埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2050|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
" }. H* B3 n) r' {: l7 t) N7 |  e0 h- X6 I8 K5 z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
" X3 a' T4 N2 V0 M8 ]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。# H7 X; g; s  D3 }5 J  Z9 |9 G
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
/ W3 ^+ ~; V( n6 V% w* }% r! R/ t+ H! N; M* D
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 C' w/ a* i; C" ^9 U2 f

2 M) O9 w2 `# x5 n致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
8 o: _* O6 M3 I; L- |7 o0 |9 C; d2 R3 j' P2 F5 c) a8 L
英文原信附后,大意如下:* q" t/ y& I# l$ J$ |

6 C' u/ X* Z. I7 b斐尔,
1 i0 C7 V# y0 a2 n       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- N* L' N* K2 J; j( E
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。5 G! j! l  f# z. x" H: P5 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
, U& A6 L6 v9 m2 ?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' L* X5 F9 ]/ w) Y  m0 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。1 D# j( }0 x; [; B8 a
       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( O3 Q5 h' E* w$ }* J
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 j  ^6 g8 J  m
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' w3 B3 N8 K3 @# `+ E
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。+ B: A* A! }( g  U7 ~' w
       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
8 N& z% n' |3 i1 I,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
, B7 W  R& c; n+ u”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。8 _+ X% w# M( Z$ T
       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
* B: D. s, k5 V1 y' [! S. Z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" M* S. w& |
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。" R- x2 c2 b6 z  \) i
       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
/ s4 ?- U. `, Z( ~+ T2011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
; ]5 }/ H. y; V' g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/ w! W3 w. Q9 U  s! ~$ X% d
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) M# h  F7 S) Y! Y, _
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/ w  {/ P! Z# `1 N
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" a1 y$ T9 D6 R% o' w% J/ [3 H4 ]
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$ y' Q2 r2 z% D
。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0 w+ W% _. K) r
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; a( S- `8 @& T# U" `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
4 r2 q3 Y0 n& @4 d9 e& w1》,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
9 c( ?5 ?/ f8 n5 n1 a' [: ]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2 I# e% q: s4 J! _& g! X
同意见的专家。" V9 l0 ^0 W3 ?7 L; U
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. U' G3 s, K# s% O3 m' _6 c% i
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0 g5 f: Y8 c; x. D, j# V8 {
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 v4 V1 r- p6 k% j3 S5 O
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
) D/ `. ~, q2 M/ VCallaway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)
' D! b5 i. z1 D: M; U6 ]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
( N* Q/ A7 Z) a$ v( |0 Q6 E- J《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! c# Y& ~- p: o1 a
这些被Callaway忽略。6 A$ ^3 K5 b/ K( t8 O$ y) p  ~
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
& X) j) u. E: ~! f* H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. E. J  a' s* @" ]" K% C
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
1 i! ^3 Q3 S" X2 {, k7 V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  ?" z) L- [, T" K- J) [( F
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" V+ y7 u0 h1 w+ G3 d/ t1 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
7 |4 C/ @: x. q" N( k/ z9 D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。; g, e7 s/ b& Q0 T( I3 P1 f
英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉,即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而' \0 {% I2 ^* }
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2 ]6 I! ^; y$ l9 S
代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问
9 I$ H) ]8 y' [% Y2 F5 _1 S”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ H! ^  C% Q% j5 Q1 V0 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
- t, S3 f9 g# \! R$ G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
" v& [$ a0 W1 l! u- R: ~5 O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3 [- ?1 P3 h& E
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( Z1 `2 q+ l4 N) L4 R
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
& q( D6 ]0 F1 A: I0 T, h" V3 o而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。- i9 o+ B) G! l' z" O
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。; @! _! k/ z, ~$ x- _! L# p. s

3 L, ^  l  B! Z
) |# ?) q; [. Z3 L* U- k北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅2 u: \( G# Q/ l+ E8 W# K# C

