埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2053|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 ) b. k7 M0 `, E

/ y; _3 ^7 `9 l! g饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。2 U- R; b+ m- K
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。
+ [+ `" i9 Q& e$ n- y总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。& |7 W/ Q  Z* y& w
. ~7 e+ t9 x" Y& c. ]" b
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; A; S! c7 [, W8 a$ z# H4 f5 \( g" e2 a4 g2 ]6 g
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选9 t) K& O: l" p, R
4 r! P2 O& f# z9 V4 L  a
英文原信附后,大意如下:
- Z; c8 \* M. S# ?: ~8 t$ c  h) y9 Y9 S2 k# X" u  m4 p
斐尔,$ F/ Z* @: r+ K/ v' w& v, {7 \
       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
4 x/ c# g6 _' ^3 Eemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
5 d$ r, @0 c" R2 J4 o       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( h( [' k4 ?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
3 w5 Q; `8 D0 U+ q6 r& 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。
* F3 s2 [+ s1 X# I2 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
; R' u4 ?. B( C' v5 J6 e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
& S9 b: a9 r' {3 ~+ ~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
: u1 S. R7 l/ t, 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。2 v2 e! d6 v* j1 m& }
       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* D4 H- C4 X6 c, A# D, C( A
,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
; ?( Y& c$ B3 x* I; E& H7 b”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
: d1 t; a  H9 i. Z       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
, Z: `' B7 x8 P7 i8 C0 B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1 X" V0 j; L" Y) G- Q0 [
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. n" u* J: F; o+ X  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
& G4 w# |$ \( w( H' p2011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# M( E2 v" d2 [. m1 a: b3 a; s
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二4 I1 o& M5 ^# R8 ^0 F, G; @7 S
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
" h6 M+ K: h, T300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、六2 K5 {" K  d- b, {( A# G
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* j4 Q$ ]8 ~  D4 a6 ]* P+ J: s7 h
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
; y5 x. \* a1 a- d2 H。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. @/ m7 M- \+ V/ L; D; x
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。7 Q- Z/ J( O. x; T# o. `
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# T, L) S- I/ W
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: p8 w4 S3 s& Q2 A( t$ D# D
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4 i% ^7 M8 i# G+ p) U/ d
同意见的专家。
6 ~* f8 J9 e5 G( b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1 S8 Z( f9 T; C8 M! U# E
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7 |% ]; c* n5 i$ ^1 F+ `/ ?' 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
: B: f. h7 S: r# Y$ l《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。) D1 W9 ^0 r  T" p, P. A+ W
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)
6 X7 ?2 @- [  Z; I1 S) I6 v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
* j; u/ l& D" m# O0 d6 J2 U. 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4 T/ a4 f# O: q. w  j' c
这些被Callaway忽略。) A  R* y7 }+ ]! _  u% v( u
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
3 x# o) w- n9 m/ `+ X& |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 d( e) a7 O' d教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
& ]5 z# Q: @0 Q1 U  M. Q* s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9 V( F5 C/ H" D3 n$ U  m
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
0 ?& {, K  ]# _- t4 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
4 x( F, r" C& \/ k) o# I+ b; F' B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。% [, f6 B+ J7 ~
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$ F; P. l: e1 d' s; Y4 K7 d; V
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
2 |: u4 ]( O9 r; m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: N2 N2 k/ u# ^
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。* c% k) p0 `( K5 b1 z* m1 M
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9 J8 p: A( O+ }- `2 i/ q5 u
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8 V5 q% f# f& P1 ?# s. s
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
5 K# N+ [/ T. [8 U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
( ?2 o% }# c$ T5 i$ g$ 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, I! E2 w# x" O' L: o9 x* K, O' Y( e
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。8 }+ O9 a. q! L( r/ F7 t
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& N  y: ?$ z4 w$ |, C) Z7 |% Y
1 C: h% Y7 s/ L" y" M) N; [% U; @
; f/ z. t/ K* d/ J
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
  G" D' p5 w, K& M- U! z1 ^6 _; B/ V* p0 G5 H, R
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结. ?. Q+ R. i( w
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email) a1 K# L' m& n( h8 M
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见  \9 E: t" T$ W' Q
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) T, W7 E" a; T' [5 |  U) P$ w* y; D
, ?/ W/ U/ g3 v
7 J& n) g/ I0 |  _$ J. b. }1 i
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)6 l" T7 n& O6 ~) A  b
Dear Phil,
8 u& C% [* `7 ?/ U, y       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s4 a' h8 n! B+ F; V
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20+ w+ y/ P9 {7 f3 B# c" N) O
