埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2153|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 ! ^# w1 a8 h9 I6 `1 n2 Z

# ?8 V! }6 @* [7 }0 M饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
0 z0 j' B! W6 Y! i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。
' O8 F( D  v3 t1 c总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。0 Y+ C& o1 }1 p

  o0 f5 l; A; U+ n" g7 a4 i5 @http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html. Q% g2 u2 X6 W+ B- V* s' M
% t8 O4 w2 \! Q5 i: X' |
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
1 J0 n' ~$ w: l4 W: y
/ b8 R6 ?( Z& P! u8 O  `英文原信附后,大意如下:
; G; q, W3 E- S" ^" C& o# H. n  y  W* b: ~7 ^9 }$ O; C1 w7 T) B5 Z
斐尔,5 u+ ?( m- z7 G  l+ s
       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) m" X* `5 b% u7 N8 P: h) G/ F
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
- K9 h1 H9 a4 M2 M" U       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
5 \( K, ^8 w! G  J* O9 o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
- n/ w  c& ~1 t- Z% 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。
2 |" W, o0 ]. x( l) {; n       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
9 J, V, B8 G2 c4 l% ^" f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
% E2 g! \$ z: q, d5 d9 T' `" u2 v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: R; ^! y" x# P9 R' C" f/ t
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。
) h/ V7 A  D4 _) H6 G; |       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 g3 ]2 q$ e5 @,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" j0 O% k( j9 i  g: Z* x. K! O; x, }( ]
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
! v5 w* ~$ d6 p2 I  j) e/ O3 z- d1 g       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
- R9 L# r4 Z; z8 ^比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快3 ]7 M. V) U/ g4 L
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 R% Q7 Y# m$ P
       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+ q+ K* l( P+ R' V
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
% D/ B! `3 f" u# f. `& \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
. U9 P/ i: w7 u. r! Y! m3 W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; T% N  F4 Q# s
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
' b% }6 S8 ~# j4 |$ X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
6 U2 {( u. H; L7 @/ f) }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
. t' Y% L3 w  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: ]1 Y* }4 J8 q7 H5 R' w
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
; W/ s; M. v& ~( v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6 j% ^' ]% w! R( 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. R1 X- Q# ]4 f) w
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
# d. v) E# G. k3 m* v8 b. E8 J同意见的专家。8 ^% o: G6 s# T
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1 t7 z' d9 X3 V5 ~; W
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& Q, }* @4 p4 }' J- h( q& _4 T' U
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. C+ N7 Z" Z! @
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" E% A3 s* q/ a+ }# i8 s, F$ i& BCallaway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)% w$ M) F4 m' V( w6 m' `4 N, Z
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
: B& A' ^4 e0 s《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
  q. A7 {# B8 A5 Z+ w  C这些被Callaway忽略。
6 |' t6 }3 |0 ^- T! R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
+ E& D; F/ C: M, 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
- w/ H' i" l( ]% M教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. n% \+ J) n7 |2 I8 e; l" @
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; I) s3 a2 j% T* 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
( L" u/ t2 ]* q( M' }# o9 z+ m# K. c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- b6 e0 t4 P7 W1 }' ]* k0 t' w0 c5 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。8 g( m3 s% j  b
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
! V9 H$ r4 Y+ H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
) s2 b$ i; Q# X& j3 \/ D- ~代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问" t0 d' U: i" `8 {. w; z: K/ `
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
% `" ^' Y( Y# h0 J! W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( \& }& {% C+ Q1 t
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0 F  Q+ x1 g: v2 v  `, 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3 x+ \( T' y. }% U$ H) l4 p7 z2 O
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! f# x, S: }; D+ e1 g! Z
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
3 [3 O% ?! U$ F2 o6 E( N3 T而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* Y( V3 g, n9 i3 f, T) y# F) o我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。2 _% a' e4 D8 N6 K6 \/ Y! a" ^0 ~

( m) X& |: H, e, a9 e1 G9 m0 w5 _1 N* ?& [" d$ M
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅2 R0 J: C; F5 i& c

7 d  @' ^5 m: }附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结9 C3 d6 A% `1 W0 H' W$ C  I
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
) ?! E) V( @! ]% Y  Z6 Z! z; i附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
) P5 T9 k! d' q2 j" Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) ?  T7 `7 J7 k6 J; J5 P) l8 T+ I. V) ?  D
2 }$ N6 s3 [, [; O% q. b

