埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2036|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 7 X2 D7 [6 X: p. y1 P
( J, K4 x; @* i5 n8 P: ?; g) b3 Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
" s* A0 D( w" N1 r' B0 s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。
- X" X6 i$ P! [% n( d* T% ]+ ]总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
+ ?- a  ~0 ]* l) `7 X8 d2 }
" d# y+ `* ?9 v) h9 B9 s! Ghttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
: b3 E" ^2 J# K# T& g/ p. \2 k: p
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
4 Z* R% O% f3 x. Z! J, o4 N/ u# W3 d) C2 E4 j4 G
英文原信附后,大意如下:
  m3 f( k3 t+ G% k" x/ c- B4 L! [- o. _
斐尔,
' {0 V7 O' f4 g       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
7 L- W0 ]& M1 L1 z- [$ e$ x/ ]email的人里面小部分也给我来信。- P# R8 _7 N& M
       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; E: A' C* @7 }8 j7 o# j' 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2 M# _$ j& V* q; S
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。
; C6 z) q: U; }1 g: k' R       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
' [! O' ^% X) J; b& C+ P$ G; T& V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& A+ Y2 t  Q6 r" J( 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
& W( C! v, F' ~' i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。
2 D' F' m9 N+ P% E; G/ 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
% d7 F' A1 V3 q: a( L1 z- Y% a+ D# S,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) y1 d' O% c3 s" R3 [
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, u0 E. N4 d# `& W, o$ [% |  y
       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
+ \& V  w  [/ Z! L0 ?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
6 \8 Q( F# g- m+ o- [% A! m,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。) V, S5 t$ \. `9 z9 |5 V
       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/ A  R& s0 X" i! p
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
# U0 h4 E1 E( e3 s$ j7 N& C: p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, a; K2 v: E7 S$ p7 b: |  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 o2 p; }; s. E" n" S300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
! P: s- P6 M2 x. T; \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& W  ]8 |  F5 [# y; X+ G
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" I& P7 B& D- v5 l( l$ j7 G
。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
. k/ H' U! q( z4 X& @录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
% ?) X; ?9 p& X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
7 y5 `; j% b! U# a1》,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! i2 `; [3 N- E7 D- V9 T9 j
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
" u3 O5 S) s9 g4 f3 s同意见的专家。8 P, D  x6 n1 f; F
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& {, X9 `/ l9 R
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
' H  ]8 n% Y8 {3 `& g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3 D/ G2 z( m3 [# A
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
$ K$ F) m% d/ Q+ f( G8 u/ 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)& O7 Q* ]7 i6 [. w7 x$ [) }
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4 N* @5 d* x' n
《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
; B* \8 y: Q+ ^: u这些被Callaway忽略。
6 `! ~9 F; n4 v: E. y/ W2 [: z5 L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
" K7 x4 h* w" v0 z4 I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
) M, u/ ?. E4 g1 h' e8 W: Z) t教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
, y' S0 T" ~1 N( t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
: L/ x6 K% ]4 k4 P2 l1 V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
2 W4 [9 x% h& Y: |$ ~: I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
' v0 k8 f9 O- v* }* G' F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。; \2 [$ \& P( w" O3 r. r7 G
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 @, c& P4 V$ E. 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
* E$ q7 l$ n7 W. 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
+ ?- C$ G  |4 D' ?9 C4 T”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
& O! S, v- A1 B3 O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3 l* j' E+ a8 V5 b8 A6 W# W
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1 W4 t" }* o7 a% |/ l. e
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" w$ Z+ t- l- H1 M2 F/ g
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次
" x# w; G3 f! x4 Y) N2 W8 o( 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, b+ p/ i" x9 \0 q. d! S
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ [( o4 B5 g$ q$ c! c* T: [+ {( N我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
5 _: W8 k  Z8 u7 O2 n3 q8 j; v* H% g9 H( |9 p( O
, o$ e% [! U9 b6 g& H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅/ k$ L/ ~6 e) x$ R0 P  Y0 ]& L6 H
7 T% u+ E' w0 t) Q2 V
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
% d8 d) T, N# F* ~附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email* \' J8 l- W2 U( I" k3 _  }/ E
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见3 P! ?" b( ?5 h: L9 c+ G
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见" u1 }4 F# W$ u
, t( [9 m5 q4 V. k

  M. b0 @$ e" A6 v3 h: e
9 h3 a3 L8 e& Z5 b: R+ U9 n原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)5 v: e( K5 a% ^$ t" E0 @
Dear Phil,& f3 y. Q4 [# V0 L$ R
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
2 F8 T, ~' ~2 a5 z$ Z+ A2 O& ]7 wreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( ?$ l* M: E5 lhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
" j4 B) `1 _5 S0 m) oyou.
