埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1896|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
6 Q8 [6 H, S6 t: D- B. x2 n. }, j$ h( i+ L4 N0 m# b
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。+ @& |8 G: G9 x  c& F. a: U
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。5 V$ A. C: t) D. y7 @3 N# k
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
  E( u/ _$ i1 Q* d0 U5 I9 v8 q4 e
) K+ _$ v( }; Y( Q, \" ~http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
2 a! C8 h' H* y( m8 h
6 Z3 |0 U& \& E* C& Z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
3 W8 C7 T. W% P  @: k4 {9 R0 w$ b% C& t; r9 |5 T
英文原信附后,大意如下:0 f1 G2 r  n& X
9 L( w) ^" O; e2 P
斐尔,
4 d6 R$ b' Y* q       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
, e4 n. u, v/ @& A1 N- C, t, j9 Bemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 z3 \5 y+ Y* N       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
( |) t5 }* D  O# O/ N' G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
) e2 W- X6 ^5 W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。
- y. J3 \' Q# @9 i: x8 |" A) V- [       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
3 j/ h. y+ R- h6 `3 [0 X( 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+ n( ~: K0 d4 S$ ?/ w# _4 E
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
6 D, V# n% C3 h6 J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。
$ |5 c) \; [; _$ E9 S       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& Q& W6 R1 ?0 w  ~; k3 l$ ?5 }
,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 j) ~+ G+ h9 ?- v7 G
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
- `, d$ M: w$ 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
; b  l& d- ~. i% A3 p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: a* N% p, }  [# p5 T. P7 _! R
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
& O& ~# B8 M5 K4 V7 y       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
& K; @+ o" v) M$ G9 ~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/ p4 y* S$ _; V" n6 D8 O" t
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
% x' T2 e4 P  r) t1 V2 a. ~; E& m# 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$ s* Z$ m' J) `) f6 @
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" h# `2 H4 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
. p0 Y* h- a& p% R4 s/ X4 ^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
. {# H( {* V( h5 ?  E1 M. p。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
" u# Q" H8 k6 ^6 Y- K  `录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
1 O7 W+ q5 S. `" [1 _# B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: p( C7 N" ~! D" l5 Q
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
9 Y8 ^6 k) M; L; U# P: ~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
2 j) s/ x/ g2 _  k! Y  M同意见的专家。$ ?- \! t' ^- D; k( G
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
4 {, H2 _( O! f: F! v0 K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
4 N  O1 ?- b$ p: O/ `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$ a; q" F  h2 L! ]7 A; |
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。: s$ p7 |' y. i9 q/ Q/ s) h
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)9 j+ E% G0 b, l0 h/ x& t3 q. @
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
2 A) s  m# N) p1 {# A" b" Y《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% K) t% Y+ |$ |
这些被Callaway忽略。
5 W1 O  a# M! \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& h: D$ S* r# H
英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
8 }& ]. Y& S9 K% e教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. S# N% [6 B: P; p* P+ a
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/ q. N- H* q2 M! A4 `3 w6 l
学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学
  N0 y4 f5 O& V8 |( i- u/ k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
. T9 w5 y9 A  t+ g/ ]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。3 n$ S% |* D' z! W: z" K6 F! ]
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8 l2 F8 ~( e/ G% p' A" L
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6 p: ~1 k0 \8 M3 {4 ~' {
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
6 V$ T3 T  [0 W( [9 n7 r5 {( {2 M* |”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
  ?/ b1 `9 P( _: {. \( U% k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
/ q' L& E) n' Z, A$ V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 i& H* [- r4 \* i4 H* C; R2 o! B% U
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1 L( f+ Y( G- r+ R0 S
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
0 n3 y$ Z- v  l- S6 ^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
. e; T) K2 T+ }* j7 L而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ k/ q* m: Y5 D, A1 K  W. C. @% S8 x
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
$ d0 Q: g+ L/ K; T) ?, B8 u* s* {$ d7 h, [
$ i- H9 u8 E5 l
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: o- y, h8 Q" |1 S2 C6 G
" q  d7 t& l" ^2 w4 n
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
" x$ A1 {0 U/ f' Q附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
/ s" ?" p2 l7 w: W附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见7 M0 F" R5 K9 ]. T/ F! s
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) o+ |7 B& f/ m' J

