L3 Y0 }0 d9 K1 K
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD( x7 m, b  `3 R2 x! |( F9 I
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
) ^: o: k. ~3 j$ o: I" ?Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
9 _' e8 {" o& ]postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds" C% Z8 ?" k" F
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
. ?! N2 a& p4 g" `. t" o  cof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
! D# R2 x. g& R( B9 J  n1 UThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
% L. V+ x7 O+ U' P& Y% i! ?# _that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They7 D9 Z' w9 r  b
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
' U- L4 e, \( ?2 j4 u8 n3 HAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
9 m" m' Z) g8 u3 p  F4 K: othe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
+ E) K9 W) D, [8 w$ F+ jsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
8 |0 F9 [7 O% S1 b6 VOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that0 f% D# x! h' ^- X7 m' U, Z
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
6 V( X& k1 U8 i: lChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June$ {0 o5 x6 o6 U" A- s+ y( @7 d
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
, D8 l/ \0 b1 |$ r8 kand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
9 {7 r8 Q. ~) \" N. G/ n3 l& j* J% ~The British have a good international image, partly because of your science' S9 n9 m2 I- X& X$ p& p
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
3 w" O8 |9 ?8 [* w# hDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.2 M8 s2 ~! s# q$ O- Y! @
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
+ c  N( K& T5 Yobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
$ F* i7 `, J& P/ m; j7 ~  j$ Owhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to9 U$ o4 e- B; S9 ?" q6 z
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.. V7 P5 A2 I$ O4 t2 `
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
6 v1 B; A0 L. O2 {( v0 s' @' ishow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced4 D$ H, E: J3 L# K# x
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather/ v. g$ M( B* m  U' ^1 z+ i
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
4 \% |( `( M5 P: o- xthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
; j0 w# B2 R6 j3 r  j0 N' W' k/ Wabout British supremacy.
% E5 y' C1 ]+ |+ ?) FThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
% }+ ~0 K% a0 X" r- eunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
- j0 ?; Z  J5 u; S$ SChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by; E/ S1 y1 x% Z' z% G' `1 Z
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London0 g& @& ?6 z5 }( D5 E1 \# @& [" x% g
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 a3 L2 R4 U+ T" x1 u9 P
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
4 _4 U/ y# E: i( c- O9 a1 G. Zprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests0 c6 M7 Z! w2 d  v5 y
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
4 i3 c8 C0 U; t  Fit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
# S9 L' S2 ^% A2 A. Dpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
& S+ r+ V0 A! T6 _) [8 ENature.
* A2 q' P$ U7 s5 fI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance# B0 A  X( E# Q) A4 M
the Callaway report.! y' b, Y' z$ S% Y) j  `+ O$ M
' G. n% d) o* \# c% z
Yi
  X  U4 ?3 C6 ?0 [& M  _! H9 h# w* h) y: B9 w- ?
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
+ Q  l/ h5 b# T; c' O- ]1 bProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ }$ G. l( X  `8 }& S; `" o
Beijing, China
% R+ m8 {) S- y! u, i6 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
% S3 A1 u5 H5 c8 F原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

2 S, O, Z& N6 N' m2 p原文是公开信。: X+ z, b. v, w! m. x
& T* g6 \6 i' {0 j6 E  }4 p
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! {& K! }- B2 l% ?, A
原文是公开信。
/ n* i3 m0 x. h& j; ]+ P; J
1 n! Y7 b; o) [# Z' I5 g小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

1 G# K; r6 U+ F4 p$ f# o3 k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 JIANG
# l' T$ V/ `& R! N: g( r1 @* c如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
& ]. }* h1 R9 t& c1 Y" t2 W) A) g; I2 w0 x; t% F# C$ b& m
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html* W  L) n1 M: M
7 J3 H' }' R6 H# g" X. _! ]9 z
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ _4 D* ?* i( J# X- N* j' |$ U
- B- {5 z3 P% d# A$ g* N+ S
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself- ~& m0 c$ Y; p7 e9 K0 E6 r( h
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 \/ v/ w2 |( I2 E
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
6 ]$ p" w! G2 ^& xis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) }' j4 b' ~/ y4 p* ?9 jscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
- X0 `7 `. I% b( D* Fpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
6 w1 C5 Q6 k* [should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,$ \0 I! G+ H2 }* s0 D* }9 F
which they blatantly failed to do.* t6 A; U* y$ m- y2 s5 |
+ P7 m( |+ f5 S  S: t
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
1 e+ r* i: o! ?2 z9 i5 UOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
8 s5 }- M* v. ]: G2 v4 \2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
7 O+ {# a# y6 M/ L: Oanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( t/ ], O" C( b5 x6 [personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an3 b! w8 o- p/ V& }4 b/ h
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 f* q: n/ S' S, M# o' `difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% G* a6 @. P" l. D7 zbe treated as 7 s.( v+ e0 Y1 y% m1 k6 L0 M; @. T
# y7 U$ R+ r, a
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" S6 X: r) g7 s' ^; M; Z, i1 o7 o
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem1 r! m  g) o6 u# P: q% V) u, ]
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.5 Q  ]0 w+ X- \! z1 |* r1 [) _0 }
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
( y3 h  Q7 H/ O  p) i: X-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.$ C5 U) ?& B+ S2 p. `; a# G
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an4 e$ |2 j7 g, S# p) @
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 t/ X# |! J5 A
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" m- T" F1 q4 N; d/ J8 W4 @! W
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
2 c- ?% g' l5 i# C; I2 G: h6 h2 g( s) Z  Q5 U" R
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 A" u& V8 C% O: v
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
% F8 p7 j" g* ^$ t* ~the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. G6 s: t3 ]7 m/ H* L% }" r+ Ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
0 z4 t4 w, Z5 Y( {0 S# |events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
1 u) k+ `, ~: |# ^! y* M2 t3 F4 R1 vbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World, O7 _) n* l, \& D' x$ {
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
8 G$ F9 o7 r6 G. Ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
# v4 M9 v6 K% E" Zhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 n4 ~; R7 N" o. o$ O+ h3 d
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! g- T2 B: Y; Q! ^; X+ hstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds# U7 r1 Q7 [3 P7 ^1 }
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 C" q! c7 o( {, M5 o% v3 xfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
% ^2 o* g) P) V& e$ A1 Naside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that, b( W- v6 W$ L0 M7 G! A
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.) K7 M. `, t& m6 Y  b8 Y

