埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1921|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
3 J! g* q7 V1 Y+ F' P% x
9 g  P" t% B: M6 [; K饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。9 y& R! C1 d( p( g
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。6 ?5 D4 q0 Q: y' i9 z/ j& C! s$ Z
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
8 R1 e/ {: h  \( A+ K3 Y$ V0 p& }2 k! g- x9 l
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
# H; J4 C( t7 S3 W! K) d8 r: Z  T8 S0 X9 H3 H% W' k* u& a
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选3 y* f/ [) r) M* x- [; W( N2 ?8 ^
! X8 H2 q4 o! g  B2 P& H* X
英文原信附后,大意如下:$ y# A# \5 X8 j" [0 ]+ C

# F. {. E- F& U7 o斐尔,
' r2 A7 c: ?6 M1 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
9 Y( \, p* k" h$ B2 temail的人里面小部分也给我来信。2 V9 i* N/ u' E
       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
' Q- j$ [% }, a4 b! I# L$ v5 E# x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
, E) ?# o1 \; t3 \( y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。
! m3 v% q9 w+ u       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6 c4 i: i. Z4 Q9 `1 u
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
- p7 H9 d- y8 G) b7 U! R( u5 g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- \: J, X" @0 e. P
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。
/ v6 p' J' a. }2 A, b( |       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
, n6 c3 t3 ~: W6 P6 _+ [,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4 n- A& ~' @- M# N6 D( U& F
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
5 K% G# ?! A, k" L       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
. N6 }( t! C4 Q: b3 U1 w! R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 w; W9 r, x& L1 ]7 q1 r$ v,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。+ o2 Z; y/ U. Q0 Q
       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
* c; Y6 m" o5 h) w, F+ @5 F# x2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
( J1 G& q8 {# n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
# Q! b9 l5 C: A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) x% C/ \6 m" Y5 n
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( y: V8 y! a2 J$ b' ]; F. c# Y
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2 s4 [& ?. P3 t! Y$ |4 X# N4 }* \! m
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9 F9 [! ]; ?& x9 D( p! 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/ \% t& Z8 \0 B: x0 i+ F! T
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
+ m/ ]/ x, v( E3 R" o$ }+ N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
0 @2 V& r) j( y1》,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/ Y( w  T1 r" y3 m1 _3 N* X) y
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
$ |( I7 t% t/ a' A( |8 U" N! b同意见的专家。" W" h$ b+ l. |2 x2 C
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
5 K/ o+ Q" `! g  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
+ ?( _! V, \' F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8 j5 h6 _6 ?- W, h5 P
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。1 y6 e8 @5 l. R" {4 v: B- S+ F
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)
( p% @' t& [! I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6 F0 g0 w8 b* [) M7 t# e
《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- N" B  ]/ k3 E! [6 Z# d' V" C/ X
这些被Callaway忽略。) C) A4 W1 ]9 G# j0 `# D2 c
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
' y! M$ Z! z4 C7 k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
0 C: ~& `- k$ M  h$ M教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
: Y" y3 I$ Z- G. k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
7 }+ N; N1 @& e3 v. k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
- W9 W. v3 |3 Z5 f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+ x4 i) C+ g7 w+ X! p5 Z2 k
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 L. y0 P5 D. h+ ~2 I. ~# P
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, Q* H6 X- t$ N0 M& M, w% r; ~
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& h8 A; E/ c, u. N; 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
$ L/ S7 `8 T% l- z, ^& n# v7 D# H5 u”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。2 y7 R4 e% @( L) w2 w( E
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
$ S' p5 e8 e3 c# L. p; r2 p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
7 g$ B8 p5 V5 p, ~6 w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! H3 T: G# h! k, N! E  M
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
& y' `1 u, K; Q' K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0 H( _3 e4 s$ s2 Y
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
9 Q, B  B# a9 b. S5 S( |) |我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: v4 V1 s- P% J% i, [8 x: ^