& e5 s3 g1 K. c' ?% g
% D3 ]1 v( R7 p, B; J4 d5 F
  L. {  K* O) }! O  C: V5 R0 `原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)6 S9 U, ~* b6 J# D' _; H
Dear Phil,0 k: V' d9 Y% y+ T
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s& ]8 m, v0 f% P5 S1 F
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 205 ^) _- p' E# M( ~4 M; V6 E5 S8 W
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
- ~0 u" ?( M3 \! l/ h0 y4 h( C) G  {you./ J) F( d/ k, I; \3 O
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; P9 M: c7 z- V7 N* Qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; D) e5 S( N, b2 Zreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the# P" C  c& Q( w( i' L9 K
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature1 h. p3 l  D. Q+ w3 `
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
$ s* Z1 L& J8 A7 v6 ]seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 {, Q: d7 K, g
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
" Y  B* ^/ ?7 Y2 S7 l0 L       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the& F" g; @& X& p# c
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
1 W! M+ D5 ?3 g0 bnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
; e. M" g( F7 R; W6 J9 S" j9 g$ Xthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway  U2 n: F' n# q  k& ]+ R! Q4 G
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping% f; a% o8 A! c/ D8 ]3 Q
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal' h, j  a* |# X; J, p0 O; `0 n
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible," w- ?& H$ n" K- h, v$ D
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone9 s# v( Q; a$ [3 p
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; e( M) z. w1 r2 yreporting.
  v: t5 p: i0 a: R. i       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
9 T. A' u; Y1 T' n) G  x9 ^already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
+ ]( m/ \. p& Z+ Echanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in6 w3 y/ Y4 G0 B! d& z
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
% `1 a, Z" Z9 b! t$ d  B" ?presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.& P: \. F- u0 Z
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 f8 i0 V* M  C& _more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds* y$ ^. ^0 G# S& E9 j
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50& j) [8 M9 [& k3 L
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same8 L  W; \0 c$ }( Q: i
event for men, with the second fastest record.  W: g% ^+ Y5 y0 k! g
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
/ b3 \6 R1 {) G+ S/ \) M4 kwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16) m  |" h* z7 X
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record# Z/ l& C+ ~2 z/ K
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 {; e/ }6 O: j8 {  ^
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,  q6 O% p+ m) M
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than. V0 B' f0 T! c$ K% f4 h
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
8 k* B4 j* S2 e) Z0 _& Ybehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
* @7 n" ]; D  P3 Y; R( Windividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
4 I, J- ?% r0 T5 qthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than- ]# t: F  A* _5 n& `+ W
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 Z4 G& ?  M) N7 H' r
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then  _, ~. i  k( y* x0 e
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “# r% ^. W8 I# b8 D1 A# r/ i8 w5 K1 w
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other' [5 F5 F# D4 e0 O
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
5 U$ n+ O) E$ u2 l( Bteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the: D! b$ O; Q( m* {, X$ \
Callaway report.
5 L! ^- ~, ]: r4 k$ K4 u6 g* {There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
- ?) m* n: v- _- E" t! junderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details1 c$ W& j( e1 g, j& e3 e9 {
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
" P. L6 O) E8 ]/ c$ E! ]& Mof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
& M! `& `0 R- K( v2 Nbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the! Y% N9 f3 k$ x  D
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
- W) Q4 t# i! o, k3 gpublicly voiced different opinions.; b0 U% ~9 a6 o8 `) \. v$ S$ A2 B
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD: T5 A( U1 L& }, _( T
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature/ H1 i3 n; ]) s4 \. \
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; U. k; p4 w1 a/ N- z( |, Upostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
/ W. Z5 G2 N" Z5 O) Syou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy9 _. C& ~- k' H) V4 V
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue." k% {. E0 O* l( t- G8 q, _
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think/ i6 Q7 F+ m, Q
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
, b' ~, C! {0 Chave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as$ ], M' ~1 q1 A' h( r2 h& S
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
/ P( a' L5 f* ~! Hthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was  z3 k( [0 W) c& s8 q$ D; L
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
4 x. g& \$ i0 GOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that/ G+ ]9 d5 u7 O. H  C) z, a
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the2 R7 J' N4 U7 |" B% R% s+ j
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June; T  Z$ C# W4 K% i/ P
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
! `7 v7 f; Y9 b3 C4 sand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
: s7 D3 l; y9 QThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science5 K$ E9 J9 n: m. R  A" c& ?. F
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* `8 n$ K3 I3 l& X1 A, l
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
' z3 Z0 l$ y  w) gNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
8 C. K# T0 |, Lobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature: U. t/ \" f- L8 q4 ?& F0 x
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to' d  w5 C. B6 [
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.* v# `4 E* W  ?- {% h, j; [+ e
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not/ U$ i  n2 g9 z$ v" ]
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced0 D- K( i' m! u4 ?
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather3 Y9 D  A  E: k/ ^, P4 M
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that3 o( ~7 z$ u0 ?
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”/ Q5 u. _. H' C2 Y# A& `0 V
about British supremacy.* r7 S1 v3 _7 }; w. N( k
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
3 w# G; v( ^+ C8 a& i( Eunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
' U9 y5 J! u) ~3 AChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by# x. b/ i2 V/ T7 E$ i/ g
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London9 V2 t) z$ `! w& ]! I- Z5 h
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.* q2 X& u, c+ [% Q
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
3 i% e, R8 r* O2 dprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests' p" n+ z" J: O# D
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. x2 @! C5 c6 i" w0 E! D0 d$ ~  Sit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly8 T3 w4 W2 p, M! U% |$ p. n
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
- H' P2 H3 l0 C/ @1 R& x$ JNature.  z/ ?! M, S3 b# q% c! i' C
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance. U7 J: k1 E5 ?6 m2 [
the Callaway report.7 E1 I1 N/ u! s+ s# `3 V

