埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1947|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 8 e0 }- _" a" p$ s5 e9 h
  S; \2 r) M. v3 R# R
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
& }2 b) C0 m2 m/ H* g8 i& {: u就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。
5 ~/ a, j8 V+ k' S1 V1 Q" A总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) s2 {+ Z7 O  X9 Q5 U3 {8 Q
( F6 E! v+ ~+ ^" W) ?. b1 \http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
( N5 T6 {/ Y7 ?. Y, d' t% w% C: _7 h) z
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选' b+ C& T/ C  P  B
! P! ^. o. H2 G7 P& G" B
英文原信附后,大意如下:
# N! L  E1 E# H0 D* U
/ `5 W, x* U; f, O斐尔,# Z; `& I$ _  ]" V
       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
7 z$ o& i) M& B3 Q3 j4 w1 P' ~6 Semail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
! E5 @5 f/ f3 H+ |9 Q& _: Y       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# r3 U9 F  V9 F$ J
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
7 S) ?! m; G1 x: K, b( w能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
$ c0 @( l. X8 T+ i, k& O       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 v) a" Q+ J* S
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
. O! v5 G) x; B% f" v2 b# S8 _0 @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% n1 @+ M2 r; _9 L/ S
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。/ @7 w8 t5 t" a& I" [
       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4 S6 [( n; h# z' {
,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
' ~+ Q/ Y4 p4 q! r+ O# T2 c+ ]9 n”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。; A, c$ F: g* S, b
       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
2 f' h$ `& ~$ g9 O+ Y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
9 e, {: z- ^" g0 B9 B  W,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
' c( A: j# B7 H! f3 v; X$ w0 S       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
+ V- L2 R4 r9 V) O# O, L6 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
3 V; T1 E8 F& p合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二6 I- ?- P9 R( P
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
2 m5 L8 K4 Q& m) }7 u: o/ V300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$ j0 K9 q( _. w* {4 X, h
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& v% k  j* L6 A7 T; }3 J
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" G. q% {3 U) q) p
。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记
( `; I2 t1 J( o6 K录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; R7 D1 i. a: ]" t
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! }% F; O# K" E8 D1 S* o, L3 e
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
* z$ v: m, F; y" hWikipedia。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
! M; k0 p$ f# j# c: x  d/ h1 a同意见的专家。5 f" `+ q+ P- c
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
$ {' L* u2 L& Q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
9 B5 T! z: _/ R$ v* P& L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2 Y7 I6 h5 q8 c$ ^5 r4 b
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
( s3 A* n" I1 h! K9 Y" I+ LCallaway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)
# H" [) u2 H! r8 e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; u" l* Z3 ~2 a9 S
《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3 X) ?& X2 f  v* R% V* @
这些被Callaway忽略。
# `! ?4 k3 P; x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" k9 t3 D  T/ q
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5 r2 v+ ~# \! @8 Q4 ?% o/ ^
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
) L+ a5 a& \3 e: k* f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
2 s1 q6 v9 z: K  w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* v+ B1 R; p6 z0 \2 u
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" x& L% ?4 [3 r$ i$ X) `+ Q, _
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。9 V8 L3 I2 ^( F3 r, v
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, t- u; R1 _+ ^6 Q3 _/ V. T4 g
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! L. r& m7 a% {/ j/ e
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) H) F& u* b4 X6 ?8 T% d$ f5 K! F
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
$ Q/ _% j  v: |0 T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
5 q8 B* w3 P1 V, E$ O1 h- h6 m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
; \5 r+ b7 P9 X  _. Q% u题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁
3 \0 K# j5 h  h- I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
. x" T% A" G* f/ R% X5 P* @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6 I& F" K: U: i. A7 l
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。# {! L# K( f: Q0 s1 D2 B
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。2 g* l, @9 H4 G/ p" R3 H

+ R; f* L, A0 h, K" \! m" R) J( d1 R: Z6 `8 `
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
: w5 z8 ^2 L! a1 l9 ?1 P" E6 L6 ?+ k+ g- v6 T6 U
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
3 `# R! E! Q0 q" W2 c; @附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email" _8 v  o2 t2 T, V
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见) L( V9 d0 u/ [
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
" X1 Y( J0 q. {) f# J
9 H( |+ `0 z) b5 {; r$ m* K/ Q# y0 j8 ]- |; T/ V- T$ x

