埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2094|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 2 M" s5 l$ x# v3 D- m

& I$ J9 f# S/ D: Z4 }5 `# @饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! q5 Q- x4 Z6 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。( ?/ i, T6 V6 T! j. S
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。- w2 N9 |; b1 R. n; s

) @- e% a0 \) o1 _4 n- a0 t) ihttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 p2 n4 [/ d, z; R3 L
; O9 \. _* u: o! l" C0 m( h! u. s
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
9 f& V; @% Q: G: [
/ _& m' t$ F+ e英文原信附后,大意如下:
' H( K! q  Z( F1 Z0 G- A4 S" C2 I; ^8 C  m" T; `: ?5 H5 k, M
斐尔,7 P( F, R; |6 s2 V- \. P9 D+ N- 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! }) s  L4 D$ ?# _
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。8 V$ W0 |$ ]3 d# @/ l2 H8 j, ?; q5 ]
       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
' M+ T# G, d! X& R8 o7 N9 s4 P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( u$ _. j" |# k. H" O! g7 u
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。
# U6 m& v1 v, [0 x* L9 z       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
, H; z) i. o  f( n* B, @% [+ ~6 H! t: 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9 }3 H( t. J5 g0 \2 B8 L' t
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- ?9 _1 x0 F$ E
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。7 j- R/ d: h, `- ~# }2 _
       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
) X( Y2 x- P' \& Q( u,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# F. N* t1 S- X9 r2 E7 a, s
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
3 U/ y0 K4 Q8 w+ p       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/ a- H5 k: r" r5 g9 E, r' K" 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
" W% p4 Z9 P, M% |2 k' Y9 ]2 ^( @; t,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. O1 D# p% ]' ]9 U9 X5 y- j4 i* f+ 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
" s! A- W( [8 ?5 c0 s2011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
1 F+ c, u. `" M1 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! [: H( Q3 l/ y- m( ]9 b
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( C9 g& M9 \6 x, {, w8 g
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, P# F- ?9 c! O3 R4 t
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 j% h! R! ]+ E5 M/ V5 S
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
& U+ N1 \; R) c  w. B7 o& 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. \$ k9 K) T6 p& S- b* Q4 f
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
3 @8 y! p1 j! i, t! ~: u还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件
3 B3 J" O1 Q( S1》,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, _/ n/ O) @/ f5 x0 @- N; {
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# j5 c* e: m3 p7 z% l
同意见的专家。
2 }8 s8 D( Z$ G0 a8 V) X: f; `+ M  v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& @) j. g% |. y2 ^* Y
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: _9 P, X3 |- d* b8 l- y
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
7 o% v; S- B8 L" p- M《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
$ C! n! u+ L1 ]2 G4 s* tCallaway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)
  b7 W$ [, z0 _# p+ f! u& H, N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- s, }8 r, V% n$ L* S0 R# u
《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
5 C( Z! h% s9 b* j, d2 k. H这些被Callaway忽略。
8 U- U6 ^/ o" Q% S; M( E- y+ d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, J$ O( R) V8 u( K, b, Q
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
2 z3 C  p& Q) }, q5 H* C教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
, c! c& a' g! G" |6 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
1 H3 q& Y% d; Y' I& ]& q# u6 Z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
/ o" m5 I4 v$ |, r: |' P  b家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文,才有《自然》的7 H. X+ o: K) l9 D) 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。6 J+ @% `7 e- q+ 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9 I2 y$ z9 E$ q$ G" 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
( s9 V2 U! T9 f$ T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 g/ ^' Y' W% e. X/ L”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. C  t& I& o+ q5 M2 a8 ~7 {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7 f$ i; e/ w9 S  X3 T9 y. ~# N
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( n9 X, D% e! w0 L, Y' {) v4 r
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( Q3 @# I: V( k0 M7 x
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
8 J' m4 e, r/ e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
2 M8 A: T7 w8 A/ \9 v, x9 H而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' n* _# L: Q  w/ R5 r0 L: |: |6 z
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
/ n* [9 _7 K. ]% s7 V
8 Z  N  k2 @% l' o+ n/ H
. \' S/ s6 F4 t$ I5 l2 b北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅( m* _- o5 B+ g: \( l' S
# L# @5 V: ~/ p. O$ R3 f- f7 Q5 l
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 f3 R  i- _- \; \/ ~& f( a附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email+ n5 }% ^9 p# e; f# o1 {& \
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
% G, `4 r# I2 B附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 k* @5 G  Y) h% K* F. J
& T0 O* {& l" S- f' X0 ]6 J
" X; N  Z3 ]8 m5 x- h1 v  Y* L, E$ m1 q8 q( [  h
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)  \; X8 m  K& G7 ^9 @+ j# s
Dear Phil,
& Y, x7 X  o! I6 Q       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
# N& D' ~1 T/ U$ l. `report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20  ]2 r) }8 W2 `* @; T
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
/ |: |9 [) S6 q% x; \you.
7 e+ B1 H( O7 K       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
  w! k! T# n; X8 abrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
( k- K: R& g; T+ e8 ]readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
( w5 o* ^2 m, m1 G7 @world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
# o. {& V3 m6 P/ H, ?publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
4 g* j* |" X" I8 X6 gseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
- i6 x3 x- a  {# C) U9 hpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
; H3 A) a" a; t! g: M       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
- }+ P( a& j, W  Y8 I* Pworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
