埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2215|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 ) s" B5 |; r: U% `5 n
6 X# G  V0 b8 T8 _" k: U
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
% ~3 N+ }9 q+ J1 S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。1 X8 N; _( r) u. `
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
1 W9 E3 o5 }. J$ w( \; ]
% d& Q6 i6 A6 L( }1 z/ Ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! O4 E$ x7 |4 c- f
, |! k  w6 B8 u8 L  S4 F9 }7 z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
. M/ p% W+ }# `# ^0 C# T0 E  l9 W+ M+ u9 p8 x* g9 f  v* O0 Z2 T
英文原信附后,大意如下:2 z- g1 X1 d) H4 H

0 K" H  ?5 m- c% m; k斐尔,
* R- M! l8 |6 O, ~+ l* o4 Q$ m       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( w7 o. c% O/ K; ?6 v) S
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
% q  Q. E3 r" B       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
" l0 _$ l" Q' _4 M5 {. u  m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
2 E3 T: I8 C. B7 v6 [' S1 g* }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。0 v  s+ b/ E! D! X$ W3 {
       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞6 C2 Q- f0 _9 S" |) u$ E# 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
7 j8 F0 L- P& o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7 S1 k1 k8 `  e/ j! T4 _- V
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。
; L3 C- Z; v7 Y8 i6 g  U$ a0 @5 ^       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
2 a( q6 F$ A' N) c; _% R6 T8 v! ?' Y( d,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
+ o3 [2 a3 n6 K# S/ B' j* l( w”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。! F6 }2 Z4 @) W' e, 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& L4 \. \. E8 e  }3 ^1 [2 U
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
/ v- L2 K# L$ a: z,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。3 `' D) a" b. E0 [
       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
3 s$ F* S9 G' \* v7 Z  S& a9 C/ E2011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5 R  |$ ]( s2 V& |8 V' s& n
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二$ [$ X# P/ M2 g
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
  t; t1 N' h8 g  Q* e% s8 z. H300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、六0 m) H# d% {- e# Y7 p5 r; l$ V
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0 U* J- N+ n/ V/ |5 c$ o
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7 |" h; _* H' \( L0 Y& K; ~6 ]
。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记
. t# x) F  r2 q0 R6 V# k0 i' ]录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。$ d' y7 O0 o) w. Z
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$ ^  e  G8 K9 g
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
# p  G% ?" k9 {' p0 bWikipedia。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+ f- x. U, a3 L+ Y( X( X
同意见的专家。
- T  i- i2 ~- m/ Q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) H5 u; y' o4 u( x! `
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
" r; @3 G  ?6 Y, Z3 O( g4 M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3 Q/ E) F1 @- g2 V
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- D0 }2 Y: l8 F9 GCallaway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)5 P+ `  C3 R0 s4 ^$ n, k
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  k  N, h  j8 F1 V
《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0 d0 E. D4 Q( Y( H0 ]& F
这些被Callaway忽略。( c) ^6 P. c5 P# K! R
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
- _* m+ ~4 }* U2 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
+ {: H0 D* b  M0 w% e% d教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。9 V5 @( h; J( f8 d' N
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 c" y5 K% [$ t9 ~8 ~- n
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
, t0 Q* w( [9 a4 Y. x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, u9 o, \8 C9 h
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。
' M3 V& O5 b( Y; ]  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' z9 H3 S+ y7 Y' O( n6 ~
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
4 b# V/ u' q( l1 R1 d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+ B, ~* u$ L  U
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
# a" x6 |6 S: n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
3 S7 `$ [" r6 m( g2 e4 V% p弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问
$ W, {1 P1 O/ t) l/ m5 F6 ^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; f+ m! ]0 T) ?
