埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2075|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
% W3 ~: D0 l/ P' I! b1 L1 f5 l- Y; Q, m6 O& D" a
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
7 s5 r* G% A+ ?( m- X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。* e; l3 p9 u0 u
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# \  M4 w7 _  @, p1 B6 y1 Q9 u+ x) ?! t
7 X/ \( M, f* U
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 P* @$ A4 I5 i5 G
/ K7 q/ P& a) ?* ~
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
4 j0 q6 D- l( v
: p$ v: m* _& u3 H* R3 c英文原信附后,大意如下:4 Y+ d6 I2 \6 j: z

7 \. p# W9 `* Z; _" [) C6 i斐尔,
5 C4 t; j- M. J, A9 r       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
/ Z. {- w5 {( H6 Uemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。8 U8 k) P% f  R" I, l" U- \
       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
$ f+ C+ X/ q" j+ y% x3 Z) e' k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
# q8 E9 n# f8 P) O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。
1 P% F1 R3 ]7 q: ^5 `1 c$ [       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
: Y: ~2 d9 [6 s7 w5 T# l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
/ _4 c1 p5 a9 V- o3 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
2 S( c, ~* \% b3 V$ b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。
3 z! t) I0 A8 _# s5 U. O6 N       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
8 m! ~4 z, V% E,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
4 }4 @/ F! `5 \- P, r, L% y4 }0 q”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
. ~+ L" N) E* Z# t& 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& [! V; M! N( c' @4 o
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& Y0 }; Z+ N% }5 U( N% s; U9 T3 L
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。" S4 j! i) b0 d/ }  {
       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
, \9 C7 G$ j8 z3 o% W  F2011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
0 D$ m$ W8 @2 P6 }# {" P1 y8 a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
( K; n( n5 b5 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$ \& I6 z' p7 v7 ?/ C2 e$ ^
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六- p: W- F7 _! l3 k" {
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
  x* T$ E% A1 \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
8 a3 k+ Z$ b" @/ i, N$ w。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2 L4 O- k9 ?( V' K# l8 c2 o
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。5 N. E1 a0 J8 q! 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6 ]7 F  V  a& R6 _2 Y5 D
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
3 F! K' U& ?* w4 f8 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
+ G3 G3 ^2 H  u8 x1 T同意见的专家。" p9 ^- J6 S/ ~! L2 k
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4 a" G1 W( P! k
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大
$ e2 h: d7 P' _1 q/ D& ?6 a8 s! A% {3 z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) [& _: ^; m, w2 h, p3 m3 ?
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- M. s% V5 L  q, }7 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)
+ U2 R! ^1 L4 d5 d: a( J0 o1 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4 Y1 f* R1 s  ^3 o0 @
《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/ n& `9 |# G; ~3 t
这些被Callaway忽略。% K3 n1 `8 U; }$ H. i- O
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1 n2 n' j3 @8 e8 |3 \' }
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, K1 L0 y" Y  @& _; q8 y
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
' C, \( v+ w. R/ h- M! I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 H: n  U# e/ k+ e* [: r
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
$ Z1 p# |; J( v/ n$ H- R# e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 S7 D- E' }, U: P2 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。* k# T0 h& e( k
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) Q3 m! X. n8 r* W
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5 P; f4 Y$ u! ~, ^
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9 w: v. ^, X8 E9 w8 N# U
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。' c  R' _- ?* M- Q- v
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
* g) N0 p! V6 [6 F+ U% B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* ]3 x/ |: A% |) I) ~& k- ^
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1 f! ?" e' v. y
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
/ }# G  D: e: z3 z& t  k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- p: |" V% y0 z) ]3 M- H
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。0 q" b  R2 {; z( @
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。/ o; G9 I# N" V, E' M% \- `' n
9 p9 K+ B) @& C  k0 l0 w# a

' S5 `5 \8 s$ H$ o北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
