埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2015|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 1 T: L: q+ t2 r7 {' H
5 y# M  ~) t$ B' }* U
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
- K/ H6 r1 i6 V2 R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。( q! f( b, W7 g  v$ |& R
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
+ t7 Q3 I( E& P0 T) \" Z3 I& M- d' x) f6 H! ^' {! V/ z
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html( v- m* a% p- h/ i
) B+ G, y, F. E$ V( p  k
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选# x5 x0 q0 A( ~2 w, B) b

0 n; H/ }+ p7 r6 l/ K英文原信附后,大意如下:
2 W  S0 x3 `0 I3 M  m+ r; s5 @# ]* X1 r8 l  n( B, b
斐尔,
5 p. S8 O% A" n; [' d" h% o       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$ v' Y3 e: x  N2 H
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。) t; t1 B! ]# d  @
       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* L" j# _2 y/ J. u- N
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
% T" K" @+ d, m- d5 u* R# Q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。3 g+ _0 h9 y5 A3 E5 I( M
       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, i; a& [" g  Y6 |
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; c: P) s4 w% C6 G5 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) w3 U4 ?( q2 Q" D% e8 N
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。  Z- T0 T0 Z( U! O- H
       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
1 r2 a! n! v1 k* T% B,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9 O2 s! M6 F9 n1 ?: E4 K( A
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( H5 I. u/ f1 u% V; u6 ~$ q       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" w  f! s! [6 {, A8 v; \" T4 ]
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8 }. Q5 C, W9 }! F
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 Z8 `' I5 S: E1 R# D  ^0 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; t( [8 m, P6 {7 ?/ `$ V/ I9 z
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
- I3 T* V4 {* s. R* y合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二3 M5 R: |8 f4 K
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6 j( e  [) C- d* X1 c
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" X( n. |$ R0 M2 n; D7 h4 k
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& b/ c* g  k. h& Q
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6 N. G* {+ \0 W" J, 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
1 H9 l2 B, x- V, h* ]录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ }& K$ K& v8 e9 k$ `
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
& P3 ^0 x9 S: g' Q8 q1》,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5 U9 p. t+ }! k
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- e/ U. m' p7 {" u
同意见的专家。9 M, j# k3 q: F% O+ }$ t, \
你应该收到了"XXX"博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的. _: u# U9 J4 b( [/ 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0 s+ U6 o9 W9 W: H0 @! e( ]
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
0 M0 t- h1 f- k《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
# x# X, B7 f7 t; p) a0 T- DCallaway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)/ g( h: `$ b, X4 d2 ]: R3 K6 b
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& P; K8 X5 @5 O8 K! 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
2 Q3 N, j( O$ q5 B' e* k' _这些被Callaway忽略。
. h. O. V0 H: |; |, _; I4 v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8 V" u: b: l2 W9 f
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* `4 H4 n( F( A6 h( n
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
7 y" M8 g3 t' l' O) }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
& y% N0 |- j! s1 _! u, l7 s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5 y5 \8 n7 T. u& i, A, ]2 P' K4 s& l6 m
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
" a% n! R3 d% q% n4 i) X- 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。
# s' }# B! b# l; S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% N& l' ^% _. i0 \/ y! X
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7 Q% ?2 _: ~! {2 B3 A
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
* K( s, B+ }& Z* N”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
" d4 @  d! h& |' O( D+ ]4 b7 K" U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
  J/ W. {  ^7 R2 j9 i2 y1 @+ K弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问0 O2 x! O% @, i' a6 }
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4 ~$ h, f& x- R; L3 v' W% ^
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
7 c0 @5 ~8 L+ w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
& i5 |" P+ E; F9 ?! r而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
) F4 y7 T6 n* ~7 {* y5 h我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: [8 P9 p! k3 A1 Z2 [% M& i
+ x; b, z3 D: D1 f' N( T
" V" v7 z3 F; X) W/ F- f
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
9 l, ]  ^, S4 A8 x* v6 M" }6 A: Z! x! n2 H' [
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结, i- h1 B- J% y$ r
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
7 ^* n. H3 J! V  d  }附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见) n1 L- l" y6 g2 Q
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
- b3 `2 u) D& s% d/ o
! f, f6 {/ s3 K( x5 ?