# x# q0 m& ]& l9 \negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish1 i8 M- R5 v, i7 I  g7 m
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway/ [8 r" \1 ^* a6 U: k5 U7 q
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
' `% P3 C& b6 yexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal" h9 e2 E# U+ g6 \0 j
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible," F9 l" H& b* Q& B. F7 G# W# N- C
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone  ~: s  Q% D5 ~- T
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news! ?1 J6 t4 |( Y
reporting.
0 _  B; G  S: r, d- D2 q5 {       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have7 v; ?% U% p2 x- \" g
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by5 X% c: C9 n- h. i1 |
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in% x# e& {3 E( g% y8 p+ Z" g
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A5 w2 A: O2 S9 `! M, m" Z  ~
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
+ q' D7 A! m. o/ Y       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem' `$ N' T+ ?# s0 K
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
* V7 i8 P/ E1 j2 r8 j) ~faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
' c& {# x& k4 ?. P! s6 G  ], v: F4 emeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
8 Y2 z+ p  D9 F$ i& _* }event for men, with the second fastest record.
* g5 K5 D# \6 i  B  c       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye" \" o9 s- l- J0 I( [) D( Q
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
; u: C% l5 S- e' v/ {year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) y7 A" s/ E) I  m. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
5 c* r7 Y* a7 a% h. g% @meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,$ w) o/ S( \/ z0 U# |/ t$ O
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
( s5 l: T9 Y) j; x6 Z# K! I: @Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed7 H* r3 n) ^7 ~# F1 ~/ r
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
1 x* L! G0 t+ P3 G2 S; n6 k8 O  Rindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower6 i! b% U! P7 ~5 I" ~6 |
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than- P) ]9 W5 m! [
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
  h7 N' H8 P# z8 ~) t3 Z: |her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. a8 v2 w) i" y  B$ P' z
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
' f/ r* m* w; L+ U: K  R( `) Qproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
8 K1 Z! ~( D1 S$ q9 iswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% g( O* N; F7 Q. x
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
5 S% s5 ?7 l2 s+ Y$ Q. OCallaway report.0 X" M) B8 z$ z7 [& Q  I" j
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more) x2 o. ?4 S% f4 F3 Q% ]  H
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ I; @+ b& W. f3 Z* I% J/ ?here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
- Q" g* D- H6 B3 c! X) Jof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been: y2 H7 m7 c6 O5 U$ R$ e# `4 y
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
, s+ r6 p+ ]( |5 ~* _5 O5 r' yWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had+ n+ H$ i" I5 S  G! X8 j# Q
publicly voiced different opinions.
0 c5 ]: @/ S1 P, |0 l% N8 i; ZYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
4 F; ?* Q+ \. Y2 b2 ^from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
6 P! E# I+ h8 a/ _1 q3 |7 ~3 `Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent: n" y: Z, s: m+ Z% r( l" K+ c
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
5 A; J# y0 y* p7 m' |: C! |you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy' ]8 D* M2 u9 P- A
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
* n7 w$ |, F1 C' W' GThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
% d( K7 |# q% h' ethat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They: J" u. Y# |3 Z% W2 Q4 L) ?# z- W1 o
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as5 o8 o9 r5 g& _3 k' u0 g
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
9 |' G0 `* r- O* bthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was1 m6 i+ g- T8 c; g8 a( ?
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
- l' ]) g. u6 [5 Q& R4 L1 z9 ^6 @+ POne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that! ?4 W/ C; c" n' L, e2 W' W
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
3 Y2 r$ {7 `, l1 R" ~6 iChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June) q% e$ s2 p1 L/ b1 Y1 s& p
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
1 h" c: B( B+ f1 c2 hand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.( d* z% Q7 v  j( ^
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
7 W, A) L9 _) zand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
, F4 I6 E  w6 o; y  WDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
: C; I" `* ^# [$ W( X# ]0 Y6 ^( yNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and; \! u  z+ _) f2 `. g
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
1 Z8 ~; k6 b1 d; ?9 G' L( ewhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to; X! T% O" p- a7 o
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
  |$ @9 Z8 Z" KThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not( R; n) {; H2 `4 V4 {
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced3 ?4 p& `& J# B$ a7 s
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather! m) y' ?( `5 f! F
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
( \2 i$ L2 o5 _1 ]1 U  ~this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
+ e+ \7 R( X2 Z. w) U. Dabout British supremacy.
& f3 k+ w. @" P( l  m7 vThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many: @' J9 N/ a* s: ~" @; f
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
8 @) b, t! G: QChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
% C" B2 y" v$ `3 R" ^2 S9 zour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% B& T/ A6 g; e' Q& i% R" vOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.' Z  g  ~; U( S# S' h( H. G
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
( {) Q. Q+ u; U4 g! @professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests* u. f4 }* v3 W3 D+ m$ [( v1 K! ?& a
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
) O  v1 A% Y) wit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
6 j  c6 }6 Q: I# Npublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
, d3 }4 l! i7 u* e2 DNature.6 ~+ P' v5 ?; F0 v  i
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance; B% I8 L+ [" l" T
the Callaway report.
/ x, z" F4 E# s- t6 o, F0 r/ F# M
' |. u' p: p( B) Y1 J( T1 r0 Y; xYi( V2 o2 C. [# D$ y6 E1 D: `

