埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2020|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
& }# Y8 q7 z" b6 H9 P+ d
4 y7 a! X& v* V4 q6 t, W; W: ?饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。4 K7 J6 \- N( V$ U2 Y' ~  n
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。2 F1 A& H. H5 F7 y, O. W
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 J4 c* D- H' z; \; u; t% n

' G# n. s7 C% Hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
% c. U; @; E! H+ n- l0 o
! v, C% P& q+ i" F致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ `$ c$ M2 C2 w0 @. U9 }4 M) d/ e4 M" O/ P
英文原信附后,大意如下:
1 }# r4 e- V" z' L0 {( P! W& U+ a/ {; _
斐尔,
9 _0 F5 b) d% j4 F7 S  E       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
1 M: ]  q! e' nemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。' k+ g9 t& d6 k* u1 ]% J% e3 I/ ]
       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. @# }+ a) b6 q) Y/ C
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
- n2 T/ \: s' U$ b7 F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。
- |& O0 ^- @8 }) m3 t       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) g" A! @1 N1 V+ p
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
: A, q8 {  V6 |  f; W; @: z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
+ L5 ~- ?! u( L% Y' |. 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。. k& l6 g" X# _" V  x
       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! Z& U% W- p+ ^9 c1 G, }$ M
,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5 c2 K7 x1 q; \/ C3 g0 I: P' L
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。0 n: V( b+ l: G5 z+ Q4 I
       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
" l, n9 h& c1 E' y2 |  `9 G+ `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" B! G+ Q7 D5 D8 u6 j; }
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
! a( ^* R/ b# [, f/ P4 `! R2 z       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) B5 a1 u7 \, o  h" W
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 R3 C" S. T$ r- u8 Y6 l
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) x9 m; h2 o- Q4 R  o$ i/ ^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
! M/ g! P5 v( K( b$ [; y( L300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六' o- o/ `, t4 V) H0 q
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: A) j% x8 _; 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
0 M* y/ q2 m4 E。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
* W# S- Z* ~; _" C) ^; \录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 ]7 \7 N$ ^2 R* Y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) s, i, O3 O( Y+ a) r+ 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. E8 T( o5 r, _, P( h
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  n9 [3 y; V# c
同意见的专家。
% t& a0 e- \; {4 q: q5 Y# r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) z# Y; U; |( ]+ c+ {4 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
' Y$ g* {: A0 t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1 ?2 o) D" w2 @* C( |
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
1 B4 c3 b' b" @/ E7 MCallaway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)* N  o2 w" b7 G& T6 ]6 a, z/ D
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
) G2 D1 i! \$ G《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 E* w4 Z: `' }. W, ~7 p这些被Callaway忽略。
, R3 J# W1 f$ J7 X8 B1 w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
* n' Q7 d; o! ^( g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0 C1 k% ^6 s8 F' N2 A* T  m
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
% T$ P+ H) S8 l3 e. 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
: D9 i+ |  N3 V, \0 b学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学3 M. ^; R: J3 v% B. t
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8 p0 Z& E# o5 [% A4 l
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。
0 w7 T' s0 `% l8 `) ~0 L# d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
4 p! s. [# M. S$ e6 B0 k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9 p6 M6 m- w) O1 p2 I
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) a; J# U+ Y& J1 ^- d% @  B5 g6 F
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( A( s4 f4 M: U1 d8 Z
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
: i( k2 u  ]% R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
  b, C5 s8 W% a" V6 {2 j6 ^" X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
$ A6 g; i) S) j' h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
1 K4 h  V- Y- v& }- y9 j4 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
7 E! e7 {6 O! e而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
+ T4 G& x+ J3 Q% p$ J2 t我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。% A' t0 C$ }* d: B8 _

- X6 W# i& ?5 m- P& j, A( f
+ M* g- W+ J0 d4 _: e/ N北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
$ \& N/ E2 n; M3 k3 O& A
1 ^( N" ~$ B) F1 X0 c' P0 D附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
& H, U6 w; Z3 X1 w2 c# P. Y附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email: p/ f5 b6 A! t/ I
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
# v' `- z# \* `4 ]* P: Z, b附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见3 e! X* n; V% u0 z3 h7 ^