; F2 J6 @6 k, H2 ~; k/ z! |( ^, @- o, O5 G9 f9 l3 n6 l7 U% }
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
1 T# ~% {+ K5 f( P- j6 e6 W. k附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
! j. |1 {* o' i# t7 t附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见/ {! F) V; q' i; \: R& z; E! l3 c
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 y' s& B2 b8 M; q* K  `  k7 ]3 O) S  }* g8 e7 T! [! J
+ a; J5 P4 J+ u( c8 f
! _; }, p) W8 S/ q7 B6 j. e# k& W
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
5 y2 A. f8 y: g/ x( }2 e! iDear Phil,# K* b9 A2 g9 T2 n5 L
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
* W: h& `  L/ o, Kreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
' j$ e9 Y7 u! r9 U: uhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed) \/ D) x5 ^* t4 V3 {3 }/ c
you.0 R" K7 r. O: v) h1 d# s+ l
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have  G. Q* v% E7 B# e0 F9 o9 u4 q: l( _
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese: t: t- f6 @0 I: U# o0 D' L
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the, T. C+ u: Z( S5 r7 r" V
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature2 m( B: z. X; k+ p
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more& p# A" _+ J* b, O. D
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
1 O. a( D! m: p) [pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
6 |  G  V2 }2 s+ o7 M: ]! f) h       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the+ p, y1 K0 g6 L; |
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 Z# R* `+ g$ G7 C# S# A4 ^2 M' znegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish, N! \  i9 A7 E: _! D* L  p  Q
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 Z$ [" C6 k7 e' n3 {
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping7 |* y6 r+ [5 L, J$ q7 e- U' A
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
# A3 ^8 M; F2 g- ^standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: \" u, S0 x$ d: Hand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
) G* N1 }+ _5 u: Q2 {+ Eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
6 k7 j- |4 L; [" a0 }+ Greporting.1 w  o  q* l$ F
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
) h$ |- A! u3 j% K& R9 R; \( |- Talready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
, |0 H4 c9 M9 e3 ~+ \5 S( Kchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in$ @8 T* c4 c4 T( x7 }. }
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
7 V3 C; w4 s+ ^. L: f- |! ^presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.6 c8 {$ N! B7 C# a4 I& p; O* b
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
% H- A& r$ ]% D; l5 D- {more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
, d7 N* a; @8 E+ j. o8 X. B# ?. Zfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
; t5 H9 i8 Q5 W; C3 hmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
9 Z. [% F# [1 W! @7 a2 d" J/ \$ v. {event for men, with the second fastest record.
8 i0 h0 _# |5 u4 b6 Z       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye- P' X4 ~. O: ^, c9 W+ d
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16  K7 [. M( C% k: q& t3 Y! Y% B
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
% E9 P5 y( V0 d& Z7 T. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
5 @1 q+ l- i  w/ f3 e5 [$ _' Ameters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
4 K/ |/ m; U, M  Y% w" E" \for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than! B2 v! w4 t9 v& S
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed3 V; O) a4 l& [' t" b
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
% Y# t& ]7 O: k* Jindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
( ?- I* g& _& \8 v- kthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
5 R9 U- Y2 u1 R4 Z- ?: Uthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was$ e8 z0 u/ o, \% o: ?$ y" H" q# d
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then# |0 u. v7 c7 J  |+ R$ v
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 |3 o3 Q, _" S( }$ g
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other: Y! w5 \, P/ M$ X8 V) }, f
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the. q$ V8 s, C9 l2 y* c
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
; {3 p, f5 \  X) dCallaway report.
, \- E- J; @2 fThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more: d7 E0 e1 U! X) e$ t. u+ `0 L( t8 l
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details3 i! [4 A9 @  O+ c
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
. N; h) H6 C' E3 U; y3 mof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
% O3 y$ D5 d: O  A: }% abetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the: J) n9 Y$ l3 M, h' x
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had3 b5 ~( \% w/ u! `7 U" e
publicly voiced different opinions.
