埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1960|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
" ]! E& T  D! b7 y6 K0 G7 {
/ L8 X0 i1 `: R$ M. [7 Q3 }3 J, h饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。# y8 w9 K1 }  @' K* [1 h6 I* _+ D- z
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。
7 \) p0 w5 I; {$ N; c4 m9 A5 I; k, }总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。' x7 x, y. f  b' s4 M1 G
- Q0 j- w% N8 c* x" I" X: o5 G
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
4 T' Z) p. t" S: A
  j5 |) N& i( i- H致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选8 d0 E9 [0 H* P9 L/ w

1 r" S; ]2 W% V英文原信附后,大意如下:
# S* V2 R- ^4 g. @; F8 J- [/ R. F! a4 n
斐尔,
" t7 U: }9 @1 P3 t0 Y5 F5 f       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3 [0 O! V- g1 O* J. G
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。5 n) I) l, M* P+ a- C
       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( Z; f& @% k# D2 u% r
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
8 h) t: A: B5 N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。# ~# q- L. O) E( l
       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, X: q* U* s/ Y8 Y* {2 e1 {
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5 Q) H6 e* w5 j. y
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% u$ u+ {) P) C# I' f! L
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。
0 w, l  Z( _6 c1 n; }6 j+ T1 x; t( j       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5 \1 u/ T; l3 i
,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
. g) D: L7 N6 {”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。8 T% _( J' V+ @) ]: w
       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3 ]& [4 X1 G6 p1 n8 u) T: v- t
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
: u; A/ e& i# q7 ~3 n+ }9 S: |,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
+ ~) o3 I% s" s; Q; H; k       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
6 B" z* f0 g& w  E- S. D2011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
, m3 {  {* t" M6 c  A5 j' d/ n合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二. Z4 ~5 b5 W" B9 ~# V8 C
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) b7 {* g* w- k. U& _
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
9 O3 p  |0 b7 z" o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
5 }# y  q5 a1 X1 I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
6 A! Y, p3 x6 D  h) J/ 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9 R) e' ~' h9 N
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。( N; W  h" ?; R! o7 n* k4 \
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. w8 b$ ?  s; W% |/ N& 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. }; Q+ W4 L1 e7 A5 r/ u5 a% x
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: l% P, u/ t8 {" Y
同意见的专家。
. @* P' W( n+ b/ B: N7 {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
* X% w) }* J( e3 r3 T第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大% r$ C3 X2 T9 R) d9 i
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
/ _" e0 Q1 K( o9 ~3 |6 n4 q0 Y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
+ [* g" N" W6 |1 P% HCallaway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)! [4 E# G! g" x9 d- [: \; k
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
: o9 H" n$ c2 B* \% T" N5 `9 ?《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
6 E& O5 |. w' k3 w这些被Callaway忽略。
* p3 |  \0 Q/ l" Z5 I* c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 t$ h3 Z" N8 x% 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: ~) ]1 Z; Q3 O9 Z5 ~
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。. m! a  h9 h/ ]  U, ?
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( Z: m# C8 W' y- a2 ]
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 h) Q0 I* ~5 V* t1 P! l5 h9 L' ]
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% S5 _  b9 Q% g
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。
  u, X# E2 _/ q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" h9 R% B% S" M7 X& 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
, d; b# |! |; {' C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
! _  W, T& d8 K" L* Q2 s4 _* I1 I”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
- w8 u# w6 s, [0 v: m0 s( @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
* |7 v& ~0 l5 Z. B$ K3 |& |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
+ `, j+ D+ E2 v! q5 n5 \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
2 Q8 _' j& @8 ]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6 E- M# [3 M& b  u3 ~4 Y
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
0 m, S. ~* H- `$ V) q# p而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
7 i1 ]7 u( E- {" L  a/ {我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。: O; h' [; U9 @6 @* ^; X! N

# V- E3 d3 f( Q0 c" c6 H8 `% S7 Q# o, n- E) x
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
* V1 B% [0 c& C7 @0 c
  Z$ R! X: W6 x5 y- I附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结0 r# m  W- f: _: b* Z! r. [* p
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email6 ~( o- `, }) C' G5 G) s, {2 G
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见0 S: k2 d& ?8 j& N5 C# B
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见- ~) y+ |& I/ U5 t+ G

