埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2214|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 , \5 B: R' B$ J' N
: o0 t  J7 W$ w+ l; R1 r! L! t) m
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。1 ?9 L5 [0 ?& d( H/ V
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。% ?: ]) g5 G& r- ~; ^) O. b6 V: U
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。, o2 f: ~* D8 G+ I9 F& n/ J, {3 G
4 c) i* ~& ~5 C% Q, G8 X
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
0 k' a. w$ v1 z3 s; L* ^5 E) x" V, }2 S) ?* C* t: C6 d
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选, S4 ]: o9 ^1 p# `; Z+ U* @& Y  {- E

2 ]; D/ L  ~3 {3 m' q5 x$ v2 F% r英文原信附后,大意如下:
5 _4 O7 p0 `; R" R! S
. k2 E) D* o: d$ g- \斐尔,
& z2 F( ^4 {& U& I# @+ N" o       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
  o7 m8 A+ o9 t) b7 g5 W! q3 |! wemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
! o+ j$ R) f" x7 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. g" A/ b5 e0 o
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5 ], U! h# g1 X
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。
/ J* `" x/ w1 }% s       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, ~$ ^; q- ]" d1 \5 B( X
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
$ P# l+ Q9 |- c% j8 C9 [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1 N+ C: r. W0 w4 ?; }% G# S4 T
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。6 r/ r% \  q1 c+ Z, L8 g' M4 z
       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
9 k1 _( e3 |9 @5 d; h, T2 j4 m,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
: m, e- V3 h) m  E$ X0 Y" [”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。% _* P+ W4 Y& C8 I# G
       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( t. S; c3 z. o) ^0 s  H" 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/ t) n' Z9 r# w/ [4 `( u
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 A3 |  j2 |; F       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 j1 _5 U7 f  ^" s
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
% \  X. r/ R7 _6 m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 @+ Y. G- E8 A. Y  O) N4 {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
7 }7 Y; K  u5 K" I7 ~: K300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
7 w0 d0 V$ D5 @! P6 _7 O* O, ?% X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/ e5 e5 m$ w* [6 w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3 u7 ?2 @4 I2 O7 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( Y! L3 j+ S; U" n1 W
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; X. R7 l& s% p( b
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, X# @  h; E) u# a
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8 o; J2 E* s; S: c) t# E
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& @! x# r  D4 s- T2 I
同意见的专家。
1 J9 W( h4 u+ k8 i# V; S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7 L, T0 w$ b5 A9 r7 C4 ^% ^
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
1 b* h, q$ U  n7 S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7 Y. P, `( K2 z: s9 u! x/ M. M
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。. w$ r4 |; ?0 J( @, X  L6 m
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)& H4 o0 v  \/ }# H6 u
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3 o7 l  F; g  e
《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- H; J% H0 V6 e+ }* K7 B
这些被Callaway忽略。% ]0 d0 p4 B0 z$ T5 p/ H8 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5 h! E1 K- k$ A$ V' o2 ^4 x4 f
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- H: I: `0 m- I! G: S
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
- r+ y" `; B+ `' |/ X' w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3 L: a4 O7 [: @" G& z
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' M: Z3 Z( W3 W
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
# ~( |# N: q) E# `! M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。
1 c: b6 h: H) K- v( p3 |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
$ Y1 B+ k  q  Y0 d5 K. s; o4 l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# J! m/ y) I& R- A
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& X2 P! X. p. x' a7 a2 z3 u; V
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, U4 I* n! Q8 ]/ ^+ R7 Z; I1 g5 F
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
& m$ `+ v2 H5 r4 c) 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9 P7 P! H* _1 |- o, z0 @
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
" U8 r3 ?0 n) B. ?- G4 M: J7 w的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次# _1 O2 _: P5 z9 {2 D
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8 D3 _, P+ d. Q# p$ H( ]$ P. j
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
6 F  W! A  B  z我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
! A- ?& Z- T$ {6 R
6 o+ z' p# Y: s2 q/ E: h' C% v
( C) d$ r$ u# J0 D北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅, m: d/ W+ n% A5 c7 P4 v

