埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2064|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
9 `! _; ?' v$ F0 I: m) K. |/ x- Z' O: ]4 }+ Y3 z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。# Q( [+ w  X/ O3 f) Q6 Q; u
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。
' Q: i2 Q) m" y/ X, t& s总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
3 c) o; F- \3 v  V
4 K% [4 j, s  Y& [6 w4 H2 o0 p' Rhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html# E- Z7 S0 m$ O6 R. q$ o3 i- C

% ^8 H5 R" P" ?$ b+ T# O5 s致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选0 F6 F# j& v9 J# @- t7 t! m' a
( q& U8 u8 q) x* }" E1 @
英文原信附后,大意如下:" M3 Y# x3 O3 V6 Y, S

8 X) A( i$ x" u( Z! z" k( A' |斐尔," W- t! I+ d: l& M& U+ X. m( E
       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/ V0 n, Z6 X4 w$ j. c: f8 E4 G9 z
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。5 ~& f  R- }5 \! V
       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0 n3 F3 A6 A5 [
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 ?& ^, N" u5 ]6 J4 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。
; r4 v/ z: j4 m8 A$ f       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
2 y! ?# {$ `, n$ l( B% V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: L' a7 G1 O& K. L6 A$ ~
见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负1 C* V+ I2 T- w! s9 t7 x
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。
  P* w/ u9 v4 X1 _* P       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
; q/ P& j- g2 y,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
( O& _/ x9 k% N; P" Y3 k9 D”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
8 ?% T( ^7 r- c       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; Y6 F7 w  F* m+ G" 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
" ~0 ~3 u9 K3 q5 q8 N,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。. l' A8 v- s* V- g% j( J3 g9 d
       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
3 x$ M6 W( L# L) H2011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" N* ]/ G' 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
( u$ L4 v, C( [! \7 G+ M1 d! z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& |' K, T4 |" O: Z
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
$ ?! j  X$ y9 C/ }& 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5 P; b: i; R" x/ k# H/ O) O+ t: y
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目3 T. r. w0 h6 `, ]2 i) G& P
。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记
* y: e7 k5 }! l5 O/ e0 C6 G录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。2 u2 j- T" X1 p0 @% e2 S
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/ V6 U' |7 y. d
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* M- F! r9 P, B! f# e8 X9 Z/ I, V
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9 y* i3 J! g- j+ V, {. j1 z) u+ a
同意见的专家。# Q& n/ r) b; H$ P4 m" ], O
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. ~1 v: H; p; x. I
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6 E; u. ]  n- k' [6 J
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
1 `! ]* O7 G9 O$ w% o$ ~4 A《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
" I6 N% u0 @' X7 x, O, ~! G0 c: hCallaway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 W! e2 x  G+ D6 t. E; W
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
3 p  q. g: I$ n% f& ]《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0 X0 k8 e$ F+ T9 h1 L6 i6 k- N
这些被Callaway忽略。
! W; W4 r2 U7 j6 h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* j5 D; H4 @* m# }0 D
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1 ~# I% L  c" h& e
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 j$ U# O0 F/ D- u: p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 k6 S- O4 O7 v: |# y4 k
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5 }0 u# L5 C/ p6 }+ A
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3 X& @" L1 w, Q* L$ x+ c6 ~
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。8 P1 \* X) T+ Y4 ^0 y( @
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
9 M& \) X- d' E  P% I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
4 H  C' c! A; l; g* t8 M% I& m: _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" @/ _6 b- x: y' `$ T. ~9 k+ E
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
1 [8 [4 S5 |5 b+ J# K7 t3 _1 p: 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& S: Z8 v9 l# D5 t0 c) p4 x
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
, E) A9 m* }/ l" G  V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5 d- h$ \4 Z4 G- b: P! `4 x" g
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
+ ?0 @0 K5 {# ^5 n4 K0 |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
1 B9 p3 c. m! \% i' q( C, P而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
+ ^+ K0 |( G; f# C0 O, h0 Z* \我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。2 \+ R1 i6 w7 U- Y

, G3 T* Y) B" O( S9 a/ t& H; b6 W! L* X$ n, Z1 m+ ^7 I
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: m+ }1 Y9 Y! f' f8 z

