埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1850|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 " f' M: q8 E7 A& L* ^9 H
4 G+ @, E% ^7 `( }5 z  W
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
2 X1 k  K8 S/ Y2 y$ t& v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。, d( }, C. f# B6 e3 H8 o3 q
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。0 i) q+ Y, l# I- `# F* C
1 i, U$ c6 V- k9 H
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
9 p! D* J! G2 f" b4 T3 c. O  e9 }. D3 T( O4 J( v2 h
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
7 H4 {7 F. J9 `+ ]/ ~
  f% h6 c  W* _! m& V0 Z/ e% h+ F) W英文原信附后,大意如下:2 S3 [, f; M: [8 W  Y7 l5 o

. M2 e# f. ?/ Y+ m9 @% k斐尔,
) F! C/ N9 F, R       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 i: P* O7 T5 N* |
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。0 x! C" f2 a, w7 ~9 ]9 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% C4 K7 U2 D! i& |* |  U# g- T7 D% v
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. S% g: x& {/ Y1 s6 f$ E
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。
* [8 I! K8 O9 q2 h; g5 m. Y- W       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
" D) _: @3 D3 w: {; g& e% W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) F6 m. S2 |& u# u, o
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
" \8 z: I7 d$ y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。. Q" x% S( x7 V$ C3 D$ }
       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, V( H$ g7 ?! }- X3 f, C9 ?4 |
,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 i/ ~  V' e7 x
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ e; }) l9 f7 J! i$ ^' ^       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. x4 Z% v  l# d) |
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
5 M. e* g: E0 Q) C+ @% y2 p,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。6 v" S1 C. T; B" ~+ i& c' ]
       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
/ m1 q+ P0 G0 Z- @+ Q4 l2011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
8 D1 l: ?) k: s, H, A" j) j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& N) `; _% S9 a: O5 R3 `  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 j; D/ W1 T. S0 P3 C- |. C300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
) _4 g7 e1 T# S4 k0 f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% L/ H$ S0 P5 e3 U/ J+ B0 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, D5 k0 \# O* J) N
。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  X2 a/ @2 r1 b3 e: J( U4 w
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* {* |& P0 `; `2 Q" W/ ?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
% O9 ^! o3 V  H/ J. W4 G1》,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$ T8 i/ k5 {& r4 Y% _9 h
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' D5 ?! r# I" ?) R
同意见的专家。
4 O. B6 Y' q% O2 e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) X2 g1 h4 n( o# T3 f- l
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大; ?/ s6 d; N3 R  s; O6 I, q
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
' o) A. U2 E6 t- p) \  k, ^《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。/ @0 w/ G' c) n0 D; 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)
5 s' X0 N" O8 W- t" L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& k1 m' Z. z# E; B& i* f
《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
8 r, d  v6 t/ U. `这些被Callaway忽略。/ T4 L0 o/ v6 i6 C* k, o, d1 K
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给
, {0 F  N/ `$ ]( i9 x& m+ 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' v' ^" @- y2 R
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. j8 l' {& d. N* G" 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: U8 j- H7 O1 ]4 m- ~3 \4 L
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4 u8 ^( t1 H/ ~- t+ C* l, m; e0 j
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+ c+ |9 N' o  y/ z* }( o
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。
& F4 W8 o6 J% m5 l3 c8 ?3 N* V$ {" l$ Q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 v" H" ^" M6 I5 u9 ?: g, J( [: c
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: ^7 L6 m: ~- x1 R
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
# K9 [4 w7 A' z”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
% I' b0 B* f7 s2 y% p) D: A# M/ h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) J" i% }; q/ z7 R
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$ X6 D9 v* `$ a/ t/ V
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5 n% l! ], M& P# S  W9 T
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! r( l) t7 H/ A2 ~3 R) F
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
+ n& U; c* S' W' I/ ^3 C. l. L# U而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。5 z( j8 U7 \8 C; ~# T! j
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
+ e4 }0 Y. N% t0 s5 |4 C* O- B3 D: o  A3 v9 Z# b

' S% G3 z) o* b9 F北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅7 L6 v) b/ O" m
" V- f$ H5 d) n& W
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' ]/ w; k( b$ k; x" Y附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
; v4 }0 a4 o* H& w& |/ G附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见- S+ j4 Y: h4 |
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见. f1 u8 g0 V3 _% ?  l; R9 ]