; B" J# @+ N1 K5 O( m6 k. B; }
; b- j2 d* n- r- q) }原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
8 b! V0 m) b, a) W7 f5 ^# \1 ~Dear Phil,
1 p6 P9 J; ?# j4 h* ?  }3 V" ?+ N       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
; K9 M4 X$ q" J6 D  Freport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
9 k, i' [2 d) e  X$ U% P3 Yhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
3 v8 ^8 @4 C( Q; ~you.( @3 e8 b/ i5 y7 o! A% z
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have5 [8 p3 _8 l( ]8 S
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
% {) c; F5 {! nreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the7 T# u2 v" m! x! o  f8 x& J
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
) G, w+ r! s6 r9 n. }+ Ppublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more- U" L8 x/ ^) u! X
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news6 ]4 Y4 {: K; Y) O% g  B1 D. W
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. T- ]  p1 G8 E( L4 Y7 ?
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
7 n& c0 r7 M% V& w% ?$ I" T, F* vworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
7 I7 @0 h! n( l$ l( V" U* l5 ~negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- \: a8 l/ v0 x3 ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway8 ?0 o! y6 g+ Q' i2 {
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
4 r) T% C/ \* c( f: N* Nexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal0 [1 m$ f! }9 k
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,5 w) H+ `5 q- w1 U8 W; f
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
: V6 \# r1 I0 z$ R/ T( |5 e/ O+ `to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news: s3 L2 D, t: ]& _/ }+ o& }2 C' D
reporting.- i+ n% W8 {5 |/ [
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have9 ?% [& K- s6 i4 j6 t  F  e+ s( d
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
5 r" x) `3 T# L1 a. uchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in+ X3 d) j1 s2 B' X* C- U
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A; I6 v, Z6 [% k" @
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* S, |+ e: C" V6 o& T       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem/ N% W9 t& a" t
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds  |9 t9 m8 b4 S  U) j+ H( l
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. L7 g8 H3 P6 y( ?% ]8 j' @
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same! ]+ H: l) Q4 ~* j) |  c' ^, d$ h8 L
event for men, with the second fastest record.
# m* J9 B  h$ \9 u& H       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye4 f7 H! t3 _4 X5 C$ z
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16. [" t0 D% p# C0 e
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record* R$ J9 J2 k6 T) _+ X
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4009 Q8 Y  p2 R( [6 q9 [* P
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,) |1 p: N- v" }% M% s( g5 B
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" R2 a7 i7 D) h% w* _7 D2 j& Y
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed3 T. @. Y1 t7 {/ ~$ A7 T. D* E
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
! D- n0 h; Z7 Mindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower+ T" i  D( {! r% D) d$ b- _
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
8 g  G$ l$ k2 w4 hthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was* _* a) L0 i6 g
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then" L! u, m, x; Q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
; F' m' c2 k! z' |2 eproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( r2 P& c/ k9 kswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, y. w$ j  ~+ G( Q6 H, Fteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the. ~6 a/ m" K0 \: X
Callaway report.
; Y5 s4 }8 z# o! uThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
- `8 j; t- x4 N# Funderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ G# @7 Z2 `) @6 z" Y7 h  y% D7 }here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
! B7 Z: I. P: y$ }9 O* jof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 j- E# `) t; Y& I  w% h
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
" |5 O4 z( g' w( `& Y9 H' iWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had' d2 Z$ j3 ?3 f5 o( E- D
publicly voiced different opinions.