5 k1 a# X3 \5 ?% P* Z' u/ o附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 c7 }4 _( G) {) ~7 j6 ~附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
) y1 g/ \- w) U* V3 }附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
" B7 I, y+ k9 G8 X7 z' Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
3 q# G: b; I! |: K# `3 T4 r
1 t5 z& L  ?+ n7 I, D
& r4 m  _9 ]9 S' a* Y" c+ D9 C' ?" G
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送), i' g- U, [3 P2 Y2 a
Dear Phil,, F+ R( |- R# z9 q  H
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
/ }; u+ b9 n  ereport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
. [9 c* E- X3 R# X; {% z1 }: Bhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* N' [" H" E$ U3 {, A; d2 Jyou.6 p* [0 u. f/ m
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" u: g2 ^7 N- m- d. [
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
# v. K. r: C8 D7 \! d) |readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
& H; ?7 X' S; [0 ]+ |( k$ tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature, {! Y: l0 m  A4 d
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
3 S0 @7 z  m" Yseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
0 D8 q: x1 E1 C2 Qpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
+ ]! i5 |9 s* z3 C6 L; K       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
+ k2 K2 L' K0 |) v  j4 I+ \worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
* N& G1 j7 N4 M; G5 o" S: {negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- I7 l7 T( T  r5 A7 c: j! dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. V; @2 Y3 E  Q) `
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping& J: p; C+ B: d3 }. k% w
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal9 H9 d; r& e8 j4 N" W$ ^
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,7 O8 N: G, I1 U6 p
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone" W3 l' K3 d, {+ [5 L' E
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) @& ?; C, O/ d. ]2 X- l2 breporting.
4 A8 i2 p' x0 m; s+ O8 U& j* Z       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
6 K9 Q1 `. P( `, H) b4 {% Qalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by% e( [3 p& d0 h1 s7 w; }8 P/ _
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
9 `9 R2 @& }& ^0 O: h: wsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
% r7 M, z2 D6 _2 K; n! Mpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
4 b% l: ~" Y$ x$ ]* D6 k       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 x0 o& P- ^" v5 Q, c1 W& m0 d) bmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ Q! x0 Q0 V3 E; \% N9 K! {& }" O
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 501 t% b. P( [9 @
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
4 {+ S0 R2 Z1 V7 }event for men, with the second fastest record." ^/ Y* l- C4 O0 j4 \
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; E  w- T1 o# o8 w: S
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
, K1 ]5 Q0 u$ l: tyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record5 V2 c4 j3 c/ y% y) I- e5 C
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4007 E& w/ [% B  n5 t$ y) N
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
2 H; E" z: B  ]6 ?9 `4 @& yfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
4 S2 V, v( Y. V( N' p9 SLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) m8 S/ j0 j& n" m3 l9 |% Lbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. q+ f0 L0 r8 w' Tindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
2 U( w5 S8 a/ `4 Y* x  O7 ^than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
" S1 E2 ?+ o$ y- V" C  Kthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was0 u2 e5 N2 h/ \, ^: B
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then$ u; o4 N2 k6 {% G; u9 @& n
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
- q7 K* c4 g$ Xproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
) j  f3 @8 o0 Rswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the0 y, L7 d1 Q5 ^: v- `
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
0 [/ J3 n6 x/ h: ~( D# s5 nCallaway report.
; d& t0 i2 }( Q# mThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
7 R% B! g$ p, Y% a. U1 cunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
* K4 X7 s, W: s# U8 N5 c& j( Ghere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description: F' @4 B+ Y- K  ]0 m5 `8 |
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
9 H5 ?  {" i9 T% k1 jbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
( M) q4 _$ G' U# P# @: o% b2 LWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: G6 ^. U! P% E: C
publicly voiced different opinions." y2 \' [, d2 w" R6 I* G
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
5 b- y. n5 l" d9 W7 ~1 Pfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature$ t3 K* ?: [0 V# b1 V; C$ P
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
! ~, F7 ]# W. F. Fpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
' q" J8 _) M2 q4 pyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
1 x/ g+ c. E  Oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.6 M+ |/ e/ Q4 i8 _* a3 Z! H4 J8 I
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
7 g: I& h" L- }4 m  M" E8 xthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
% C- {* ^, J* rhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
9 S; T* O2 I/ }! L. lAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
, Z3 H- U+ H/ H) K( S8 i. S/ rthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ ^1 @1 B1 B( N4 G8 ]4 D; N6 w, t
supported by facts neglected by Callaway." j! C' {% X. Q  |
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that# T5 X, A$ q9 m7 U
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ M& [& ?0 R/ B! V" T/ \& F
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June: I! w. w9 A6 l9 \3 G  Y
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
8 T2 c: f" P0 xand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
9 A4 i7 o1 C- D1 n4 lThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
* F- z  _8 e- m3 qand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
  M( w3 S; h' w8 d) w" SDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
  C2 H& _# Q- n0 z7 A- S/ XNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and/ t9 p) \' |4 E% h
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 j. ?: r/ [* R2 o2 d2 u' N
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
6 X& f+ m- O& O. {3 e% Prepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
5 U5 ]; k) f1 `1 CThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not) _# ^9 d) i8 p
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced8 X: K$ y$ f7 b5 ]) y  u
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
& a) ]. d. L! \* afresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that* @7 v1 p+ j3 m3 _
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' J; ^" u6 v' E: i
about British supremacy.
% S& h% Y( z; Q( nThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
/ z/ ~- R4 L  s5 {; m( Lunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; ?% ]% G+ w% \
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 ^3 E7 \$ G: H3 C" L* n
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
; y( C" a7 c3 _* A3 R7 ?8 z' MOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
- {8 w3 Q. W% t8 Q9 ~& Y# `Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of- p9 L/ F; @2 i; M
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
4 Y4 j( Y5 J( `) m+ t0 W/ S% Jbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 x; D, j3 {! W- Fit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- |( h1 `' r8 P9 Ppublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like0 `  f/ u; @5 a( y, M, h
Nature., {6 T. P+ V  E: f
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
- p; T- y1 S6 Y1 K* M1 Othe Callaway report./ G5 k  c, ]4 k2 M# R1 j6 k  a% V% ]
; }* b5 S* m- [% i) K
Yi
6 T: \& z4 ~/ h: }3 P" r7 X9 k  S* }  K: Q5 `. l
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
( K/ ^2 k# y. e+ [Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% B' r$ i5 n8 V  d
Beijing, China
, w% T; |; x; {  Q: w
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·········
大型搬家
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 ; P& N6 d3 f  Z+ [
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

