埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1974|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 : q- Q# m  X# m: A

: b, o" x7 v: ^- O0 U饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。4 F" ^0 ]. |4 x  }  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。$ P! P# R: C5 ]  O! F
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
$ ^) W/ p6 A. P  L" i  E2 h  ~
7 u) A% ]/ O8 X: u. Chttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html3 X& z9 s  \$ g! w+ o

5 Q# a' l  o4 q% z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
7 J. j& z/ E7 h+ @3 r/ E- o
! ^5 T7 a+ r1 j3 Z* I$ n英文原信附后,大意如下:
; y1 P- k) u9 V* d
' Z1 r( |5 J0 e5 Q+ n; r斐尔,7 u! Q3 H# G* P+ D. F' h& W
       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  G) S" Z# c. X2 _1 _! r8 g
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
4 s; x  ]; ~; y$ J       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
- h, f* C/ s, f; S  r0 W2 m" 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7 u, M! V! w' A: U# i5 Z0 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。
; B' d5 r$ n% q: o       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞. {& n/ v- L) q2 V" V7 U- I
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
9 S1 K. ^' c* b7 E/ e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) e3 f  d( V# {0 B$ U* z. @' a
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。. o: a7 S. g) g" J5 C/ a# W
       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
  i, V1 N4 S3 G& V: C,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' j- y, F" w& b- I3 _# B: x7 ]
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 O, n8 r6 o8 Y& d: J+ K. F$ r: V       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
" S( T7 ?1 G* \2 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
$ Y0 W+ e2 ?# u,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。! y; O) l0 J9 V/ t+ p
       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% G* n! S1 t/ {- V& R2 H. B
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
) H8 m9 F9 R+ T! h( H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 J+ \! m, F3 D) w0 W  r; u
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
, g% q/ \7 n: {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  ?0 @! `: K' p  L
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) `: Z9 w$ |8 O
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* j! A4 _, Z* M- _: Q! y  m% A
。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0 ?% M& Q- y- Q6 i5 n; b' s6 S) l' k
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
- D- Q$ q# Z4 z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
5 }! o" @, O5 ?6 x( u7 ~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
2 E6 E" K' F; P# G  eWikipedia。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/ Y  e% w: B- |) g
同意见的专家。" h. m6 o6 b0 j- `# q
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 l% r& q! @. `6 J
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
. S6 f1 v" E. P0 T4 W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6 l( o2 g- v# Y2 r; _9 ]4 A' e( a0 v
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
  B$ ~! M& i/ ACallaway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)3 Y9 C6 p5 e" q  C
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
( N$ _" x  C. F, d5 e, P2 i《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' |4 v2 E* q- C2 _
这些被Callaway忽略。0 c- j3 H% ^8 h% W3 V) [" A
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/ n$ L; y3 ?% N* e5 S
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3 g7 b* J+ p/ C# q4 \3 m! E
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
% E/ v; [. s2 s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( N) Z  H% z4 }0 _5 w
学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学
. Z* H) i. m  W. L9 O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  Q- O. k9 ~8 ]. s' t: ?
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。
$ r8 Y7 p. B( t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
" Q6 p, S" N" ^; b7 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: n5 l, C& B! ?( Z) [5 u/ V+ w9 o  @
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+ H7 S. m; f; X) f. E% [. U
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。& |. K4 ^' j# L0 u0 m
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, w+ q# o# X/ S, o4 G& C; ?8 }$ D
弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问
' ~5 M0 G7 W: k# \' o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+ M2 I6 i6 Y* W! A# k% A
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
% \8 U2 }( n( S; f* ^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+ B3 P3 C, a- e2 p9 I7 M6 {2 M" ~
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ f* H+ t: M+ `5 J* Z- h
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 H7 ^" L- C. {8 }2 u0 I$ m
" k1 d' r( P" a
0 G0 x: a1 q) X2 X+ X8 I
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
: Q/ n# ?$ g1 \( u
, x! }* s* V5 t9 k) q3 B附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
( E  o: ?0 K; g  A, J附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email  b$ q. u, c; }) Z% c) X
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见; a' c/ }- d1 E
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# x& i5 g0 q% D* Y- g2 O
+ ^* H3 t1 [1 E$ p5 I2 z" _! h. _  a3 F6 N  y5 n
, y7 t" D8 I: f" F2 r
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
0 |, L* T# A: W* e2 s0 F& \. oDear Phil,- x) x$ q" {/ W' \5 z
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
7 C# r* X% ]! t& g( t- M9 xreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. v( J5 k% G3 O  ~* g9 ]7 v
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# [& G$ [; e7 x/ P+ N
you.
& }( I. Y# k% j8 D       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have. C5 \  g' X! I8 i- \! T
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
2 x8 [6 f9 ]4 B9 E, w6 creaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the4 _; e9 U4 G4 o* E! U8 |# V% F4 e
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature  @* ^1 f2 b' p% _3 @
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
) e, M! g4 d2 A- Z, ?seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news# o( o- I0 a9 @6 J* D
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
  a% w! Y1 y) w. O7 n3 m, d       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the. H; z3 I# I) r) V8 S9 S
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a; ?( v9 a- w- B0 a/ h7 _9 v! z
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish1 Z" M" W( U# T( g2 R
