埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2298|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 6 g! W" U# V9 d% X2 B) _: _, n5 z& E
: T7 v' k3 y+ Q9 ?. m1 \5 P! S; I
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。" g  K8 Z1 ?: o2 B4 ]% H+ m. `
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。6 i0 \6 X* I" o1 B, P
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。4 e6 v, |/ w/ f% z7 R- G

) A* C% u! X/ shttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
7 |; G2 w$ |% w% V* }( J. x+ j; @- L/ T  f/ _+ Y) o1 k- J
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选7 `5 A3 S9 I9 Q5 A; O0 u

2 q+ E+ E3 K& ~4 P$ V$ y英文原信附后,大意如下:
. f! e4 n9 S3 W7 }. W
) e0 P) O' r" s  K3 @! @斐尔,# T. e7 |5 u6 J0 \; C  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
8 Y: j! [6 {& qemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。9 y0 V7 o( A9 o* A2 ], Z
       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! K$ `" Y& ^/ A. b9 `
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
3 H0 F8 R4 [/ z' j0 q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。
% z. }- U; I! G! ^# J, ~. o$ v       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
8 r" ?2 [* N6 z/ [3 b: m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0 T, A; |$ v2 e6 h6 Z* X0 d+ ~- g
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
6 k! [. n7 ]6 f5 p4 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。
7 r! r: j1 Z! E       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
& `/ V. \- _( U* C4 t% b4 ],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) E! u+ b# {2 n3 D
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; m& z5 d0 V: a$ w; D' B       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
( G; R7 }0 y/ {& z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5 Y7 B  p% s1 j% T! N
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 G( Q3 I. k5 u$ O
       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
* |- q" r6 \1 Z/ I/ v; W, ^' V2011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
( T7 p- r/ q% G0 K, p  ]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
6 L: H, J8 C  j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
+ ^& M0 J+ i" V" |. E300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
2 z0 J7 {* ]  Z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 n* _: d8 P: E, Q. ~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4 K/ e4 O3 m* j0 n
。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
4 F% `3 r, o4 i录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。( p& m' O9 Z# K
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
" n$ E: Q- N/ z/ `  w2 r1》,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6 I! N/ W: F% G9 J
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
1 [# t" ~5 s* T- t8 f# e$ r同意见的专家。
! Y$ ]+ c5 c- b  b) y4 A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' A7 H5 Z7 A) K, O
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 ]/ [3 p; n) \0 ]
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" y" }: a6 m- {" o# y  C( w
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
1 h6 d& J2 K& nCallaway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): Z. X( w2 P; X  w9 V
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
/ Q$ K- ]. C- T% _* ]2 {/ c, W《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
" G  {. W7 l5 g8 q0 B1 ^, ?这些被Callaway忽略。; y. H. a# C, D6 b
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
6 L- v# u$ j5 T& F5 L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( L/ S8 L# y2 Z% J& Z
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。' j7 h, l9 }6 u' n
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4 L$ }- @. `$ C
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- \- N1 ^2 L: L# o# K
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
" ~; _) u: A) ~0 J3 J# l1 d  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。4 d$ K" b  O3 r& A
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' y4 T8 Y! U; i$ Y6 h; O
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9 j9 O/ ]+ @3 }
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& ]3 M! |) N6 U
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
# B& M% E. i0 u+ K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# O0 D0 L$ c4 T) ~
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
+ ]- \8 p3 {. w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 E* X$ U4 \1 A: Z4 ]
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
5 g3 H) ^1 W! v- L  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
, S( {9 s5 Y. L4 M1 ]% w$ Y, t  O  k而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
9 a$ s3 U: T+ U; b我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。' i$ A4 M* K2 A( `1 p& x$ A4 D