8 T3 Y; L+ c5 O# A附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 x) v5 Q$ G, Z+ j附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email4 B. ?& z. e* j' d
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见% g) I. C; w; z8 x1 D4 j2 O& a9 s
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: o7 `9 K9 Z; F, @  z
2 h. K) A% ]+ y
3 p3 |/ F/ q: o0 h
; {+ E$ j" v7 I原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送), |, c, Z7 p  d+ D7 |: b5 W
Dear Phil,( ^1 N1 i4 `6 I! t4 G" `/ g0 G
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
! B# A* h! ~; i$ T! freport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
$ {' o7 N" e/ m3 h+ vhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed) e- G: T1 h1 O0 j2 y) F
you.
3 j7 j6 c- L: U6 w8 r# b       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
# Y$ p! m6 N6 f/ `2 obrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese) h( n" w) Q7 e1 @( D
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
1 x- P6 @! R6 ^world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature' o9 z, B' s7 k5 n
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
- m# l. E* ^: U- ]7 k: |seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news" N  z5 _( \( Q  K8 e
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.5 H) O9 v, F$ a$ g) C# W, p! T5 f0 A
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the* S8 i) D, [% V; n) M! T, H
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a- D2 U4 n4 E- A" v! l, g
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish: g0 A6 ]( B* ]& R
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
+ Y9 o) E, C3 H: Ddid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping1 K; U2 e0 N) x' b* `  ~5 z' z
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
4 r: U8 [& C1 N) }4 {) N* F% x3 pstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
, S1 f' m$ k/ t3 B: _7 r; H* ^+ d1 {  Tand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone: p4 N( Y/ A3 L* ^6 S4 |) x
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
% z  E. I  [4 ?& I/ i3 Nreporting.
5 W8 i8 A. W; M: d' _! E0 y       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have& V# i9 w& K4 E% x+ c3 q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by, v* U, T8 [" B1 f6 V+ a& r$ I: b
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in* n! e8 T2 N& `, M
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ h# I6 Q! A/ J' |7 F. F/ I1 |presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
, c1 s# N8 \$ }* A! d8 u       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
" Y4 J" c9 H4 m, ymore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds, S- u# I/ D+ x6 K5 t3 @8 @
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. l3 f9 Q4 I6 x; E4 H
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
/ [$ {2 T3 b: L; vevent for men, with the second fastest record.8 W0 F: Q) l+ Y; i
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye9 _4 P0 j# e, W- D" i
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
6 x; S" O1 |; F& m/ Qyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" f. A4 i' A3 L; t" S& b. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400" ~( Y7 A) @; h
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% o) `6 x% R9 h; dfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 l$ V' R7 j9 E! n/ ~, z# ]' wLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
9 O8 ^6 G- a: K+ J4 o9 `behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the6 B" k! ^4 e8 Y' W: P3 Q' y
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower; h" i/ _8 p% I* W" F) {* {3 g
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 h. I. i$ @" O6 g! j8 x
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was# [( k0 d9 B9 ^# i0 |+ F
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then  R& _* s6 n9 {% v) w9 I0 N! f) f
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
0 l% f9 n7 `) D: ^problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other. ?9 a! L+ I: t" C! C
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, c3 z2 z. c" @5 n9 Bteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the7 i+ j3 Q1 \7 F/ Z
Callaway report.
6 z* M! }; f: X6 h/ yThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
4 q: D; Y* \+ w' Gunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details4 j- f. n. {+ D8 K5 U
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
8 x1 ~1 T6 o+ }2 w2 Xof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
" s+ P! c2 P& l# v- ^better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
6 T5 g7 X$ x" z. [! _Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had2 f: z; C0 P, ^. P
publicly voiced different opinions.
! j/ A. e4 E* D+ K9 r0 n( A4 SYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD* I3 G: r. [5 q5 ?, k
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature0 V- u: l1 L6 J0 a/ _, s
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent; x2 s' B) W5 V
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds' V) U. Q# F) ^  M% y. K
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
6 f7 S' }. w' u1 Aof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue., Z$ d% j6 Z) L9 Z9 R2 t, `
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think- U$ g! ]* T1 C5 o8 M9 e+ o
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
  A0 G7 X/ e: z2 Z; z7 Ehave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 E" E6 v0 x$ ]# U: i  k! w; bAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
! }8 l3 u; w* F% V, o3 [the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was9 l( G# Z5 [$ i1 p) l' ?
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
4 v; Y( b! C) \3 D7 _2 @, jOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that: @/ q- G, Z+ U* O
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
! f0 f- q/ @2 i& VChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
5 J8 E6 ]4 ?: t, g5 ^(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
6 Q  v; _! J& g9 m9 ^2 h; C  U! |+ ^and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
% I2 D, j8 @' ?: c% A& T5 h* GThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ t; s# B$ t2 j4 j& t7 e
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
, f1 r4 i2 k* V: j0 W& |7 h$ ~2 bDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
' Y+ ~* K: J  _% b) w$ t( FNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
  t! a  f) p# Lobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature  q# D5 \% A  @3 b* H* D
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to2 C7 Z( d; r, o6 k- P/ c4 [
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.! o1 e6 K: e5 I/ s2 y0 k9 J$ B
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not" H2 ^  [3 Z# i! w& C
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced8 P4 \7 J! G8 ^/ V. t5 E0 J' t
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
" T9 I! q! [6 C1 N$ |! z4 lfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
3 O8 Z( ^! ?+ [6 Z# n8 P7 Zthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
6 X5 z5 F2 J; B1 N9 sabout British supremacy.
( |% F; e( Z3 W* g) b$ x0 O3 Y$ FThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
+ ^6 O+ C- ]% Aunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more9 Q6 z/ o6 r# l
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, J4 K& `% C: p# M. m' wour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London* {$ O- i' M8 Q- b6 s
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; G; ?( f5 z% l# l# uYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 A. I1 y( Z6 u* kprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
$ M+ |! o9 G$ r7 qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 P- G8 z0 F3 J& J) I) cit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly  `: M0 X* O' l( u1 r
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
4 a4 i  w; u* I( t: tNature.
; B0 J8 ]/ q/ `& H8 ZI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
9 ?* ]6 g, y+ B2 i/ @# a- i  cthe Callaway report.
' m* T9 c7 M% T; n& H9 d; }
; p. Y. B6 [0 [! g/ e. JYi& A3 f! s$ A% c& _2 a
" A- i0 M! @; `, d$ @' I  R, ?! X0 Y
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
% @9 I4 _; ^+ V$ p. G: L7 [) H1 jProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
4 l: F6 m5 R2 b, m! ]' }2 ^Beijing, China% @6 ]! X! A" U
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?
理袁律师事务所
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 I+ |1 c- p6 Z) X
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