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway$ I6 [4 g" F$ c8 |% p
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping6 u! |' z* `! w. h; @7 s8 A0 O# q0 u
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal8 F/ i/ I4 r& T; }. L
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
& w3 ]1 n, J0 X- a" wand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone) M  J+ }, O* p3 [1 P" D8 C! T( o
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
' A0 E# O1 U& I, ^reporting.
# J! y# L- x( g4 H8 f+ {' q6 g9 x       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; L' n2 t: X0 E6 S: J/ ?6 _already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
- O9 P2 u/ h: W& {0 nchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
: O2 o/ h2 @/ x% J( b/ [sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 |, |5 n+ r5 D4 r
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* ^3 R1 ^. `4 [; i; x" R       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem$ p8 r+ ]/ F% l3 D8 s& h
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds* ~3 t/ ^7 n4 V5 E, ?
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 505 i+ }  @& N( j; }9 B: r' a
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
  Z" X4 u- X! f6 D$ Levent for men, with the second fastest record.2 Z; V* Q2 ?. m$ {
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; }# M4 P2 p# W, W" k, L2 F6 {
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16/ m% L( l( y, `$ D, ~, {
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) [0 }3 s6 _! X0 \2 ~0 R0 A# S: }. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
* c( e; H1 Z8 O! `* v* V# ymeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
9 m6 B/ E1 c3 i$ b4 |for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than3 m4 M; `% B7 g
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
6 [; m& W( {" c/ R1 M& A1 gbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
( b2 D; \* n* [! H, |4 t/ D; w  Gindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ s; o6 V3 B+ Y+ [6 N' H
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 i) V4 b0 |# {5 Y
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was- q7 N/ V8 J2 q
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then: b% G" \4 z. h9 m* E
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
, l; `2 ~) Q% P: ]problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' n. m, B5 Z6 Mswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
8 }' I6 ?  n# i9 Z( |) z) ]teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the5 p. M( Q4 Y  Y
Callaway report.4 g, z9 J2 M& g: f( C2 P* l
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more5 }4 E2 ]% P: q( [  D+ u
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details7 {3 |8 g' _  N3 D. q0 `9 ~. |8 z
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description: g, }& J; j  v" R* K0 H( y
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been1 `$ {; J$ H7 [3 F6 \/ O3 v+ F# z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. D# e9 e; x6 [) @3 n1 y1 ]
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
' a6 x3 N1 Z. i7 z6 N# x5 Fpublicly voiced different opinions.
9 y! n; a5 E' B" ZYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD$ A* C5 e+ v1 e- T/ i
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature& f* V. A& x5 Z; r! @7 e/ b
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
! T! J2 C' P; S6 f0 b2 fpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds4 b! v* B4 z& d- S& R, b
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy& L! {7 g. c: @7 Y
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.5 M* h+ V* X" Y; \/ W
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think6 Z( t* b2 B" e( \8 i
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They/ i  a, _  `8 I$ g$ H' w
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as9 R8 |  ?8 i# e& t5 w3 _
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that0 s, O+ z/ L/ |* l' P4 c
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was  B5 Q& ^! `9 |! p
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.. Q, W9 i7 }) G0 }2 L
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ `4 Q6 q8 X6 `3 ?7 g
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the' [1 w8 h  p( M, F* E% y4 a
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" u+ w. R( x" Q6 [) @9 B4 t(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she$ T( u. j" K$ n3 k& `; R0 Q
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
5 l; p  J" N. M% R7 `! ~7 M2 A3 \% q7 o; nThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science) s# O/ O$ ^& g( F
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and  ^2 I1 |$ P; }2 w# m* a0 H
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.. {/ I+ x. K( H9 R) o, {! v2 W& w
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and) Z, P* e  M1 U5 R1 h
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
  q6 C; m. ~5 Y' `: w! }what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to5 L& `: V3 @6 f9 Z; K* |
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.8 ?2 G4 c" U, u$ g0 y
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
5 P" S- z0 C1 fshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced( X9 R! |$ n) \0 G
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather. m0 ^0 c2 _7 [* \6 y% P  y, z
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
0 }: Y8 L6 t% E" G3 Z1 J  e2 n( M" ^this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”  n4 @9 G. ~  _  V7 Y( }
about British supremacy.
- f+ j! I. v. }/ d' LThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
1 O3 t! b3 d. {! U$ A! m: hunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
. j4 W' v/ b2 o1 G: j- S* q- R1 r+ PChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
9 ?4 E* v5 H0 ^7 M3 v$ Mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London, ]9 ?* c! H  s
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
( e9 F7 `/ \, IYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of( n/ T. e0 q# R0 @  j
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 k" ^) D$ g9 {( U0 m) n! ?before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,0 d. T7 B7 r) l/ f" S5 N
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly5 v% _! j3 I1 S& O
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
7 D- `) j' e4 uNature.2 N/ K2 v% y4 K& B; ~
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance; I. ^. _5 i$ t+ [1 @; u) C# S
the Callaway report.
9 Y5 A1 p: _" x5 q5 n2 k: b( n# o* }' E7 f' M; y' G  v8 y
Yi+ W- U2 x9 k7 G8 m+ X