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
. }# c- m: ~9 v! s. n; C0 s9 _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
4 U" R0 e# t' G而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。6 t# Z8 f& x8 k; Q
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
% o7 N5 E: U5 f( T( h9 C0 u
( X: s$ r9 ~. i: F) ^. q9 I5 `1 }: V* @* F5 E
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
8 \6 Z8 v  w- K( s4 @# }2 z, ~3 G' R; F
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
; [- Q" q# t; y$ _: `: Z; b附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email+ Q) `1 B6 L5 m, n: Y
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见: \4 {8 u$ e' V. H
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见0 D! L( [; q2 M5 d% w
6 E5 h+ E7 Y& ]8 O: {. Y

) j+ s2 r& @. [& r2 y5 T
/ C; a9 X# b: M原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 N1 _3 U% D9 F' l, N+ l+ i4 W
Dear Phil,
! V+ c8 X- q0 a  a5 v! i       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
  q) K8 P, r. B" S8 X9 M5 q& x# Freport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20: i; ^5 E/ W9 w2 _# F
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed8 Z7 A, x3 n) Z$ g$ r6 `
you.& ?8 o) M- \: ^3 @
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have: R! A! ~8 [8 a5 r4 W7 M
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese4 C* X- X. ^4 f( |
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
; B# ~& X$ W( V+ ?: zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
" M( o. D9 G# k+ z2 epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more  Z4 Q: `4 n' v' s
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news# T$ M: c$ |- Z
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
7 C% t) k- g% y- g2 Y       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
: {- s/ o' i6 L" X  Q" _1 A) h7 yworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
6 E/ n  Z( v7 @/ V" I9 E( l6 unegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
, J- y! ^. y; B. K9 l3 \( Y  Dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
. g  @+ B4 `, J, }2 v; ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping1 A  o5 t1 i3 ?2 E( ~. j
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- x  V# w- k( @- z. @# m! V- C
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 v$ m5 v/ |! ]: G$ T9 cand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone4 o; @% E/ I, r0 L: j1 ^, i
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 e9 ~0 @3 g0 s3 r2 ]6 [& w+ freporting.
2 D& V) h4 N- @       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
( E; `8 S2 z. E9 O/ O5 S" U% m7 Z& |" _already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by% B$ G8 V1 H% t& H1 I
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
  r, |4 f2 a; d( gsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A6 m; L; Z- a4 l6 w  x
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.+ N8 C: T* j) E/ \3 g; f! s
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
. n1 x: H' |0 T- x4 Mmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
. y- m  b( a5 C5 ~+ ?& ]. D( `2 t$ ]faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50: T% G, \! Y. n! I
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
4 J, I1 H" {! o& s2 E  m" Vevent for men, with the second fastest record.
' b. X2 z6 w2 {/ g' V$ D       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye7 G/ F! |/ K7 I" ^/ R$ H2 I
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16, C- ~* L0 [( Q( k
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- {7 }" W5 ~4 u; k4 i, Q. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400& \1 `/ h6 T6 W: {4 P0 s# _6 O
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% k' w- z$ R! B: m0 j5 Wfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
0 v# z- h* P" d4 V' }7 k1 `Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ o9 d, v- R+ D4 i9 _$ n
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
6 c+ \. s* X3 |( c, d( {individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower0 F3 d5 y# g: l" y9 k
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than: f& X$ {/ D$ X$ r/ w$ Z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 D# j2 M8 u8 m) \* |2 L
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
, ]6 g* _3 T- l, K$ r+ B8 khe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
$ k' V6 |5 P* A+ D1 X+ Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other/ X1 ~0 R8 \1 V
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
$ T  I8 i4 ^: h! v0 vteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the% J3 ]) N3 ^7 d/ c/ _  D7 \( I7 `
Callaway report.
: l8 t: Y. u) N0 g3 ^$ w( |# z4 `4 ]There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 x' ]$ K  R# vunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ z( c5 B6 R; b3 c, R) yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
+ r, x. D1 r/ @of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
+ I" j/ `  [# D+ r: ~( N0 {better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
8 G( T8 b2 i: s$ {9 xWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had$ N! R0 a- X9 {4 f6 E
publicly voiced different opinions.