; i+ q- Y# |: [' q" Q
9 ]: e2 ~. E( G4 u; [, b2 H: j- `4 [$ w2 M  ]2 L" W
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- d1 i8 z5 u8 z0 M" d4 A
Dear Phil,
" U" l# _- E/ }1 B$ k       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s4 e( [" r5 |9 R% \* J
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( v7 o/ Z7 Q6 j( y+ r4 Thours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
6 D* ^/ @3 S& |5 O; lyou.
, u$ d2 ^8 l* n" ^/ z0 `! N       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
& \# A$ E( F6 ^/ @; b# ]% X+ G% Wbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
$ h! `3 ]1 m2 Y3 kreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ e) l, _3 G# K5 h
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature, N- W0 G0 `' s
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
3 y5 F% i- d) B7 @" Kseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news; o- B' A9 u! q/ B
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
4 Q6 M' v  x2 o2 J5 J       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the- w8 o. ?* d$ P/ H9 ?; {
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a8 h3 G* r* w3 S% t
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
  r) V- s! i( ^: ]; ^1 Q6 D! Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway/ T7 n) [1 i9 m
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  K4 s1 i) u/ ^# y. Xexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
( y; s# O: }4 g- u$ \standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. l0 g6 ^8 T8 u: m  Y6 v2 U8 h; R5 c
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone( M& j9 c" s' h9 p) g* u, O
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news& q  [$ |' \- f9 P
reporting.
7 t. f0 N$ l9 {3 K) U, T& i       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
* c$ H4 A+ y) R; X8 X0 Lalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
4 x# W* v  d3 g+ o: qchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
. i9 n8 Q2 c3 ]sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A( ?4 B2 {' V. y* g8 i  |; c: Y
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
; {8 y8 m7 j& W6 z- q& g       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
+ z" a$ Z: N0 v' W' w  n' Ymore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ m* ~( |4 P" x- H0 ?: }
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
3 E9 Q. j% O; }7 K) K2 Tmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same, l# ?: \5 v; h+ N# ?# c4 `. {
event for men, with the second fastest record.' c$ M4 G8 ]' {2 x6 H
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
8 ~1 ^/ }% V; p/ @5 `5 w  X  T2 Ewas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
& T1 I  E8 d' e8 B* |( z0 jyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record8 H' y9 H) E, R1 G
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400% }+ i# w" M  k* e* Y0 f/ y
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,$ [" C2 M1 u: l& Y
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
& J+ v7 ^. |, U$ b8 ?Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
3 H% q8 d* t5 z* ?behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: |) L/ @; U6 u  K' l' windividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
1 r8 t7 K& o' q( b. Z- gthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
# Z- E$ _; ]" d- Z" xthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was9 C& {5 K! u! \) `
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
% x- m/ B. V5 K% M9 whe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
  R  j& M. m: f% i. Oproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
! K- N9 h$ b7 Y6 c! Jswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
7 J, Y+ P# l/ `. K( Fteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the5 {0 g" d, k' P
Callaway report.
( A" M) v: Z% Z- C! {$ `There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
; l" E4 ^  ~/ Q0 z3 `8 M7 Yunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details3 X/ p: P. [7 W  n; [# W
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
* L: n) e/ M$ e. ^, ]4 uof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
! K- J9 ?* G, k# Tbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the; `+ m( d5 w8 M! k
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
8 N6 T# C7 |7 J- Y1 O. [: k4 Wpublicly voiced different opinions.
9 _, D- s: L" uYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD& w! c8 f: W( @8 s7 j* y$ h
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature9 Q7 a9 g) B+ n/ p1 _
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent( p. K% p  j! X0 E$ I
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds1 B# N0 @3 T7 v* R: y9 h+ w
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
$ h' J3 T. R: oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: I. T2 H+ Y: a
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 L4 ~' v; }* r% S
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
- D' F% K9 [% ^/ Thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as( m/ W0 w5 b1 u1 |7 w* C
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
1 M" F( E$ L9 ?% f, ^the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
7 w0 a( T4 o0 L' @supported by facts neglected by Callaway.9 C6 J" e4 E$ ]
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that: ~2 i$ t) g8 t
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# z4 ~5 q* \2 ^1 u: I
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June4 k- s6 L8 @1 b9 b- x# J9 ]
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she- S6 _5 r0 S$ p8 [( d" Y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.0 r) L. w8 A, }) J5 D
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science4 r9 U& a6 \) ]9 J% _+ K
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
1 W# g4 E4 n. |, m( T( i$ PDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
6 O' D# P. B$ K! ]" S+ J. I+ ^1 sNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and/ J& ^# u  Y- a. ~
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
  `* |6 c; T, ?$ p7 cwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to% c( H: r  X# @, O
repair the damage caused by your news reporters./ S* k  @- D- S5 c% u
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not  W1 b2 d& y1 @+ Q# w- E
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
9 o* h, @- D, z8 t& a! Nus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
9 w2 {, I0 o; A6 lfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that+ s# y" a: p  \6 ^& Z; M: U. m
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”2 p5 X* X0 c  ]) z) U7 |0 _
about British supremacy.
( H% C6 u& P/ n; Z# ^# Y% Y( Y6 `The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many# Y1 Y% m" p1 f& D
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
9 D' I2 x: A0 |* q2 G$ HChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
: [! K; \5 R9 A7 f( _our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
9 {6 I, q: x  @3 g- mOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; M6 s% @1 j8 g% j; o, W8 ]9 P
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of. j% |; B; C; g  z  |
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests  c" A- Z% M( B. o3 ~3 U3 |; T+ h
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
8 o; }+ }3 w5 ait is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
% w/ V* f  f; O( p3 C. ~publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like5 j! {! X9 N! T( z6 C
Nature.
9 L( J) N8 T, X$ C9 R1 S* |I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
9 s; m& f$ a/ G/ P, M2 A  p7 Mthe Callaway report.
. z  {4 L* a: B1 W. ~( o& _/ O- s. t
Yi
2 _/ |/ L% P$ x0 h6 Y2 C5 Q2 `; j" o
+ h  P/ ]+ q6 LYi Rao, Ph.D.& ]. |: K3 |- P) ~; r
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences$ {9 i# G3 H9 G$ }- i" F/ d9 D
Beijing, China" M& g) ?- P# M
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。
理袁律师事务所
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
" ~1 B- Y# ^( r  u% a原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