5 e' U# e  S2 y6 r( V/ o! {- d" c' b& T4 l
1 @5 k( r; Q7 h( @' i, Q6 z
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ @6 y- S9 d. z* [7 ]3 h' P
Dear Phil,! n4 }. e; L) S) s5 Z3 u% N+ N
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
% l! R8 c( G1 t4 \1 Oreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 D* X! j7 U# N
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed" C$ O& K$ I8 Q: Q9 S: o7 H
you.' D1 Q1 y: Y2 a: h
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have  M* H. \4 k+ n% ]
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese5 w  o( A$ O: \$ J# d" e6 S
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
* O& y, y( Z' Zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature8 _' ]4 @/ o, @! C5 t# S
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
8 V9 L0 L- G4 ]* T; Y4 `, }seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 O0 }. X' F( W' T  B% W
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.3 Z9 h% c2 c. U: H; L% v* `. V
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
+ n- F5 {3 ~  f/ Q. eworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a0 M% X5 U1 C1 Q6 Z/ N
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
; L- G) B; t: |. x! u2 @that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway, E$ g" K6 C; r9 j
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping9 Y* s8 j1 X9 v" n0 ^
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
* w- j: |! z% r7 q7 Qstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,/ N( w! D% }4 t" N
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone) F& e1 Q" ^6 M0 h4 P! X: n
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news- L3 ~2 \# `& P5 a
reporting.
& X8 j$ z) C( ~% c( K# ~       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
4 {, f3 F7 V8 E- ^already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
2 a" J  @8 H: N9 b% h/ J! M) a. Vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
+ o5 C$ k, h; T& `! s. usports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
9 b6 R5 I8 Z+ ?  m5 p9 i/ Zpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.* X+ S& R+ ?, C- S
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem  f& y8 ^! r4 x& B, N
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
! D; Q/ r  m, g0 ?: b; t% ufaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50" w% B; y# a2 t, k5 l2 v$ ^
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same4 `3 ^+ f3 x) x& T: ?$ O
event for men, with the second fastest record.  v4 Y6 c; s- \1 b
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
4 `# s6 Z/ Z5 h  X& {! pwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 167 P: ^  y& z, O- b- _3 z
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record% V/ \* F) Y# [7 E
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400+ z& @( L, J+ Z3 `& m+ Y6 }' Z" Z
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,) \4 M7 r% M9 n+ m
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
1 _* i7 c/ a/ Q, O# r" HLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
5 H+ B- r" s, _behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the0 [* p% s7 \) r+ M
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
, G4 f6 f" s% d; @6 j: [3 I7 W# Ithan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
6 N" e1 x& z, Y6 ethose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
5 J& e* c! y) k  e; Y/ X( Fher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 L  o: _+ h9 E; n! x& y7 H
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “: [( s9 `; y" `
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other4 x; H) P& u& \% u' a# I
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the8 b+ X3 t4 h3 K% }* {# G
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) B4 a; R1 m" Z2 N: w3 W/ u
Callaway report.: U  w- d5 v3 Z( Z4 t. I
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more' b. v# _/ \( c8 o+ z
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details3 _& q; R( }* ?
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
4 `' o% x( v+ {8 }2 Y. nof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been" f# n% L+ D  t( m2 T- m# [
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- q/ ?& _- ^. v5 CWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had+ K6 _# \2 m* ~- T1 b+ z
publicly voiced different opinions.& D7 `4 O- o3 v, v  }
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD4 Z1 d6 }* ~( m% U
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature% ~# s6 Z. U1 Y; K) R2 O
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
7 ~2 Z1 \3 W1 T$ ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 R% p% s/ M( T9 z! f! z* ?you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 L+ q) G  e3 w6 H* _# s8 M7 B9 X) \
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
, Q' ^: y' t1 Z: ]/ LThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think5 [9 N7 d& w# Z0 Z& O- N
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
# e* m# U" A2 L" @& F3 T) xhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
& T; |4 r& E0 }5 R$ }Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that9 s+ V; d# E. T; [% @
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was* ~+ m  @, I% u# l3 C: s
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.' R8 j  M! D( Q9 x, s
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
4 N  X8 a- Z% H" Z& J/ ~many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
( x2 r& w  L( P3 q0 RChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 X2 |1 }# a1 w; P4 Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
- p0 m2 ]" t/ [2 s1 c" `' v4 i# uand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.( f+ M) s  k. B3 R: j
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
. n3 f9 f/ T& ~2 \+ g  dand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and8 G4 A. d8 Z8 Y3 J$ b2 G
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
! e% F8 n6 h" O! p% j  V6 i) k8 uNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
0 t! k7 Q5 a5 }6 vobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; \/ @1 {$ {' h1 h5 gwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
1 l9 q% {* |% |, E" e, j6 brepair the damage caused by your news reporters.! ~4 y: }& n( \1 \
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not6 q5 L. R1 t$ g6 Q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced! q: w4 V: W! [
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather1 i+ r" y. Z2 [* W6 W: F3 A! ^
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that3 z7 x- E) J0 j; N5 C! o7 G
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
1 g, B# G$ z: w) e6 r8 P6 ]  f, ^about British supremacy.0 r5 Y5 J1 h# r' T5 i
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
3 U+ s- r2 Q8 G# Vunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
" w! @, B, O6 K  e6 A) A- GChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
) E9 a- X* B7 j# E" a  r  R5 qour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
3 Z" j6 [, M  I1 S- q, I6 @Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; W  T3 @' q  b( P$ s3 f+ m* ?
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of# k3 l4 `5 B7 I
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 E4 B& x+ O  C/ s0 Nbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
5 O" V) ?8 y+ z/ U, i5 _it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly: h; S: Y$ l$ v( f& J- R! @! g
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
  m1 |# \( o" c2 F3 x+ SNature.
1 k8 A6 X2 A! d7 U2 f! pI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 J5 e, r. f( J
the Callaway report.( L& n  b9 b# s+ w2 C' ?2 ~$ [. Z
6 V. r( z: Z$ R9 Z
Yi' c- {7 M# L. D" C( E
: p. B$ ~+ Z2 ?, n+ h' q
Yi Rao, Ph.D./ ]! b* y2 n3 [! {7 z% A- R3 F
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences- g9 Y' Y" @! [" a! |( a2 b
Beijing, China
; }5 ]* i/ \- V) u& o" l" J5 Y
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
  l+ j* J/ ?  x5 |' K' k& b( V0 S8 X原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
! S, @5 |( {+ f. a1 m% n% c+ C. [5 y% w3 u
原文是公开信。3 R8 H1 a, `% s$ V