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed5 r: D9 ~8 V/ A/ h
you., v& ]  b1 b3 a' x
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" Q3 ~  I2 @1 T0 @% G
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
$ B! v+ [% \4 G! ~3 j2 [readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the( [+ w$ u8 w, L' d, z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
  `4 v) s1 W7 h. }: mpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more' F, R. P% r! m5 f! L
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: X: E: X- k) I1 e& n: @
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) D. i  H& M5 W( I4 C1 @
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
) `/ ]# v; R" C2 uworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
! c9 v7 P6 G# S7 @2 \negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
5 K1 U" {! B+ b, Athat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway* [8 X, H2 H# I, F. f/ k
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
$ c  L' {( B+ T; E, a, qexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ a6 r7 C2 c" }2 _
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
3 N5 C3 \6 `5 y; Q- {" R* w8 Tand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone* K: h- Q4 f# ^. E; b- a
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
7 m' z! C% ]* x  j1 u, Greporting./ L& c2 }" I7 c4 k, D
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; c4 u7 B& z8 |9 q3 B2 H/ t5 v( J0 H- Galready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by0 |2 ^6 j/ i( b; A2 G
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in0 k/ k5 z# C3 p: D, t/ w, V- H4 Q9 i/ o9 b
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A( |! ]( F1 A8 {% H7 q4 d. h* y
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.( U3 C4 ^- j1 ~7 }, ^0 L! u+ Y% [
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem8 z/ D/ G! s, Y  b9 Q* n# G7 a  \
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" ?! j0 d. E/ x$ N6 q
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
# w4 A( @$ r0 b  j- Rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
( P. a) P2 W  o5 K7 v  @event for men, with the second fastest record.6 v. H' |  n3 {& C# r
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
+ f, Y/ n! d  zwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16' I$ N0 C' V' m7 }4 s! K& g; o
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record0 t3 m5 Z# {% e! P
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
3 Y! i3 C( C" o5 s7 Y' Q5 L" @meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,6 U* o4 e. Z  W: A1 [
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
" ~5 m% y7 x' h9 Q7 SLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
# u$ n+ s! \2 G* f6 \5 Bbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the  P5 U# ~( z) j
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
* n- r- y8 a; K/ G( `$ x' j8 pthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than4 \/ }! f! W; K* v- @& i; L
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was3 C8 {4 f' ]/ k& H6 ]/ V
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
; ]8 E) l1 t3 ^; h& w, G& Ahe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
: t$ b" E7 q" z7 G9 _; O; Vproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other. V# Q2 ~, S3 C1 t1 }
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
0 V3 w$ ?& T% {, ^3 {teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& Q: V2 V. w" I% Q# nCallaway report.# R& t( w. C- G
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
  i  k! N& }9 m6 u2 eunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
) F; \0 v1 A1 M2 Q$ H  `here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description9 u* o6 b/ W) o/ w6 t& n: ^$ g3 H
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
9 Y+ {3 a8 K! f/ Jbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. s  p! x. l! N* W; y+ n
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
1 r' s* D6 A7 U8 r$ b; tpublicly voiced different opinions.. X$ B# _5 B7 B6 p. p+ J
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 F* O% E3 [8 l! U
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
0 D/ U+ {, {( Y0 Z5 `3 f8 G1 ONeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent& f$ X3 x' o7 l! [0 u7 p+ H
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds, l4 G/ B: ~% k: |) f
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy0 U0 W6 J( Y# @9 i
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
3 M4 L  S; t3 U7 X7 pThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think( B5 I9 C& F6 E$ s* L  \. [
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
/ N/ @/ c. A6 |/ p! \& Khave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as) j* O8 k* R3 {) d. `  i" K- W
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that; g, \' w$ y0 w2 I- G
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was4 [7 v* `$ S2 }1 n$ w3 M2 M; q. ]
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.! c" G0 T2 f7 B8 r' }4 {6 q* s
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that7 ^4 s; q# a) }- V8 a0 w
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
& z+ E# q7 S, Z, d: W6 |& yChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June9 N2 b9 B7 J# d5 G& p
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ F4 Q  I2 g/ I6 H. ?and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.- S5 R) R, l2 l4 O4 S6 g
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
) h  I7 l/ m, f5 O- T7 f% Wand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, A# Z) A' ?$ {) S) d
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