/ ^2 F$ p0 l7 n3 @, z2 G+ ~原文是公开信。
  ~. P1 Y9 k- D& j( I# L; q" J, k& M' L5 }
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
1 J' Z" R: l4 x+ Z( @: X4 B6 @原文是公开信。# s# O" b' t' e- J! i! k

/ `8 L$ r" M7 ?+ j3 |% V  K1 N2 Q) w小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

; c4 k! W4 F: s, Q+ F, ^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
$ M4 c1 t9 J/ X4 K9 U" A6 n/ m如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
/ l0 [; A$ M2 B6 W7 Q' v( a! j1 k7 {5 \
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
: U9 V4 [; D! H) H7 \$ m7 g- g) w6 a& I$ U
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, E+ W. c4 E  u; o$ i3 ^0 ^+ |3 |4 Z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
! ?2 {) }7 q' Q5 g  s3 ^+ e, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science& |0 P" D  w$ ^1 f
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
* e* o4 W3 Y. `: z- m3 w5 ?9 y, \is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( t2 S$ c4 D& W8 @scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
4 P: x4 u7 ?7 S9 E+ M- d/ Qpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 L7 T. `9 N; m/ M4 M/ w! gshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! n* q3 v( V2 _% h
which they blatantly failed to do.3 y; B& Y' m4 y) g% B
( J* [2 D  \: z) F' e) [3 a" C
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
) l" L9 J* W/ Q" \: VOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
& D8 P/ l8 X4 Y+ l: A, r2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- k3 f( Z5 L7 M+ e. T# kanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 e9 @3 k. J9 d# E! R6 R0 J
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 K- Y7 c9 G( g3 a6 ]+ |2 G7 V% a
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
  Q) s5 R' K' c3 h$ Q) P2 ldifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ o  ?; f" b, y, G0 m. c5 obe treated as 7 s.
2 t* M+ Y, f1 i: A) Z
6 E' u: X2 Y! O' ZSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is' n" }7 ~* D: j0 ~, C, Q3 N( d
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem+ k" j6 ], g$ Y
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
  h, D4 s: Y/ l5 G* _An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
1 S3 x* _3 W: w3 A( c( d-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
3 t# W$ Z1 z; t9 p$ b* SFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
7 u( h* h; L+ C; Q" I3 Celite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and, X( ]  j6 M5 `3 W' v2 p; Q
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”# _* N% B5 t; D) M& `
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% [0 S- D. o0 Z+ I4 O: o
8 s  A) n  ?9 e+ V2 TThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
8 s& L0 V" S/ ^5 `7 rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 `5 z8 `: r0 ]4 ~% |: `/ {the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so1 a- I! E9 U, L- P
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later1 `( K3 u* E7 \* m$ A% {0 }8 g7 @7 Q
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s& E+ x+ T* H- k3 `4 C
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
2 m# c- K+ T' y5 nFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! r, f- R! j* ?! Q: Z1 ytopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
: ~$ K, M; O- a. Q* Q. M' O7 u& y, Yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle/ e& s8 T/ I; d( N
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 U' i* T/ N/ A' o* T8 S+ D! Z8 Sstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 N; {, ~' i, r) \2 m: hfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 F1 T6 J- y, b1 Qfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting* b5 f0 Q8 M. Y5 J
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 p# a0 G. T) Gimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.1 q! h' s( z& @8 v# @5 _$ ^