7 \' o3 K9 e6 f3 g. d
4 B+ Y' S! ]3 ]' ]- ^: \北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
4 F1 I6 I% B2 K0 @8 G; e) `6 y5 n; e+ N3 _- A, X
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
; R6 B% u& h& B6 ?& v% Z附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
! X" h: l# i6 }9 ~: v, I附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 a3 i3 y) N; b$ C; m0 u) A附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 J  {2 r* L6 I5 C6 R- H
: C8 _* K, S' f2 I: Q
- m  v9 m$ }& o! u/ z! N+ p# j( L8 p, S2 ^( r
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)! J7 b) D5 B+ u
Dear Phil,: q4 z) {0 @# l
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ w8 v+ O) I. m' Z8 }9 k5 g1 w
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& ^3 g# P1 H9 M" @8 ?; w
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed( e7 v# X* h4 u0 O% l
you.# R5 G3 y3 F" m( I+ U
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have9 R2 S; l* {6 y7 ~
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' _, x$ z# |: N6 z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the; ^' m! y% p" S% c6 g
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature& G9 }1 R) c3 z& n6 f
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
0 ]& r; k6 q' [' x7 C  n4 [1 Xseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news5 D1 d; V5 @. M! P6 L
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: i9 Y& A3 m) Q2 _/ ~  z8 i$ U
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the6 d3 d( z4 A6 v: b% T
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
( @6 Y. J5 s4 T/ `5 Dnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 F, \1 ~/ J9 e7 W  t3 o
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
1 R% D8 A, ~+ V: O8 j8 F2 j* M/ V! Wdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
0 e. ]' r% T, [explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
! d% M/ U" [$ J  b- W/ a6 mstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
8 N- t: k$ @/ R( I/ t' ?and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone9 d7 t: h: A7 Z5 r; L$ K6 Q! l+ P
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news3 p% q3 l. X& M. p  G# t
reporting.. I' m- W5 t, F# C, J( v
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have2 v4 N% c+ m. k0 A% U
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
* E8 }, `$ U* m" S6 nchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in, I# }0 s. m$ A$ J6 M
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
2 w3 ]* a( Y5 U7 `& F3 Z1 bpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 E1 X3 m% ]9 j+ f4 Z       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; r1 o) {. J* h" [2 G
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
  H" ^' G( n% ofaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50) K& B4 Q% y: J7 y+ A& P
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ \  X- ~! `0 f  R3 w9 _4 e
event for men, with the second fastest record.
/ a) n+ [- T2 [- f' D       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye! v1 a3 l5 f! ~$ G
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
: O' y  f- w0 X. d5 k6 W# s  ]year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record' M- V1 h* t7 C' [- }. R
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400$ n4 C! o3 _1 h8 x! a
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,8 k% K0 h, Y" v& j' t
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
; ~; K' P+ S$ h" DLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
  p& r* @8 I0 M3 f4 Xbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the- T$ `4 g* ?4 q4 j& B# R
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
4 [# Q+ M) R) }$ h1 zthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than* z* a! J' `% R7 Z. s$ d9 E
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was: K2 T5 D( E5 W
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
/ h# l% S; \2 v" ?" M- T9 @he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “; G: ^2 i' L  q
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
3 F& c" X+ j2 A" ~" n1 Y2 Sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
$ U& q/ q8 c7 |teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the, Y2 b$ w3 Q% I
Callaway report.% W4 M0 C3 r% j0 \
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
# Q6 _7 V1 I6 U( i, q1 }understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* _: X4 ?9 D5 J$ r  q- ohere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description% Z1 c) u* @, x/ x1 Q
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
) S: g1 Y: d" A7 J) }better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
9 ~5 f2 f* p& w2 I  hWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had6 N9 K( k; B3 n1 H2 J* a  e
publicly voiced different opinions.' O- U2 T1 `+ f7 b0 T/ T; T
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
( ?+ _+ a& a* u! Ofrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
& d# E4 y5 y1 N$ {9 ^Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" B0 {& T( t4 kpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
8 [" ?0 s: a% D1 t, d5 [6 `you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy4 y# b! Q; L# u% A: \
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.  L. V8 T9 `0 u6 [
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think* C/ i) z. r. c' p0 d
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
0 u4 J1 _9 V) e. phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
4 t( u. C! m* d, FAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that9 q2 B, B0 y1 r! p
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was) N8 @% v) U- Z- d( @! v( A
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.% s* W+ s' t& h* i" p9 w
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. o% x* k8 f; a# g+ ~% @many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the: i; ^& |( w( D, Q& l$ n/ h
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
  q: K! _1 u3 h3 Z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she2 l- J3 x/ j$ M" y
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
( f2 w$ }% o( A' EThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science# _5 U. C/ _+ t2 _( `0 }/ D
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and' I$ i7 T3 y8 Z: N* l. y
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.2 V& B  |9 [# c* c$ @& K6 O9 [
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and# c( Q- H. o* |/ Y: ]
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature9 U2 h; q7 C4 I. p& g9 u
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
: U( n; z7 p' A' Z* Trepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
- a( M! j3 D' v7 E6 L; d+ d  Z0 xThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not% n  R! g2 p2 b
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
. t1 |1 T7 w, m! d! nus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
$ T, Y# v- v& C0 i8 cfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that8 S1 M$ h) L" K5 Z
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”1 _9 w8 K6 \) e! E- |2 a
about British supremacy.
$ a) h0 _, Q- e! e0 Z: \* tThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many9 |0 V9 ]4 t1 }
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more' K  P2 y9 e- J, y# F0 g
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by7 C/ k& k( [. b5 ]* r* O" {9 Z9 S
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London  R9 e0 m6 l0 ]2 S: @+ p% t8 K
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
( @- S8 i5 i- M6 xYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
; g) d* r  E* z( q: [% Y7 bprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
; g. p( B4 ]9 a4 F; k% Z5 M1 |before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,) r# n, m; T( e( y0 J( x
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
3 |" K6 M' t3 ~0 b$ _; gpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) f1 ^( n: }; S/ dNature./ U1 P, O- N$ A# O; P9 \
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance, N7 K+ V  @. ^3 U$ R/ o8 N* E
the Callaway report.
7 v' n3 ~$ D/ {5 N, P3 H, y1 Z# U" x" \
Yi
% n; M* x: F; |! T( ^9 z* [2 s, C) S" D) c9 F
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
8 E# ~4 x7 V# X$ y& u4 ^# WProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences9 w8 O$ ]* t1 }3 M9 h7 K6 L
Beijing, China( d, J7 L4 ?% b2 y- Q/ Z" ]
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
( |! d. b% r: l原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
) g+ X& M7 w9 U  o  _- r8 t+ Z3 }
原文是公开信。
1 y6 P7 y* k5 {& S- Z1 ~3 H7 R. z1 b1 m( D0 O
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 L+ n( K4 H8 I原文是公开信。: n: ?+ v/ b- P# K/ a
8 r) g6 n0 z7 G# S$ Q
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