; ]- o1 R6 B/ y# AFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
  R) [0 F4 @/ O/ ]/ ]4 a, ^four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93. I6 F4 d7 C+ L  Q" k+ o
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
% e1 I: q2 V2 I) p% h# J3 W2 y* s; R), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" g7 b5 f2 X3 s" o( `! Pout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
  b+ b' f6 g6 y5 uLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; ]$ g7 Z, X' v2 m4 p/ Qof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
% @" `+ l& Z8 x: f0 T  v5 Ulogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
, r3 j* }- T7 L3 R7 }1 o( Z1 Ievery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
0 v6 `7 t' M/ o9 iworks.. P* h0 k: b6 ]$ b: |6 R
, X0 \& s% B+ n! H
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and# o) q% f# o  N% x
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 d) {: \( F7 h' n$ i1 j% R2 x) a7 Ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that& ]) L' ~& C' U
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 j$ |& S' h3 d1 u$ rpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
8 w4 E& ?* t; L- u. f3 a" Rreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; f$ C) N8 r2 R# h% h  h1 g; h
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 A. l; ]  ]. E- j7 ^; O& |1 S$ Q$ \
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works9 y/ j+ s; u# [) {) _
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ b! A) o, l4 A4 w
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is6 n3 {5 p: K, d( {. N
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
2 ^5 D, I4 T* {$ J5 bwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
" g0 ]6 e1 D6 Z) nadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the& w3 M+ k/ v8 O2 |8 G+ D/ u( {
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not6 @. i/ ~/ ^# ~2 V0 l9 r& M. H  H8 I
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
7 }" y& T+ B1 A, Q: ^* J. w. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 Q. D" K9 D( ]' m* R
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
$ A! t0 k8 k4 tbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 J, L: A4 p/ x: O4 p: V- Khearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye% |) _2 c1 X3 t6 [# J6 [0 H: q( o
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a* g7 ^( B0 L/ p% c, Z
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; W: Q0 x* C' n" c: L: z, S
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect! S: n2 P4 t3 T
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) x" u# g; U  s: Kprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an) p% O2 }3 Z) A( F  N" L
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight9 A1 \' u+ J! {" W0 n# C
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?( F7 x+ P3 Q9 Y+ ?7 s. ^8 x; e
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
' v' w1 |: ^; ?agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
0 p$ v4 T- o1 a2 Y1 X0 B) G! veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
2 ]& E& I" {  l8 n* \% S- v* [* QInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" v1 G+ A7 [9 k

% j$ O+ c! {  \( ]% n1 RSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ X' y& U6 ^% j$ Y8 f7 a- P8 \% @
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
0 u- o8 U& V0 Z4 N! j" [, N. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for& X/ I  p; U$ m+ \% g6 x; i
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London: J+ y2 }' ]- z, C7 [) r" @+ h
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for) x* L% U# t7 B, y" }
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic6 ^6 l# g- W* b2 Z. i1 l
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope; z7 W2 M  W0 J8 s. P! J
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a9 [, F# @3 R- C( x
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this* v* j& S1 p6 Q* N
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: I# c" V4 }, C  ]* C5 R. [$ g
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ {# U( z4 A% s% g: ^  bintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 D& J% l% z/ T9 u& \) b' |suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a( O! n. Z! B% h0 _/ t' U( g6 ^& u( F
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide: y+ q: `' ]7 C/ z) O' I0 ?4 w
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
7 D. P9 b% @$ h1 P; n8 L% U* N" Rinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* ^1 d! Y/ E; E
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; y7 Y1 k' d0 Z. F8 J8 yargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
0 s' D5 Z. d. t4 h) Ksuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
2 }/ b9 H) {' B/ f: y4 L( j2 J- treporting 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, 2026-2-23 11:38 , Processed in 0.153480 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