/ F: k$ I" a% o1 }& {! N9 wYi
6 d- L# l% J* t# X8 a/ Z# ^9 K3 u& P' w. I: K
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
; l) j5 B/ y! d8 Y2 c$ Z; sProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% a2 Q( B, [0 [3 t& g: W; v9 c
Beijing, China
* |5 E0 d0 K! T) N5 I& I! h, j
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
; ^; g+ b1 U. z! J; n* z5 ^( d原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

, A  E/ e! i; G! z# G9 e: E- c原文是公开信。3 B$ w  b- A# D5 _2 _) D' D! J

  l) S, w( U: k3 v5 j. 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
2 x- m" G3 R8 ~% e6 P& U原文是公开信。
. T9 k1 h' T- k" K
% o! F/ u0 u! ]小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
' a! ]: V/ l! L+ {4 ]9 p
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
$ l3 G4 C0 G9 m$ o8 @" x5 j* t如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
5 _" b5 X7 s0 @6 k- [  U1 t1 s' a) x
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 C: N/ P0 t- S. m6 X/ r; G
0 ~  {6 A6 {$ r* F" Q. L+ V/ f" Z: BFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania  _' r( ?, u) K: s/ l* s
! n$ {8 G5 \7 m' [, p# F$ F
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 R) v* N* r% n: R- O, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 C- D& O1 f" i  B5 b, omagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
$ ~1 C$ W8 Y5 y0 Z9 Q3 Wis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' B' V$ e" h& H% g% Y4 G- ~' d  @scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general2 ^0 _- u& @" j  j9 m( `
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
) z6 y, m3 c' v" H& \# b0 lshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' \/ G( i6 a! a  o
which they blatantly failed to do.1 [. H: @3 F3 v; }7 q$ B

* O/ a0 \5 g) L9 F$ `First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her, P5 R# R) D' w% ~+ @6 o. t
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; g2 }3 P5 t& E9 P2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
1 S6 m3 W2 U6 Y+ {/ eanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
3 Z/ g- g; p1 E5 Z2 opersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an+ h4 c% _" \7 V" Q: P1 B1 C7 Q
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
1 y- G, G) e! _1 `/ ]' Zdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
7 h6 W9 d( @0 O/ qbe treated as 7 s.( `  D6 W  A( E2 W& S+ E