- N  l8 {2 z5 ~6 v$ m& c" j原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)% ?1 e- l2 ?& K& e0 F, m: t5 F2 e
Dear Phil,, w4 I1 W1 [$ I$ U, _- P
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s/ g2 {5 h" y, z# B2 @
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
2 v& d+ }: _4 L" ehours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* e; F' i5 R& xyou.
: e0 w% H( Q7 P: U. l! m       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 J4 o2 K# L. ?& J2 K: \
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
/ \/ a& L: s" Y4 T4 h# I' ^" ]readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the( ?$ K, i( R" V
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature% y8 L, Q5 z) \& n" h
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more; c6 K% k* i( M. S0 S
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news2 [& N7 \/ l; ]
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
7 [5 |- I3 @4 S/ O, M( W& V       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" G$ H$ |+ J+ x  g8 V* R: _1 S" }
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
* L3 z1 {9 {0 {! Z/ y& A! Hnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish# h3 B4 y# t9 D# l6 Z1 s
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. r, I9 G* h" C# c
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping; s* y+ ~9 U& i5 N+ O
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal2 g( s+ d1 l1 s3 _! y0 E
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; A5 C( y% ]0 X
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone- L0 l# h& x9 D, _! m  \" v
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
2 o7 L+ i0 I  ]reporting.) E* Q% d) |1 W" A
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
  ~8 O  o6 L$ P9 U( U) ualready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 `1 t8 H* t% r% F
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in0 Q+ P/ K. L* w; |& t( F
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
( |$ n5 T) {  z( n9 i" _* Bpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 I; b, {7 R# R. G
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
9 @# D  y7 Q! I3 Tmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds6 H! m. ?- g& T, e4 P2 P
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 509 b2 {8 d7 z) F0 T8 `
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
1 `) I9 j6 Q. O/ k& p8 sevent for men, with the second fastest record.
/ i, L, c3 q4 h1 O& y! e       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye! L* p$ c. h3 k& T
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16, N- x+ A6 S, t  k1 q8 ~# u
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
; s! q' U, `' o. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! B3 X9 u  n  s2 I* Q" X( x1 pmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
; M! \! X5 z* I4 F. Ffor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
& X2 T1 O2 s0 }  b- a$ }Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed3 R$ d3 v- @0 D. U8 y5 t
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
5 ^7 z/ X: R. z9 r& yindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
. q! |2 |; F9 B7 p8 v- Ythan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
- _& ]9 x' J) {( I6 Dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was4 t! J4 i9 D+ N* x$ r
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then9 C' n; w0 J- S+ P# K( \0 @
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
/ T4 a! d3 @+ ^7 y/ g- ^2 Y" a; N' T5 Eproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) }2 p6 x; e8 w# P8 H
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the' ], G7 j5 Q: H: N1 j+ ?/ q
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the5 w. c2 g4 M, d3 T' b9 K) A
Callaway report.) T5 {2 Q4 E! _2 _) J5 Q
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more% N8 q' N' }2 \( [2 L4 i( b
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details0 u! K  G8 x( I! A
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
% W0 |- f* g( p9 C4 p) |8 [of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 ^; S7 Q) {! ^$ c" P' ?' Y- B
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
( I, h6 l6 O2 \* }; n& FWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ W' C" D+ F4 c" J7 R! f6 bpublicly voiced different opinions." k! k, i& G" \) ~! R8 V. t5 H8 c
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD2 }: Q* V4 n" y3 G
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' o- V4 X  k9 `( _; _8 I. H0 JNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent6 F& m6 g$ B6 i+ x2 ?
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds6 V6 d3 g7 G8 Z! o2 ~* e7 b/ {
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  P1 N  W8 S) L5 g+ P) i6 S
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.# ]; p5 V/ W0 l- R
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think1 Y0 k* i5 l0 d- I& T9 W
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They2 I0 }3 |* M1 o( e+ k; `
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as8 A5 \( F( g5 h7 _" g; A
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that' i9 m  T4 k. A3 S% W
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was% U# R. [  I. b3 O# |+ a: }) b
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
) `. c- P* Y8 ?; I: a. F3 lOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