" t, A+ ?8 @# n/ W; c9 ~- s6 y& S% k+ n6 `  w

( x: ?% l1 m4 U# K, @8 {原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
' B7 }# x# ]- A: }8 Y3 y* YDear Phil,
1 H9 K0 C" k/ D( P       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s. \: c) f8 |) l7 E1 h
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20- u4 N, G4 M  \% W9 V5 U, k
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* u( k9 M- o! e! v1 Xyou.; Y6 f% t5 D5 i1 _: U6 t
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have! I0 r" u4 `) e# B
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
3 _4 L  E* o4 }6 v  preaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the5 Y: f6 x' E  |3 L% t( ~, a
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
2 K3 m) F; t, _publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more- z6 o) v; _& h. j2 V* Z
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news$ H, U6 P* Z7 E. w9 X
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.8 i: Q) i/ {! f5 o* S
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the0 ]3 d9 p; Z9 Y4 g
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
( D. Q9 T; X9 P8 O7 wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: E6 M2 W; g3 `# lthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway5 Z5 U, S9 F8 s1 d2 i- p
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping3 t+ V7 g7 O4 B: ?( S) H# L$ w0 o
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ {- y9 M# F5 a; ^8 n, Nstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,( {# o. f' N( e& @( `. M! A5 b& v) ^
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
  Z% d+ W" ]" h! zto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news: q8 m) I1 a0 E. q( M
reporting.& B4 f* g6 n0 V0 T# ^) J7 d. d
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
2 s. M% z5 L) j5 q& B* t" D( d4 g6 halready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by* A  A2 q1 h5 `  \
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in/ S1 {7 x+ m6 x0 s
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
+ G3 g# \, |  ]presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.. Q0 n! B% T& a4 J1 o/ c* i4 j
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
: T# o9 v& J& I! R) W) D' \( i3 n' emore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds; U) R  D7 A( i! b
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
' i" y  O5 y+ h! }0 i8 rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ o$ x  w5 g- D% ~event for men, with the second fastest record.6 A! b1 H. n, l' d/ s1 `5 M5 \# o6 d
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
' [6 \0 p% A0 B# U2 O0 vwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
5 w) n+ L" z0 e! T; L$ S( j5 Fyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
& m! M; P$ w1 O7 Q$ C) o. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
1 `2 i. }' l( L, U0 X9 O  ^meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
1 ?3 w2 }* v( ]) D' Gfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
$ }* ~5 N6 |0 V" m/ K3 ULochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed0 e6 o# M3 v' F7 ]0 z
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the  y9 D# q& u0 @: n
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( f4 ]8 ]4 r! L  o( Z! s1 ]: T
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than  K6 Q" \+ h8 M% j! \$ |3 e, ~
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was1 Y* G+ _( q. ~& ^7 e
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 W" d  w3 o. p4 P) i  R3 t/ V6 ^- _
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “3 j& I/ H& H2 Z
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other, Y7 ?( S; H6 F- g
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the; D& F, T) W8 [5 r; S* g
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
" R3 E* N; s, K; n" T) Q% f2 v! BCallaway report.
: M4 Q' K3 u. I* HThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more% C  i* l3 L" g( B+ W, E0 c0 @+ z, Q
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
( w# s. C9 {; [( I9 Uhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
/ w8 z* ?/ _+ x6 E9 y5 @1 |of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 J& _7 E- h4 S
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the4 e: K+ K2 l$ m0 J9 E' x
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had3 s3 U' t: i! a  @" p
publicly voiced different opinions.9 C. W) r/ U* U$ n: R6 p
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD* U' k8 _- q. G: G/ E
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' o& Q0 O5 q9 N, oNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
  m4 m- ~9 w- _9 o- ?" T' e7 upostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds4 C+ V9 I# f/ u/ \; z
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy( p+ `  r1 C5 d7 A
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.) Z: F) ^! u) x5 ?
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
0 q# J7 e0 h2 }; Z: r" Ethat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They3 N1 k. v. s# `4 n, m, H
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
0 D3 v! S+ x1 m; oAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that- g/ n  c6 r8 h* W" {; I  l0 }; \0 V
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was& c/ w1 _3 Z6 B8 `: I
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& {/ ]) I) W+ c/ s5 qOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
2 \7 N6 D  r, b. m9 I5 Omany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the6 e5 D: H% {5 [- U
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June: i1 f  M# \, j7 l
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she4 O1 b( F6 N0 X; q5 G6 D4 E  k
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting." T% ]/ \6 Q5 ^
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science2 [) `4 D7 ]) e0 z5 W8 W1 Q
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
" q. [# K1 w& MDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
3 ^9 k8 ~; o$ ~/ x& CNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and' l3 f4 u9 q7 Y- t/ D5 |* u
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
' z, l5 \$ R; `1 U. m7 X$ b9 Dwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to$ ^6 `( \# i4 Z4 o3 l
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.( `( K: B3 w! y% Z+ h0 l  B" o
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ K. Q  r+ N% M( y
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced, G2 H; _1 o  O3 w( y7 ]
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather5 y$ I& l9 h( D) \$ N0 X
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
. r7 ]0 q5 }) M. Q- W/ G" ethis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”9 T" r1 t7 ^% H$ k9 D
about British supremacy.
4 Y& K4 F2 k: v  J' PThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
3 h/ `( q8 c5 p# dunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more5 ^- x/ i5 J! V! V# z. W
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by% k# @! _' Z4 i/ P& Z& M& A
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London# U& Y, |, ]: k" Q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.: G: e) b; m$ Y- Z! c& z4 \1 `
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of8 j; j0 ^* c  _# B
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests- _9 g6 D7 j7 ~6 I
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
1 g* X( F0 p: N8 O7 P2 Lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
, _/ k' O+ X" b, Y' K; P7 |publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
& V4 D  k& x, b; l' @# {6 v! \+ wNature.3 d' u+ |3 m2 @( N
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
- ?: ?5 x8 f7 ?& l' C5 w* U9 dthe Callaway report.; ]* g1 o2 j8 R; g! L