% a' h4 y/ T0 E' @7 B, l& o' l原文是公开信。* X4 T6 ~) Z) K5 k4 _, M9 C

9 _" H/ V0 E! l2 N8 {1 A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 ' q9 ~- ^; h2 |2 m% ]
原文是公开信。* g9 J- }/ J6 S3 }+ E
/ {$ j" W/ |6 {
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
1 g$ }- s7 F- a+ v6 U4 _
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
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
6 n. ~8 V& E2 `9 O如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。, E3 g  \, l, [1 _5 L
0 x( q# _& ]0 j
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html0 `7 Z0 n2 b1 ^, y8 e; S/ y3 d

; W+ |$ w  D2 U, \$ n9 W7 ?! L" AFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 q; c: A" @0 _
: r3 w# A% d" e- o+ ]4 Q, sIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 T- s; A- r, |1 }+ h) Y, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science+ }" i  j% P  }$ {+ ?; b+ K
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
$ u( R1 C7 [- c5 A. C2 y6 _9 ^: t; xis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; n, R: y. g" x# k6 M/ rscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
2 @( |  r" C7 {: }1 \populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors8 M% {! j. h4 }1 Z9 M$ ]
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 A( V' F# T& Q! a1 {
which they blatantly failed to do.  U8 l1 S3 P- C, z$ E
: h& e( |5 e9 _/ J8 r3 E# P
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 Z3 g, K0 y9 }  @$ DOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
  y& d! J$ @' w) a* Z  w( y6 K2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
  h$ g" \& R. O, d( O) Zanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
% b2 Z) i$ |4 S5 C+ P# dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
5 ]& @$ A0 q) U* V" y* [5 R8 Aimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. y+ [, W" W+ ydifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to, d, P% G) m2 }& i0 x( P  a
be treated as 7 s.
* Y6 @) V! \+ G2 r3 T' ]
/ n7 h8 _# c' f' ~% j& `Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is+ `0 Z0 a1 w& Y/ d9 U
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
, S# i9 K+ k: \0 cimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.6 ?2 G* z( k9 P# T0 g
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
. ?& D% W: D  r% z-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
% F" V/ V$ C  o2 e3 eFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ i8 @) @9 g1 Y* B+ d+ O
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and3 \! n* b! R  B! c! Q' L+ k# I% {' b0 u
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
, L/ Q$ r' e: rbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.3 n3 K- M1 q! `, H" I2 h& ]' T2 H