$ v; @5 D( o2 V5 B" Q小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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
9 j8 W( q  [9 g% ~原文是公开信。( T7 x4 C8 c$ T- N* t/ p

0 {( B) C! g5 L' f. q小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

, w- C. k& [5 x8 ~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: L- D5 U4 I0 N  W3 l/ W- n7 e
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
1 w0 ?2 o8 W; Q2 T2 C' d" g6 k( ~9 T8 ^
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( ]5 l. Y0 C9 A1 t3 N) U/ i

- X  m( A- d6 V( r3 hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ ~6 ]% ^, Z' k0 e9 h% }
' k8 ~% K" q5 N6 p# l
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself$ G) G1 d$ d& q- ^
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science" J- G5 e1 `2 v1 j
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this* Y( [6 O8 b9 c8 `* z' l! w
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; L* ~! Z9 |9 c% F8 y3 p. ?scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general7 _2 P, ~3 q9 s6 D! w4 L  U4 X
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
( t8 [1 Q$ b$ I) ?  Q9 D: E: z; U: bshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' p1 ?8 v" u' M$ g$ {. y5 T/ u
which they blatantly failed to do./ d3 ]7 _. M( e# `

8 I- {7 }9 ]/ r2 {) [. k( wFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her6 Q; c9 j. u1 i. n
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* B3 z+ R0 R* c1 k( O6 |2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% N: q* [; r5 a
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous6 d( h/ q  L8 j4 H; U
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an: W5 {7 _1 A. D9 n; Z' ~
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
8 G. k7 i+ t! z7 I: i! m# @/ i( sdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
- T9 e% T; y) O2 `7 Xbe treated as 7 s.4 b3 `6 |* C" E, n. t

