埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2285|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 * t( |2 w) c  w, U$ v
9 Q: e. c: L0 L
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。5 w+ @( l( x* C9 X: z& ^
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。
- H5 H* p" n' ?2 o) A) V9 o; C& F总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# y, q, W( G8 I  u0 j: F

+ v% o( A4 s: ahttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html5 e$ }! y/ ]0 i& Y4 o" T6 L1 Z8 a: Z

# W9 b6 o$ R7 n8 x致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
; |( M9 Z* |0 P
5 D  W* w  y  t英文原信附后,大意如下:. z9 N, k$ a# I- `+ R
- r1 y$ R/ E2 G, L5 w$ \
斐尔,
& e# P% y6 ^- }( x3 B       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9 X" y9 V7 \; e
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
# L) l! s" H) g4 M" k       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 B, O1 @' m: K
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; c- _1 H5 v8 U. N" C
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* H4 D/ t8 }3 J5 E2 O       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
* y0 B: A7 h" z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8 N9 H7 z4 s* X! q1 k! z
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
) e. [) m' F2 B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。
/ c( _, {# T5 ]+ z2 K& G, j$ o       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2 w8 h+ v( S, ?/ \& O! j" Z) |
,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6 y0 t0 Z. c: X3 M) L/ [1 o
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ _& ~$ L# z2 @+ E$ w
       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3 l( `) g  F# [* y9 c: H3 g
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, @+ a! H+ M8 ]: e2 y2 H- V0 q9 O
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。4 G) R# ~' T$ j! P, z6 Z' P; L; \* u' ^
       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
/ I& W; c: L/ ]5 ^7 `! W% e2 Z, x2011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 q! R- ?5 U8 H% C& F  a
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 ]0 \' {1 k1 m
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
2 X2 k  |) ^/ ^+ G: ]' E% u7 \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
* S' G$ s% t1 y8 ]( {8 B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
: j. J1 I7 {0 N$ q7 R( K0 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
" y: V2 z2 k1 t4 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
; u. H0 W* b; Z1 |% f3 P录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
/ o& @) f9 u6 D7 W5 E  Z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! t1 T8 h& ^5 z: ~: y
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& g% b& \4 I/ \
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. D2 h. P+ @( t3 Z4 b  G
同意见的专家。
: C: |' U: b0 U, X1 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' ?0 v8 Q, t4 h: r& i: v
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大
6 k* S/ K9 |9 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
4 X: f" Y3 j$ v) A# l《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ P, z; F4 c$ Z& _/ C! q9 S
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)
  Z5 w5 q, l2 d2 P7 N) _0 Q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
" c- V2 ~' w4 O. z9 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
9 V8 [6 F/ c. p6 @2 ?这些被Callaway忽略。
4 b& G7 l1 `( e3 F" E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
3 P/ |- j% 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3 o  |% d) q8 A; N5 r! w1 L
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。3 Q$ n+ V; e% O; I* J3 T% C
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
9 L# J  k8 e9 Z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 `& b5 i7 k+ Y, G3 k
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
5 m( e$ J, j! ], L1 S1 |; F' C1 R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* g4 \: P8 D6 U9 A, c
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 N; m7 O  l6 @, J+ {- U1 P
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* I. B" @, a) o8 u& \& }2 A
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
$ @$ @# v* ]3 T' N( ]”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。: ^! b: V! H. q( W" s3 b
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* K3 R8 Y: g# k
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; E6 K, j0 T# i0 z8 m' k9 I9 J
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
+ |% r2 e7 b3 d  u- _/ @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
* O4 A' s2 Q7 }" f$ Y0 \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
" s0 a. `1 S$ s# C5 ^) n  X而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
( [6 q; n" ]7 ~0 @0 y我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 R2 r  r5 Y% t. r; U

' a% s# T# a0 \" V7 Z* q9 b1 k1 J5 @4 N) W! H2 `" \; f# H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅$ m' y( B9 Z3 e( X# P2 ^" k6 _

