埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1970|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 - i0 ]9 I# L, `  f0 Z
4 d9 D3 ~6 c6 [; q  e
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。: r- W4 ?) \1 P2 e2 I3 n5 W
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。
2 D4 w5 j" @6 h% U* ]- m/ [总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。9 ~! {1 f% S, C: J

! b  ^( |, o* h* Q  v8 n% h( o- chttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
& F$ g5 l1 B3 |
4 x4 h* ?0 D, m2 v致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选  N5 G9 V& ^7 u8 `( J
/ J8 \8 l- e; b% y7 f
英文原信附后,大意如下:' o# f& N7 e: ?" I. O5 P& `* q
4 `4 p) z# ?" ^  k: T, O
斐尔,
* U. c! y6 R" f3 m       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
; w, A! n, j. j5 C$ Z; y7 ~email的人里面小部分也给我来信。, Z/ e% p5 O0 l/ G+ u  Z$ u& h
       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& W' E% N; V  j2 L5 {  l' t2 [6 B
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
" z9 t4 O. J. C( y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。
7 x5 \5 a. R$ K) E6 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9 y7 l; N9 ~0 R- [
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
; d) v. l, U1 @+ Z* z! g* T2 u3 Q$ B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
: m, Y4 |' B) F+ e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。* @' I9 i/ X9 B3 Y. 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
, K4 @. O' t' [,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
& @9 G! U4 d& k7 `# P! c, [”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
, s/ w- w. B/ J) H, a       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) u* T5 H6 |/ _: E
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' e; N; Q6 z7 x' {9 v5 e- [% b
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。& _5 G3 I% m! K/ w& v8 P& R3 N. t
       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
& s" W5 O5 w, q$ @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- J  p. \' k& u# @8 N
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二# w4 n0 k5 A& T4 T. E$ b6 Y, t
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9 O; H- |5 z2 P. P
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六
& _9 F- y( o3 o位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱7 [* |. J/ e* J: Z6 L; f9 _+ c
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# F# @' H; N7 Q0 J# _& S7 e5 J
。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  Z5 F0 v+ ?, k9 t( b& {5 K
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
3 Z+ p% m! }! h; x- r/ L9 j1 u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3 v6 d" S( o, c! N5 a. J' q+ s
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" \6 s% C4 W0 _/ i& t* E2 F
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
( }( u5 `/ v! M9 V' ~! K6 v9 O2 F$ I同意见的专家。
6 L* u/ k9 l9 Z1 U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
$ ]: Z2 b( l' V- ]! p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: _8 w- B7 ~9 W7 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
; r/ y5 l) A0 {' J0 p《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。' D+ k/ T; n+ u6 f. c/ n8 H  s
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)
- K: h+ C/ G4 Z* x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
) S- ^  i% L3 m: W% L0 Y《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
* L5 [, ^4 C. p7 G! R8 x  t这些被Callaway忽略。
7 ^$ C8 e2 x+ Q# I7 V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; J4 b; i9 i5 i3 `6 b  \* 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: }5 O+ `$ g3 k% P, H
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。; D" X$ a. G: H3 y) w7 ]
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5 T6 E$ |" X: f6 \& Y) m: C0 r
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! e% c& G0 B+ F
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
; R$ l% H8 I$ g+ K2 {1 d6 f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。
# E7 o" y/ K; Z" T. K- p8 Z" Q2 B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
5 M3 F  K; S9 Z4 s& S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3 V7 |0 ]  L# w+ A/ t# u( I0 q2 v
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" z9 Q0 o3 `7 {3 w" w9 L# x& Z
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。& E8 B! Z- O3 D
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
4 q, X% i' M& q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 e8 k7 r* t1 @- O& _/ e
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
6 K, @$ P, @4 S7 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 V0 s$ @* @, e4 t4 c
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
) E2 w( T) f+ F% B4 z% c而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。$ b, g3 X& U  u9 H
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。. m! p8 [7 z. V! g# \, O: ]7 y- W1 e
9 \% r1 }# f9 n+ T0 i* F" D* R6 J
* I! V/ H+ m; N; V
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅2 \" ^6 z! v7 V4 I1 N" T) Q0 a3 U

* W. l! N$ N7 M" y! k& z& F* @附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结2 q, S8 S; ^* z+ ~4 s- N* q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! s2 h1 G; s, ], }2 b
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 `& _, |4 w: t! G4 g2 m附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) K( |6 @: n) k, i: R" q2 y* }: u9 {9 j
% g+ {; U6 b+ ]- D

* t: M" q4 S3 K+ Z原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)( Q1 j5 d! m8 Q+ y+ J* F& D8 N3 `& n
Dear Phil,
9 K' y' @0 L0 S+ S- q       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
6 p7 n! }" q8 l9 l5 e% r8 Preport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
5 k3 u+ `  V% {* V* ^4 ^hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed& [: X% u, g* b& |# m2 K% m; P0 f
you.& ]% s/ O+ s- w& z9 P
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
# j4 m: m3 [* e# `. Q* R6 K, }0 ~" k7 Pbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese7 V( A4 }0 s8 R. A5 Z; O
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
