埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1952|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
' R0 b! I, L5 c' ~, \
7 s' T9 S% q6 I( s- v: O7 C( Y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。8 L: [! I2 ^+ d9 T
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。
& h# n+ {* }! M# C9 E总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。- d" A2 S+ Y1 k0 }' L

5 h' ?) ]$ H7 ^, m% v( w7 D# y6 w( @http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html, ~1 D, V  e7 ~" `; ~+ M

: l6 }: Z# b! ?$ w2 |( _致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
. H! m" d" c3 m- F! }$ T% T. a# G1 w* C3 y* P
英文原信附后,大意如下:
' T$ i7 B5 P, h3 \
! w0 r! F0 i! t8 r斐尔,8 g5 t0 T( a% Z" h& B/ O* q2 J* 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
8 d( B' h4 E( w9 kemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。6 Z: Q8 m% B4 I5 @. C. c$ t
       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3 f* l* P$ p+ n( I
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
* }4 B, s: Y/ H5 @7 q/ _3 I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。
* I8 F! n% Q8 {& p& {       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
1 R" n; H; a. W) |$ x5 m: ~! n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) z' d' j; u. W, ]
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4 v% G6 y- a7 P' \$ v
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。# C* o9 j$ b3 Y
       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
( _& Q2 F; ?$ B7 p,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  @/ F4 Z1 [$ |. p7 d( |0 i* M5 `
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。  x) c; W5 ]1 X+ I4 z$ ~  [
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她
1 u* u1 j+ p6 [: R7 {" m5 ^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4 Z8 n5 x1 a' |6 ?8 s% ]
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- i& [, O3 Y. v  \& _" E8 Q+ q       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5 r9 ]) D' h+ ]7 M. U- `9 Y
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- W) a, u  G3 c- u2 ^! N8 O) A1 U
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, K1 }7 d$ V6 w0 `1 A( _
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
- q( L2 z1 i. q' }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
. C/ j, y; F. I& d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( A. K" c+ m/ U
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
" M* o/ a1 L& ?2 u* \; d/ 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; Q% i% {% @8 e: _9 _2 v8 K8 X
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
" }. g6 ]* C5 [9 w3 s* n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 A0 t! D) Y2 Y' E6 A1》,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! R5 s( r2 [$ s8 w
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& c5 S0 e. u, M
同意见的专家。+ [0 F1 d: N) H/ 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: m" J" M  v$ Z0 c( z# m
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 o2 U: d! q! ?) ]$ J/ U) r( G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! J8 d( o( p, P! K
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" G# t; J& Z$ I0 ^7 O' {. Y6 ZCallaway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)
* {  u, n/ y/ \# J0 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& ?( y* h! |8 c/ h3 Q
《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
- L2 J  w! _: p1 ^& a8 t+ @: d这些被Callaway忽略。' e3 |  ?+ o# p3 G
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' H; A5 n$ ~- I
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 `. [) K2 e9 D3 f/ [3 H# Y教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  Z. ^# G; ^9 |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7 a1 H$ O! t6 [. r/ X$ y$ ~; |) w7 P4 b
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
+ @" A0 I2 r0 G& l0 S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) ^; W/ Z4 v+ |' Q8 z# z; B
今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。6 |0 G- F/ F( k' S
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 f+ X3 R8 `6 F! b% t+ P
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
% w0 N9 e) @+ \2 z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( F+ W1 E" _1 f; }7 s7 H$ z
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( B5 [6 b) w( n8 k6 I) r
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
- ^: O- v3 o+ Q* T5 P0 f2 g7 j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
( v5 ?8 L) O: f$ C; ]6 f* G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
% q- c# A, |% C) {$ p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- p0 j. e7 I  ]" @
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# L3 @4 R# e# S. W
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
& x2 D7 S( f0 g% x) d我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& n5 {3 V# ?4 r% d. V
& f$ H5 W* m. C& s

4 J8 `9 x; z7 w& r北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
3 q; t' w* b6 q; P6 h( E  F
; S& h, r7 @( g; m, J附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结% s7 I2 g1 A# f5 V5 i; B
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
7 |9 Q' V# X9 B附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见6 F+ t/ p& y1 x
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
; d. `6 E; I- \1 k' e) j, |" ?+ L  x$ K- n* }9 ]6 U8 C2 W( b