9 T! Q$ C' d1 v) j: c8 ]0 NYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD; B' u5 l1 x' l! u
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
! `! C1 I/ X3 q" m; B0 PNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
- m6 z% h. a6 O/ L7 vpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
6 s- v' @1 A, S! k! myou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy8 S; p$ y4 U4 Q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.1 d$ K/ @( J& [& S0 D
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
+ _: V- c/ @7 g5 B. |# |that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
9 L$ w+ s5 J1 y1 _have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as  k0 B* o1 j) X% L4 g3 Z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that& P1 g, O2 E( q% i, N. e" }
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was3 T7 G; w; U& Y# M' |! F
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
+ i6 p3 j/ \+ z* T/ y0 x' E3 C  iOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. x2 S7 O( W% `6 Y3 Nmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
2 t' M* W2 |* A$ w; dChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
; ?2 c1 V3 R) d* ]; D- Z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she- P4 h' ]" B& j4 R
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ `  J, _1 D+ J; g' N) u
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
/ e! z. c4 T- e2 A3 zand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and# I# I/ x9 t, b+ g1 ]+ e5 a
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
7 a5 Z9 ^; \9 h9 yNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and& g* V5 b5 O! `- ]" f0 X. ]
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
, T$ t5 y% q- \  [& Y/ g2 [7 t1 Iwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to8 ?% d. f! Q9 Z- b# W3 ?; W# f" u
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.2 v" C. a* o. V( T
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not, y( \$ w5 |, r( \. t% H$ s
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
# f& |# V& D+ x! _us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 L' c6 x( u& m) `* zfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that6 k5 B! E4 ^% n0 k, O# w
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
8 {1 M8 f3 s3 C4 X7 {. L2 Yabout British supremacy.$ U' I7 Q% I3 h4 S& |, M% o. Q3 I4 F
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many- m) }& C/ K' d6 ~0 O
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
2 u3 E. E2 F5 S$ |( U; S/ aChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
% s( T9 J* a$ B/ `) }$ Rour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London% a) y$ C5 p9 R: Z; V4 o9 R0 E
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ a+ F# S+ A$ {2 n( e( n
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of; D% Y* _+ O, P6 ]+ X: n
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 J5 H/ E0 |  B4 kbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 M" @5 [$ i8 o: j1 nit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly! E& ?9 W% q/ u' C' l' v
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) j) V8 @  s5 i, h) E* qNature.
& O$ F9 y, r, N' FI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
$ W) x& S8 [; E2 a+ V) l0 {the Callaway report.
( Q$ G1 ?, g# f+ ~, `! v" ]' a: E0 X  ?% y3 [* e2 r
Yi- d" z$ D7 M, D% @* K; p

7 N$ A- |$ `% Q! `5 n5 \$ aYi Rao, Ph.D.
: ?  B. E/ @# q( [0 |Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 `, e9 ?7 f' {, g% LBeijing, China
! T' J8 H* E8 a
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。
理袁律师事务所
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
$ i7 Z6 C  g$ D# {+ i& j$ A原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
6 s* F& s/ Z3 E8 P
原文是公开信。
0 @! _- V. b  g% P
8 `% y, B# m. d5 ]4 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 2 I+ I' Q5 E2 V: ^) v
原文是公开信。- ]% ~) f4 T& G8 T; |! T8 W

6 |2 H+ ^1 C1 s+ _! ]7 G4 C! |: W小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

) a% y& M$ P8 t* I5 H# V8 {谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG! @* u5 [; G8 Y8 m9 c0 M9 c
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! U) X. l/ ]% q% [

* ]  O' [' D4 j6 a, Thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ g. A8 s: f# X% O
' `5 ~: U" v& T8 \1 fFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
) c- e1 t& y0 K! N# k* F& s
, d/ V2 ~  [3 WIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
8 j; X- m1 Z- T- I, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
2 B6 ]: H/ @' }5 X7 Wmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this6 g. k& w2 d$ s1 i2 [) C
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the. H' b+ E3 L2 j0 e' j
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
* D, T2 u: F6 P1 T) [populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 v+ M9 D8 n% F/ oshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,* S! M& T" U6 c) Z& d7 e
which they blatantly failed to do.
1 F. e/ f; K. j4 I  _' N! ^
1 f3 k: }! v5 a' u. W, HFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her: N1 a7 I: t) J! {8 a! V9 L
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ a2 }+ o& Z+ D3 p& K& S
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* o  D/ z7 s2 Janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
' x, j, |1 L( f3 e$ k- Bpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an) E* K2 n6 [! [% H) I
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
" h: a, m3 W2 P! n6 o7 N$ m1 O  ndifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 U. w% `3 Z! c' E/ F$ p$ N
be treated as 7 s., q! Q3 a. e: _2 D# N
6 b6 K9 {  ^* P) n
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is2 t. n; K  z* N4 |
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% t# ^( }1 n/ w) c) m' P
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
# K& d; M, D( `3 S8 p) |An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400: n6 c" z: v0 U! J, O
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
6 k( h5 a7 S) o- W# P4 u' AFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' L3 m8 j1 L* B* N5 \  gelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
$ B' Z+ w5 K9 R5 v/ wpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”/ N0 P% M# I) [9 E  J( ~  ~
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 I0 W7 y( W, k% P9 o1 _" n
7 L& u) Y8 P  N2 D& V: aThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook4 m7 X- c( c0 ]1 o' R# N
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 _6 E7 o; [) N& a, Tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! {- R6 C3 I; U
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
0 N' m, \8 s; y; [' m4 ievents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% }  `; I+ M7 @3 K' M- X5 Z8 }best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 d, }0 N) d9 P' ]& [; B
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
; m, m6 j0 f5 c- k7 ^1 `, _topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
9 c: x: f% s$ n4 x* _' khand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ X' x, H9 w$ k4 p$ x- m
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this3 x% e, m1 z: t6 i7 k
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( G3 M% i. r5 t9 I" zfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam! ~- m. d' ^# L' E
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
& _9 d+ i4 z% N7 V8 Uaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
/ e4 [3 [2 k( U% L2 E% @, l, nimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.1 G' d  X) K4 a+ H8 }3 o. \
6 v8 E$ \& F8 W' P' o$ a3 x
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
9 s. v8 m' E; ]+ C# ?& Gfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 W7 Z3 M$ i) E& C: c8 H% r! V) J% O
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
) `. Y$ G2 _/ T% Q8 v+ ?), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ c& h: @: |" h2 i6 b% k; S
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,1 c) J* p: L; W7 [$ g' p( y( A4 s) a
