埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2303|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
4 K+ z% F; U- ~) A7 P! p- N3 D: _2 P! i' z' d% w
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
5 _2 ]1 v" m7 m2 Z8 X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。
0 d- J' {/ b2 P# p# B8 y" w& o总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。/ n. Y. {8 r( L1 U
1 ^, a6 D; w& K8 ^+ G" w: e
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
4 L/ n4 U, ^* U; P. T
# i' W  D  p  A致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选6 W& @' S7 w0 o. ~( Y3 B2 i) K

  s9 n! D0 p. M1 H( s7 Z英文原信附后,大意如下:1 Y" o: a: ^+ s' L8 o* P6 a

4 T: e+ O9 J  ^2 G/ c; M" @% S1 ~斐尔,
) ?" F; F* B; Z0 j. {) }       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
8 l7 v2 f7 q/ Z, y2 hemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 ~; L" v3 j& ?) k+ @; w! ~       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
: S9 ^4 a" S& L) o7 u9 ?) {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5 z1 B) X, u+ S- x
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。
  E/ F5 ]& b, k  @       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- J2 H. A- b4 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, q6 V' \6 n) Z- ^: b) 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
  ^  e, A/ D8 T( s4 r: D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。
1 N, R; s! L2 R8 k2 k1 d) k7 P       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
& _! t5 |! T+ I& l,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2 \' ~& X. x. g* ~3 L/ a
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。& C; d2 t3 p, B8 _- Y
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她
8 T: H1 G) j. ]* I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
) [" _4 E. P* i. Q6 K! W,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
1 r8 P3 A5 O# h* W& X. ^! K       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: r# S: `9 L$ g
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( r4 N; m' j7 T6 |  h
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
1 n, G- d; H: g, S) J: y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
+ V! a4 P9 W$ [4 L300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
$ V2 q0 `$ T3 z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3 j: V" v8 l$ _6 Z
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
' C! @" D( u9 @, w9 \; x。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# B3 u. l4 F# E0 ?, z- ^: f* o' ^6 S
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
  P0 J! [  l& k# V; C& P! ]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
; d1 q' F5 c: D/ p5 B1》,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& J' k1 O1 I) g
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
4 }  X8 w( _" x3 g3 g同意见的专家。
5 B6 u' J8 v% H9 D$ @/ S* z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9 _" ^! `* ]7 K6 C# d
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
1 x8 u( }) e2 r. q4 x$ n9 I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
# m% T, ~$ _0 |/ `2 R9 r《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
! p; i$ B0 F* u# t5 NCallaway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)
. G4 r5 G) j  O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
/ G1 k+ A' z5 i' Q1 Q《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
! H% e* c/ s2 t' ~7 o这些被Callaway忽略。
9 L4 ?& t" h( T# u" c6 A& X1 T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% Q8 n4 b4 U9 ?3 R1 P* f; m5 t
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
8 @; i# D' X" d/ K教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。7 m  h) r; d5 T
英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书
5 h  ?7 j" I3 w$ K: Z) y+ 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) }3 y2 j4 I3 P6 S
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, `6 Y: M! L3 d1 M2 \) Z: V
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。
, H& w9 r  P1 H+ u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& j6 f/ }; D- A7 g
香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年
5 p% F/ L6 W1 Y% g/ o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
8 @7 C9 D8 r7 A) M/ e”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
1 [1 u; [/ J8 y7 C: f3 |' U& k" 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6 R3 w. V2 l) ~) D4 j: l8 v( C8 N- O
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+ r, P& C4 B/ b* i3 S0 M
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" _/ s8 \  |8 G8 A& M8 Z+ M5 G
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次
$ U, S  w2 C2 a: S8 \: 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( M6 [6 q2 }- K* s& G6 T) j
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
. T' N* J/ Z. w! b5 f# S我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。4 p( W" k; l" c; y1 `% {% [- ~
, u( O' ~4 E7 `. H/ ~

8 r& ^: n3 ]' l; y1 B; W! K6 i北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅4 \  B9 [# R4 q; t: i" [) o
6 P) ?7 X' u; u8 n/ ?- \, ?3 d2 d, ]/ {
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结' _4 T( m! y7 N0 `
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email/ P  Z7 W- w7 \! V! S% c! M! m
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
) R2 A1 p- ~; E! i9 n  K附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: h4 W" {1 b, \, o+ O5 N% ?2 Z; F' X, ?. ~1 ~! |7 K( }