4 v+ g1 b3 m3 I* \. F7 t5 Q$ o* T       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have& Y% S8 T- s- o, E, j% E4 ~& \
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese, Q  E# `7 b1 o8 d$ m1 H) g' N( q
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ K. V" ]: M1 V' M
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
9 q! E. Y7 o# X8 l9 L, ppublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
7 I% r  v5 C5 F" z! ]seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
4 q; j2 C8 K" J% N$ W$ zpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
: `  `9 l( ~6 f* X7 Q7 b5 M       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the) I1 f8 B, S' T2 R- |4 M
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a- x7 T$ ?/ V% _
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
# c6 E. a2 X8 L( Zthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
$ J! \; A0 J" J" f7 S4 Pdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( l1 ?! b& O5 A! Dexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
  C: @6 `  V! j% sstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
' c  B2 a8 U9 m$ ~, x* ?and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
4 ?& O9 `- H: [) rto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
7 C9 s% X: F9 c+ V1 Freporting.
" G& H* L& q, M6 \6 r       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, a( {2 s8 ^- s2 b6 b" y
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
( l9 A, L; B1 gchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in! `5 _8 ~" g2 q9 v, s  X3 L
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A) _! _4 o8 i* \1 B- [3 t
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
# u2 K# N& P6 i. m( [* k7 [       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
# U2 H2 [/ K) c- q/ A6 p% vmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 d# Q$ p+ L+ k+ x, C2 i
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50/ p, J# \( e0 Y+ m! t+ A7 P
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
% Y  ?# w) {# hevent for men, with the second fastest record.7 o  d7 f' b) x; s6 H7 c
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
# c3 P7 y# S6 ~3 U4 i' p( O7 S9 Dwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16% {, F9 t: N" [6 x. c) a: J" f
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record9 R/ B, M1 ^2 t. l
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4002 p" Y7 B0 j+ D, u0 d9 g
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,( T& d: x/ a, Y4 l
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
# x: ~  b, O9 d3 d; pLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
" w' M* c: d3 o* E# y5 Ebehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
; `3 K; O% \0 o7 W% b3 [& O! n* kindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 O2 L  u1 H1 X) p  E: h/ S* ~- L7 r* Q
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
8 z( n% N( ?) P+ Y3 pthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was1 _6 E8 A& N8 W, s4 Y. n* {
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then/ x" @1 E% j; j( c/ |7 z3 Y
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
8 ~" _: ?% P, Oproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other+ W* O! b9 i. H
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
# Z+ W: D+ _; X* L; Z% k, Jteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the. E3 O9 O0 F( Y% ]/ w* g
Callaway report.3 M* f6 k; J8 c
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more( n; P- y9 r; z7 x7 E* K8 a( H
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details  O  E" H- m0 Q: V
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
+ @1 t. f" `0 n" cof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 H! u- ?, c# G- Z$ F5 q! u0 o% h0 H
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
: U4 X, `& v% h; hWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had; A6 n4 x' s9 s# Y0 k% y
publicly voiced different opinions.2 j' ^# H! d: L# ?' a! \' f0 N
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! b' N; h7 x4 _; m7 a1 l1 }
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature# [. G1 P& G: O2 e3 b; J! W9 r
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent/ Q: K# s. h3 v; \4 P4 L1 Z
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 Y4 m% s6 h9 e' Ryou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
% r1 L! g* |6 q# `" i3 Zof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.; S. E! W* m, ]% T
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
4 C' c# b3 S) kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They! T3 n) f. @4 V/ e) E
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 A# z+ K1 p$ t
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that6 t4 I$ G" W* v! G1 h% M* v1 I9 E
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was  g+ C9 r* i  |
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.: I( `( l$ Q+ _* c0 T" H$ X
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
9 ]% q: b# q; j6 z, D# z( k' qmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ M. z( k+ `: k, ^! ~0 |
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June7 H. C9 t! g/ c5 i% h) x- E. c! x4 x
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
  Z; `5 a& y$ _+ U: P4 }2 A8 s  C' zand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.; K! T, S) k0 U) l' z
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
4 j, `1 v- b5 }; F8 T2 e: z: Zand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and( @3 P+ I# f( }, h
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; j- _; M' Y9 W& h. l1 j' Q
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and+ Z% b5 V& @" ~  r. k0 Z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
/ g( o; _3 E6 R1 `: h% y8 W* mwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to0 C1 {1 D* v( P  M
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
+ U3 V# W9 E* ^$ ^5 ?* ^7 |; G" cThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not. X! ~) ]4 j4 k8 r
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 B5 `( ]9 M9 i! kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
; D5 m$ d, k' }1 \7 c7 W/ U; Gfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
' I& x& F; w$ m3 I' mthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
6 }& g. T3 K0 B/ {: U4 |about British supremacy.