; j* m+ C0 Y8 G9 JYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
; _- A5 a  z$ e/ i2 Ifrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature3 i+ R% x. ?' f0 u( G
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent; O; _( @7 v5 X6 N/ f
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds- A$ m' V! n& |' S" f9 x0 q# p
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
% c2 M$ A/ S" f3 A9 X  k" dof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.! D. l- T9 O4 Q2 u5 ]0 r
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
5 |& \! v( p! G- {" m: hthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
1 t, n4 C" I. W+ n, thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
- {: R7 E( {. R/ wAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
( f* `* x  P" S( F5 M4 Othe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
# s1 K4 J- }% }. v$ P4 zsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
4 j& S. u# @  ?. zOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
/ L4 H6 h5 V* u! X* Xmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
* F& e( ^4 v' O& I; _2 q" gChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
, l4 S# Y! M7 ~( V0 g' Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she, m- m6 z% A- v8 f. w9 V8 [' l
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
2 h9 {8 S, h; JThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science" ?: E4 h) R+ n2 a$ H3 A
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and2 u- T; e$ H. q6 x9 B7 S9 @- C! N
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.% c; z/ W6 w; K; G: E, z" g6 [
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and- `. }0 P( g  r& Z% k3 Q/ d
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
( K# x/ F7 W; Q+ _what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to7 x) b  L0 l: k( d( Z/ L" B
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
" U0 Y( O& u: T" X' n' h( e' MThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
# Y: g( [  O, `& Oshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced0 S% k! M; J0 a- `: O- L5 G7 A( {
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
0 }  K; K8 M& D, p/ Tfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" k5 N9 o/ H5 q
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
/ e& [- I( J; I/ q+ n/ ^8 `about British supremacy.: n: r( g1 y+ |* n% F' y) W4 K
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many+ A8 Q! c4 L8 `
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
- M: Y& t9 E; E- r8 @Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
) V2 |! W" c% n# R2 Vour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
) l, ]8 X$ w  X$ G+ aOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
+ u: p0 O1 r7 ]  s. eYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of+ p9 z! l8 x1 I
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests7 ^% C' A1 c- e( r! h
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
0 r$ w3 G; |  x8 n" p* uit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
6 I$ ]" g9 G) Upublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
+ e: Q7 X9 s6 w$ w# y0 HNature.0 m5 {8 u: M/ q8 l) V
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
, ]" w4 b2 J* v' zthe Callaway report.1 Y' ?4 L4 O& B; G8 U; }+ X) g' ?
3 l- A/ R1 O% e4 R) d
Yi
' L. {. @7 o% G) @. D6 w
: B: u1 k# R" k. |% CYi Rao, Ph.D.0 T& e4 z/ x% |: t. `# J/ }8 D9 D
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 f  ~4 K3 s* kBeijing, China6 R7 @% f( P4 ?1 p+ B/ P8 V
理袁律师事务所
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
) r" C7 d5 \& s( j1 a1 w, i3 }: Z原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' W8 P7 O  P( D+ d/ z原文是公开信。
4 N; H2 w& Z' @% w' [; ^: M! q/ @3 E! |( n
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 ; b+ i5 O3 @! A6 r3 P* d/ @" {
原文是公开信。8 @1 F* @" j6 K0 b8 z& C6 U9 X
$ p- X/ g4 e& M: @
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
0 K' G& d$ p! Q* o4 R
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 JIANG8 k) s/ Z- N+ b8 f
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。9 ]3 d! a) q+ k# Z3 n% J

* t0 D+ B: Y. d4 X1 @# d5 O0 thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
* {$ E# R* T0 X' a% A7 D
9 W+ ]# D9 k0 o% l# l3 MFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ ?; X6 K+ |( J7 Q! d
: o: \. e" ?# z9 ~
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 Y7 V: n, j0 ?- y3 v, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science! q  a2 y3 Q" K
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this3 [3 S8 p& h2 q' n% k# D7 G; O
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
% T2 d9 V% F- W3 Nscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
% ?& A0 w# Y6 N  opopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
  y" W) f8 P4 F3 `  \! G% m: G' jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,( ?& B. b8 w( C0 g
which they blatantly failed to do.
& Z( M2 I" F+ @) f9 V7 C0 V! C1 c
* |' G. ~: f/ B" A4 L5 `2 vFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ U7 ^, y5 z! n8 B1 WOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 \9 C3 U3 [( |# y# l2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* t2 q7 q  C5 n0 s$ z4 danomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
) q) x4 _  v/ kpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: I( n; {  f: H5 [6 {# g9 E; r3 Jimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
* {8 P3 x! q+ e! w) W4 Y3 v$ o. ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to# N+ r' J! R' W; U
be treated as 7 s.