# x  C( E( X( B
& N+ h8 O8 w' M$ J9 Y) b% x原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
$ l& o' y/ J9 e& e$ M, Z. y' NDear Phil,6 ^2 \3 B8 d& F* G4 Z
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
( Z1 ~" p8 _- I; u1 A4 i" l" kreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 200 w" N7 Z( w3 p2 R  f) H
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
; V/ G, a; N* L2 o  C5 _you.
( s0 |4 q( @" `* ?2 l       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 P) q& M: b1 Y1 d3 ~, v
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
) S6 q% @/ b, d0 wreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the7 Q8 P* F& ~. Z* t, ~) n2 d$ n
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ c$ u. g% H) \' P
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more" Z4 {, o+ n1 ?2 }9 f! h3 c
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news) ?4 E) L9 ~% i) P. C4 {- }4 G9 _8 m
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.' K7 A3 G. Z; v
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
! {4 a' F/ `' Q0 I* Z+ B; Sworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
3 S* \; `1 Q* Znegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish5 m6 ]3 B& z4 m  B5 E( L; ^* a8 r
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway- L$ F' K" R1 U( k+ Y8 t
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# y* I- L% P  ?3 G
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal% F4 F* M! t0 S$ w" m7 O, u
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
* P2 o; y& X9 q4 \5 ?$ p6 L: o+ Pand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone9 ]' D/ [: t" g- S% z
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
. x7 d' W2 {5 mreporting.8 H2 e% t8 E/ Y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
' e6 }1 L5 i6 m. k4 P5 yalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
  L9 t- G9 X- B, O2 ichanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in* e" A7 M: R- B7 b
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
# ?, ?$ I) G# cpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
# `+ X3 O0 Y+ s6 ^       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem2 @1 L3 Z6 q) v3 `
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
2 G7 t* R0 c+ t5 n' i" y$ Q% k! Efaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ D% k6 j. D' o$ X9 Mmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
- y, D. M; n; _" f0 s# _event for men, with the second fastest record.; T0 r7 k0 M2 v8 d" R
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
% j; w* `0 \# ]7 B; i& D  kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
/ p2 q9 l0 ~& Yyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
2 u$ ?9 d$ d3 _7 z. t. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400! p. A1 }+ Q$ Q/ F1 I! `6 @8 {
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,2 n0 L# }& H1 r% o5 R8 h
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than- u2 J1 t& H0 o+ Y/ ^
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed/ @, X, j- N* |3 M7 ~* ~
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: k3 C  ~6 V& w, r% P& b; q+ T, Vindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
) y1 X# e3 D4 @% Athan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
: s9 D/ b, j; G5 }1 j& P) w( |those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was4 m% B8 H- O2 t
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then# K, L3 M. |( y0 w3 K
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “  b1 p; _9 X6 c# u4 |
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other; ^" C  [: ?4 I; z; d
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 m- R+ D' g2 t: j. J3 b- Dteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
9 ]& ?& F  y- {; [$ c! rCallaway report.1 {# D8 c1 i5 v6 W
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 W7 |! I0 w  M! C8 ?9 y3 ]understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
, n/ t7 P8 @& `7 L7 \$ h& g8 ~here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( J/ b0 @0 ~6 a0 Q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
7 J* a. `; O( {3 I0 L# `better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the9 F% g% Q- h7 R1 X
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
2 ?" d/ L# H* z& \7 t( d' D+ c! [publicly voiced different opinions.
# H" x  l% ^! ]. E6 D" U5 X% cYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD4 T# m6 N. @( k! F4 T$ m8 K
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature& ~+ @1 S$ @3 r8 ^2 v$ |9 H
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) Q) X; G" ^3 G2 _postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds; g/ X! {: o3 ^7 g% z- Y. a
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy. C6 U' T, _2 I8 g
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.2 q& _: Q  }- h. t4 Q& _
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
0 }& m; G' ~4 f/ _' Bthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
5 _. K) s2 g$ Z7 thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as- W$ M. d$ a) U; _$ \
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
) a5 y; Y" `. \9 _the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was& D3 V  }" p1 Z3 N5 `( n$ H6 t0 B
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
; n5 l- T8 r& v1 z8 n4 x: g* cOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
3 I& V3 ^$ Q( O0 W# Dmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
; X7 p% {* j3 fChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June2 b; x. a' |4 t& Y+ ]. T9 m8 t: ?
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 Y+ B8 h* Q5 @5 \0 X6 V6 H! Land I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
1 S  {( [9 ]1 q# n4 j  fThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science( H% [4 W7 l( X" p+ ?6 e( a+ F: l* X
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
& E! b) u0 ~! r( {* B) J8 PDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.8 B- B- u% J% x  S) {8 W: L% o* c; g
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and2 u& B+ m- M  r# c' P2 t, }; r! V0 w
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
: w/ C6 A" P6 ]$ u. [$ q0 qwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
  ~% A5 _/ r, p" e" |6 c- k0 lrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) X& p3 X" n8 ^1 E" T$ m" PThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
9 u9 k3 x& J1 q3 T2 U7 j% ishow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced" P5 o0 z0 U4 p' d
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: @( E8 @  \- @8 U8 k0 a
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that* C' X/ H) s. z9 V+ R
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
$ o# a% N' y8 u  W: y5 Xabout British supremacy.3 Z! r3 S6 q& a& u1 y$ |# V
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
/ F+ A" u- }6 H5 z* A9 yunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
2 g7 M4 D' o6 P3 E9 R- ^! r; g, lChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by$ @. X% w5 s: h6 O: G# }
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London/ j* Y) z  J8 w! @; E/ e
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
7 v$ D" C$ g! e2 c/ mYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: V1 H* W7 ^5 ]% ]
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, W. k) U; r, G, kbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
4 W9 a8 O. U" y. uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
: f. ]5 }, T  u6 _3 v& A& X" Fpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like4 T" d5 g) Y) w
Nature.
% x% ^, R4 E- h8 t3 `( aI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ K$ A7 f9 I/ Z. Mthe Callaway report.7 w; f. _, B- a$ f; @