4 X) p3 i$ U! C# x+ fThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
4 h! p/ P: c, a9 U# y/ ^$ S& t2 Gunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
2 c, k* d' [* G0 rChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by* }) G  v, c5 c! F* Z3 ?% x
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London8 S$ P- N* @" ?+ p( ^0 A, T& e+ {  A: J
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.) L' p6 f8 u8 j4 S% I; r  X
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of6 b. D; ~4 r3 M7 Y$ i! a: r, X" E
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
9 F$ Z- u5 Y& gbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,4 Y8 `' S% N5 U: E$ ?% R
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; `6 M  o. w( S
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
7 j- Z0 H) d5 b& hNature.
4 t, a6 D+ ]9 I% y% R# ^3 W7 yI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
3 a; s7 v' d2 S8 ]: M+ Rthe Callaway report.+ `6 O4 T2 \( f/ W' ]# o# [$ M+ H
* M4 \  A4 |. ], a0 T0 L
Yi
& m- ?- `3 i" k! m/ P. Y$ ]% ^) j5 p; W) B% q
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
. O  \% e& J3 M1 X3 P2 m2 a! f3 VProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences$ v3 a1 @! N% l: Z. A9 h* r* o3 V
Beijing, China+ m/ v& A& y4 g+ K/ d
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 $ Z" T6 \6 K( ~: H
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

, Y5 |& I4 R6 `, a9 E原文是公开信。
! z  j# q- _5 R; D3 @8 a4 n- ?' x8 _  o. A& K7 W- T  |2 o/ d
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 . S& i; r- D- Y' A) I& f8 R4 P1 e0 c
原文是公开信。4 R: Z2 \+ ^" ]; X5 p! u

" O# M! f7 Z/ {" S  F: V小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

0 {5 Y5 z" L% P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- y/ X$ c) G/ Y5 Q1 W; V
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。5 N4 c8 m7 g* X; t9 l0 F9 {

7 D; a, B, X6 S! b3 o4 Ehttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
6 Y& V# Q' k/ z- f
2 X! ~# v$ ^! \8 W5 I" {FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
! W! T6 N% ]6 P# E2 I  p( Z
" _9 k+ z+ T7 U: o0 P" u- u# [It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself4 v2 e7 W, x. ^* t9 `6 E3 m/ X1 o
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science3 P) K/ f- D" Z4 V2 W
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" W) M  M* |2 U9 ?8 y% v  H8 v
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) P+ d! m- P1 Nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
# p. \: g9 G+ }populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors2 O9 N; A; D2 N# H: C) V8 b
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% X! ?; _* h) J3 @! dwhich they blatantly failed to do.: k: Z9 F6 _. x; L  `" {" w2 ?! M
8 i8 U* T9 n4 S1 ^; l3 ~
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
  b0 F- B' F5 @0 M  |Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 o& n$ L' u1 Q  E2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ A4 E6 X0 b3 F& Y
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous0 z4 p3 d% X  {2 q9 `2 m1 P
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an0 Q# q& W( K( S4 x+ [6 P
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the* I! J2 I+ i( c- ^2 v6 m6 r
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
1 J3 Y7 C2 K, k7 U/ {2 e: Y  ibe treated as 7 s.3 G1 o4 Z2 _1 q3 v7 V' M
9 x. G0 `9 h0 G4 \1 n( @) y3 E; @
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
7 p% j1 h8 w9 p& m7 sstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
3 o' A0 H& c1 o, f' T" dimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 H1 e! d5 I& }( A5 K
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
' N  ]# t, U* ~6 u; L/ k( E2 a-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.0 W* U2 c. `" l. x( O9 E0 k' f7 ]8 P
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
& N9 B0 G7 k% \3 zelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and( ]) B3 t, C, {2 J+ A
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) w' ^- E7 k2 Q8 Q  H! \
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound., W" @6 B$ n; j9 {6 M* n2 D
2 b. U0 ^. R6 \: u9 H0 ]0 @5 K
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! S2 k1 L, v. }, Q# [7 Q, e* U
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in% x6 o8 w; ?1 H
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so- z+ l0 m; B/ k  }- v
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
# F, Y$ a0 k+ E0 h# Devents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% H( a5 _3 \8 O: l3 n! n& U
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World  E$ f8 f0 X* A- }+ w0 P
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 `$ N1 ?; \* X8 c; l+ B' a
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other9 i  ]  C6 U- q
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 H* ~% \' I* K, E
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this0 G. G4 H6 t, s  C/ ?; N1 G6 u' t" l& Z: Z
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds6 O' T3 y! G* F! Q$ C( T) {! Z/ d8 n
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ ^: h- @3 F/ y& |