! V1 r7 o. N9 o$ b8 B# ^9 @world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
' l  r- }7 A, m/ A  @" k( Y& dpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
0 _: Q% T' h9 y6 Z4 U  Zseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: K8 H. t& N- A  B: s
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
) ^6 v# Q0 u( _- S# u8 F       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
& V2 R+ }: z  T( O2 Aworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a6 W6 g) u' o: B! H0 Q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
# P( _4 H$ F9 s7 y' R" h6 @that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway: m# j9 ]7 J/ M% j/ n, L! X5 g5 \
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
2 |8 T3 `4 v* y  E! T$ i3 Bexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal3 Y+ d8 l. p$ O7 f. W, e4 A
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
% r9 i6 m1 q' y6 Iand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone5 p2 P: `% x4 m& _
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news6 f. ?- J! M/ ?8 @$ Z( l
reporting.% ^4 f3 H; D, H# W* ]
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have( F; B" _0 y, M
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
  |8 Q: }' a6 G/ n  ^# Tchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
6 Z  W7 `  V  A, b$ ^sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A5 V. D' F; f7 ?: U
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! E( X3 U* y3 d  I5 k/ x3 V       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. y  z/ r" K+ s: y
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds/ t. x: o$ x& M) `7 L
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
0 K2 K% B9 _2 U3 Xmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
0 Q. C2 R% p, E" x, G0 E7 [event for men, with the second fastest record.
) w. u/ A" @" ]$ O: R, E. O       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
* c6 Y4 T% b' Y6 a7 ^" [was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
" r8 k2 h8 D6 s/ l5 Vyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
' k1 J* C) @  ^  h. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
0 O5 E- Y! J0 ~' T# S5 f- zmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,% _; S" n4 I- I2 s9 g
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
" I0 n6 a9 j% \$ u2 aLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed1 o  i3 X; _& U% R
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& n; b' o- n# E  ?8 V5 s( vindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower& \; \1 o( _# b, G5 D
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
6 l. r) F$ l/ O2 uthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
/ w! ^! k& m) v. w# `her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
4 b  b3 Z/ u8 X, J3 n& zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) r! N6 F! ?- K7 \/ Xproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other, I* W3 }: r" Q! [+ W
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the' D! |+ B0 F- ^& s# e
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the$ `! x' W( U$ M4 V0 q
Callaway report., g4 w& ]8 x( E; i0 M% V
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more9 `# |: \' z) h  z1 R7 }* v
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details1 z. M  v7 Y8 y# h
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description5 W9 P& X: g* H( i/ M2 D
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been- T% h) @- d' H# S; u: V- d
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
* W# ^: r; j! E) b6 SWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had9 l9 Y& k, t- e7 t  B
publicly voiced different opinions.  \$ F& X5 Y, Y$ Z
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
$ t' D6 J; k; n% f/ N* Z  ?from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature" v" |6 ?* l# l- a
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent2 y% ?4 S! V) F/ O: @
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds. `. A/ ]% q7 D
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
3 t5 f6 f) k, Sof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
4 h; l- R! c% v/ D& D" xThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
" x# t, `, `- n+ ythat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They1 c" [1 `9 i% u+ T+ H! J) W
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 l4 }: v) I) G/ D+ j4 l! x) K
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that9 Y: P* @1 k, R
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was2 q. G6 T! Q  J! N* x( r
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.: M5 r& r9 `8 [/ Q7 q' a
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
5 C. u- p) ]3 C% G) {many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, B- v, q( z/ g. a- YChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June* I7 v+ e2 f/ Y  k  m* a
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she9 z4 J0 `; K. a! @
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! e- f0 N; I' a, x! s# V, j3 E9 ZThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, Q' c* `1 [& y0 hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
2 d5 z7 f7 \7 ]' }; C% H3 U4 HDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world./ l* H, u* L$ L, z& s$ B
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and- }: c6 F, |; S5 u+ {/ i  c
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- Q& }/ z) [1 {+ t3 Ewhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! N- M" A7 x: B3 @3 ^) crepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
* C. A$ Y' l$ BThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
  A+ ?/ B: k, T; @$ m( xshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced5 d: S! a9 ^5 Y6 w( d( O
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
9 _" K0 N9 d0 T! C+ V- G! c  C( hfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that! m6 h9 S3 A8 Z
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
4 h, f+ O  i" T4 j9 C: V7 Habout British supremacy.