5 i  U; y! I% D! R
8 G- J! [( h0 Y3 S北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅1 ~, a! r3 T0 d- E  J4 P+ I# n' h9 v
: v  S" v- z+ e
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- Q! t3 \, ^. ^3 s
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) m; L% L. z. |4 B& m+ b
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见2 ]6 K) s# X$ E  {- w) T2 E' J
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 O8 T: j4 _3 h5 a- m# M5 k0 r$ u4 |& T2 m/ [& u
! {/ B3 W/ o- z& f4 U
$ ~& v2 U* F' ~$ n, o
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 R; ~/ n" n" N4 ^9 U' `Dear Phil,* i( H" M) t1 z+ W, b* _
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
7 O& M- E8 q4 `report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) W7 f6 v: Z  ?% Rhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 A5 g4 p7 }; Y3 ^" P, [, hyou.
. p; Q* V- |* R; e( U       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have: a. r  n' }, ^
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese5 ?3 g  S. _# {1 [2 x  v/ K
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: k! ~+ ~7 d2 }0 B5 cworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# W8 k/ C0 h. c, b* j
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
) r  t2 {4 u) v# B+ Z' wseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
1 k0 o9 o; B# o% F! o3 q# Zpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
9 P' w, E' G9 V$ w       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
% Q7 u1 }/ c/ q2 t* K; ~, iworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
+ x! o6 b. i& g4 I! Nnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
+ `( R0 j8 S, Othat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
0 [% Z- q) M: R. wdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( p5 y2 j3 D+ g$ aexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal: \" y8 J( F0 J9 ~. H; J: a
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
" w9 [1 f) p4 M1 f# G% C$ k' e0 ^and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone  X& t- s* ^- R! s( J
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news* \/ r/ N0 I) {0 V
reporting.& v7 y% M" k5 i( S& }
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
6 x5 ~+ u6 B) M/ e& palready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by8 q! ~7 E. l5 N
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
$ R3 n3 B& q3 c  Nsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 ?2 T( T; t6 U5 U
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 |) q  {3 \) V$ I/ {( R
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
7 X0 c8 h2 I2 z3 A4 lmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
, N$ G8 C' n- y7 O3 h# Z6 Nfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50& x5 C8 U& Z6 U' |" x+ @3 O/ f
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same1 Y+ `4 l# o% J# L" {3 X
event for men, with the second fastest record.# d. E) g, w* h, {7 E9 h
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye. e! t, a" Z$ B2 k% q3 f# J
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
+ V1 y% q" r7 X. i. a" M+ vyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
! p& _7 C3 v  |7 _( H* q/ _. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400( g; P, G3 G  `3 S" Y" N$ M
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,( }# V. [; R/ A# d' \( _5 `
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than  T$ V2 g* g+ w8 b  `4 x
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
, L9 n0 o/ n2 h) ]behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the, E2 H2 e. s1 o& L( w- L4 c6 ^) }# z
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
4 V2 {9 u& t) Q% ^than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than$ M* f# z- k. s8 v, ?
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was; l5 d+ N) I; m& f7 u9 S1 i% Z
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then6 P0 E" y" T6 q1 L, o1 A* K
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
4 o6 {! I( K' k( bproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
+ e! W& o) |+ D" G- W& `swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, X, h& ?/ X5 j% Nteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
! {- l% h- S3 `2 s8 RCallaway report.
0 k* _# a  C, P( YThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
+ l* R# |( l& N3 p% X3 }understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details/ _2 F1 v- x) b4 l- o
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
) R8 B# V% h" s4 G" Cof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
$ a! I8 T$ |9 e: kbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the- x* t8 V& y3 r0 X3 B. Z
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
$ h7 e; a& v+ lpublicly voiced different opinions.
0 F; C& `5 n5 G$ M  _+ d0 J) h6 t; tYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD- D  Z; I; j) z: I- R' w
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature$ |/ H* j. J: d3 |5 V" J5 y# \
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' \2 [7 j: b( R0 i
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) t7 Y' j: o1 D; M9 M6 e" J1 B: M
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
, {# D$ Y! i& i+ iof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
5 p  G$ t* q' y$ t; q5 y! K$ VThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
( q% [) ~; _5 Y, {that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They: y) }1 R4 g4 x8 Z* `
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as- z# U3 F. c6 @
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
: ^" ], S3 t! t+ u) V& ~the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was9 h% P/ o/ Q* W
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
, m) g" J& {' \$ [# j, k* MOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that: `8 z5 [& o0 a& C) Z+ n
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
5 v) E- N5 n2 f1 O% {/ s! vChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 z; L7 g3 ~; X, A* o(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she6 }8 {# J4 E" Y1 d' @  `( ~
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
& m$ o% l" w' r* `The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
0 ~8 P0 K# s# {+ s2 U3 Jand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
  L/ F" e, N. n  ?; y% v3 g, nDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
$ q1 M6 L. B& Z$ Y/ a& a; V1 yNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and. b8 W7 O8 b/ K7 w
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
. `! |" S6 {4 M8 h! t7 X" ^) a* Bwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
& G+ u+ {8 R1 T5 e& nrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
- }: w' r2 f1 _- |8 q" ~The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not. \4 P* [3 Y: \! T8 c1 _, b
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
& F9 h6 K1 G) n! K; S; F, ~us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather0 |2 h4 z9 P7 q. L" a4 O
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ ]5 f) H0 ^5 g% M
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
, W0 b1 c7 I2 v' A! w" J' Wabout British supremacy.
. \2 x! M2 [* N3 |  GThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many  j" |: _+ D5 I4 C+ }
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more( {7 D0 V* x6 u1 \% W" C' e( f
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by* j* Y! B/ X3 F# B# G
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London4 S8 r( q  C% O1 c" R" d+ F
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.* g' T3 N6 `- O% G6 u( F
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
7 ~1 s( [) u0 b3 y  q  @professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests0 d' U. p+ W  J+ b1 D# s
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,( f; e9 a5 g5 L, H% {6 b" \; E! L
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly2 D/ {- Q% }- t9 Y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like9 M! r$ [# V$ [- D
Nature.
* I5 A* m" Y: W* j. }- a5 qI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance7 R& u( ~$ o2 v3 s
the Callaway report.. P" ]) q" p$ S0 J