- u/ ~+ G% w5 j9 |; GYi
. T# [3 R# a5 K& L5 B& Y. R' V; a! |
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
* l+ H1 A3 ^1 ?7 Y% iProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
7 i# x6 s& _2 b. y) rBeijing, China
1 T5 Y7 x$ }0 v
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 0 l. \6 u* a2 V6 D
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

  v  m, J& H) j: A/ _原文是公开信。5 A+ X9 L$ h$ l  ?( Q
- h8 Q( |9 I- T, u% k
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 0 X# V9 j0 v- e) T- }+ O
原文是公开信。; b5 {- L5 f0 W, N$ H6 h2 J

0 Q2 v  J0 c* I9 W) ~4 }% T% Q+ E小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

3 p/ |1 X3 v( A& }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# J- z, j4 i8 L
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
7 Q. e: y4 S2 Y$ s3 _  }1 y6 {5 H( }% W
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html  n. l0 [! H+ v  [: U; D8 v

% U+ `8 B3 M/ h, J* t1 qFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, p3 R) Y$ E" q# i! P9 |- l5 L

6 Y/ H) @! W- ]2 _6 UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% E! i5 @" ]% S# P0 |, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- F& R: R( }. n# Y- _0 Tmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
: J/ v  D( @2 d0 dis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the; W$ R8 `  _; n" j' D
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. ?) i- J/ e, ~& Q" c6 @; b
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 h2 e6 k* Z$ p! H: U
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,: v4 n, q/ y9 t1 {
which they blatantly failed to do.6 J) `2 S! w! |# S- H$ U" P) i3 {