" U( V/ }  w( c" t附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
0 T2 [. x4 B+ Z7 p8 ^4 S9 i附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) [7 W$ l/ q" U
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见. ~) n0 U5 P6 {2 r
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
* }& {4 J. m9 X& j
6 y1 A$ e" V3 C" k9 U1 D7 m$ `
) C* _8 C# C, E( a
, p7 w- f4 o8 B原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- \- `; P! F% L; K$ |
Dear Phil,. E  a" h& ]% ^8 ?6 C6 Z6 Z- L
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s# _. v3 M- Q. ^
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20" L% U" b! X  h
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
" G( Y6 b; i: P+ Jyou." @9 ^0 ~! c3 `1 Y7 p
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
4 x1 ?; w- [. Q( s0 C4 ubrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
, x# E* y: K# T* freaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: w$ B7 |" |: u( Q. O4 I' [world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature2 P1 o, L5 z* U5 G# f+ _3 @
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
9 i  b% O- n, @* Tseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 v: _% V5 S/ B
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
5 i% r( P5 A5 @- r       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
% i: y" s, I4 e) B! g5 u1 Y+ zworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ D/ R$ c3 H& b# z. E, Z
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
1 I  l* s8 s, T/ {( T; y# Vthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 |9 s- v2 z5 p5 D) @# edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping( V$ R" C. A0 I
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal( z7 f5 [& Y$ Y9 w9 U9 t
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,$ `. ~2 M, B# i$ k5 b/ z, u
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone8 N( c1 }3 z; c) f/ s: |
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
6 L9 W: }) z3 Q( g! xreporting.: |: s: f: \- x9 Y& ?  J8 w
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have9 \( Q4 t1 ]  U& E
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
! B  n3 E( q7 z! T* V# E+ e  gchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
% ^8 h/ n9 Y2 k" [# P( m' K6 lsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A- x: a* Q; f. j, t" Q# H2 W0 X
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.1 o3 y& @  T5 ?& W+ i& G$ ?
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem- \2 W: I) u1 q0 O$ j. c5 L
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
2 x4 G* u& U% o- v' M7 E6 ofaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 509 |/ m2 {2 m/ n) c2 l6 t- p
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
& b' i7 i# g* o1 jevent for men, with the second fastest record.
- N' l2 Q. n+ N       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye( h# _0 O  G1 [
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
4 `; v9 W% O; syear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
% ]6 ?- D- L; n; C. J; e. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400( k9 }& Y7 N8 [8 ]! m
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
: @3 R2 s+ ]% k  y2 a: ~( X8 y/ ifor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
  f! F& e# t+ N/ f6 S9 s' hLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
: R  D) U: c: |. w0 |1 p: `- qbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
- W# _0 h  L( A# L( i& f: Hindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
" a+ ]/ a- N" P& Vthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
) Z+ k& ^! X# H! E& q# mthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
$ v* Z5 D) b, F3 Y! a, L9 kher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
2 G& l! n; A6 t3 I( D) Y; f5 Ohe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
- O5 _  Y0 _0 O- p5 H) ]  U; F9 P; wproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 l# Y) l) E5 Z# G0 z& J
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the" ^6 M. V" {. f1 d. g/ r
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the; l6 u; d+ k. m  o, ?
Callaway report.
) B  c: r* l  R- i: j- w6 e  o1 \7 iThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more5 [3 I2 ?/ F; Q% @
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details5 n! N4 [! q" |) z6 O$ \- a
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description0 A- d1 G  I3 ~! A: R. e1 E8 H! @
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been- q6 Q* N, {2 f- e. k" |7 q" K
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
% ^, A" H+ ?' E) r, h9 AWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; R0 V2 U3 h4 X4 q6 r9 X& P
publicly voiced different opinions.
/ z2 a* t6 f) C. H# {& l) I# p  dYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD( l" N6 r/ ?; {
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
, J0 I  V; B6 c) J0 k0 p7 xNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent7 d  Y9 K5 }) u& M: j
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds* t# _( G/ j5 F1 ?# C& k4 r4 W
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
4 f5 O) U0 u0 n) X6 r. Rof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.8 k9 w8 `4 H3 n. k' O. a4 R( ]
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think. x/ g# K* [7 ?" M* F
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
# y1 V6 V1 B" `, v4 xhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
1 g6 k  R7 G. u0 Y; s3 UAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that4 o% @7 I' O0 p( S" G
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
: H& F! h0 B2 n* {; [; `3 Dsupported by facts neglected by Callaway., y& g# }8 Y$ E5 z# `; I
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
5 V) x+ q: a0 Z! L& |$ D3 t0 `many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
* c' Q: \" U5 L! c' lChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June; Q: [7 Z+ M: j
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
, k" {5 l! o, e1 D8 gand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
5 }& ~  A2 w+ |; o1 `4 [2 V; ZThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science3 Q- j, S+ f2 E) U$ n
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
0 l' |' `3 ?1 }9 h: YDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
% }* B) |& `  w  [2 iNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and& K1 g4 }; O1 ^; b! q+ L& F  M
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
: P* J5 |% m6 {6 I" |+ }# Ewhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to+ S7 o# v  r. H8 M0 e+ U6 O
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
5 T5 J- g+ k) ]7 b5 e1 Q9 q5 AThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
8 n0 T$ W- @( [/ `show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
2 ]1 u3 C. I8 W( zus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
+ ~1 I' y7 c! t9 _fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that4 I) o; }  d& A; }  B' j) T
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
+ p8 e3 P/ Y3 X4 A% p6 x8 ^2 habout British supremacy.
/ ]% d: c+ L2 w5 v; IThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
$ S" N0 f3 O: [+ t, X" I5 cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more, ~4 T" B( z4 w
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
9 n  A! w9 C0 {" o( \  p- lour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London' _' F6 v, T7 ~' v; O0 t
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
" e0 J" |' @! HYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 u# s0 C4 K. i) a
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests; ^/ n8 X* L+ a/ Q3 e
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,) H* x" s3 k9 [+ d9 X0 _0 ]8 X
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly# C$ R# ]# |+ b* c
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
4 Z9 r. D7 b/ q; tNature.- x; B( j5 E) n  o) \7 p" r7 X
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance3 w2 E# @) @: {3 z
the Callaway report.5 S( c+ _7 T5 u' `0 N# x