5 }. y) ^$ S% D1 ?. Z; gNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
* |% s* R6 {4 M& N3 q; Iobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature" ~1 n1 Y; R' ?% |: c# t/ t& v
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
' {/ f( Y! S* p3 m" z2 vrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
; I8 R* h: O0 C* gThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
; d# J1 p1 u0 Y* Oshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 Y$ [% e2 }# q6 \$ c3 @) f; d# B0 Cus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
7 p5 t3 Y; F/ w5 ~" S9 Bfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
( J) l, p# }& a: G+ ~9 K/ F' e7 p6 tthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”4 N8 ^! `9 v: v2 u
about British supremacy.3 M! I3 [( W' x6 O9 A
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many: X, Q- m. m$ w, r# x+ R8 r
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more' K% w4 I# z7 J* ?" d6 Z
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
7 `/ f/ Q2 J5 {* H( P8 hour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% M0 x5 n7 I4 M3 L8 @6 d9 W& i0 [Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.  g) T1 N( H* A
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 O/ ~1 C8 H+ sprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 U9 |, d8 i9 l2 b9 M2 |' Y3 gbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,0 ?" H, C3 B  e0 I/ U* G' B
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
! b# I, j, D3 `2 xpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! D/ ]9 U: Z* z& f5 z5 h6 HNature.. n5 W1 v0 k: \/ F3 r6 p
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% Y/ b( U2 v, }7 o; n6 ?% S
the Callaway report.
- _4 i9 v5 O) |/ F5 {
& H& n$ y+ q+ V& X+ cYi0 J; n) J" s; a- i# F6 S1 ]

* S. ?  x2 P9 F- |# l5 \Yi Rao, Ph.D.
8 U  K/ h  Q' X8 r- I; G1 SProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 x1 ]3 u  u2 [' R
Beijing, China
% D5 p- ~4 Z$ ?/ V9 E% U! U% D
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
7 c' i2 U* h+ k: Q9 s4 v. |+ D原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

$ }  |, A  [; a" {2 h: k" K原文是公开信。; N4 g4 c9 x+ ?3 X% T' d
8 R3 [0 w* R8 h: C' O6 G5 s2 ]
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
理袁律师事务所
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
; L* w" C  q% ?, \5 _- {' C/ Q原文是公开信。
( M0 Z$ w! _7 J+ m+ U
( p6 T& n5 y) q1 S( h. S% m小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
. F2 V9 t- [, s5 D; ]
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 JIANG6 B' K3 O: i! g$ j2 x) N
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。" F/ U/ I( {: l' T. W
: |+ g! N) k& w' [! w7 H4 v
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
9 V! V/ g/ ~# f1 g! d- y  y9 n
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
8 t4 [0 l" u4 {* U0 s6 b$ y
+ s7 v' {! H0 H7 p7 i; Q1 ~: gIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
# G0 B! I# z* r2 m/ ^, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science6 j. M" Y. L% m5 ~. P5 R9 Z
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this- v- W3 G. ?5 Y5 o
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the: {' X& p2 A7 C5 _+ j! b. l
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
4 j; n" Z" ~0 x7 x1 g! b, Hpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors7 e( ]4 K1 M% t& {' P  f
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,$ T9 Y% p7 B5 x0 f5 a- E; D
which they blatantly failed to do.0 I3 X. n+ u  w" M% P
: E5 @' I9 a: O- `
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
- x" x% H6 l; N/ z! E$ }2 y9 q, nOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
. S6 W8 X  Z  q4 U. w  m; p2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 |" f8 [- B7 w* `8 n% yanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
2 a4 L) W" l3 C8 n; L! Cpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; t8 s& G6 o1 |0 Q( r- C
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the( y- j( {1 A8 ?2 w$ D
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
; J/ c8 a; h; A/ D7 pbe treated as 7 s.2 A) C3 Y% k  F+ n6 p

1 }1 C) r  ^: v- @7 _Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 Z( d, t8 v5 n) a3 M6 D7 U9 o1 d! qstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem; B# l, a) X! n; ~! Y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters./ w1 C% n1 O+ e
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
5 B$ p4 z% X7 {$ R; Y/ H-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
1 o8 J; F) s% D3 M4 G. D: E3 OFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
% E* ]  C1 R2 e2 r- zelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
: \, H7 |4 }  s, `, Ypersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
3 U: l- a9 ~5 w4 Nbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.5 y1 [/ ^1 b8 m" c4 E: k  z
- @2 Y' i& I) g
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# B3 _! |; }4 ~* t# \! z7 Cexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ v1 }7 b$ q/ q- h1 G; jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
% f  R' P6 g9 G4 J5 D4 F6 Whe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
. D  `. ~2 P4 K8 R- X$ r. g7 t7 gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s, T3 a. `1 }& t$ o. P0 i. J
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World& b7 D+ S+ `, v( L* ^4 w/ z3 e
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
# v; r6 J% ]* b' F2 I! Ltopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ |1 s3 o3 C0 t' F% h# E+ Yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: [* A& |- R, a% o1 A: L, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- g8 n' Y+ |& ?