) ^, j: y2 [+ [9 bYi Rao, Ph.D.4 J' Z. S/ B0 z/ b
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
% @& |: D# T" b9 c6 d2 K/ J& pBeijing, China; Y, `( J9 f- o9 @
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 5 u4 X# i/ G* |" c" m8 v  X
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

6 U- @& ~/ ^* q6 w1 u原文是公开信。9 Y8 _3 T% ]7 d: l  n' m

$ c  a+ Y- O1 \7 |- O& j9 G8 I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
7 @" t" {/ g7 J/ B' ?原文是公开信。+ l" U, G& z3 U7 |9 z: {' X. Y
, w+ w6 h" n; x$ E# D6 z
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
% P" x9 W2 p* i6 S; t1 u
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG+ H4 t% ^9 m' R: c
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。2 p& }1 T' Z) l3 u- J/ Z4 J
" o( w! @7 X* v( Q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html: H8 N+ n( w2 [

( K' V3 h5 q$ w" t5 v& }$ oFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 A* @1 E5 h  t; o( Z

0 q/ w/ j( T! y$ V/ T" dIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
- r: b/ L8 d) |, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 @; ?/ j7 t2 a2 j
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this* e4 F$ Z4 _# ^. E8 k2 ], B, @
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
" c7 v7 K/ c+ f; A; Hscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 y. V* z* d- d& L1 J, C9 v3 @  b
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" V" V$ E8 {! e# M6 ?3 U+ L( o+ T
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
) l7 x/ f% k) K/ Hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
1 ]2 e5 _. o6 k, w# J# y7 Q$ L2 \! I
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, d" o7 c! X; @Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
5 Z+ k6 Z  ], N3 Z( B* [7 N2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
+ f! \, {2 X+ X! X2 k1 V, Qanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
- h9 |2 H) S$ P% \! w& ~; m7 Npersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an2 [6 P1 S2 y5 l# |% v/ x) ]
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
  r% z. A" [& m1 d( k- z8 odifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ x% n9 l& V4 k: N6 J+ obe treated as 7 s.& `# g  r' H' p! D/ }$ ~