  q1 ^- x8 f/ w. [5 m' w6 BYi
  R" y# _+ a" |# E- j# w) Y& f" G, ^
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
  H& x; ?$ s$ l2 H0 S2 UProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences2 X* A: @" g0 Y( w
Beijing, China5 J) X& _1 R. D1 h3 c$ {
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!!!
大型搬家
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
6 j) Y4 X* |0 w" L  T. J7 N! J1 b! _原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
6 |, i! M2 O* o/ K
原文是公开信。
( ~& X0 a1 h* t+ [! A4 p4 t* i2 T
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
5 B# O0 V# ?) B0 V3 [原文是公开信。2 t' z4 S3 O, m3 g

: C! Z5 C! b/ d  O# J3 u9 U/ U小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

& i" I  T) L* g4 w, w/ {1 `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 JIANG4 a2 ]( b, E. K0 b# ]
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
5 l0 Y% a# c3 P5 x1 {
& ^) P: d9 v- J0 y. k$ k3 _; ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 j: _5 l) j1 s0 o& f2 B2 T

6 ]& Y7 D: E2 B0 q* ?) q- [FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" p7 n7 m4 ?9 m' w( t
& N  U& M4 W& F; V; }" D
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself+ A4 `* ?- X- P
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
$ e. \: D% g1 x1 B. i" Dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
) [" G. f) O2 f5 `1 vis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
+ ^4 ^/ R( z2 k, Gscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
/ _  N1 o2 \, q& epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
. e, }0 }5 f+ W/ L! r! kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
' E) }! z0 u2 ^which they blatantly failed to do.* @" Z: P5 m9 I6 e
: n: b1 A0 i3 j% i
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
6 B/ t1 `2 J. q) G8 \* W  `4 dOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in/ p2 S6 T$ D1 S: x
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* t4 r& n' O- `) P/ f7 s
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
' n9 [, Q9 D: A, g) _personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an8 ^7 E; {( Z* _; o- ^+ G, u) I: ]
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 w+ B8 [! n$ n; Xdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to8 [) Q3 [, d+ L4 r# O
be treated as 7 s.
9 f4 \" A6 e& `! P  l/ d! Q% x, C6 }/ |* q
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 ~6 H4 c6 K9 w9 @
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
" `0 c" t; Z4 Yimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
; |' F9 K* g1 ?: G& a. f8 ~  `$ a9 CAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ c' I- ?7 @% d* d3 ?$ i% `1 R1 {
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 D4 s) m- @! GFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an. r' f% O' m% P" y! r+ M
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
" [% t% |" G. N4 l2 S. H8 @persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”- V9 N" \+ U7 a; V1 n
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 T' }3 L, Q( D" E8 O- t
9 u" I0 [' s6 R  W
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
2 @" Q* f6 _: w3 O8 l% }3 M+ Fexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 @& f/ m& C( o( q, M& m" b
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
; F$ L0 _( q% m# N, S. Q$ E) I) xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
+ d3 l5 s5 `; O4 Y3 u+ g# qevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
. ^# j3 H6 e3 b! Hbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
7 p$ e! z- d1 I, `7 aFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
, _1 x* k4 y4 B1 I/ ttopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other  e% \0 d6 d* S, S6 n# k
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
# X; [0 Y  w6 `9 ^$ \) l, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. W4 g$ ^3 y' t5 F  jstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds: B3 g+ Z$ U4 b: j1 s( V
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
; ~# \* v0 ]7 R9 Z, B: c& Kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting  k. y4 Q4 y6 y
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 `) ~9 v* |& f6 @, o+ v" `" g4 Uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
$ X( F( e/ U+ g0 ^  h
* z$ r8 D# J3 _9 i' f. p* \Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
& a% a; H8 K% K% N& U. e5 D- K1 Afour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
+ s4 ^% d9 I3 g+ I; _, p9 [4 |( Q, Vs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s9 G: e5 J; y7 t& @# H4 j/ B