: a) w* V' f. D0 GYi Rao, Ph.D.
2 l2 Y+ @( a8 X- {. E5 EProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
9 D- S. V* P1 K$ fBeijing, China. v' G. \! p. D% S
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 " H! _9 R) U  b1 u  O0 O
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
; P1 @- w4 N) N) W
原文是公开信。& _5 t8 h. r- @' B

2 l/ x: I: M, f4 X" s0 k- T1 z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 J& |3 I7 x( n% F+ W$ X' C原文是公开信。
' X. z! C* P& D2 o: u) }# t0 m% C1 C+ E
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

6 A8 `9 D" C0 b" T) |! i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
; g7 {" ~6 k6 J- C0 V如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 q8 Y1 g1 |& i5 L, w
$ z; g; }( `2 S2 S% {5 T
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 Z8 _. y8 e( M. ~) P7 p
$ q3 s& t6 X6 E/ N5 z) `FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& _) m6 ~% n2 s
+ x* z8 \: b- D+ O) V; {It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
. _5 B; K  ^! P  n, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 ~/ j# c4 `% Q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this9 v3 r4 Q4 [: d7 P( K2 p
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
7 ^* ?. c7 V& }  Ascrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
) Q6 i+ E& }! A5 C: {2 t; l9 Hpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
# h& L; g4 t0 a$ y7 Cshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
1 Q# @8 t' Z0 o* O8 k, Fwhich they blatantly failed to do.
% ^* x; {" y) v
7 \; \# m  i1 U5 v5 t* qFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her. q4 w' A* u: o# D6 s
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- Q$ x3 E; b. C$ k5 R. n2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 n; N, D" v  h8 d4 sanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 _3 p* j, C% f9 X) f5 Epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an  }) h- p5 r6 c$ j4 D; b7 r
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% N+ }+ @# X8 C" r: S0 k5 K( j
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 Z# E8 j! B6 K4 q" v3 ]& s# y4 ?
be treated as 7 s.
2 V* x/ x' G. z# Q1 z+ H9 ~1 g$ O; n2 V* Z- X
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is7 |, C' ~- M. C3 R: P) O( a
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: J: ?1 ^/ L# timpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.1 C9 Y5 O% Z* P1 Z% ]. s* [
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4003 @$ X0 l3 |0 _  r2 I9 v" v
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.& n8 m" p  v$ K9 a
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' Y  z8 l0 A3 C9 u
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
  w& p. i! ?. g- T6 U8 w3 p7 Bpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
6 R: Y% O8 p$ B: e: }( Bbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.9 z$ x  M- q: G# c
! k  F" b5 l( X
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook$ u) V( Y" ]8 ^' i( i5 x
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
# I" m2 g5 M3 s* o8 Y. k6 \the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
" z$ v; M+ f; n6 Khe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later  i; d- W% |! F; s/ J8 P6 b2 S
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
4 U; h6 t# Q9 A# F5 i* Ubest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 {" |7 T, m- @Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
* i' S" z9 K4 }, {' G6 ttopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other2 M  W8 v# R  T2 Y8 S/ W
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle; E* X# r6 f0 ]8 F
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) |+ }4 y" p7 D$ ?$ _5 B( Vstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
1 t6 I2 U7 Y& A9 N/ \faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam5 A8 B; S2 ~$ j' n! [
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: r9 r; P! K; b( f
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
2 k7 U- P9 C) aimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.3 f) c; w& X% X) l