2 b0 ]. N+ I; LYi
9 ]* w( A3 t# S( y! [
5 s# U4 b3 e9 S, j' G: }  I+ N, eYi Rao, Ph.D.. A* ?8 t0 w4 E9 B
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
+ l- i! i; H! O8 ?) r# PBeijing, China* ?5 S/ U5 \5 D) `' X% 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 & K  n; O' d, w1 |- {6 U7 z
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

1 A& M4 @  F' p0 J0 t: I: y原文是公开信。
) B6 t- q5 J) _. @8 X( B3 G# e* `' _1 \& f% T( s3 Z- h
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
7 V* z' y( t/ X' F' \原文是公开信。- w1 d& r6 L- Q! n6 f6 B

4 k, ^: S3 ~- a, d' ]# q小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
/ I9 U. p- V- y: e
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
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- ?6 M# Y5 S; y' W
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
% {4 i" s$ I0 L* V0 X% c! W, x6 I' L( r
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: R+ d9 E+ f+ h2 p" [, C$ A% i: O4 W9 }5 `4 a: b
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
1 j# H" H! B* f% P8 E9 m3 t4 e) {( F+ U
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself' r0 r1 y" q* @
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 |7 \, x$ [" U$ A$ Dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this4 g9 J" Y5 T# ?
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
2 E7 {  S2 A) ?scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general/ z4 O% P0 \$ p& a+ f. P. r& U  n/ f6 G
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 `& _! s# ]( o+ K+ h: _9 Kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 D: C% E# z5 K" Awhich they blatantly failed to do.8 W5 H* b. h8 h! [* Z$ K

: K' x2 D4 I( m# fFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
* y( E" u- I: g' N5 P( W5 AOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in- }" x( H* \/ B8 M; P. B+ _7 V
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ y. f" x6 u' d( janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& |6 H# j% j( m. r/ P/ x, C* W
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an  V: E) r! K9 e' v& u2 b: S
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% Z! g/ }  Q  A7 i/ q* {4 m- c
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
* c7 @+ e, P( A  {! tbe treated as 7 s.
" |/ y3 O- K; \8 A& G, X1 R- _4 b* g. J# y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 y# `, i" ]- t# ^/ ?$ y
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
. x2 B2 S2 L7 vimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 S  {/ N7 Z) O" z  H  }3 L, @  t
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 C* y% i1 B1 v( ]1 j-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 _" h& j3 l, T8 g
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) g8 [1 p' ~4 x: y4 C& b
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
" k8 G! k5 r/ q  O" t/ Bpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
) N1 c2 @  W+ \) M- c) i( }based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
  Y9 h& m3 Y( t  p7 \& u1 S% }5 Z# ~* x, v1 r1 w8 \: Z4 X( b
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
$ d8 [: C9 a5 r- G, fexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
3 f. j, u5 T( ]; s# C4 u% S8 Athe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ d. O( Y/ @: w5 M
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
3 ?# j/ F! U) F+ oevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
/ g6 ]. w3 _5 h6 v# X; C/ Abest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. C. R; c) ^6 z# S# c
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! [6 l' I/ k, ]( H& D$ ptopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
9 d# |5 \$ Q5 c& w3 N8 `hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
5 I  }" N8 A. ?  _: e) H) R; p, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this$ b% p. C5 [5 H( j) p+ O' `+ {! A' u
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds9 O9 |. P1 L+ R
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
1 D4 I1 m5 k) sfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. d$ J" z8 Y5 e% a- a% Q( w
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that; r  r- D) ?" K5 f' X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.% E: F- ~- J2 L' Q