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. s, M5 E5 a! M/ sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! g7 T! I% I8 j5 Q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- I" O4 I7 ^9 n8 {7 @3 d# _1 P
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ i$ {( S* ~+ p4 ?, ^
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
% r5 c  T) Y2 |4 yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
, c+ }  V* t$ J, P( I& [* u/ B3 {" Iworks.
* G; x& {( O  X% J* @$ o
" b3 V  w- @: I* q+ x) JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
# c  \3 i4 |: m; q6 ~* iimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ \+ ^" ^- H! d
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
; g8 d2 l+ {/ L6 N: ^9 ~' ]standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! L, w2 d( {$ mpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
. S& `+ |- E' D% b' g( {! `) Freviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
2 `+ A6 o+ F3 A7 ?: Mcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 s7 |  B6 M, `5 |8 ~demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works* ?1 a7 z  `) V* ~+ N- ^8 l; m* E
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample9 @( {; k+ B  Z( R
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
) O( s! \6 s- m! lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he: k0 H0 m$ m4 }# q  q
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ ]* ]" a7 ~, z+ Tadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the3 v; E: D: F8 Z/ o& h1 c% a3 `
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 o* W: P. d. `7 l4 T  muse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation1 M2 X2 J2 ?- i% K7 R4 E
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
9 Z6 |% g! |& z4 Gdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 e7 v+ z; @  N9 o2 O" Dbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
: D3 \# j6 d1 D5 d, H( v  _hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye7 w; i) Y- L, r
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" |0 i# x3 z' A& e' T7 c3 sdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
6 Z' D# _' T; K% @  cother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% L2 g6 C2 E0 y- U/ a0 m4 H, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is7 J3 m$ Z# L. Y, n2 H
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
3 G" x" j2 }4 ~# g5 m$ a4 H/ x7 sathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 R2 q' r7 c+ L1 z+ |; Qchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
3 Y$ k% P) B' M+ s, u) D% PLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& t2 A4 u' q; G8 ~/ Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
' l% e0 d/ a. y. t" Xeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
% X  t* G4 e+ }* ^- `Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?, r: z" m8 h) ]; Q( H7 ]2 K

8 r. d& p3 C( KSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-- ~- t% v; q( n. l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention3 l. {: A5 h0 |5 X
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( d9 ~$ S/ g7 ~/ Y8 ~: X  e1 nOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, N- e2 W$ N, Y, E- VOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
0 O1 H  k; \! G- Bdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
; q+ `( m$ A5 r- ]0 ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
1 l0 w# q6 z% R& S% C* thave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a! [4 s4 i5 `" n4 i2 \
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# r& H" v8 N6 V& n, U( p) k  Y, Y
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.% Y" |% v3 J! [, C5 v; \

; G7 @' S. C" tOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" y( I. t: z0 F1 ?- ?1 xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 G9 U9 Q( w3 B( L- m1 P( y* w  @6 msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a8 I. d( ^1 q; V2 ?& h. A$ D7 L% R
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 o2 F% I9 e, k# U! nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
8 c6 Z. }1 z9 \6 I0 o# J, H8 D% qinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 ?3 E. X% D! _* uexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your* N$ i8 f; \4 G- h6 Q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
/ D$ e' E9 ]( C5 \such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
6 T0 V/ r) v! K! S$ ^reporting should be done.
理袁律师事务所
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, 2026-5-6 22:41 , Processed in 0.187888 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