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 Y' }% V6 E' Q3 i9 Q* g9 laside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
, o# j- m. L( u5 u# _implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# |# X' [3 Y. a3 q6 ~3 C/ `& t: G1 T7 i8 e3 l
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
6 f& ~$ f( r3 H" g. pfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
9 u' K9 `. q- Es) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& A4 U1 [. l- B5 M* u6 k! u
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
" I: F6 T! ^5 o: A# Dout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. B- Y' ^( k, {9 c# `
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind8 r2 ~" O3 |2 o% {9 I. o, z* n, |
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ B  z: J! s$ X: s' S1 T1 S
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
* Z. k1 Q) g) `1 U, J- B$ U' c3 Xevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% \5 V' h! h- E, z# z, nworks.5 p; m, y2 w$ L7 m" }
: i( ~3 D0 |* e0 S0 z, c
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and6 p% i& q' Q5 ~0 O( P
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
" u, Y- g& k) u4 e2 ]( n3 R0 j  zkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. z+ K8 j1 A- x$ q7 n$ vstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 w* D, ~5 b) t6 O. c9 `papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 ^7 O4 ~& N1 D* u
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One) I3 I9 }8 X3 J: u0 M
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 R( a# d0 ?; N; @, ldemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
  t4 p5 H2 Z! M0 b# w. }to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
2 i( F' f; `. r" t* Mis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 V7 x' A- r8 A' Acrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he$ e3 o  a6 ^" L4 G& X
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) j. e2 D% T8 R. i& }, yadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the) s$ P" x: u' Q' r
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not, O! E( p/ I1 }. J9 v' }- ?
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ H& f9 M8 H) ~4 C) ^
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
% j# h- W9 C4 J2 D. a' Z4 @2 `6 Odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' o0 u) d1 ^& x( j9 E$ y: I
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! C" O2 u: D$ n( R+ U
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye! Q' H7 U! X2 N. E$ {0 R
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
- G  p2 ^5 P: s5 i/ Z$ Y4 pdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:8 W3 O7 \! a' T" h7 G+ O1 T) ~, f
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect* D1 m4 @$ }9 c
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
7 n6 r/ i% K0 \+ W' i) K  Hprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
7 B8 l/ s  t1 B# _& B* O9 v3 P0 Aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
- J/ f6 r' Q+ g- E# I" ichance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) I3 Z! Z0 q1 M9 l+ ELet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& U5 o6 U: l, I" hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
. u' L* E9 u( m4 f  @  m( Height years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.( z/ q6 e( R2 _. s! m0 R" ?6 M
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
8 I4 O) V+ I7 U, p: \1 \" ^
# H" b' a5 n6 G3 J; ySixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-# O6 G, [" P- }4 _2 c; X. a! N
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& q4 |3 ]2 Q6 c5 i! I7 b. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
# q6 |: K& d( S) _; mOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London$ `7 F* Q0 [( W8 o" W) Z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for8 g) K$ N/ q: ]
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
& e8 v3 k. `! V) y2 P, Z9 z* Wgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
* K$ x& o4 g) ?2 Y+ Ghave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a1 K$ p5 i2 X. }
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
, n& N* e+ u+ R8 |possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: D/ Y! Y; \# d5 S3 @
6 _* q  e" P0 ^- d6 MOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ X5 |; t+ c+ v8 s" M1 r: _6 Bintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too& \8 F# q& I! [/ c  F2 q
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
# R, c6 n1 \: _' k" ~suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
# L7 k1 T. _2 mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
  O! E) f' h7 _3 [" p0 ginterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
$ R* n5 l% l; u7 s' v5 kexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% D! M3 f7 z2 Gargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal" D8 O; K( n! L  f! p7 N
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 s4 K9 Z+ g7 ]1 ?& creporting 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, 2026-2-14 06:53 , Processed in 0.180199 second(s), 21 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