. P8 }8 c) M5 A& L0 UYi2 J& F7 F8 l1 Z* J1 c% a) u* M
% I5 s7 n& c8 N0 j% s: X! e
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
1 H: m7 |& f( ~Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences+ |4 d! t3 I" y- q& v
Beijing, China
1 W. ^" f/ h  K' t# e: [7 @
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 ; P0 N% X! v1 h
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

- k( B( o& u2 r原文是公开信。8 n* ^! W, |5 L( z! _
  \( m% z  r6 B, P9 U) S- u) ]
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
& t+ ?; ?7 n1 n3 J原文是公开信。* d0 C; ~* T1 ?  q
$ \; n6 q& r9 u: B- c: I% Q
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
/ B7 e; Q& y& C, g# E
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
( C; Z" D* F! s8 ~' Q如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! H3 @  h1 |) B. S! f
4 f+ ]$ Y1 h9 a) x' c
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html/ K" i7 b. h; q' K9 A: O( s

: r+ h( }; y; YFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
2 j8 w1 b) u' }1 P& O9 q# R- d2 ^% ~
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
* I0 {% I! m' C" {! C, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
' S* x# o4 T; f0 N; bmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
  P  v2 ]0 l; `is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the3 f$ u) [* \. ]# M% c4 Y! v8 V7 S
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
) e" \8 _" c" u1 }. v9 e& W9 ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
* N; w1 j  _# h% Q( Z5 {  k( ^should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 Y- Q1 U, k8 Q# ~0 f9 a8 K
which they blatantly failed to do.
5 @. Q/ u5 E" k' P+ B) h; r* b; @$ m. b" U. x$ r
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
# U7 k! J% c, q: g+ e- w% l9 n$ A/ @Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
. R6 V: Q% F7 K$ f. s2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
( |9 q6 I# C! m! u; [anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) o" S, c+ Y8 s( m8 ?personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 \; |4 N1 Q- D, Y. V6 aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
% {4 O0 \5 q' e9 i6 Vdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) s0 f) e8 S1 q, G9 r2 Ube treated as 7 s.$ a4 K; ^; B* [! k8 ^( U