  H' q0 c! _& }Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
3 V& l0 B" |7 Texample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in7 H; [8 k8 C# A7 P- t$ @2 c
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 Z6 M, ^8 w) p1 E( s9 L
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
9 P+ m+ p# L. c9 A/ revents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s0 ?/ `7 _9 f7 n6 E" P
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 }6 @  f8 ~, kFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
1 K# T" J3 ]$ j# o* _topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
+ w2 Y9 ?0 ]( i. H5 }- `hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
# i# m3 ^- |  q, l; `4 c, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
2 ?9 F* @8 [) s6 Sstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds; k& h1 y! A' U+ X: ^/ I$ p/ j' K$ d
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 F# R& L" Y- E  X6 D! kfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ X3 A, D  g) c, C- \
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ t+ U! l& p8 A$ B4 }* p8 J: M
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.0 `0 W0 V2 ]" n& p& g
- G+ s8 r' d( {# i
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
7 |: C' ]4 Y& F/ {, |- h! q/ Xfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 h+ V. d/ s6 G! }s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
) c' j3 n( p0 [! L# @3 V- b: Q), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns. d4 |6 m* }$ a- n  n
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
1 {! B3 E1 i5 [. m& P8 M; Q/ [6 aLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind1 @# v7 Y5 _$ A- J& G
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 B' _* O0 v3 U) N: b
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 z8 W' R. C1 L8 j
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) [# i$ H* N; k6 f2 tworks.
7 ]* l3 J6 Z( J+ g) l" T: a
* _0 z% ~4 R# S* sFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; H. d) }9 l3 w5 b( n- Limplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
9 [; T8 J8 P1 E* Ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. B" }: ]2 n+ q+ t+ w- [8 o, e6 Q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
+ y+ K& F* A/ Z0 M. hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ @: n* ^, n9 x, ^$ w3 I! |: p$ N
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One/ D1 w! w1 f  [3 p; T2 ?
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 a6 S' R3 I9 h% h; O2 M
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. o7 o9 S  n+ ^1 K( I( A, ~to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
1 M% m3 a( _  w4 R/ P$ l- qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ k6 [" s# D0 {& @crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
% k1 o4 {4 T: d6 P# i: [wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly6 r& G% W+ d" A( m3 l: M, P  P
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the6 y* f2 B9 v- ]9 J6 O7 I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
7 h: q  g- G5 m4 _# B0 puse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation+ m7 Z9 M$ u$ [" ]" R9 Z8 T
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- d1 |8 O9 e' U& K% D8 r
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 A- @% O  o8 E! b# h# [3 s, e7 ^0 H- |be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a: h" |7 c/ _3 R  u+ m' r
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye3 {! w: {+ f; o
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
/ r! s7 V- b$ Z2 S3 u' K7 ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
# h" }7 W. T4 c9 D4 Tother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. i( P; K0 R4 o! N0 \& Z
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is$ j+ `! o( G7 _
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an1 M1 W7 {7 a# z. M( h  C
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight  Z9 x, D+ v, Y1 Y# d
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) n5 \! p+ @7 X' W/ S
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
; f, o" W5 M2 \' @! |agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for. l3 d$ i" s9 t( s  O
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.8 k( H9 U2 ?3 W
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?8 b# E2 v* s7 u9 i  l. ^8 j8 f

$ O. R, B. b* r) H6 O  \7 bSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
3 w$ M: g. s% n2 V7 Ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
, Y4 m0 ~" b. W/ L. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 e8 W) B3 ~' P* x1 lOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ ]' }* [  S8 OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 u. u) E+ |5 w* l5 ~; t# wdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
# Q+ w5 L" h1 n% Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
8 q' \# g: E, h# o% S& t  C+ u/ xhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 f+ O- e9 j. e* ^5 G
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" q/ F, y- [7 f, |. ]" V/ M/ U. s& E8 Q
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. G5 y/ Q/ M& w' |/ s
/ Z: m4 }  a# C1 YOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (' y" |& c# ~+ n; E. f
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too  ^' ~- \8 e" R# R
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a! o: j* j3 _" x
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide4 }; `* s  g- t& x6 y5 C
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
4 k5 `( l8 X' b! w$ Einterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
3 }$ x. T+ c* M" |5 Yexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your% O! F9 A9 L) ?& s  Z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# u- G5 W2 A5 p$ q' p( E5 lsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or# f1 {+ b" e- D" o1 H
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, 2026-4-11 13:25 , Processed in 0.145255 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