/ ?  u- Y% [* q) ]The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
+ }5 F; D/ g' o" y- ^- iunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more8 ]. x6 i3 b' J8 l) J
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
0 i9 O* U9 S4 a  P$ l' d9 kour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% T( T  r% E1 M/ r9 `Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.$ b3 l( s1 k0 w! f0 w4 L" b7 }
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
4 w1 `; P& s* U4 W/ G8 U4 i# xprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
1 @9 r& T: T6 N; y" W! ?before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,8 n' B1 k6 K8 B0 {' [& }
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly* u$ [2 m0 d% S1 w  _% @
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
6 V! D! s9 ^) TNature./ q1 Q) ~4 a) d! |
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance2 c9 H8 N5 D% G6 X6 Q& O0 d
the Callaway report.5 A- ]2 s( P0 m- J7 c
/ s& R6 P: @; J8 _5 F3 h+ o5 n1 q
Yi/ B: _- x8 [5 ^
& k& H& g- F9 r, Q. n, ^7 j4 C
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
6 {# L0 n4 p9 m0 E# AProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences5 ~, }- i. h( V+ @4 `
Beijing, China
# V0 A' w" e8 d
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
* C& K. I3 p7 d7 s/ r2 N  d原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
: p& ~+ A4 `3 p% s8 q- t7 o) G0 F
原文是公开信。
5 S+ }7 H4 L$ P1 E$ a8 q5 j, A% n+ P( H: u, C# X
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
$ g  G$ H& D/ h6 l原文是公开信。
) w5 B, B1 M$ K1 I& L  J3 W5 d" V+ j! Q. h. e8 P& `0 ^
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
5 d/ R' Q6 X+ o
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( d- {* s* c! M4 u' N
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
& V/ f; [! r, q  d: y2 O5 U7 H0 U" s
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html; b8 d3 R' C4 Z( z. J( b
9 L2 z4 }- e+ W1 q5 x
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" z; G- n  H, ]$ h& a
" B! g0 |( {1 t6 t. b
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
9 \' p2 a/ G* }6 G9 g, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science1 f! v, s& j% K0 Z2 G9 G% J
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
- V! r" n3 g8 Ois not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the. [) o, m, ?7 J" l4 [) H
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
9 i. D; i6 ]  k7 N/ g6 D8 h( {; f& bpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
: T% L& e- L2 Z" G6 s- r# \3 kshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,# a5 K" X. [9 @9 w
which they blatantly failed to do.3 u" R2 n. Y& p/ A1 g

+ e0 `7 Y5 [9 X! a! _First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
1 @0 E( E2 z: m5 W5 LOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in' j$ c1 O; M$ c) G2 O5 P. L3 v7 _
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* A  k1 O8 L5 y) X9 M0 G# ]) U
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
, ~! P* d3 I" _' J$ T8 F/ Upersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
6 [2 W( g4 c4 r+ L  ~9 `# t  ?1 R% R( nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the. {# f/ G3 A# _3 I+ W7 H  x) D9 r
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
" D, `% [5 K0 T* H% z! Bbe treated as 7 s.2 }- J2 U! b$ ?2 v2 W5 K

( o/ ^" J8 C/ C5 @! J$ cSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
+ J' u1 u" W3 ^* hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem7 k' d3 C: D' f% N' O7 G6 X
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
- t  v; D* J* X# yAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
4 W( a& |1 Q" J5 @2 I-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.2 n  I6 r- J/ B/ h
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an9 {8 b5 y6 Q+ f) s6 D
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
3 l5 N3 \% R0 J% L2 ^persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 h# W9 R& }: A' s0 E
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.& _1 @' @2 O! q4 E- R" ?