; z- n' h3 z6 Q9 x* ], @; |2 L" {原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
5 ]* N' N* L- g9 J2 pDear Phil,/ ~# `, {6 {# D. I6 o* o: ^" o
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s# G1 T% i- ~. O/ s
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 205 r5 @3 k3 c0 j; j+ ~
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
- y, r! y; p) _  p+ j/ ~you.; Y/ G: K+ N# Y) _7 \# s- }
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( {5 `9 x. z" n3 d. I. y. [1 [2 f* ebrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
8 G4 i) V  ~/ o1 t$ j. R" wreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
& F- A, R/ ~' q# T. \5 \6 G  wworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 Y6 t# }5 `7 S% X$ i) X% R
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
, _. L- O# G: F4 b) Sseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news; r7 R! P. a8 W- T5 {7 Z  d5 r8 \
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
3 m( N4 r5 g; I' s& |; O4 }1 \       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
0 _$ {6 L4 X& Pworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
& l# J* ~% }, S# }8 Z; \6 M+ ~negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
9 ~/ m9 E. N  J  w& ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway9 c$ ?0 a3 l6 J' l
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
2 i4 h% p  m( V5 e3 M7 @- lexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal3 R- r# B( l% ]. W! m
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,# `# ?! }  r+ m, V, L3 q) x
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone" Z& n2 ^( m" K8 O3 y% u
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news$ Q' y+ j! |- k6 p) v
reporting.
  l% ]9 s/ P. W0 e/ _4 p' ~       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
( A7 P4 v" R9 T6 Q. N) _already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
0 b  t3 R* {- o) ^2 w5 a2 ychanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; L' j1 z8 [9 V. q+ ?3 esports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A; T, I$ Z" ]! y4 c- V
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.$ x5 V- n$ N: ~2 G/ p
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem* Z( T+ [; [1 l! I5 s# S( {
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds' O6 k3 U  ?( N
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
2 G& o8 k9 X& u! N1 ?meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same) e* b2 d$ ?; A% _% T" S2 L+ h
event for men, with the second fastest record.4 H: u/ a) @- f( Y% r/ i% J' C
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
3 H1 m5 I! {' s4 [* Z5 A7 ?( Wwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16' D' D1 D& z- D+ d- P: ?# p% f
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record+ h  R5 Q. M9 q" s$ D
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400% u. l: ]: M, i1 A" j) F5 P
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
# @2 `( c' x5 X3 v0 m9 D$ C2 r& Dfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than3 O  ]6 ^& Y/ f+ c. D0 h: x4 x
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
8 K8 [# b# b" X$ d- Rbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. z& t# j  ^" R( `! X1 ~3 A5 a( S$ @5 \individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower3 S* f* F$ `4 ^9 A0 U! t
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than% o& i' _- X4 k
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was" q, t) _8 B+ e8 v  @0 n/ `- ^
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
7 @1 i( j' g( G3 A1 U2 yhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
. \7 `0 d* v' \  k3 Iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
. N. m* r: Z0 a) L4 s  `. r$ pswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
0 w; i6 G: Q: z! {teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the8 i, C: q* h- C5 z9 }9 i
Callaway report.' l, y  P5 E1 l  d
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
  S( U, r* h$ x9 c5 Punderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
! ]0 ]' w5 T# ^# z. lhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description% k% ^! v5 r5 B# P; w8 W
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been2 i  Q) M% n, c6 c5 x! g5 w
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the$ }6 w- Q) G! E
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had9 s% b3 u4 c/ b4 C* q
publicly voiced different opinions.1 z8 x- k) ^' M$ g
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
) f2 x, u& v7 f, P4 @# K3 ^from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature& K  ?/ M2 c  f7 S$ m" B6 w3 A
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent7 g0 i: s  x$ E# R
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
+ k7 Z# G- k% |you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
( z3 r' w9 f6 ~: Vof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.8 I0 e/ _5 N0 G4 V  H- V
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think+ S& N( T( t3 V( z8 z4 Q+ q' X
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They: W. b4 u% E) r% p/ [  f
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as1 P. W) o# u3 S, {" P9 J, g
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
; j. l8 T& p+ b- cthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was2 L( U8 g- [; r& \6 ?
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
; }% `8 T  s6 }0 AOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
2 d; D3 ~# D2 i( G0 Dmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
' V5 C2 D' [# L+ `1 l4 X$ @Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
$ Q2 m$ l, p- J5 P# t2 D2 n5 r' l. w: X( v3 E(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she1 R% B7 k% {0 L4 e
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.$ N. e' j" [) C5 w# \6 @! J
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science. l$ m- [7 ]" \* R% w" J. C
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
" s, P, W: g* v3 M7 I0 WDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.! M! J1 ]* s( V" A4 |8 b
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and% K& d2 {+ i; j# f. C  S' z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
) B" X& {6 @, e" k, kwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
; q" n$ y$ f  xrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
: G8 @8 v6 X# j% K  r; S- yThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not8 s% w2 z  K3 N) ]; L
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
/ ?- t' q9 X+ V! Gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
7 u+ T  U0 X- A2 h1 |fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that- D6 e( D& e4 y. l/ r
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”- h1 N, h; S) i+ A/ M/ \  T
about British supremacy.
% B  x; s( O( Y! ]The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
! w! Z8 L! Y; F# t" runsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
& ~2 M+ X* I' l" M" IChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* N- Q: ]4 I1 i6 j5 K- Hour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London# B9 e8 i  k* g, c; T- U4 s3 B* s" J! G
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; F4 u/ ^% x" |0 a  X2 M4 O  {# zYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of( O/ ~* i( Q! n
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
+ t6 D0 l6 Z7 w% Z* mbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,- }. Y: Q+ k. \+ Z
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
: \4 I' W* @$ S; A+ c3 q' B: wpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
# l3 y: \" r8 L0 }* WNature.
  N' }! z3 m$ Y. Y: j# {+ }I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance0 R5 l8 s) L2 O# r
the Callaway report.
2 v" l8 ]/ g8 C, l* c2 y2 j& [, M/ u" x: m. _5 p2 L& R
Yi
. g$ w" J5 d% \5 e1 X: f0 ~# B+ L. p' d  L( h1 t
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
% _& q8 w# o( s( q, w% d- R) BProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences3 z6 I) R3 o6 B
Beijing, China
& l6 d9 {4 l) b( `- `) z- E
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!!!
大型搬家
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
1 v4 Q. R) D+ ?& h  z原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
* }  P% Z( s+ f8 m5 p* H2 c( W7 c
原文是公开信。) g9 b2 m0 j9 E$ J/ G- s  v
& B0 u0 N( i1 e4 M6 W) c5 w
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
9 r; D* S3 H& W9 f. a! t/ z原文是公开信。4 k; R/ ~( i3 ~
% R) U; ]) C; P
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