* |( k' }+ E& g
# J3 S- x1 d+ U: W0 R9 PSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! M) G! k5 j% Mstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 K# u6 z7 {" Y9 ^& q5 k) R7 N- e
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- ?( U4 ^+ Z8 U/ ]
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
" a* T) E! [- b3 \: b0 o: x-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.) Z& y0 M+ \9 L) l2 L. Q6 Q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an. y. @2 D4 h7 X- V
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and& ~, ~" x* z+ K# Y; E
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”; f6 X& o* M+ G
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.( x$ o' @3 \; P. A9 R& M2 m3 H
2 r3 I  ~. O5 T, _
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! K+ a9 u  W1 C( B' H& f
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
' K  N9 {9 T# [1 T- w2 athe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. m: X0 Y- ]. qhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later0 }; t2 u9 \1 o
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
( K' X  P- e! E. Kbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World0 O. ?0 V; a% L" Y8 P0 j7 y
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 [9 j, N/ Q( E3 h5 Ftopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
4 d( o0 J4 g) i% J! dhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 X5 N- }5 a8 q3 z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; g2 J8 O! a7 e$ o% a' z+ ustrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds% d8 C9 @; M! ^, q
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
: f. W# y. Z9 L/ C& Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting6 S- d3 C& n5 C1 M' H
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that& d5 g9 z( e9 u4 P" ~- u
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
- L7 ~7 q9 F+ s. _8 k4 u& [5 ]% H- V( W8 V
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- r+ ^% ?4 c5 c3 A0 R5 q! _$ @. ufour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93* M: o( S/ e8 L1 p# _
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s3 z$ O  @0 H$ A- [9 z1 Z' o
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
* i% A& e# ?$ k' mout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
# k7 I# u; V8 Y1 c+ v0 tLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; ]( j) G1 s4 m3 g, ~of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it5 v, b& P2 ~+ P0 ?8 N3 p
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in4 c0 h0 k! v. X$ N8 [2 B
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ I. L5 A) X  S/ j9 i8 _works.; k  E, y; m" b2 _5 C* w9 j$ A

" d' ]1 J  N" ]; @, EFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
9 t# g9 D4 Y: R0 J2 Qimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
3 D5 v6 G5 T0 y8 Bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that5 z9 K, a" b6 j& q7 Y: L: F- p
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
/ h: P8 \: T$ J0 }1 S3 [* Z/ b3 Kpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and0 c4 t( N, c4 L% e1 o; n$ \/ j7 |2 o
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) ^5 ~# n, |% y+ J3 Ccannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ m, _0 z$ C( i5 Ddemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
7 j, c. V7 t  T  C6 @% z7 A' Jto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample1 j5 D. Q& g: R  q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is& A; S! o% J! g4 ]0 M7 ~4 d
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
+ z* O" e! F5 \# Q/ C0 E6 S+ _wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
- h! K# O* s4 n8 Z  h+ A2 f# H5 [! Gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the5 Q/ ]4 f9 L3 U
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not9 z6 l" b: ]3 d, j9 w
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
& ]+ C# ^% ~$ }8 }+ a. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are) X. r/ D2 P* Q( M7 i  B" f
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( g) P% r: K: A+ Xbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 A8 }2 ^! u. P  e7 ^hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
2 f( ~7 z+ w. G, xhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) l, [# z$ p& j  f8 E& I" d% q
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:5 T4 l7 d( t7 ]0 y; T
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' C, Z, D0 i" T; Y  {" _- g1 K2 |
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is) A8 q+ G! r4 r/ R7 _0 J* d
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an. e% R( k7 c% b7 Y; y8 K3 H# `8 H
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight7 }3 E$ k9 R5 ^) ^* B+ D$ q5 `
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
0 S2 j. ?" b& w' E8 qLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping/ R0 k% P% G6 G& V: t. z# H- s
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for2 A& e$ ^7 s) \' t0 F
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.! m" V  P" T5 Y, x" f
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?. P0 d6 k# N) t# E+ L1 L
5 X7 E: K0 x' w+ e$ v: R1 o6 m6 M+ [; w
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-) O5 g- I8 ]; e+ p  y3 H* s
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention: g$ X8 D9 f2 r6 H, }2 l: J
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 N" V. D( ?& R. sOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ ]* H6 `; p5 B6 |$ ]! OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for6 W+ K" @) y) r% K8 Q. M! @
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
5 h% H" G( K$ R1 l1 vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
& q/ J2 o6 e* l1 I2 E' z( M% V$ Ghave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
9 w% M4 `1 p) Rplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this3 X  X' P' {( K5 |* h( t
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.8 n9 w: Q# \3 Q8 ~

. [$ M# K) [/ e9 W8 ?Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (; W: ~; O4 z; r
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
; r" E4 M7 A1 r% k& ~7 v$ psuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' q+ t' W( H9 Dsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide8 ^$ n5 w8 r$ p4 X9 m  @- h) `2 r
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
0 u" N! ]6 z' P0 v6 h- ]9 v! M; ]interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" o) C6 l  F2 s6 N# Iexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
) N) u% J6 D6 V6 b8 P# U% }argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
1 G* S' Y! u: n! ?9 ]1 W8 p  Ysuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
: d0 s& b. T( ~. [: creporting 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, 2026-2-10 12:51 , Processed in 0.236399 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