7 r% A" `0 k5 l  X2 k/ G) C
$ A: w: j" A& ]原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
! u+ R; D8 a: R) G6 d" p1 WDear Phil,' ^' t* C0 N+ c3 ?0 q, m
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s; H& b6 a4 A6 q: g. t7 G; G
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( q: t  E% w1 V: }hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed4 O. n$ y# h3 `- W& v! p- u
you.
/ L. j# f: m- T+ |! ?       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have, w* D" q0 O& V* E7 a; R
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
# M/ ?+ q7 O: r! F: ~! t* {. ?readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
! I- H, y, b2 E& `world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 b' a2 k  ~8 ]* i% Q
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more7 N- _# U, @" b& I1 f  {  p& R
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
4 ?7 B" f: J* g) x. wpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
2 A* u. ~( a5 Q+ ?! b! V! j, A       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
3 t$ i% p7 ?2 rworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
8 P# \( V8 H' enegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- H; E% Y2 J. h- \4 c* Athat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway$ x8 j0 t( x) E
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
+ S) X  z6 c" @; w" q! wexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
5 [. V# t3 n( |# p5 S8 c3 istandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
: Q/ I6 G5 U1 F- u5 \7 W+ Aand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone2 Y0 B# A: K( i5 ~- O
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news( K9 g! ^, e& e7 |4 {5 P1 b
reporting.3 I( f9 O8 B4 }( _
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
: \. p- k6 M9 A) K' q9 Falready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by+ z8 s& b  P+ z
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in/ A) [: X* L1 N
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
2 K/ F* z. u7 p4 a* a9 vpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
% a- B/ F0 c* A$ a1 r+ q       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem8 J2 B# Z+ |) c! y/ [- `. N3 g9 o
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
4 ~1 v- S; s6 E1 L3 qfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
% M$ L: n7 _2 a7 p5 X$ jmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same: y4 g- ?" j1 }' d" ^9 R
event for men, with the second fastest record.: z; Z: D- @8 C$ y
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
1 B1 M; |1 E; z0 Q- ]* twas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16. b; D) g: n, p0 w1 `" u& }. `
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record' O" l. h: @  g3 @; ?8 ^# N( `
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4007 n9 D9 c% d' `2 g' k+ @
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
5 g( R4 y) c( r0 h0 Lfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
$ l* W3 ]( l5 J( P5 r, WLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed; q8 `" z: A; E; S7 z
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: j$ Z; S" T7 L% G1 Aindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
$ q/ C" z# P1 e% Qthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
+ p: Y; @2 D5 \5 i# Tthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was$ K* B. x  k7 g, R# }3 q8 x
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 E7 l3 V0 ?5 V8 ^  [he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
7 R; g0 d2 I1 }" f# `+ Y$ jproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) W4 D3 t' l, u% ]/ e$ f
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the0 `0 i- u7 v* v/ N2 Z6 B) a
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
) P! l& l* A* D; Z" W3 [Callaway report.
8 @. n1 A% X$ u& r6 w8 G5 OThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
) O: |( w" O' {7 ~$ i3 `understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ P2 |$ _, T/ W# T  n+ G9 Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
+ P+ m0 J2 `  A. Uof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
3 H9 s, A6 h) }, I+ Dbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the  l3 J% b' H# y9 @, C
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had' _* V; H7 }6 C8 C1 W1 L' h
publicly voiced different opinions.# K  K+ n4 o7 F/ Y$ W
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
$ Q7 C( p, S. ^5 u7 l5 E3 o1 cfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
$ g1 s* K8 s3 g6 C1 ?( U8 KNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
3 l  Y4 C$ ^, d' q! h+ [postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds' Q+ p8 d" q# F+ j( L+ }9 u' [: k
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
# ]9 ?- w7 J9 G2 Y& j3 `2 t: Iof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue., R9 ]* G; \3 k( k7 z. D
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think4 Z" I7 ]/ J' Q# w+ R( v8 K
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 y1 I; U% `' Z  Jhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
. H8 ^4 ?/ T+ [& b3 Q$ gAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
! M" |2 j8 P6 z; @& {the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was3 P  \. h5 F1 k6 \& `) K: I
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.' i* N5 D9 q: S  i
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that" S$ F1 X1 ?& o5 F- H8 F
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, K  `8 `; n2 j5 \# W( R3 DChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
* j. e  ^' N  v(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she6 M7 q% g0 L5 w. F
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.8 Z, i7 Q& \4 I2 a: w- u
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
9 G9 C, i0 n8 o5 F4 p% [# @and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
( U/ _, {5 N: L; ]) Y. rDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.' i3 c* x: S' M9 @( r1 J
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and0 B8 r! P) ~+ s" p* S
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
0 s+ I+ x' M1 X" S5 F+ Swhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to9 ]/ P+ S4 d7 l8 d8 u
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
6 F' u2 _& @; ?3 W& n7 ]. XThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
2 I* h( w; r; S# X- T- rshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' J, f  Q1 y( r8 d5 h* Pus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather+ O9 Y% [: ~! o$ W- i0 |
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 ~) A: F% k1 d+ q- bthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
1 B, m0 t: E4 ~) i% ~# l% }$ rabout British supremacy.* H8 R, |% m/ b7 L9 l
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
* s' |( `" h! L! f$ G, v; @unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
% t) d0 B7 D; h; }$ DChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
/ n5 J# `$ K' k" K+ Gour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London- o$ {( v- w/ P; e1 T# T% `, ^
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
  {( p* ~8 W4 yYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of, `6 m! g: J* Y# o7 C
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests& u- P! J9 j, h/ X; V: @
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,  P, s$ ?: a* g$ T
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
3 N# G; S4 s" Q/ g8 kpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
3 A# o8 @. B9 C5 ]  LNature.
* q1 B% C9 d8 ?2 B: k0 OI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
* ?3 G9 E! {3 i& gthe Callaway report.
6 Q# J; t) a6 x" ^- @: a+ Z4 P, f( R8 t" s' a7 F4 |/ Z. W
Yi
4 O7 T: @! h0 v8 r" A) B# @* g8 V. l) Y* x( H. q* z
Yi Rao, Ph.D." P. [: P% ?8 ^# W9 @; ^
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences* }: G. d: q0 z2 Y  K# b
Beijing, China8 ]2 I2 e/ {; p  m
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
" r$ Z5 B, R; P" e原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