4 w1 Y/ m; W* ?+ i- e" g7 Z$ Q1 wSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
$ q$ e+ T! c# L  t  U4 X+ Wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 E& }( s* n% H$ p* R; {
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ @. E$ s5 z$ {
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400. ~  q- N/ e9 W" g" M) ~
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; R( Y. @6 J( T2 L# O7 @
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: {" u  E3 o) s6 y- e
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and! D) B, y( j- w' O% E1 a. i. k/ F
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”5 h/ G& G/ _  O$ n8 |. b
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound." p3 m  L& ~7 Y# _" C5 C
7 F" ?0 j9 P% M$ B+ H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook+ l* w/ k( e( |
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in& j+ u! ?1 L% b# s5 W) f5 X7 k2 A
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
4 B6 K4 x, g& r5 a3 V: nhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later5 R' F) ~. o+ R( P
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 N/ j  t  x& E. Q% r( e8 h% H7 h3 ubest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
3 ^$ a5 S: w& O1 Q  F- jFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 y7 [! B; j2 W$ P( ^2 ^" vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
6 Z1 P8 B4 V; x; vhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle! L" T5 e  |4 Z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
6 R9 t- d% g/ C+ Y3 @, I: l* }strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ U9 ^4 h6 T! W1 p4 n! P: g' {
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam+ Y7 ?! r* [8 @4 c
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
& E6 V2 }" s7 p/ E; easide the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- w1 T# m! |4 E. M  k; t
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
2 m% W! A8 O, I. d  B: s) B) Q1 F, e% W% J. V: O2 {" r( R( N
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are) d* N- R% n# h* q5 e
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
/ ~1 K+ O; j7 v8 @9 Os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
& s! S' m; V0 f' p$ L), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns4 m- K  [& y# N) h
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
) t/ F" ^* R5 p' a" P8 `Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind5 C4 K. z7 C% N) e0 X$ q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it: m$ k2 P8 j. _9 C
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in3 n1 n; T9 a) g% y- r2 P7 o
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ g- g& E4 e$ o6 \. c2 `/ pworks.
! G8 O  K! S, i  q$ G, E9 }' i# w) E; V  n1 L# m
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
* e: \( p4 ]5 himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this, V9 t! [) E$ B/ c
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that2 e6 ]  \+ H# Z$ w
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
9 h: ]" B4 n( w( w# dpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and8 E6 Q" M7 F0 v* p
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One6 i( N' G7 ]( G5 B$ M6 g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
6 s6 S/ l6 b" R$ L, {demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works7 J( x, ?% L0 Y6 b% p
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 i: C- L, K$ [4 K$ _is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is- i3 `  I/ @% ?% X: b
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
- V! }9 u$ M$ ?- Qwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly$ A$ q! r9 g" l9 ~* l  J8 t
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
. x, d2 o6 R* I% b0 N/ rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 l- j3 M% v: D+ o) ruse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
6 b4 \; @/ a# ^" X% l5 j  P* }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
' G. k3 _0 p5 C; W% X% Odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
' l- _2 ~, a9 U: Y2 e* @, @: Y; [8 xbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) U, ]+ a4 g3 B2 |: k/ q
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
, p5 z* m$ L$ d9 Z' Z+ I9 jhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) ]1 ~4 A2 X: y1 i" R! E
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% J' b/ [* [" @7 p! n% u
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 i7 ?6 z: r/ T! o1 A) B
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is" w% y; I9 z$ s: c  m% z
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
0 e7 G( q3 i* k; o" `7 m6 \2 fathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
* g$ M! R2 |  s, n2 F& Ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
' a* I7 S5 n# `9 s, [9 cLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
& Q( E0 l1 S' D& @) l" Sagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
! i% ^: }7 _! m- ?( D% W* ~eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
5 X: c3 f* }9 f9 c4 G2 MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
$ a! ]  h6 v$ M" M; Z& N6 u
# R: F5 A: \1 q9 F$ z6 HSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
* H  D: W; g* T8 J. C0 a1 A1 a- icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention6 {* B& [* ?3 p+ t& W1 T  u
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
: O% K/ W# Z, D& EOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
* [" z; U$ G& a- J8 c" FOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 [$ y! O5 a) }" r$ jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic  C& f; F) ^) E2 n, a0 Z* B
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope, C/ r' g# ]2 z8 q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a5 }& X. B7 \2 |
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
+ Q  L  M$ U# Y7 `, Qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; I2 \8 V, F& T6 h: L
( Q9 J' K: W$ `1 B. D, M' m  t& D5 nOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
% u9 r! E+ j4 ^3 ~& g# s9 p; Q' c' {intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
& m+ f, {: ]* E' msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
5 s5 }# t2 E" s# S1 S& |suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' \1 h) Z( S; b) Nall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your- W  g; V$ O! F1 t& g- U
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ y- f' B: K3 h& ~
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 ^( M4 o# N1 h2 L
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal: S! ~# a/ y7 Z1 [9 u: |
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
4 \- m, |% P) S$ }+ q1 \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, 2026-2-11 08:02 , Processed in 0.139407 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