( p1 y8 @/ Z" DYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD, y! R. A0 y, A) h: s/ J9 G& O
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature) ]. p" X  i) v' j) R* e" d
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent, }6 N" j/ R7 S% K$ e
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: e9 A" e# ~* m2 F- c( |# ^
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy; J. Y( W. b. C- I+ Q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.5 u: m" e/ x% J# {' H3 Q3 c+ }
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
3 B4 x' R- o1 E2 nthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They$ N* d1 A1 {! T: o, y  V
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 i- B, n9 G  UAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that! `2 u% I/ d; p$ V# Z
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
! S' O0 y, n, e' M! X9 w5 N! Dsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.- D( t" A( g  {1 D/ t* W
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
- b# n* u) `/ q  G/ Z+ V' omany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, n! O9 c3 }' E9 V8 ]Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
% E4 ]9 K* n# i(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
( ]- G/ C3 P8 K2 [8 v( D% b5 e. eand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.! Z; v2 W/ y) h/ @
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
3 p- e7 X- Q' Q9 k/ `  Cand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
1 q: G/ q+ W) ?; L4 p5 _, |1 dDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
! s1 l7 g2 X. I' E0 YNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
: C( p. ?$ U6 Yobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
% [/ u- w" e! h* p/ L5 Swhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
  C9 t7 ?) i9 Irepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
* @- N- A" e6 B2 e8 }1 F' G$ gThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
) ^3 U% ]/ r0 u9 ~9 O0 H" d" ashow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
! C: ^2 o% T+ @# p4 Z* Aus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
: h) {: P9 Q0 f0 {1 F7 R" t! d; f) G+ gfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
% f1 v. w$ R6 K# ethis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”# ~0 P) x( [* z' |! Z  V! a
about British supremacy.$ m$ U( W' y- T# ~8 r+ e
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many4 I: w, \; \- ]" v6 z! c7 N9 f8 W
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more1 m- L& m- m2 g3 V% h" y
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by# \& O& {2 T9 v# T
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London0 C, y" j) x1 a/ Y/ N
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.. c2 m6 W& n1 \
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of7 A! B* _2 ^' }2 }
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, H$ d  ~2 b% A0 [$ R8 obefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,& \/ Z6 t) V* g" S% B% h2 b! k0 I4 w
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly' M" u' ]+ u9 M+ d; ]: [  W
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
8 b/ e1 a9 x- I% p# tNature.
% j# ?1 D' x& m0 TI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
# @% c: Y9 a3 K1 bthe Callaway report.
# e3 W/ e8 ~/ X" `! N# ~) Q1 H* m' l& b6 ?/ V" _
Yi
1 N# d7 R' ^* d) J  U8 d. L4 w( u  k9 d. ~3 `- d3 H9 x
Yi Rao, Ph.D.' w8 j# N: c! o" g
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% @  _: M7 G- Y8 e6 ~# @
Beijing, China
4 X, r: @0 I! b4 ]0 X8 r
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
1 e1 H7 p' P! n8 R原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

' V. s6 G8 B' \: i; l原文是公开信。' S4 \7 d4 L! i4 i* V, C
9 z- i& q+ }3 b2 W# z: Y
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 1 j# N! O. P8 W1 P& y+ e
原文是公开信。
  Z- S0 Y7 D* @, F8 S: V
$ C" A7 C1 C4 u3 L/ c; Y) t$ V3 y小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
. v& p- q; ]$ N$ x" L
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" z( R; r# P+ D% ~+ Z
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
5 i8 @, e9 l! i" N2 M4 t/ P  w8 Y9 p/ _& L% q9 h( Q
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 F8 W6 h, R* I2 t8 H  J" d8 _! M, S7 B' x1 W% T
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
. _, v/ T  p" h  Y
1 z' q5 |) O$ @6 T4 c( NIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself+ U. U2 H( o2 ^7 r: Z
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science- |0 F0 P/ f' c9 `0 Q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this6 n+ i: ^2 d" G7 B  A, O, d3 F
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
9 P+ h5 Q7 f6 O; h% k4 Tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general& E% p3 }* O/ m: N
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors% v1 d9 F9 O6 U1 e7 I
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
) F' ?" ^+ N  W& Z7 W2 lwhich they blatantly failed to do.. M5 G. g( o1 E+ [. l( G6 w2 ~
2 j/ s' L2 H9 T/ a7 P
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her6 c* K+ i& a: x: m- ?' J
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in9 R2 }0 `  a7 r/ O& I, Y
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “9 Y5 T& N( W' M( O: v
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 ^0 s  h, P; b# J2 Npersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
" A) w9 }7 Y  ]% fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
) l2 x$ ~% u+ V7 Mdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
, |) [3 z' @/ e; M: D+ u; [: Sbe treated as 7 s.: s% K. O$ A6 h8 Z0 k4 X1 O9 z& B

1 d2 W, j; p( W* @2 ?* VSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
% w+ f4 E) Q, a7 m, ?  ustill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
# Q" E( ~( P& b' l; p% Bimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
( E- S( v3 p/ v! e$ e! HAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400- l% B% T+ x0 Z
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.+ |, `: O3 l" p' C: U
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
) ]+ o! _, z% m$ R, Zelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and+ }! r4 V: T9 M
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”0 o# }0 t$ |9 z" m; i3 m
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
0 X! o& g! H! D, {) n6 [
/ O) ~, G" L8 P" k" p! ZThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook! Y' ]3 ?9 \% I, C- c1 e
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 F' j/ {: s0 J$ s1 W& t9 r" B3 D$ B5 v
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
/ E. s) [( i2 w  xhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later9 x! ~6 }: U/ ~$ {
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
% d% g7 @! j. D7 `3 ?  N9 ]7 R! @best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World6 h6 N: u0 E6 M$ `4 A
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
% X  A5 \" j9 N0 t( `topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other$ H/ _, i% |! {" [1 f
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
$ n' }9 `8 _8 ?8 h: z. l/ ?, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; j' _" H9 J  n8 `* u  @) h* I$ p
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds& L. \1 c" ~! }( C3 f; r1 B
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ \5 @4 g7 _! N& zfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting7 @# X# {5 f3 ]9 E
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that2 K. v3 k  L7 z* [4 O
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; Q' r" V/ B+ w& j

* t0 s; T3 P5 qFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
& F, Q; |6 L  y, S: c% g5 n) c. Efour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 ]- R, H2 ]* l. t+ ~s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s- A6 n* f8 k3 {* P- i$ L
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
  J7 b# w& a% G1 x! F- K! ]/ F# Cout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,* s2 n& h9 B8 J) t4 x* ^6 F
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
% o0 u0 u8 _' W4 c5 S: f& k4 gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 f7 U* x1 _7 s
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
# v5 P8 _. P* q' Q1 ]every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science+ _9 ?- X0 S+ G: t1 ~+ m
works.