7 _% ?8 d& ]) f1 k6 h0 T# h+ u原文是公开信。
' j  L& k/ m% v$ X3 h, z/ w+ }; G; t( I9 P
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
2 a, s0 U6 B8 k7 W" P原文是公开信。3 u( t5 B8 Z! m. {
; Z# P9 I" s7 g
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

" H; T  H" H3 n3 m1 e- @  t1 w  |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
: T% P0 Q% h1 f如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
2 I6 w/ {& ^$ _3 ?( X5 v$ e) U# i
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html8 {# O$ _# A+ y4 ^1 o; k) Z& r
- A5 z  E; b8 `  \/ J" H5 s
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ w& ]8 T% X' }: `* L' j& Y" o
( E/ v, W: Z; RIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 _5 k% I0 S5 y. U3 `. V: }, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 @& ^" H9 x, y& D7 X3 @* hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 @" r: n9 r/ ?$ s0 eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# G$ H. r9 V3 Q  M3 }scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
, X3 \6 k9 N' Q3 Y1 d6 ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors* o; ~2 U- i3 D6 R# N3 a
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
" c% t0 `2 _9 A) K6 g3 mwhich they blatantly failed to do.
9 A! A0 S# f/ O1 U
1 p$ t8 {5 s# A8 [' ]6 G- e; FFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
' `& M0 T2 J' NOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
; c7 S( K0 {8 X/ ?* ~2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
. k3 Y) C; {* N* |4 h2 H5 a- danomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 J) t% |1 p4 f7 y2 ]personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an1 S2 p" i# h( R  p$ r
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
' u; j3 E0 A  W  v9 c# J/ }) udifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
. ?) p* v6 R" O/ nbe treated as 7 s.. U: e% C7 V; r( c& t1 @
* `, C# o# Q+ [3 a* o, \5 [4 G. r
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
/ l- b$ m: u! N$ B+ cstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem& z( m2 y, E) S) m
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.( @# z4 ?" Q- k7 _3 }& [5 E
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4007 s, B6 W% o% @3 w+ W
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.- J  D9 Q4 U6 @3 j# W) Y- }( O
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an3 ~, I( `9 K3 b. X, E* B$ Q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and. T- @9 ]* e, x5 i
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% F2 }4 Q6 n& N* N( x1 w' a: H7 ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.7 W8 F- P% f$ k- M. K
- s  ~& r. V5 ]  r' H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 y# _# Q* N7 j$ O, R! O- O( Q+ k8 c/ {* A9 \example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
4 H8 G  g& \$ X$ P: e( d- i& Mthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 J! r/ [/ j2 b) _8 F" khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
5 O" E' l$ H+ Gevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
, S0 N, q0 |/ r! \, E* U" Q) G+ nbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
/ _0 L$ c3 }; b7 e- d9 jFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' V- L; @7 [+ q6 }7 d) Ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 r8 d0 c0 e6 o: P* k  ]/ khand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
  `# n; u# J' A+ S& X% S7 n7 C6 o, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this. A* D) g! l" R9 k: K% ?
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds; y  c6 c& |9 h, k0 [- E
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
2 e7 S; k4 e' ^' Afaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting7 ^( y  J. }5 T. i' q' K+ V
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
) r4 \5 u/ i6 Zimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.* H+ d5 }1 y+ E1 x! K+ s
9 F4 p( M8 O" e8 S* u! D! r: S
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are: l6 S+ m4 T. v4 D5 [
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 M7 Q- {; Y% C2 b: z6 ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s+ u( S2 J# q  R- b: U
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns- g( w: a* W; v! n, P& e4 c
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,' B" a1 m6 i: D3 j' k& Q
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind$ t$ S/ w5 ^# ^! M1 N4 A