8 }  M8 ~$ L, V0 |+ D5 D( UFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 b4 ~( Q! Q- R' V) S" z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
" B+ l% d  c, `/ D/ {+ ~s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
, Q6 ]7 E- W) ?2 `3 W), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
/ g7 ~  e4 q9 fout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
/ t! |" V* t% a/ `Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind5 X$ X; P7 p1 Z: U1 I3 X8 R
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it' }, S0 E  F, j6 o
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in; K. q+ }2 q4 z3 [& _/ y1 W' U. N
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science3 G' x& d, P) Q; A! z% }# B
works.
" ?( B9 T  h5 n; m+ O9 q& X  y& D$ M* r6 @0 P
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and  T: E& J# Q; P- u, o0 l: G
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this+ A6 t2 a6 o/ w# E4 l* [, L* I
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, h: r+ y: K& h1 x0 G& M
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
/ Y% p- D9 ]$ n9 Z5 I4 @papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
6 _9 Z. j0 G* P6 U5 U7 j& `6 \; U! ~reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One1 O; l/ d4 L* T5 ^5 z! u
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
& q4 h' H) I) G" Y/ z" odemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works3 w- q/ K( F0 M( P! F/ H: X
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
$ q3 \  i* T( yis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( a* K4 i6 C1 _+ ^; acrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
3 B( L8 Q) w; ^1 U( uwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 p& h% o: X& @( y0 C7 J* d. ~8 Z4 Xadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the$ U9 [' H3 r+ ~- w6 a9 i  m
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
* I4 @! V( D3 N2 D0 Euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation/ }" k/ y4 [* ~: x: @8 M
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are1 i- W( a9 R8 N" h" C# @5 G
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( K* v. V4 m% }) \/ \  vbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
5 Z" x( n; H- T$ o& N' T" Jhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
% h# t% E+ c5 H# ]! P, G6 y& mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
0 Q4 @& Z% Z, l' Ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:0 P* Z7 g# w- t7 [$ g, [0 y' |5 y
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
* F/ y! b& s0 x: l. Y% L, l/ z, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
" D* D" {( Q/ |, E$ Dprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 I7 S; z$ U2 t) y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
' y3 Y6 |5 ~+ }: j, F& V1 V2 ]' W8 wchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
7 P  Y6 D3 Q7 C9 L/ NLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
: V( O$ }) W2 z& T* k8 sagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 N$ f' L( M  M0 D: n
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
( W  ]2 {* u$ `9 MInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
! `3 C' X% a" B2 ^+ t
- I1 y" G$ {9 M2 J$ jSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% m  [3 n2 \0 ^" }1 \1 ^0 E5 l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
, Q" W/ n( A7 t6 ]. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for9 |9 H: `* ^) C
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
7 _, [  |3 W  v7 a" r% bOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for4 g5 a; Z! m+ o& y
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 z% E5 b' ~- y/ V+ Vgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
+ N5 \* I5 r) J6 d& bhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a: |$ L7 p8 c& z$ ~- A4 s
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this% h$ V7 R9 b$ N# e& N
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.( G4 W  j, r$ L- D9 a1 R' u, b

& }8 S& C+ o) P7 C* }! x6 UOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
' {) K4 Z% a7 o, U6 ^9 E$ Yintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too0 \: U  B9 X3 G" Q4 j: e" d3 {
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
3 I+ g, ~. f# ^( i- S/ X$ osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide" I! g4 x$ k8 w1 U) ?
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your, Z9 `& f9 S+ L% f6 E
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,, y& F' T5 l* Q+ i; N' C0 s/ n
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your: V# C6 o5 J; j' X) V
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal) E  b4 Y% w! A( x2 f; V0 j  |
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' }7 f: j/ v) \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, 2026-2-24 01:01 , Processed in 0.133916 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