/ G; o' z$ Q7 y0 m# l7 `- T/ e附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
# j! C7 r/ o. u, v, c附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
$ t4 M$ a$ ~1 e4 |' m$ D附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 _; D, i2 s5 Z7 x3 v4 W8 M2 T附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 E& c! ?" Y: g: H
5 R0 h* f9 a6 ]% l& J
# \( j% \7 Q0 m+ X
# l3 ]+ g' {1 G原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
* I: o1 t0 F, O" NDear Phil,, V, S1 y8 A5 L+ F6 y, ]+ [
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s7 u0 d3 V& K" L' m
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& C# V% n- d- O; d6 m
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed+ x. w5 z3 v6 q$ c9 F
you.
7 W% j5 K' N0 k0 J       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have% q$ ?2 U  L, F. H( w! N" I
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
. x: @" q1 ~3 ~& Yreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the$ _' d+ N# l6 ^6 h. B
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature* c% v( F9 A7 m) {. d; F5 X) x
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
) i+ I/ ~- e, O2 r# t3 L; h- l7 qseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news, Q' q' j! b$ E' M; q0 B
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
  Z, g* O" X' e3 W- ^0 ~9 b       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
' K: x/ m- O- B! mworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a3 b4 @% |! C2 Z( y8 K! \
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 `- s5 i( h- M) w7 z
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
' h3 r( D, D9 e. L& _" a' |: @did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% G. c& |$ _2 j5 P6 Gexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal8 p5 {4 C8 ~" s& e
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
2 i9 P+ C( A  c8 {and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone$ s7 W: l4 _3 I
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news& W: `) s0 s3 V& x1 P, {
reporting.
, g8 j9 A! T4 G       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, t# ^' E4 j2 g: R9 k" H' L1 x
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
" i6 G# g2 c# C- \, m9 Jchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
: g# [  P( G0 b% U* Vsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
# K. b. A' F+ k8 {6 _presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
+ G7 n# k* V* ~7 m$ I* r       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem7 N( W  l1 j2 I0 p' y8 J5 r: B
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds6 p; U0 C* D7 \
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
2 l" {! `1 u+ m$ P" Tmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
6 l) w1 Q& s& {) a5 g; a/ n: Aevent for men, with the second fastest record." a4 V& C! n/ M* k: v. ?
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye0 [3 `3 [8 ]9 q2 Y# n) }, z& N
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
" N* E7 H0 g0 D1 \: P( uyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
4 l. A. R% b* e* T8 M4 `. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
: C" d2 C0 u' Z/ |' jmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 p7 S) s% j, f  u/ Efor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
. y& P5 }' P7 F2 YLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
7 x" J- u# [, W  ^% k6 Kbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the  p( ]: w# f- \! M) Y
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
  y- J/ c; z' p2 G7 S" z# @than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
$ g; I8 n7 y5 a2 z( k: kthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 n" [1 A7 K& l% i& i# y
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
5 u( C( y! p) m! n  n  \. Qhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “) ~7 x& \1 f6 s
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other' |" c# T0 Y$ o9 s4 m7 e0 s+ T) d
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the: i1 @9 k  t+ g7 {% M
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the. w& d, Y% x! U' }/ D0 x
Callaway report.
$ `0 x: X5 U" P8 P9 p+ YThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
4 }2 o0 }7 q8 t- Z7 W3 ]5 }understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details% [1 ~8 x8 D4 {5 l
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description1 W2 ?# k, k3 _7 u8 v
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been' a: z2 ~9 L- s
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
* u: p" x3 R  o8 }5 fWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
- a& p0 A' F) J7 T0 Lpublicly voiced different opinions.7 _- l% m) z0 X* y) c  d
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD1 x1 \; s- H+ Y6 ]" Z0 D0 Y
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature3 q* E# O6 r* X) x, Y) B6 i' P
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent  ^+ j: O$ s+ X; Y6 V, u& G
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds+ W$ D* w, J7 t8 ^4 ]( ~* U
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy6 z& h/ Z% T4 [- X6 S. D
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
( r5 e6 z7 L( `7 u- i% YThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think" x; s% V8 P  {8 V
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
. w. F  z9 v/ [have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 s( A; H% x9 ?, `& R3 A0 N
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
3 h: `% ~/ h8 H+ pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 t! [4 i( H  T8 [* E0 O9 u- z8 h+ m
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% S- r1 Q* N( ^& nOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that, ~2 \9 x; N7 l# l4 a; w7 u
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the6 S# x" P0 O- }0 z# X$ R2 p& x
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" ^/ C/ N/ S" {& l(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 d/ L9 x$ R  G* Q
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.& S+ S8 l0 f6 T9 O
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
' \' a4 _7 O7 |3 ~" Zand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* \3 m; B7 L2 S' K! _5 B+ P4 M
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
- Z. x( K+ Y$ x: I! l  v+ W( cNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
- N! h6 i, t* d" `4 z( O: dobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
& H; _* u7 U: s. `! A5 h( @% iwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to9 h* `: B5 C" q( e; q- ]
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.9 f# H$ Z8 z; s, ?
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
. I! z& H, m4 [% O; {! W, R6 Cshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
, B8 j# r6 I) T5 c5 i- H% N8 Q( _us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 j: _9 c$ `! |4 P$ U
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
! f5 j& I: ?; m5 Pthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 s" W& C2 A" k( A; y6 P! v/ w+ Cabout British supremacy.. c6 |6 p$ {& }
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many! N+ P& p% [+ g3 R8 I
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
3 V# \) s" f( |7 J; t: H8 LChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by; w  x1 E5 [4 V, q
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London" g; r8 n2 s9 k5 T
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.1 t8 C+ m: B+ w7 Z2 f+ m; v1 R( Q
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
% z( C  Y2 \5 N3 O9 Iprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 N( F, l& V) S& M' Q7 \9 C/ @before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
* L/ N3 I, l/ t5 Oit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly# p! c. \. _; M) e4 Y; |/ y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like& l) u. t; D; K
Nature.3 T. u5 ?" J' r9 X. t- [% m
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
& _2 Q, B% q$ h! H, N& A3 uthe Callaway report.
) }0 R# _# _; X: I( _. c
. V0 E; m! b% l4 t4 _% q% q- [' KYi/ o4 R$ g1 d$ Y4 H' g5 B7 N
9 ^: h2 ?, n# `  F: p
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
0 U' e' u' O# i# X% qProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences  m$ ^2 e5 T; h. K. C% s9 Z7 j6 H
Beijing, China
3 T( @' F! f! v( r
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 . t& G* D* H1 K  N8 {4 R6 b  s
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