! W& Q% q/ i* G" h: m7 \' R& Q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; c# [$ q/ n, \( f, w5 D
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 b5 N! p1 _' Q' y5 I

1 x; Y( X- \5 ^" J; x( Khttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: M- b6 z4 A8 O0 b, r: Q3 J: M. p; |( p( m
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania  p, o& d& q6 X  h, \( O2 Q$ p1 Z; z
7 ~* |  u9 M/ Z$ H5 y! @0 ]
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
# z+ [% U' j2 o, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
# h7 f9 V" w3 o* C3 y  Smagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ ^! [4 E: |$ G$ z6 n4 v" A
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the# D% W7 o* Y2 F& ^( d
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
- M: K" f/ c5 `3 ~. Y, o: |populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ C& j, E+ i( v$ f
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
' C  }, b: j  w; [which they blatantly failed to do.
  o. O6 I; q" L8 t8 N. e7 J/ G2 M$ M0 t" Z* M
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her4 u8 V& a) [, M8 t
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
: _' S( m9 G, [# A$ R# p, J2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- N" Q% A1 x5 ~3 Fanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! n, i& s! I! g% w
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: U) e, k3 n6 `7 g! V- r. Limprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the: W, W; _- ^6 K- Y* ?
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 m7 W7 J7 \4 g2 x7 X
be treated as 7 s.4 W: D6 ~- V3 L, e