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
1 K. n" K9 }& B9 G: w& iof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it! j& X6 l( s0 s! A+ A3 a
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
2 T' @- j& Q- i+ L7 W5 ]every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 J0 ~4 A+ n2 c0 i0 ]2 Uworks.
! v/ T. F+ Q+ F1 H- j6 E) Y. B
6 t+ O9 h( l/ P( m4 nFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( ^- a; C& H5 h; F+ M! [/ Q9 o' kimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this4 x7 I9 k  d9 d* V# R3 `
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that* `0 ?2 i* }0 s7 c) m
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ Z- A' t7 ]) Q" i- kpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 h$ X- c# c; F5 I  X' V1 creviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- N: p* z/ H% j
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 i( f; u% `  x% E: p: c7 _
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. r' L1 M7 o& R4 D* [to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
" y* _- u- ^* q  T0 \- U" Uis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 u4 o. `5 s9 D5 ?- r0 M  u' `8 }
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
" f4 J$ a' l! z2 b0 B+ n  h* Ewrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
$ R9 F3 k0 e8 j) I2 d1 [& kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
& A" j3 e8 d' X, l" J/ q5 Tpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ Z3 m. x; g& B/ Y7 ~
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation$ G* N. p+ }) a$ E* s. v8 r3 ~; s
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
5 f$ M# g4 X0 G- Udoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may# m! [. l5 n% `0 q7 V/ |
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a1 e. O3 a2 K  |3 k6 [
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
9 K5 D& N# X' Qhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
0 a' I* H. M8 K( h$ f  u/ [drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ o9 ?% z+ t- D! ~. z1 c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect/ j) t! Q0 x. m" a- m6 i7 `
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, \$ x  U: e4 _, A1 l; [probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an' s, Z# D5 X. o; i7 d- [9 s5 }  m5 w3 _
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight/ {4 k" E& o: l, A/ l6 o% F
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?4 ]8 T# F2 y: Z6 {5 P9 c& ~4 q
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# J+ i8 p% ]" q! a$ z2 \+ hagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# L8 F5 w& v2 a' i7 t  J
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.8 U) I* o6 ]. E1 P6 s
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?0 [. s/ X8 e5 i
" M8 h" x* _* w% Q: S( w
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% J1 d5 _* J1 _: d' y4 @
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
2 x0 G) v9 B: M. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
  K5 T* \4 V0 `$ k1 a3 }Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 O/ C1 `$ q0 r8 c5 DOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for; B2 N( |: |+ `4 \, d
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 Q8 Y: V: |1 f% Cgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope: q8 z, Y( J& G6 m( a* c
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
% @- [' k  Z: t: }8 b2 ~player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this& ^" T& Q1 z/ L0 \  f$ B) l: _
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.0 z! }  o& W; o. H
" O* F  }6 ~  D( u! D4 K
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
% {  Z( U1 O! ^' ~intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too6 c( [! Q, }9 S- }
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a' _" ^) Q: d8 ~
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
! E/ w6 q5 P& s! p, I. G/ @all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. C3 [" Q2 O8 v' H; _) M0 Q0 N% i
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
, ^6 m& r. n+ }$ r' x9 kexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
( }; S; m: G8 c" V- n% oargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 v4 E$ }# }+ Asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or; ], o/ I1 l' L2 J4 ]7 O4 p/ u
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, 2026-4-11 22:54 , Processed in 0.171889 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