  A; ~: U% G  \原文是公开信。
+ Q$ b8 c9 n  d
; G/ D* c, j) G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 1 \8 ?9 @$ e9 `" \4 h: `
原文是公开信。
* k% M1 b7 @- ]# x" I8 D
% O: g5 K" l; F* o7 t  E小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

' y- A: _' D/ F/ L; O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
3 Y- e  |: b! G如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。* F4 k: W% [! O: Z  ]
7 C& c% ?. L4 O! C" q5 V
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
( L+ t7 c* J! P( _3 [: p( i: ^- Y) {) p' i1 n' Z$ e
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
2 y' t+ F3 ]' f  L. |
  E9 s9 {* G( d8 GIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% |* J& S$ J5 H% b# w9 L7 D1 N, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
7 ^2 H1 ^/ m. nmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
' V; n; Z# O2 B$ I9 a5 s+ dis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the5 }9 d. \) t5 b0 ]$ c( P6 H
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general1 ~" X6 j- \' Y- j
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
, o/ x$ [- b6 W% g! _! Ushould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,/ A& c0 B2 \0 A0 e% R: F  _9 |/ r
which they blatantly failed to do.
+ C6 D5 i% G4 X$ o& b. W" L1 i4 K
1 H8 r& U' o/ C0 x; b, gFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) l; {' y( U$ a# j
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" m! K- c/ f3 d- u
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ m" B+ Q- L; c& A
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous+ f# A' B  k5 N) T
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 ]% \) A  m/ f+ r4 `" C# Qimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the" w  d8 \* L( j' R; r! ?' T, g2 d; o
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 M/ q. f% \5 [  o7 _" ~
be treated as 7 s.
" p, h. y) N  K/ L/ b: g, `1 z( }% I0 H. a% l3 `' ~
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is/ H# t9 f! Q4 w/ N1 t# f7 \+ }0 H
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) m  f5 E6 \" g& {% V$ Rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
' h, ^4 M+ f6 dAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
+ |. F7 E' t% ^" R: Z# n& W; g-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 k3 T2 s# p4 C" A; d2 v
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
8 i" R+ ]  ]5 m# P4 E2 z3 |elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
+ }; g7 ?. @% m( t' Upersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
+ U, ?. h: ]7 J9 W* ~based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
. h; r4 K% g0 m# n* e7 o! w$ F" K# O6 K4 t
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
3 m' g. L$ x/ e. dexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in! X) `4 V2 s6 k1 U/ N
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 i1 E% L# U9 A+ M6 ]5 k7 X
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; |& q% B1 Y* N$ Yevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 ~$ f. C1 ]& y7 r3 w/ Xbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World* M3 ]4 v8 u0 n- J& m$ \
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another* G* p9 }) y! N6 x/ O
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
2 l8 w5 W% I; b  Ohand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle  a) [/ I- ^, w4 F, ?6 I
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this% |; \# m/ r& \4 Q
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
* }- B, L6 s4 ~: x" E& ?: yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
: L& ~, H, }" f  k! }! V- }. r6 ufaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ [; m; c( b4 z# P6 zaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
  J7 F& v4 H$ S1 u0 mimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 m7 h# p/ I9 \1 R4 d2 E5 ^8 ^# G