2 U3 X/ x5 [+ X- B3 k( oSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is% ]" @+ P7 w% d8 Q5 o- u: U# F: v
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 j& Z: H2 f, P, i, [impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) r( q& z8 X5 K
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400- R# c' Q* Y: ^7 w, N9 z; k' W6 K
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
) j- d) T4 F: m, W- r# [+ DFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
+ L- L3 f7 @4 F8 M! F$ R! d, F1 {6 jelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
" a: ^2 ]; X) _persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”2 l+ {  l, h% U) m
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ V' _) i. q) j$ ~( U- t
  ]( _2 {2 o3 {/ C' n1 k8 r  r
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' k1 x+ U( u8 B. v% h- [- w) q. Q, @9 w; W
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 `: p, `# {* Qthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so. m" g* N( m) E
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
0 a6 T  P1 ]. Levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s# {0 |& @0 B; b) C
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
- M1 K" C% u+ ?: b1 MFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 a- N: t7 k" F& R# Y9 y3 d
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other  [* n: U" J; v) E( Z
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. d1 X$ @( q- H) t3 M1 e* h# y
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
$ r3 \- W/ c/ Istrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 \  V4 g6 z0 ?  a0 z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- L2 _6 h7 p) j1 R5 A5 T$ ~( z
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting2 ^1 N- l  i# f1 t
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 V% n% o4 q  Q, D# m: B  ~implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on." x- W# b; n9 @

3 _( h8 w# Q& sFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
! {: `2 a8 o! K  qfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
3 b) t5 R3 g- h" O: rs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
) H, b5 l1 }& g  L5 t8 r$ C2 K), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
% M, ?2 M" M5 k) l4 J4 ?2 @' q5 bout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
/ o5 v, o' X' F5 k6 t/ {Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind$ o* x/ L: T4 y4 O
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it1 p! I7 s' e: j$ b9 U) x
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in5 k0 y! L$ ~; Z+ x) z/ W. q% `
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science' ]+ f% B# Q$ b8 I4 @; V
works.' m6 @5 T' d8 v& {% p6 V- N* b

+ e1 W0 \( s+ dFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; {: G2 x- [) timplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 ]$ p3 R) Q2 V  kkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 I) M1 C0 m) w* Y
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
" ]- ^3 w6 R" |! r- xpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
. a. A$ D8 B: j# |reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
5 W, Z  P" g8 g8 N% {7 l7 S9 F9 K. [cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
* M& z4 {6 x9 {8 Mdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% F/ ^) z3 n3 e
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 P% |0 O6 A3 \& g9 L
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is% m" e$ O/ R' P$ R, p: z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
, m/ K* [% V( r; Xwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly& s6 P3 v4 `& M, k
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
$ m/ G/ S$ J! o+ t% ?- vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not5 J! s6 O( w% d" E) S0 ]; M' R
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
6 v# g7 a  C6 i0 |* |2 C. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" p0 H% F9 ~1 I7 u# odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ D) }( r: G3 S' W; p3 N  |% G% i
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 S2 k/ v- F; a
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye, x" a3 J/ x$ v( x2 E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
; ?5 B5 S# z$ }( A# {2 u) h7 zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
  `; M7 ]4 K/ `9 ^1 e1 iother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
- X8 w. b$ j% v3 k3 @+ a$ W( ?, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
2 i* n( B" f/ R" S, [1 l* t+ pprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& I7 ]& g- M% E1 s- H4 A- U
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight% c& d. Q3 ], [. a
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 D; ?2 f. I0 Q8 N5 j, w
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 W& c- B9 X( }7 z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for( }/ J- ?' C$ j* z& L8 I
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 ]: D1 i2 ?) ~. S" uInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
: Y8 P6 L/ t/ {
, t( W' R0 j' {7 J& ZSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
; o, S5 d' `: x# u7 S. a3 |, M: lcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
3 u; ^9 j" |! ~. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for# H1 o0 J  h6 D
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London0 O6 `) X7 h( \; J3 t* Z- @
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
8 X3 s; E* p' P% Q+ b5 a7 |doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, X, [% c& g6 Z1 D4 @) e  ggames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
7 R' l. X. l/ Y, ~! y6 Khave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
  p( n4 M9 J) }& l2 splayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this0 _' d( E4 G3 g5 K5 l
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
: o6 T" n8 z& B: U* d5 e! h1 P( p1 ?8 A& X; I
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (1 k+ b$ d; D: U: ?
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 ?. Z+ Z- K  m0 d4 ^; l8 h
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a* ^6 i7 Z& M) V
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide: B6 c) s) j) E" V9 c* M1 r
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
0 L* W- ]% d  B6 v* q  k4 ^( `/ vinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
, N! ]( p5 K# I4 {explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
/ a2 C, C' ~9 o: y7 m+ _6 }0 I! ^( Rargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal- }' J! H4 L) ~3 a
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or- |' D- D' T( U" i6 p
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!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-12-18 16:29 , Processed in 0.141378 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