% ]2 {+ X9 f$ ^1 YFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
: W9 d# ^4 C, q2 w* k; Lfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ i* B& ~& \' O% ?7 X
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
  y' B) }6 }+ H5 S, s1 N  f), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ r  z: v7 i. R, B
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
( X: ^( `" i% Z. xLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: t) H2 l. U7 J1 ?) v" Oof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' a6 b, S$ w- o3 t# V) N7 H- T
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
$ H+ U( v5 e7 G! l7 N9 levery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science8 n& h, |: m# V' R& c
works.
% J( g8 g; s/ w
% h; O/ q( D' uFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
1 C; s  w( _7 f+ oimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this. R5 d" `& p, Y* @! b0 b' L7 Q; ]# j
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
) Z4 J+ b6 e. \standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) m( B6 C1 T0 mpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and" T( E( }+ y$ }+ ^7 J$ h( m
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
7 Z* c) h& P8 {, F6 a' m: H7 ycannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
5 \( T9 g; N- O# u6 hdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works# J- f' t' q; n6 X
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample8 J: L. A2 O8 o! @+ `
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is( D- ^6 c: f4 z  L3 n6 B* g2 S9 u9 ^
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he7 r; z% m. F; N7 c1 M* f2 i
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
' u' ^4 c: q/ k; f) J; wadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the+ z$ P* T/ v  n, Z# }7 }
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not- J; W0 l; T% O* W1 R# T7 E) [, t
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
3 ~) C0 k- M) Y1 l" l- F4 C3 i" g. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: M% ]6 U; C% ?$ w% G( V  g. `
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* F( `8 m. x- M" }( e
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; |1 Q( j( @. |3 y
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye( V9 ]) y2 k% c" i6 b& X. @
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a+ ]0 H9 X: @' @6 O. n, W9 [: y
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:4 H! m9 K! V) b0 e& i4 P
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect& Y; q) g" e8 D- F
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
9 Y( c9 u, m9 w- R: \2 p1 {probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
6 l" e7 L# s2 w2 ]+ Fathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight7 N1 u* H; d! d
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 j9 L4 V# D2 H  [
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping9 M2 l$ B* P; d5 i. f
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
- d; M* @$ K3 R$ \( `eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' A- [8 f0 V! o; h# u1 x; U& T6 SInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
! L8 w7 w" Y5 s$ ?' Z4 r  m8 [( M8 v, ~+ k. U
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
" n/ M' b4 W6 ^$ a7 a, m- Qcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. @1 _3 _+ W% A9 b
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, d1 V' F2 l( H9 t0 u2 c/ E/ _8 a
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
1 q8 p/ ?( v& {$ @7 O6 \" ^1 uOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
$ f, W" x$ c) s. j: `doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic% e5 }- y" s$ m$ t9 h! ^
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
1 B* u$ G! ~, N; Thave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. K3 F: v0 K9 Q& }0 v7 pplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. Z( }' l0 s) D2 d. a8 K* S, {possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.; U3 M7 H4 x6 {; b, h! P8 ^) }

  y- Z5 n1 w5 _. p' J7 Z% |3 p5 gOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
5 D0 V4 H$ I: Q0 h) W. tintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, J0 M5 L( U! Msuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 a3 \8 u' U0 V4 D) d0 ^3 g) |( esuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
6 h' i0 u6 \; u7 a- Xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your+ l; v+ S; r+ z8 \, o8 P6 l
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,1 X5 M, X* ~/ h2 ^# `7 s9 Q
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your, N+ D( K6 S  v
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal; r  ^) J. Y3 g5 K% f
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or7 r# k5 s2 l9 n4 p, ^. m
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, 2026-1-29 05:56 , Processed in 0.142092 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