1 v- C0 w+ g' m- f, H* d$ @原文是公开信。
% G; w9 }" U. q$ E0 z; i  @' _# d) E% x$ N
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
: R4 R1 B8 n6 a5 z& N  j6 X( ]原文是公开信。
5 m0 J0 t3 Q# h2 W  _% ~9 o' j* V% I# X# i
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
( R/ x) A6 i, K, V
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
! ^  `4 D- b7 i) M& x, W如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
6 R/ `, y8 y6 a" T8 ^$ l- U" c$ k5 ?) P& ~5 |: F
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html# m2 e1 V7 |# e

9 A/ ^* P6 }, `, ^  k0 {FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania% x9 D: x3 g! t
' n/ U  \" V9 m1 h
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
9 U) H8 G' H# R% f, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
  i/ y+ _3 l* x6 O) |1 _magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
, R3 Z( \: |- k/ h9 W( @7 k9 ~is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' D3 ~; f7 ^6 G+ C5 g3 wscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 g& K1 A( s' K5 J- R6 m9 l6 @populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
6 P) W" l& g! b7 |9 j  g6 Ishould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,) ?0 N/ I8 u9 u6 ~% e
which they blatantly failed to do./ A0 _) _+ K+ ^3 ^- i+ d

+ P" A) V! g: RFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her/ b! N, h& z) x& L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in2 S7 E2 X; N# I& f
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
1 f1 m" Y$ g! C8 R( M1 Canomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous  F8 e9 W" x1 j9 A: G
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
+ ?- C+ o6 e5 @. Z6 y# i- v4 Kimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
! ]0 V9 o1 b3 l# x6 g9 gdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% a' _8 ]1 G1 I% zbe treated as 7 s.3 u) g- F+ t9 C: Z8 f
& p  u" F# K; q  F& V  ]# J6 P
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) G, F1 l  `( u3 a2 }* q' T5 d
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 M2 M/ k. i/ G/ Bimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
$ D; f, {$ D9 G0 `/ W& z- p# f5 VAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
; r. |4 n  L+ Y5 b9 g: x+ |" ~-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 p; w! x, n5 a- ?. r  bFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( X+ j" O& X* V" W; k1 a' H
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
# f, |8 m2 ?# v* Y: ?; w; ~persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
# m' X9 d% q8 K: _based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.0 p9 f' u& w! P& t