, y- z! e3 o& s* pSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ r9 `) f$ t+ C  ^' d$ j5 xstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem0 j6 R9 x$ f! W6 G" w
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 |5 v7 Q$ Y& W6 z$ d
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400& f- ^( t; x, E6 z) b
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.* Y0 z2 @- C  v. }( i
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# a; Q4 B$ ]% S& P  Celite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( Z6 u( V5 j* c# E% m6 \persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”( W, D) V$ m. R$ e
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ T2 ]6 I; n7 Z  g  n4 o; Y' Z
# d8 W2 K: i3 L& B* GThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook  T- t* u) V. e+ d7 _. E; o
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
! B0 {' B: g2 G* D! Mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, x; ]2 o+ C) C- U
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) D1 {) R* V8 t1 S/ \
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s# J2 c% A9 f1 ]& x- y7 s% _' H" _
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
$ B. D% J; q8 C/ C) rFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 N! U* H) \# v8 [& }- z5 t! b" ntopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
5 X1 q5 M) ~0 f: N. @hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle- X% v; N" ]+ [  I1 T
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this6 P% W$ J+ Y: @. q: G
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 U+ E$ o: E1 \faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam. ~# v3 K) K6 i
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
/ |" o% @. p) Y1 zaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 \. T; K. A$ A" e" Z2 i
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.9 [6 Y% Q9 o& q# b# p
+ J; X9 J% }) T1 r- x  t- c. L6 n
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are5 W5 S+ {  ]: o$ |
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! h; ~3 J: f4 e: e5 U
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ T( q' Q( G1 M1 [* c8 E; T), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns  {" f/ @2 Q! J8 n6 G. Q9 {2 I' E: c+ s
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) T, p) b- L; o4 p; {$ FLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind9 x) c8 C/ l# P# I* {
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
' E0 l- [- G; h/ L+ E2 W5 [logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in. y$ o- O$ Y7 h% s* P8 B$ [3 \
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science  {# s6 A* D, L: t+ e) S& ?
works.( R6 x$ k' y4 @" s9 D  j' B. B" Z

0 @# k- M6 L/ K4 A) WFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and6 {# k; L7 h. ?
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
, G+ C2 b* ^  K1 `  q2 ~# b0 Lkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that* w4 [# Z; H' u) r( ?% y% [8 A
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific9 l. O4 r2 [- P. j6 u1 F
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% L3 ~9 o9 p/ E( H" X: X
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One: I! K! H) v( {( E
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to, x0 I) D+ D! L, ~7 p
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
: t& a% q5 q; w9 l  d8 s; @to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample" \0 d  c+ S8 H9 S# m* C5 R
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, G; Y$ o9 |! r9 e* n  Lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 M! e9 K# _* [( H. l/ o* ~
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 g1 t0 j9 e" R, b& _/ U& G- q, B/ eadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the. @6 l) L& ~* q6 R0 I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not8 q: W2 Y; s1 [
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ f. v" m% p' v+ v3 r5 e. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are5 G( ~' Q$ T$ }, o8 E7 n; S; F
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ R& \4 a9 s0 H+ W7 d
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 ]6 o" U$ G' J, e2 rhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# S- Y4 \, x0 k! h! B) Lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a' R$ t; F+ h& R, M/ k, U* J  ^  o/ w
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) C  D6 x9 p! z8 G, k4 E, P' ?" r, [
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- m. M: Z* }2 y, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; H& b. Q$ f0 t4 I
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an* _4 N  [; c9 y6 g6 o* C0 G
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
, h- Y& |: Y% ~& xchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: b& j2 D. ]8 W1 L- U% h& R5 A$ fLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping9 A& [8 ]6 g3 M+ x; ~9 ~) G" i
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 i' e0 `  ^& F# S+ _
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 f6 E, {1 p$ K+ D; d) |" c
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 E7 P/ ?2 b( P/ t3 C5 A- p, a1 w' G6 \2 w
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-1 g& }, }4 f  u1 D- V" f+ e
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
9 t( W) N! ?/ f: \& H/ o3 ]3 {. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for- w0 u! q2 j/ q) \' j6 W
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London% E% y- I$ Q+ z7 O# h! x
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
8 s6 n( y  b4 {( q9 E+ N& `doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' _# `8 F( F" P/ f' a
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope* ~, G& r% S$ n: x; s" A: G" x
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: r4 X" q/ ]/ f5 o
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this( C5 s8 W! a; u6 ]& w
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" K+ @0 K# O+ z" q; o7 m% p7 q9 _+ Q5 }6 m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 w2 W; n/ }+ v. L- v0 gintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too* Z3 Y4 Z4 T9 O% @# G% V% k* t
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
+ l1 h9 `1 o, g7 p& S  qsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide* v) i9 L" `0 A$ i6 _2 s
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: \4 i$ K5 x0 g. O: |$ a" Hinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* \! |; |- o. F) ?4 D! g6 Z# H6 S
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
* T" Y. T9 f; N5 r, Xargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal; z- d+ e5 Y, P, ~
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
  k2 B- q4 p- f. ?5 N5 t- |* T- J: l  preporting 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, 2026-1-9 15:34 , Processed in 0.178662 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