2 K7 k2 o$ r$ ?6 w# _' Rmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the3 R% v# j: p) i% b- D& Y: E
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June0 `4 M; M2 e# |  o8 ^' t$ ^
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she: Q1 |7 ?4 U2 O1 ]. u. X$ |
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
. C: I' l5 W7 ~+ }- JThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
+ r6 B1 l  \8 h$ e- I# xand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and0 m& {5 N5 Z! Q
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
* z, r' e% M* C8 J3 kNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and2 S9 |3 L. q. ~
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- V8 R: P. w3 W3 b4 u7 e. ywhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to/ e( R# {& L: J# m2 B; }
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.+ K- z( R/ w; o4 K
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
; d& ]3 v+ l9 H- R( jshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced; C2 n0 M7 f! n/ A# R  Z; R
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
  `2 e) `7 z! ^2 {" A, t" \8 F! Y) qfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
8 W! |1 x, n  [this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”, p2 u2 D+ ?6 \2 q
about British supremacy.
" c( S" {4 G4 m) T4 s* r# P3 }6 rThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
% t- L# s3 E; T2 gunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more5 L" x  A4 I* ^! G( `( ~( Y* F7 Y0 Z
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by$ O0 J) F% J- h$ ~) \
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London* A/ v3 o* ?2 E' k& c7 z/ T) ~
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% c1 k& U  u- y$ yYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of. l( ?1 d& l9 m: a* W4 k" S4 s
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
0 b+ e: E0 Y9 Z/ z4 h  {before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
/ e  U  g% z0 \1 I: |it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
. N9 M  b: \0 `6 Ppublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like/ W9 K7 N" a0 P' S7 j: h& R0 m( W
Nature.& J% `5 }# j4 B: z  @
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance, y6 f" _7 F7 t5 e
the Callaway report.
2 X8 M8 r  i0 Y9 s
* p' @1 [6 b! B' H0 j/ f1 p3 F% ZYi0 X4 g* A8 a  e8 R0 s1 L6 ]' E1 D
1 C  Y1 M0 A' n  `' `
Yi Rao, Ph.D.! n& g  c& R- L1 m0 y3 l+ P- G
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 z, E6 {& g1 i, F; oBeijing, China2 S; ~- y+ O% l! i7 {2 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?
理袁律师事务所
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 q* q2 \1 q. E: ]1 D$ t8 o原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
' B' l# p% u6 s
原文是公开信。
: w+ R9 c+ Q6 @8 r
: r" F; J# P4 C0 f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
% i& Z0 q) z& H; o8 l原文是公开信。
1 l$ Y0 J6 o5 w9 k
  m, L# y) \# ]小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
6 \7 q8 t  r, D" K, Z! G0 M
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( l0 ]1 p, s% U  g9 [
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
+ N+ j; U8 w. J$ |3 d1 j: F; D! d% W7 p& a
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: `$ @5 }% I1 W9 e0 i8 O! j8 ]: D. U8 N
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
  w1 R; w* g4 J& d2 D1 h" {, Z4 c. v; F3 Q) F& n5 Q
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 h4 e) c1 u& d) b' q7 A8 o5 f* o, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 s" w2 H- x+ n. kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this7 K1 Y4 D; B! w
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the% ]; I9 r, ?" D$ c8 T  a/ `
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
. o5 B$ @" E& ~3 Q3 Bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors& _3 n. l$ r0 }0 z, b# y) Q2 x
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
2 }: o( t$ H: S  m5 n# S1 bwhich they blatantly failed to do.
7 [; ^9 b7 F) a$ l7 v( S4 E) Q# K: j" s) a
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her' w) i2 }* S3 i4 _/ t5 p/ E  ~
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 L! F6 J: u2 |, M$ L6 o& E
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: d% f! O- p- S7 y% I8 Y% banomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! V( w& Y9 ?6 r- w: f; j0 t% h
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
+ s6 M" I9 U3 V/ Limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# x  o2 M% r; z* q- j; C5 w, rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# s1 v2 T1 Q9 \9 t# R; e3 C
be treated as 7 s.; n0 r: t0 g. X! z, [9 L
" [& l9 \+ ?5 l$ f9 _1 T1 S- }
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
4 Q# m* X3 u4 }still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ O* N# i! w4 I: s
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
4 Y* d# p5 p, m! A4 k. |An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400/ \. B4 e6 I, ?& U1 Q# n! N
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.6 @+ L1 A! \7 a5 g9 V; [
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; d0 T% E0 T1 f1 ^' l& C" R
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and0 s* G) S) d; w$ D0 j: \( y! P/ q4 t
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”$ x& ^9 p; c1 l8 @; z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.& e2 o8 W( l! N0 `) F* G: N! U