" P0 |, ?1 s7 }* q5 O$ WFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her1 Z0 q9 X) l* `" J
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
8 z. N9 Q6 u( ^7 C& t  }2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “% {5 t8 R# B1 y
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous% q# i2 m/ f# }" j* K: P3 J" F. n+ {
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
% X% j, S+ K. t, Yimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 W8 o8 p4 ^4 f
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
8 ?; n# d2 t8 I6 s& T( g/ Xbe treated as 7 s.9 L- a& j7 g+ E9 j# g1 v
: p( W$ ?. s: Z0 k
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
( c. g( s9 @9 j! S! t5 F8 x/ V9 @still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& F$ u7 z$ G5 K" p/ a+ v& Aimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 H) e! R9 Y9 v: R, a9 a+ G& EAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 l3 V. R% d. P- g" w
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& K- B% ~6 E  @; L5 H9 P/ eFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
9 V( L3 {. {" E0 Y% y' q7 Kelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and5 a6 L9 v7 W/ ^5 V
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
' f% ]3 y! s% _7 B; C; w. kbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ W- ]! G7 Q( B
* V% L0 t' ]& ~4 B: C9 D# g- m
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
7 d3 y! k$ g; zexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
$ Q3 ^+ X" [( U* X5 t/ Y/ Q+ `the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* b: H/ L: w$ O, H: {he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later' M/ ?9 I) A0 g
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 r/ E+ Q, a' l" z3 F1 o+ {best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World: E; \9 A/ V8 V$ x
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
" a) H3 v, J: T9 L$ Ntopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other5 Y% N* L: i# ]4 [
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle. u7 |; E7 l2 {( T
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this2 m3 a4 ?$ j& d7 F2 W2 O9 o
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds( t7 Y& z7 F$ [; C9 R
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
. Y" S% M9 Z* |6 _  f' [1 O3 c7 E. Cfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
- l* t- `; T4 e3 {4 N- i6 easide the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that3 Y; t2 \5 g5 ?) Y. `
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
/ s3 [: F# s6 L( Q% R3 p3 Z* D; c
6 |, v$ u1 M2 M- M+ F* |( TFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. o3 ]2 {! |! o; |* t5 I' u/ Rfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) ?) O5 q" c- Z8 T# F( g
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
! O/ @  k3 S+ l; j9 F/ ~) a), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
# m% s' B8 z% d! Uout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
+ H* Q' u0 ^; f* v* hLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 y& _: J0 n. h8 R$ a8 C. b
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
5 ?5 R# G9 q1 R( Plogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 t# g# C! ?$ w& X( y+ gevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
& W* W4 G, x2 t* F+ a3 M  _& A2 cworks.
3 ]  ]6 v% _# I( ]- \& ~+ B' e& y& @4 l/ Y5 M
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and( w6 Q' B. v9 J, K' @
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
! o. \% {& r. u9 ^) Q  Ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that" m5 c' z; p0 G5 }6 [: `
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: o: ~# |2 Q: q/ }) G
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ O/ @7 w1 G8 `- Treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One& k! P$ q% t  i# @. {
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 v) @/ S: q7 i. T) O: P
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% u, F. ]8 R- `/ r7 b
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample0 t" o6 N. T, [1 p* |
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
' ~: R2 ^6 P" |' l3 n3 C3 ]crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he# f( F0 c0 w0 ]- j
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* W0 r" x& d+ F# I* k
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  p6 r( ^/ m5 u! M
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
" C# I! l4 k* iuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation& f% n5 S  X* n8 ^- g
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are/ R  V3 y/ s% L0 Q. c4 j
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- d4 K. E4 o; o/ n+ Nbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
, k2 l( |3 a7 m6 Shearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) o- f  {$ F( b% A& b3 I; ?has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" g) w! W; L3 |1 s
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ @' K  \' {% J: Q7 Uother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
, j3 a% n. Z1 R3 g" X! F# w0 f, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, F0 R; ^+ x+ R, G& ~( P( b1 T8 {/ rprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an( g2 T6 P$ C3 F& y% F* i
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
# M" Z6 [2 h5 c0 Pchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?' k" B- q- c- e6 S5 V
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping- k! K- Z2 }: a6 [2 x4 E$ r
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
$ \  }$ c; l  e* a* W/ L) i0 aeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.$ R' w# U$ c0 k! X1 v
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?$ Y9 Z' o% K3 f: q9 g

- y3 c; B5 N$ s- n/ K( [Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-" }9 e; e9 w4 l/ \& h
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention( Q$ E; ]8 ?+ l/ d+ u/ s
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( i" J, L( u4 M$ I
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
- a7 F- h; K5 q0 p% iOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 H5 T) J; ~5 H. w. ~doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 v9 i- h$ {3 I" l& P1 Tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope) x8 i3 U9 c: g4 h+ O
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
4 l7 t; n5 z4 K( c, cplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this, Z& o, z# z: O  l; j1 [' F9 S
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
  ~- g" Z/ I/ a8 T( F% P5 y/ Q! R% b3 A6 O* n* c- ~2 x# G9 E
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" o7 q: `' ]& E3 G1 Jintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 }% `+ I* O  Z* e' X
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 O: [" H, g+ Z" _2 K) v2 xsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide9 Y- `; _8 r' x8 P* Y, Z2 h
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  D- s4 `0 b1 Y3 y6 M- Y+ F
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,: J. [; K1 i' ~3 Z" ~8 M0 x3 x
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
  w# V. G, G" U# }# M" k3 M, Yargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
. ^# u7 s6 u$ k9 Fsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& v1 c, m6 h4 u) z  I
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, 2026-1-24 16:19 , Processed in 0.138293 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