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
3 @' A7 s; u8 |logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
, X, Z2 b3 J/ L* B3 i: hevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science: S9 P* _/ K" j& I! @
works.
# v; w( j3 D. E' Q  C; C) x& Y3 [( D$ L, K9 C) j
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and' ?1 j" b* F7 d7 s- t& I! o
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% o+ v2 R3 z" c7 Ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; x; V: u  I! K6 p. g- x! [1 y3 F
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
0 Q8 |- Q9 H' K- V+ |- B5 Q' Tpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and7 x0 d& @8 h2 m, @- @* f2 W
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One7 }; v$ g, i2 ~
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ Y2 c% \. c7 V' J
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
. G* ^. R" d! h% O  T3 uto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample* I0 G- ~6 w: e" G
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
2 `! h+ Z# H+ d$ m' h* n9 |* R: ~: kcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
* J# p( G, ]. k6 [8 T3 u& z( Twrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
7 o/ V; I" c7 Y+ L1 k" hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the+ X0 U/ b' {# o' B4 g
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
  U# E, M2 |$ z9 B1 E6 a- [* huse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
0 O* r( }, ?( `. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- Y9 P% d) M$ t' ]1 V
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
1 y- y& l5 P) U  Obe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a- y1 h( K5 |4 L( D
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ f5 s0 Z4 f! |* [" p
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a& A9 B& H  A/ p+ L- O6 @9 }
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:1 n5 w  ~7 x9 E3 p, H+ Z5 ]
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# u1 H6 h% L+ @% u& ?: J1 c, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is% L. _0 @7 ~) {. M
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an! c7 ?& T+ R- j* A3 z0 ?3 W
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight1 v4 j' ]6 H$ i  m+ h# _
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
, b; o9 L9 g6 B, H/ jLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ S- m! ?( {1 t+ o9 J, Z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for2 M% x, e' F- _+ s5 a9 I
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
. |+ Z; Z2 _( G3 m# q$ M( O# wInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?: ^/ }' `! _( f& `# R- m" E; v
+ i8 b. X' j: R9 Y& z
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
, V# @9 S2 T" Gcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
2 |: a* C# b4 ]' `. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
5 ?# G+ ~& |, z! j2 {% yOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London  J8 O& G# M8 S5 U& c7 _
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for8 g( [$ ^+ s, G4 d- X% v
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 A+ ~0 G: u- i& D/ C4 Zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope( S+ T3 Z# k1 p. l
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a5 n% g) e, F$ q2 v$ c3 W6 s
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% P8 L# @. T, u* |% L# apossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.( d4 Y9 Y4 ]" H/ m

# p2 T. l2 l& {% h0 bOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
" r5 f3 k5 h1 {$ I* y% iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( g, V5 _, e1 z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
' m/ K2 ]& ^) {) r) x! s+ \% isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide& N+ t/ w: K- }9 [1 [9 d5 ^# p$ i
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your! y$ i: \: _  k* u, H6 O
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
" c6 n0 A5 C- g. v' E* V' }! Vexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, ~5 ~. q% _8 p/ v6 U3 j
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 ]5 \! q. B7 E7 l
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
8 Y. f6 A6 J; {! ~. V8 G+ treporting 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, 2026-1-22 03:59 , Processed in 0.215748 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