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 f; b) x" Q  ]
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 w! o) U! k" ~5 w3 d2 |; pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting% U9 _4 A0 {1 @$ h! `- O& s/ _6 W; J( J
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that, }0 {, K: ?  t( o8 p
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# y2 S: U& B% C5 u& Z) t% d
. ~2 S1 r+ I6 f) J" Z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are5 u0 G) S6 b. Z; t; X
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.937 ~- M6 @# X" t0 m
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
. w, E4 K! }$ o7 B9 |0 p8 O5 o), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns; X8 x7 n8 ]9 R( R3 T
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
9 a2 H2 \/ z7 d' t7 M) WLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind: `$ I- k- N) |( F  y9 z
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ L  l# f" T: \6 B4 m( c* t& tlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in# A" K- E& S* l; n( `
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science1 r* [, F9 G  s* ^
works.2 \( v! a5 c# ]! S- g- i4 C! }
; x2 u6 b5 W% n. x6 b& w
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and. n9 R0 q" M0 o0 I5 ]$ \# N0 N
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this$ W3 v$ S, L$ j* O
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that3 R/ c. D9 o( s8 s, M: m: [/ I0 I% U/ Y
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; I7 L: a' C  k0 X
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
: I& A$ N; S4 t) D( D+ F! previewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; I$ w2 v# {( }7 ^3 M2 T2 {( ocannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" x' x4 l: x+ S0 C
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
0 K0 R/ [; Y6 q! Xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
0 L9 N( z  v9 Ais found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
1 W& Z! h) `* i0 Ecrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
: p( X8 w, y( ^$ P7 G2 D. ]wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
  ~" e' }; F6 Z! V2 u2 Kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the7 F7 J( v( V1 g' z! F! y$ k
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not( O) E2 |% ^% I. B& q9 H; _- K! |
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, @% e6 O% t' Y. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are7 i6 t  M$ k) X( v; m
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' O! L% A* s# ]" u5 n  t4 |6 |2 L
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 D; g0 n. m& a" p& W9 Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. o6 h( h8 n4 P, d. X6 Y. L2 Dhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a! u2 x& _, f2 ]( ?# Q
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
  E6 w' }0 y( h9 K, zother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 p3 l# M; Q! U" y+ r, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 ]/ ^4 s& P. y3 Tprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an" x) h/ {/ v$ }
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
) W7 e( Z: U4 t7 T2 S/ Achance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
# S; k3 {  e# ?. z* b5 h6 c# ILet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
. h; }) ?7 _  Vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
: v' n3 C: @: A' J8 |eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ m# V/ d. K5 C3 g
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
+ f1 i4 f/ q5 @' J% x
+ Z' ~& ?# i+ A% k$ pSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
8 V$ P3 c2 D# D5 b# b7 i3 ncompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ Y( O3 ?. G0 t- N" ~2 C
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for3 n" [2 U- R8 Y# R2 E
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
) w6 n! o  |, S0 tOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 k$ j9 Y6 \& ]: H% ^! [doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic- K7 ^! ~& i5 v8 F
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
9 h' N5 |+ s( ]& J7 Xhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
- r9 ?  c+ M. vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; @& E% S1 Y; d7 v+ r% c5 apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
7 p: Y! `# p0 z0 I6 M+ E% K" j) R% z0 R8 w7 V# w
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
1 P/ F6 T) K% y* m! {! ?. _* Wintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ p4 d" o% A/ ?# ^( F. z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a( s4 u0 p  R1 X  u( r) K' {
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ d, I# P1 g& ?/ j* p( a. r* tall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your3 f. ]9 w5 e0 C: g: F3 `9 v
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,4 L2 A6 }5 A# a  ^7 M
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; W1 {% O' [4 U* F5 Z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 S9 ]) K) ~3 t) ~3 h
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
- c% O; |1 [) k0 F) s( R' }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, 2026-2-19 02:56 , Processed in 0.160213 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