( d5 I! B* a, E* z8 N# l1 R' @$ {: lSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
1 e5 h  C3 V& H6 @. N! Z  W0 K0 A$ @still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
( o# J8 ~+ K* [* d+ rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.2 A# S- H7 S  b; I' |3 g
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 C" ?$ p0 |; @6 [-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 M& i# F3 t2 c7 ^- dFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an. k% T2 Y9 w0 L* r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
9 ?: K; G0 ^+ X5 O7 b6 v( W6 b- epersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”+ h0 e! B: Z9 T" p' o' \9 t
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.; g2 T( M4 }  q
" d7 s2 ]' ]7 k" u5 l- c9 w
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 o4 z0 s' k9 b& e
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 e0 g5 e* ]7 s: _1 r% c: V
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
! {0 l1 E3 n0 ]7 B2 Khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( d* c" v; z8 }" C6 y; B
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% P- _) F5 m3 Z- y3 V- ?' O5 Z
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
, a  `* Z8 [' x) L; }Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
6 y, d1 i5 b' W/ _6 _topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
3 r# [( o2 w: p" D2 L7 ]' Yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 c8 b2 `+ K4 G( _. b: N
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# ~! I) N8 b: i2 estrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% R, f) c: [3 W; O" S. G2 _1 T& \' Pfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* {! x$ ?5 x3 G  N/ Efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting. E* ~, R( _' g2 `# k* l9 n$ A
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% y" ~( [+ t8 A& {" k# _/ S
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.7 R  V" K9 q* \6 V' s% [( s0 H  B

! s( }( }1 \0 w, X* I% e5 h; yFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are8 @8 i' L; i/ p* a1 z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.935 u, Z1 G5 V# c) U- t7 y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s  f6 q  a% U0 \
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns5 d" m9 r! i- y4 D3 ?: e2 Q
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) ^" q  I3 H! h) aLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind( g" [! \5 I3 ^1 l+ y0 Z; e( H7 @
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* D& t; l; G) Y+ d# V% T) X: s, t
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
/ @; [5 j' d# T+ C; m; p9 i3 W3 Fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 z5 z. Y: W: d) \2 Y7 E8 pworks.' d+ \- Z( Q* u8 C
( `7 P% e; F; c' Z0 T  c0 b
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) A0 u' D) R. n7 D  G; P7 X. l/ k; simplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 X/ _. j/ x6 Q. @  Bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. E  d1 T( l4 E9 O; cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific* O8 j2 }* V4 N/ W3 p& O
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and& [& C8 h& t6 o! R) Z
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) Z5 [- h! s& T" S" O9 acannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 q/ o" \7 U3 D5 q, i
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works# r# k# T) o: R6 L8 B5 l
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( r. i, x$ T9 u
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is6 R6 t3 i7 m0 A( {' J: M: s- D
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) }+ W, L/ T% J6 W  \2 u' ]
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
9 d# Q$ }8 R; qadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 A  w3 B' ]( m3 k) w0 }( k: X1 p
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
3 y% p; S8 t: s2 quse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation* J, K% @; L9 [& i5 ^& h+ Y
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
% e- S- l5 y4 r$ E3 }- adoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may6 M$ {4 N- f1 Y) w/ I8 W
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a3 {# g0 `0 B) `0 w0 L: _/ Y" D
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 C3 H% ^" G' }1 f# l  X
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
1 T( n- b4 g9 f' F3 Cdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:, \3 k5 J7 }  S, U
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: _) \9 f+ b4 Z5 `! Y
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 x& U& Y6 W: I' ]) u+ k& v; Yprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an! c, l& m: ^& M- X
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 Q7 d- }5 m9 o) u; S4 a2 E, D
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
1 G, c! N9 l5 d! OLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping" Y" L8 M8 _8 C+ j
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 n* Z" R1 c4 E! n. A
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances., ?- C; D8 }! u  {/ a- g" \
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?, ^2 b- N. ~! m  M( X% ]

1 ]  L8 v" m, t; K0 \Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-1 E! y5 V' e) R, r5 T$ o0 R
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention4 g0 E7 Q! S& T0 D1 B% m# o
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 _0 q1 T# a+ A7 K7 Z+ V1 O- UOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
4 w4 Y( Y( h5 ~) k" E2 SOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 }" M7 C$ e, C+ v7 F8 g" h0 r  h7 J9 ^doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 B0 y/ j0 @/ M2 f* {; {# M4 a
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
+ ~+ e* \+ b! t% m4 S) \have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
8 G4 _" v7 g- g) W) l  Mplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# q$ e. j5 H2 p3 xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
+ J8 ?: H9 h* I, s3 f. Q* [) l
3 R" N* u3 v  lOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
4 @2 c6 N4 T; m* H$ n6 V6 Mintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
! l$ p* ~4 Q8 L3 C" }2 ?suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
; p! a  `& W/ a! d, Asuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ q! H) A) g8 u0 E( Dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 `5 I, U6 a, c3 T
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
7 I$ j& s2 a8 \! o, g, }explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
1 _0 m, O$ s) A9 M% x+ nargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' p$ {7 ^' r- B
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 f$ e# O9 b$ l) ?" Treporting 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, 2026-3-2 15:22 , Processed in 0.128768 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