# s  M' F6 c7 O! X) FThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. T, h, l8 z# [( c
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
$ e4 i' x( j6 g2 Z* ?the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so4 t! x* R/ |! a2 ^; e
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
5 F& \) c' `( V9 ^; Q. eevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 d& v  D- _* U) a( D9 d
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# s+ @( f, G# TFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. T) J% L' o. _- j8 Btopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
$ q0 _8 a* h5 C7 w" r  L4 j" Khand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
% E( c! l8 Z! k* [, A5 m, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this& l5 E" E4 u6 |0 D: H* L  K5 D: U8 K
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
* s( ^6 K+ q/ dfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam, x7 B2 R+ J2 `6 w
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting  [4 u  F/ k8 y- `
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% h! W( {# a$ b+ B7 ~" c( O
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.& `" a& \1 P& a: `6 e7 Q( p6 T! E

. U* w+ I$ }, ?0 P. i4 VFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
3 v- A1 L+ \* J1 m% \four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 G: m+ ~$ a! I9 R9 L5 E0 z
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
: i* M1 q& d0 Q$ M), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns2 a" d9 C$ Z/ Z/ y
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
, t& W9 h% W# ]9 _! D/ \Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind* V7 V8 C4 `' L4 _  B' c
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
, s; \- h" P3 W5 r$ Rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- D+ b  Y% [2 w
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( r/ C# H1 ?; Xworks./ w! J6 f3 u+ d1 M& A. O9 \: v
9 S+ d7 j" j& y9 x0 E. N& l9 Y% {. h
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
  z9 J* k( ~8 M2 D- e! [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this; Q) g8 a6 Y) \  ]' v( r7 @
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that$ B' m+ |: {  a4 k) M* A
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
' H; }6 j+ G1 _6 R# x7 o' R2 S5 Ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and( J$ D3 j$ y, C1 S) Q
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ A& d1 s3 g& h2 @& M* ~, c- L* mcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 x4 o: C; F+ b; o; x0 Odemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works' e3 @5 ?% H5 J2 b) H
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ e! P" L" s! Z" H7 e3 F% G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, z( s0 g: Y# @; B4 I
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
- F! [, n! W6 \5 T3 fwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
" r) M7 O0 G6 L9 a9 ^0 Y/ H* jadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the9 z7 T8 a0 Z2 Z
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 ~+ f* @8 ]) \& uuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation, m; i  v( Y8 ]5 ^& w" H
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 r9 j# p( n3 R) Idoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may5 g( f: ~% z0 B2 A8 e
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
+ T$ Z7 Q" f8 ?hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye( R+ q! M, I4 v9 [; y
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
# F6 C# _! Y. I* O: d1 ddrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:' o! H8 L2 }2 ?: |# j7 r: `
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect  y' M. C2 O2 P- K8 I! E# I
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is# A! L- y- Z) }: a6 j8 A( s
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& h. F7 ^$ U5 Q9 i  y! b
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ L* D7 O/ [4 A+ K6 a& ?
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?! v: v& S5 v/ u+ L: {9 u
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping% ~* c8 V: @* `/ U0 R# ], f
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ Z5 _2 ^/ f0 t, m" g; l& `0 n
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
: T9 g5 H$ ]3 {1 f1 [9 p+ uInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
5 A4 {5 X4 X( P8 d5 T2 _! Y$ w8 w2 f1 ^7 O+ t
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' {" U9 c+ {& q" [7 g! A
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention, O6 m8 r1 o6 Y5 p( P1 f
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( X, Y) p6 Z2 A2 k+ q: X- m$ H
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
$ x% ~9 q6 v! ~/ ~Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# a; x; {4 O; [! X  Jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 V3 x+ `; N$ r' R- zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
. B4 I- J. q" ~4 Y. v8 Zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a4 ~  k8 w8 ]6 D. O* t2 n/ G! N
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this5 ?1 W7 P; c, Z, `' Z
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
6 K- |- p% [7 o+ }+ b8 x8 _
3 L* q4 u) e2 d0 jOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ ]# ?" }* D. s2 bintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too9 f+ _2 D2 ~) u: C1 f) z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a) X1 V' m& n2 G5 ]2 N
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide7 \) Z3 \5 f& \  ^
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- ~6 H* \* g, ]9 }
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,- X2 G0 \7 F8 r; i
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
. e% L- S. u% B8 P6 ~# l# B" V: {$ Q! sargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# S; k: c" l3 x" ]. d  h5 Y4 u: g. L; qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
* b6 g7 t* Z/ Zreporting 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, 2025-11-28 07:41 , Processed in 0.213503 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