7 Q$ ^" [  M* i. L3 l( C% ~4 I2 ~& V! M/ J
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and6 S4 j8 Q& P6 D- w# f/ t2 Y6 N
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this6 ]2 Q/ V! Q, R+ |+ r$ O$ T
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that" u+ y* N1 K5 [+ T
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
# \# v* F8 h) P4 P: `papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, a. p0 b/ r! t) R3 F2 M* \: l9 g
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
; [- Y8 {6 C6 e( i+ z. `& G% Rcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
, k1 f, f: \0 V7 t/ M* K- a9 udemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
( J# P& u: u. Wto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
; K. G1 _8 v* V2 W1 @# {9 Qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% k1 L$ s/ w' \0 M0 lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
8 T0 K; G9 c, G5 t0 ~wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
+ C3 G4 i0 ^. K' V2 q1 gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the/ c8 k2 P2 O8 S" O' d8 p: f1 A
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
/ d) ?. J3 y/ Y9 Suse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" g! [8 p$ x4 q, \. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
( J# a$ {8 R7 M6 e0 _$ E- y, Fdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
: W$ _# e  f! f$ ibe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
* r4 E8 }, B. p7 }' ghearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
3 g" M9 c; P+ D  A2 Z" ^/ {has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a  g5 x) F* q! _5 G% e" [" J
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
" Q4 t# A3 P! N; H  Q: gother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 f5 y2 G6 t9 I4 A8 _7 ^+ d, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
+ @0 l2 V% f( b# h- F; Mprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
6 S0 H6 }7 g# W" ?+ x( {& w% bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight5 p6 k' N& t) I* Y6 t- a6 [' h
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* U- T' {8 }1 j8 t1 g8 LLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 b" I; w' P& i6 {  w6 r( iagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for$ G4 _$ F* ]' Z; ], z+ }( Z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.# v- ^' P6 T2 J
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. r& M5 Q' m% L& U: ^8 r, i7 Y: L/ H" o
/ F! u  B& j! QSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-( H1 A9 t1 J; Y4 e3 s
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& Y7 e& ~4 w  C8 C. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for0 F! c1 a5 n$ u9 K4 Q9 @
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
2 ~3 o  y. M2 |% dOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
, o6 E8 h/ O" M2 t8 M  Pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# S7 m( X2 g- Sgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
4 U% V; S" g* S2 m, o& x: Rhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
& R0 R( ]/ }: Q) m. f! nplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this! f+ y+ J  w$ d. d2 k$ o
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.) Y# s' r0 l2 @" S) f) l
! q9 i0 a, z' l( z2 X- G
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
7 E' Z2 j3 Y2 F9 ?. wintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
0 c! q- y, ]# N3 Xsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 J  F% n1 \5 }suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
) V2 U! p1 W- r; Dall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
, p0 n% c, s) g  w) l* Z8 Xinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
* x+ _# r* u1 B9 m( Fexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
) h5 b- Z/ @+ \' {. q9 Nargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
+ g( m! z0 ?1 L/ [! Isuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 u$ ]" [8 e+ q  zreporting 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!
理袁律师事务所
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, 2026-2-26 21:24 , Processed in 0.225356 second(s), 21 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