8 F) L- |4 O! uSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is. G/ P: P) B1 [) Z
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem* R* B, }" v6 A$ J! q1 @( x
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." Y- t" M  e( g/ [
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ A8 w) P! P4 N5 n! w9 [4 W6 }
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
9 W/ E7 u7 ~# \$ h5 y% }) e' \For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an( L. g& K- _  z) a
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and* N  d3 v9 a( }% ^% U: v5 t
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”& b3 ^1 [0 `/ P
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
$ X4 r: B; a" o. h) f% c  @6 N+ N& r6 t/ k0 u8 t, b
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' b" {3 A; f' n( `$ L- |1 C! `
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
/ ?) z& H) X9 v; x) E# e/ u$ p$ E' {the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so  U* Q' |) e' c
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; l. s) R3 ?" s! ~* T! `- A) [
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
9 ?: f9 L  G& d: E( D, t- O/ Obest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
( x# I( h; }% P3 C- {% lFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
. a% H- a/ G6 E, Atopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( [/ z( n( |1 p+ V0 s' Y- K; j0 u4 ]: j
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
5 p& p5 {5 _! S" u1 {, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# c9 E& e( T( u1 q- j9 Bstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
9 ]2 g  t( \2 J5 f$ u. Ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* G% o% z" H) Dfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, P3 _9 q  J% e, [' Uaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 O4 g# a' m& z! Q/ B1 y4 Y
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
+ l+ K  L% t. z9 N, ?- g% ^
  D3 ]9 x& l/ N( P" x  mFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are6 k0 \" ]0 i# C  P1 D6 g$ G
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
- F; u: g3 a( p6 d$ j5 \& A6 ^s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
4 ]: X# d; a3 |), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns# E2 ]2 ?$ y; Q$ j
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,1 `+ y% U& f9 ~. M2 k: C
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind2 z, c' ]! i- ]2 ^$ w
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
/ X0 x7 H) B" J  k8 Elogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" h8 R1 L2 Z  [5 o
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# {" {1 }' {& _6 {# gworks.- {+ c3 X9 U0 ^% Q$ B) E3 V

! O* u7 O. b9 n( S* n, OFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
6 L$ h9 P3 N/ @! o: y3 Wimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% G$ U5 [' l7 Z4 m' I5 n" rkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; I: h& ~- R: [' ~. i
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ [2 F6 f/ `3 x3 P/ F& G- Ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and. T/ [+ l7 o2 \+ x/ v
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
/ }  ~/ q) r7 M, o0 x  D) ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to/ Q6 X+ n9 C1 E
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works, j6 J4 n2 L; |( y" p0 m
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 ~4 _) N# X$ t% y" }is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
/ q# L6 h2 c. k7 X. y2 k+ Icrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
" ~% }9 _! o' u* awrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
8 A  o6 S# A% Q" |" nadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the/ a/ K5 z$ i# r3 N  J9 T9 p
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not" ]9 J- v' h( L: y
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ @. {4 f, G6 K* K( }: N
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- u1 ?' Y# ^- M4 M8 ?
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
8 l  k+ u9 R$ Nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
) t8 S/ N2 E4 r/ v4 l% l% Ohearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ B: o2 O2 K1 @0 c; o  H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 F% x/ n" t! }; }# p5 Rdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:1 {: M" h& H  [4 v
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) x  I& |+ b# _# p, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
/ n8 M" k$ [7 aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 |: N1 Y$ L- B# m" X- x
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. ?1 c0 Q( ]! c6 v' U: _7 a
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?  ~  A' ]& J# R2 u
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping2 k. z$ }% J. z* S
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
+ Z# o# S% U. n0 L/ V. r+ m3 G. keight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
$ e0 W' n: H/ Z/ |# J# q8 x3 v, s* kInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
6 ^; i: j1 m8 w0 U
: E% q- {5 e0 v; {Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! S. `# T( n! L& x
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention8 I- H7 ?( }4 o# O
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for) _7 C% i2 N( ^& L8 i3 y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% L7 K) x  b4 o# ^Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 z1 O3 E% G! B" V( F" ~doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' }$ _- H3 |6 |: S+ z; d0 r& |8 X
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
# u& A  W& s% B$ Shave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
5 ^% R, ?% f7 I. W9 y, U  v3 oplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this5 z9 i" U/ ^8 Z: B' R0 P
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye./ l! U* L9 J5 q% F

# [  L6 C9 ]- L. T: h3 VOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (- {! t- l* z! F3 [' f% n  v
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too) I' f$ E4 a  P! E* A9 {/ F
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 A) l; ~& K$ k0 Gsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
4 I) }) m! K3 n" X, G2 Y6 P! Call the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 |" s( P0 e  R( n, r7 W, _
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
; K: ^4 Y( E8 {$ h# _7 cexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your7 f; @6 f: Y* J; Y
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
( S  F0 Q, \) z4 f  W0 ^such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ w( ~6 {* `( M* ^+ B- W% |
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!
大型搬家
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, 2026-1-20 11:31 , Processed in 0.101557 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