: {$ p0 f2 q( w! j" e" TFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ Q5 R5 z9 E! \
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( i) g0 I4 I/ P9 L1 t. E2 z0 @s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
; r0 `  S9 e/ t) F9 f), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
! c) ]8 B9 `+ M  |9 [$ Tout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 t+ j6 p% q- g% g+ H5 O
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind2 I; p* X7 r7 H2 n
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it% V5 z3 N8 ^2 G. N# t
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in0 l* D/ v$ Z/ X9 e4 Y8 W1 ]( Q. g
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science% N$ y% g6 y. U0 E" A3 x+ d% M
works.$ }( W! ~# L9 `* _4 d( {5 ~

) C  N7 ~* u" m5 t) o, LFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and- z8 K% D2 F6 v0 [, `( G- h
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this) m. M! I8 S/ x7 W
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that8 a' I  F8 M* H3 Q# B
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ u9 T, {7 ^* U' J, L: vpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
  Z8 g+ V, x8 s* Freviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 S5 I/ r) x* h2 T! g# |4 Ccannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ q3 F6 r6 q, d, Ldemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
- V0 h2 T* @1 M, `to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
9 b3 C+ C0 o. a# z6 Wis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
6 e- P7 P2 R, X5 bcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
# w3 S5 Y) I9 X  xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 [6 N( H0 Y. o3 `
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
4 L; n  Z9 M  Z. `3 Epast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not0 ?0 B+ [$ l1 ?) i9 C2 d
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 v; H7 ]2 u6 F8 g7 o. O. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
+ M1 ]& t' R3 p* G- Ldoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
0 e7 Z, Q2 _/ a, A+ M6 ^) ~6 F$ gbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
1 K7 A4 e3 t; |hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* @9 _  ?. U; Y/ T" H; B  y/ M& {, b
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
; D5 s0 {6 z3 ^! |& r0 o9 l, B/ w8 zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:8 M; n5 a" d9 B' s4 T# U4 J, h
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 c& E0 X( y( d6 L0 ^. U, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! F. T: l1 E5 I& Hprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ F3 v3 |& S4 `# P! j% p( x
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& E  S: B4 b- t. ^) c, r# nchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
, f4 P  e& W0 A/ I0 J- }& qLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 z- O# u6 d) P9 V5 o; \
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
* K0 x8 I4 s" R* @+ L6 L" x/ A- veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.) J' y3 E7 f* N, G8 }  z; f
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?0 g! s6 `" b  s8 u+ [& [% A
2 P% D* v* I1 P& |& K# g
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-  O" [) a) |: i
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* q3 W$ w3 W5 [+ {" H+ P; c
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for: ?" [+ ]3 D) R+ `
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
4 T3 H; d, O7 n! bOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for: O8 [) F' O# @% ~0 N
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* W+ e" H" Y, x5 ^: }. Lgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope; D) W6 D6 u3 C& g
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a0 a' g  y, `+ f0 V2 N: _" {/ G
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" x" y9 y( m2 r  t  k6 e' d, J5 L
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
( W( |1 {( c9 N% m# s, n# q; \1 t
8 @9 Z& B1 T  D% YOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
$ h/ j) J! v% C+ kintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
( {/ H0 G, k) i/ f1 `suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
, t  I' s( T9 [0 {suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ q0 V' W1 s: E6 Q( c& S# ]all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your6 C% U/ d# `9 @
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 e; ?/ \3 [! T
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 I" R& s  u9 Dargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
& B- ^: a* q  O3 r+ H' q4 ^such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 g3 r3 h$ Z) E  Lreporting 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, 2026-2-18 02:29 , Processed in 0.225379 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