; ~9 A, s$ }& sFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are- x  J  i% ^3 v
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* ?6 [' n" j& B; F
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& O) e+ }9 ^6 M0 ]
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. v1 S- V4 A4 v# q6 J8 zout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! i7 g6 M0 L! ~, ?' O  N5 l
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& o6 s* h2 G9 q; B5 }of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ K8 c, b$ z2 H1 B
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in7 e( j/ Q) ^: X: A( b5 o' e
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science5 q& Y; P1 h$ e: A6 V
works.
& B- I4 u4 _6 w2 R) s5 x* o& z# p, I
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
9 V+ x& Z: `4 }implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 N2 J7 h9 T2 Q% r& ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that# H2 D4 d" o$ \) e9 T4 y4 X' q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific+ z* [( F% ^% i( q+ b, l" i% \
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
' J, y9 D% C5 _! Sreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
# h1 n9 H2 R$ d4 M4 V9 gcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
0 u% a5 x0 C% }* m; @+ n3 c( pdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
" w! @4 U% U: w/ @2 C- L6 vto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
/ }4 p4 h, {! N$ D% e9 B2 Q+ gis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is! Q9 q3 \  b1 j8 k( f! T
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 e9 i5 r: |! u$ |
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly7 \- w: u  p( W" v2 X1 _  j* y, @
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the6 f+ K, ]& _! i& Y
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not' c2 U3 H* N6 ?/ z; \; e, h
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& k, w4 O9 ^7 w" o. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
) [, ]' l" L: F2 J$ E4 Sdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may+ Z. \/ x1 j  @
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( ]" U0 y6 }+ k+ A0 ^1 Y
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, ~. o+ H/ c& ]' W! g6 M5 P
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, L1 ]0 c/ |3 q) H& ^drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:- C$ P; e$ _- Q# K7 D3 {
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect7 B+ a# |: e) s  c, r+ P) B8 n
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, ?! Y" a: D) _* T& ?8 Y9 ^
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 I7 r5 Q3 o. u) A0 }% b1 R0 d
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight& A) ]4 h) J( Z/ U1 g" M' x% C
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
9 x0 L) Y4 q0 L7 j2 ]3 t7 ?Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# n* Z- U! g6 [( z- nagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
4 k0 m, g% T( F) c' O6 H, k& Veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 v) R3 n6 e/ p: K' z( n" W
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?, z+ ]! m1 t: ?1 ]# s# `. m
0 V+ d/ h1 l0 t6 V- K! D7 Q. M
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
6 T  `$ L+ v! u* h, f4 t& Ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 N* M" h8 I, b1 p8 P! ~) _3 U
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 N' d) m& n& R4 |Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
; V) M# y) }9 |& J6 E3 ~2 gOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
2 t% _7 q! A7 O# i5 mdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
8 W$ c. ?9 Y" @; B* p! Igames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
+ ]- d) {4 Y8 {, l* {- n9 w9 }5 Y- F/ }have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
+ B6 _% Z5 q9 v6 v' iplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this) q. c' @+ y, |9 P% J
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
+ P+ b3 r7 K7 x* O# R0 x9 U/ \2 I4 W$ c" K7 O/ p& l% x
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (8 e0 A% w! |' U* {3 p) J
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too1 V3 m2 }% j, Q$ J: d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a5 x* Q# {/ ?. M* V% V
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide! L6 u. ], g( f# M- W
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, `) W8 x9 R: K( {' S# Zinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," P% F$ X: I  z
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your3 w2 g+ g; k  M. _0 Y
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 O. J& l7 J. k- J7 W) t# Rsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 ]* m# b0 W# E* |
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, 2026-4-30 21:07 , Processed in 0.173220 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