' j6 t& D6 e' ^4 J9 j8 d! m9 b3 H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
+ i2 w( B$ x0 y/ m/ a8 Texample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in( U8 ?7 A3 l9 H3 M' X' h
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so5 Q& @7 }4 Y" z$ X2 ^( L; _5 T3 P9 ^4 c
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; D$ u4 ^% A! m0 L! J3 D5 j
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s/ v: w6 ~: K" _) M- e
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
# X" ?% Y3 O' v. f4 K3 P! d4 AFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
( k$ v3 r  x/ n. ^' itopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other1 K- ]; Y" }4 t8 v
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
: S7 ?' X1 s. ?; G; e, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
9 s: k) A* ^9 x7 w1 O* Tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
4 C; n- x9 M$ o6 Wfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
! ?# U" x& e8 {1 Zfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# E0 a2 G& {1 U8 o  K/ B' {aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
, W' V$ q4 e, ^9 D7 [) {implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
3 P& }  E1 ]8 i. c( h: P
- y4 ]/ K4 Q8 `6 y; R: dFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are' H" n. W8 d) `2 Q( f1 k& A
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
8 m- z$ E& ^, E$ @0 f  {: ks) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s' v3 e# y* ~. W/ m! Q6 A  \; Q7 ]( b
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ O* o. Q% @% i$ M5 Eout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
4 t6 Z9 m! ]: H0 E9 l8 E0 YLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
. T8 Y2 b4 d0 d. i6 N) x* a7 _4 \6 cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
5 m/ s: V' W" ^4 h3 m- [: u; [logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; Q5 Z* T( ]6 @( c( levery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
6 v4 i, X5 i* ^  ^works.
, P* v5 Z" u: n' Q8 q# v5 d0 k1 w0 o+ P: \
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and2 D- v( F: G% V- z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
. ?) _2 M' o7 V$ L* _$ Tkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
5 N$ m! P" E6 v7 H: ?  B5 |0 Ostandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
& `' Y* B  W& J( K! Fpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
* T7 C5 A- {+ Nreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One7 L0 j$ d1 n  C& B
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ h2 ~6 T& B# R( `
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works0 [9 ?- I5 a" E8 F3 Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample' Y2 C# o- n$ C: [( a+ B4 K2 u
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is, x4 \5 J' o9 O. P! x, E  J
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
. [2 f4 T& _; p& n4 O$ l  Z0 t! kwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly7 S& n4 u+ w& c6 E" E0 |$ ^
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
( a) p0 N; x8 P0 l9 ~past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not# G. R/ Q+ W' c& }' }$ p
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation$ v/ p; u7 n5 W0 a. X
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are/ A/ P) U: |, h" s  \) g
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may1 g8 P* K9 |0 Z( N. c
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
( s1 r6 W7 g4 O0 Zhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. e, c' F4 j  E" a2 u: e5 L) Phas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a6 g; N5 j6 K/ g
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
- Y, k; o% ^  Y. hother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
" B* e% h7 h. K/ Z; u0 O* k3 w, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
1 k! H% @2 c+ s. T" u; aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an7 n/ R* f% G: a% H
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight: F4 P4 H5 t( e8 a! m4 N0 s# {/ \
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
. g( `9 ?" a! j* Y" o/ ALet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
4 ?& L5 N# Y9 n- q. g1 zagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
6 ^( I3 g  o; x. S7 u1 ^! W/ e- A/ {eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.% g( d" Z. F: O- K: i' G! z4 L/ `
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?) B* r- {0 l6 }5 |+ O3 I( p

4 T; r- J/ T! o0 o9 e; T- I% w! jSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ \( w$ u& ~( G. g  [3 ^competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention  _. d+ J8 V2 [, i
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
/ u# n( R; p# YOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
+ M! D$ O8 A& n( \, Q9 qOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for: }* h, E4 n# P& J6 n: G
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic! O* M" m& Q6 ?3 L; S8 H  v3 F- @
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
- G/ m4 b; m5 jhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" S( @% s7 y: C( j# k
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
  ~3 x4 r7 K+ I8 N# ?; d8 ?possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
" c$ O9 E# q; @
$ m8 v7 _) u# _; BOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (5 X7 B9 m5 Y6 {7 `7 U( ]
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: j7 }5 `9 s3 [+ `2 H: G" n- h
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
# X6 }; Q* E! ^1 T. h- P3 X. vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' G5 H% f1 v/ C" o' ?1 l& p9 V5 Vall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
4 n9 L  p, F8 K" Uinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 s! M7 L4 }: s2 g. }; F& Nexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
* \. r1 V5 x# M# H0 Aargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
+ l  z- t9 t" V0 u0 Vsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or" C- X1 V7 B* _4 A/ Y
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, 2026-1-28 02:21 , Processed in 0.133671 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