' n& X9 `( s- f! w5 ^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
$ A" t1 a$ z3 X3 a如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- v# N" x7 I% D) k
6 Z5 l% H7 ]. h4 l& U
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
% b5 Q: D  i# I: E6 |  F0 L% h
! ~0 {7 Q: C4 VFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
2 j2 N0 x+ r4 {7 F7 ~9 G
; G/ y3 x6 }8 H8 z7 A9 z' aIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" c5 W7 i- i0 C- J- L; O7 E" P' @/ a, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 P+ x4 C) V* M) n. H6 @4 t
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, t7 F. M9 ~' I$ D- ^/ M8 }/ @7 r( I9 `
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the* e: ~# J+ a1 u3 x" r% W8 ?9 @
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
* a& ?5 Q5 d' N# G% {# _  Epopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors# q; O( V! H# q& C% T; v
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ ~; ~  m* B% c" R2 U5 Q9 ~which they blatantly failed to do./ j8 a) g5 L4 u/ |  @

! v/ a) ?% [: r/ hFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
  G# f& {* Q; E3 r5 Z4 `Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in5 \# G; {9 b1 I) c2 M! ~+ d3 t- l
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “- x5 O- X0 f8 C, e; f
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! x* F  T& T# H/ T( x! `9 o
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! ?, u+ d5 z% _/ M$ V
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the* {5 N) e% n8 W# ~+ W! R6 v# O
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
% n; a" v# R9 v6 `0 }be treated as 7 s.' \, ~1 o, z/ I; o8 e" [2 d
$ k; U# O. W/ \! F$ U/ s
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
! n4 p! x$ E1 K/ Y0 L+ h9 ~still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 Q& E7 b$ B: t% A9 {/ g1 D2 Qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- V9 Q+ o; Q! e$ L
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400+ l6 M$ U+ m2 B$ i0 P
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ x$ K, s. F  G/ ~- j4 FFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* y* E, N/ L/ z) C, M, Z+ A
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
7 @5 B; \; t' L7 k- apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ C, I3 c. r% j" b$ H% ybased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.$ x5 |6 `5 Z9 p