8 r6 L! W# N1 ~+ i' q2 f. Y9 jThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook$ T- ^" f; e1 E$ I3 t# z( y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
- ~/ I; }/ `: l: F' q" Vthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
9 q: X3 I, Z& k0 s+ }7 E8 X/ u, ?he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later2 X: @% g4 Q$ v
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s7 N2 Z1 n( X" r( }7 k* E9 ^* A
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
6 s  x1 n/ V3 q/ {2 nFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another$ ], @0 T! B' F( w; K
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other) v/ U1 P8 X- l9 M' ]8 B
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  E: l2 C7 e8 d, F  W3 G; A, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
6 k* t( ^8 }2 f) P$ `strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
! B; t7 {  ]& g$ cfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ V4 w# M( O# Y: gfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
4 a( q4 g8 J, S3 e4 x! F  ^' yaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% ?" i, O: {0 B1 B' t& h: a
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.8 {2 D. e% y5 [9 K6 R' p$ b& \6 E
% ^' d& K) O3 r& O
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are/ Z5 X( ]4 ?/ y( Z$ H
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
5 M  M0 b/ o" r# l+ f8 l: Ys) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
' U0 i- A$ g0 B1 G, d* k! W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ n5 q" C  v9 h2 x9 m$ L
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 B! C2 }- _0 J6 A
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: W- s/ f( _: x# F; P4 ~& w6 r
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it3 i1 n+ L/ X5 T' q' v
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
  v) U- V% I7 |/ Kevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
  }, e" d# V6 P6 Rworks.6 r) S: ]! z- ?. |2 \7 ~8 H
/ e8 P3 I& v$ |1 U, k
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and  O! v' Y8 `  r, h1 Q
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 I- E; \+ ~& w! i4 K
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 J5 B) e' D4 ^3 r% h
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific9 E$ p* r$ @# q
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
5 q) j% m0 u$ dreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
% h$ C- O& a; b7 A% U$ ?cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 D( ]4 b8 M1 f1 o5 |) X' Qdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works: u' d! B1 z! c& Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
, M* E7 `# s$ L" qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 N# B& w+ v9 mcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he& M4 R3 V) c& a
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
' r( n+ l/ i" p& @advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
0 ]% K3 I7 k, [- `+ h% R4 W9 Npast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not- j. \8 i' s. d  ]7 c% j3 i
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation% w0 ?  {& }: o% I. |' I
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& A) u5 G; N0 G7 v
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ F0 V  L. S. m! }
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
  ^# n* z5 ?" ?hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye/ g/ @7 \$ F) P( S5 g
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% b% R3 \; \9 h8 A
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' K9 E: \+ m0 Sother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect) W7 l7 F$ u% t. z$ q8 P' t  h* [
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
2 ^2 v$ L" p' U  r8 }7 uprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; N, H  p/ R% y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight" ^( }7 }4 o% q8 A6 g0 I& G
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?" E% ^7 k3 w% r0 j+ b
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping' p( {8 J& Z' Z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 ]" R5 V2 n/ u" s2 H8 ]eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.; x6 d0 q  n2 m' W  [
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?2 r: S- d1 h1 W8 o, `3 f. |
  ?4 y# y1 d6 H% l, `) ?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-0 w& V0 u* |* ~
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. C1 \7 k: @7 }1 z1 _, d. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for/ c8 P  B' r" K5 c
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 Q8 r7 h/ H6 h6 o: O1 cOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" @% |  q# W) Z! t# h% Z  U0 Odoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic1 h+ u" {. R0 d& Q6 A7 F
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope# [8 v' {# q% Y- @9 r/ o1 r' I+ n
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
  b# u/ `$ r/ @, T, C7 e1 T3 `player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
" Z1 E! y" N! Mpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.( F& f: U% `- `" z

8 q" V* _- v6 K. n% v9 sOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
6 x& E( e$ s9 e' ~; Q* M; ~) Z6 ^intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
- I) w! G8 t7 {% isuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& D$ p& H* }$ a7 B1 }suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 `3 y" |" s8 K4 w- C2 Y. mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* o) I& Q! V$ I4 C: e9 I  @, g$ B. s
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 Y9 [" L$ E) i( X3 A2 C# kexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your* }  Z! G& s  p8 E1 x. D3 F
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal3 t" `8 A( M% a" Q$ S
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
! k8 h8 G( N2 ]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!
大型搬家
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, 2026-3-25 21:43 , Processed in 0.206704 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