" m, W6 u, k# A! X4 VThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& l+ u( C- L  {! F, [example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ U2 \$ J1 s& \( m. v1 R! h7 c+ H* q
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 i8 A3 N+ ~9 A) e3 d! E* yhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
7 I, L$ p# ^& n9 |/ X0 w  t! Y- Pevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" w5 I  w0 V4 B. f5 Vbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 y/ @( c, [' ^Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
  I+ w0 x4 m$ u! H) t3 B# p: Vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
4 M/ b" ^+ E# h# h. f  \, a, B5 Ihand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
7 G, x1 b8 y2 u; O( ?) T, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& B$ L( }* t( Rstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
( o1 X/ B+ T( E# ]8 gfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
; n! M. L1 s+ Y; X4 ~faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting3 n9 k- r3 P8 n/ O" S% L
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
8 q1 G6 P5 X* O( X/ Pimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 C$ w) C( q& _$ c- g4 j9 S' `" U, k& {
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are8 u# i3 s* B' x) N
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93! g% D3 q; D$ t1 x0 V
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s- c! B2 {$ ~5 E; m
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns8 e$ [5 Y7 i7 ]- [( j
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,% G" C" I3 |' E& o$ ~' W
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind5 L+ x( E! |! c. o4 m- |/ y
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
/ ]2 {# P& n# Vlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! n2 F( _( V; Aevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science4 O' a' z  f# a# j4 S
works.; W: ^! E) G. F! D+ v/ Y$ r4 {
2 u) t; k! d/ ~" ]; s9 U& S% k
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
3 f0 F0 q/ K. X$ Fimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this7 ~/ y% D6 y2 [. _# A8 `
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that  M  q2 v- r$ V
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
* e0 g- ^- q* W  S% `' Q0 hpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! E& G' B3 |9 X8 Sreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
' s* r4 C. q  k/ Z* M# \7 ~cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" R9 D) t( z: ]2 Q! ~
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# A5 Z& g- c3 o: f' v7 r# M, X( a: jto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample, @9 P1 ~# _0 g( l( `7 q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
# k3 Y7 T1 {3 i9 i: X9 Ycrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
( g4 A1 i7 k$ ]% d0 Swrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
/ U% G: n# k5 k- P9 P' R6 radvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( T, A& W9 O7 Z$ N  H# M: z
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% k. A7 e4 L, @
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation1 s, L; N, t: q& T' J! T
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are$ U9 [) W/ I: x2 F* ~
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may0 f- |1 Y- f) i1 O
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
8 ^  F( i0 Z( Nhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
0 B5 M( ~, M1 G' l/ [has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a' I: h' f- t* c" N0 Y& o
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
/ ^  L3 @" F4 Q5 Fother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect7 C3 a  P5 }8 c; r6 ]& a$ z) s
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is8 v: S( P8 c, k- u' j1 _8 M- X
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
2 C8 D' K* X' |* g! W$ [" W9 kathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
6 x1 }& M3 W8 h2 a. q3 T) }chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
, S6 z' p7 }8 t9 [& tLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping" T4 {* N- |* O. i4 Z
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for1 r5 |1 _) Y2 o, v
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances./ O% V, i' O3 Z3 N6 L  L& i9 N2 y' q4 w
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
# `; P) H, X: y0 a1 U# f2 n7 O3 t# N' Q2 u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-3 ]- k) r* I% J* [  ]* Q5 Q+ l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention2 f* I' s# i) J# Z
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
2 X6 d' Z; J9 p0 h; z0 mOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
( a+ z. a, X) L1 wOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
* E* X: l, R; C- @. D8 zdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic9 W/ f( S1 h4 n6 l: T. [
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope8 w- o- n4 T+ N' t$ ?
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
3 \1 ^. F9 @. e; r) j) uplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
4 _/ w& `$ Z& b" @possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye./ L9 o3 c  ^- ]% Q5 {! i

0 ?+ F& H- O8 p/ D! P6 S  DOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
6 A' _: N  v2 k1 xintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
* ~5 [4 W* c* m7 G' osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a5 y1 z. y8 S) U
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
. ~9 P2 n1 f' T& P8 b, Aall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
$ O7 ~5 {3 E  L7 z/ ointerpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,' q+ u5 K* W  C& X! R8 d' c9 I5 I
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your/ q, f8 K$ c( Z% A7 M; O
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
( c% Z  G5 ^% dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or, F; @  x9 g$ d% i! h- h7 P1 R' a/ d( h# o
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, 2026-5-5 09:13 , Processed in 0.399544 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