埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2060|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
* i6 |% ?# W- H& g* i' b
; Z& B) Z* R7 E( g" o8 G& `- H$ f饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。  Q- S5 V$ J8 r3 |
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。3 o1 S6 Q5 u7 Q1 U! i
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
5 Q# T/ E+ ]! Z1 D# {
( E" \& D# k4 x! \; u/ n. fhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html6 J/ f- M, Z8 Q* V; [  b

  t0 A( B; ^( ~  H* a. g6 z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
# N5 T  a+ c' z' B4 `( O# a* A
  B5 t; R/ p7 {- t/ U英文原信附后,大意如下:# N* ]" t) Z: D6 l
9 l: g. p4 `0 [  \9 |' {4 j
斐尔,3 d2 ^1 ~4 z3 Q
       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
4 r0 m/ K  e) c; Hemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。0 P+ ]9 W) ]2 W; _
       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
8 l: Q, E5 R9 Z' c# J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
+ h2 c# b) F/ r: m! h! U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。. G2 v6 q7 P$ g! J, d* ?! C
       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# y* P+ V; Z- n9 o
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- ~1 h1 ]& s' o# K: |
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
; u9 j7 j+ ]) u$ U6 F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。
: G& V8 o3 a# d* T; b       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" ~1 L# z3 `6 L2 I
,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8 o& n' Z* |6 F% @1 n
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。+ X1 U9 z: y  {" H6 g+ o
       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
6 A/ L  I6 b6 E7 V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
; u  p0 j1 N3 I- I1 q- P; I1 Z,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。: {- x' t$ M" t% Q, u9 M# v" {) X
       第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于5 S0 q- {" g1 \9 ]  q2 y
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混
3 }  m4 ^3 ~1 L, R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. H) a  f) P" g. b
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
3 C+ r2 x% d0 [1 q300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
: |8 {9 d/ D! I) H3 |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
2 F, F; z5 ]( s- P. w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" w! u' B$ Z. |; u$ 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
. m" y! W# z9 E( Z2 {录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。6 d" v' N% A" L1 J( n2 h2 Y
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" s/ p) @5 O( W+ I* n2 {
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
, i2 A, C% i+ t+ M; p" ^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
, \+ ^, N+ r4 P9 L同意见的专家。
6 r" D9 g- F+ u3 j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$ o5 F# V; ]1 t; L, R: R+ s' Z
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7 S9 g, {0 @* `# K% }  R5 }% q1 I
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# S) j3 f6 K5 T0 _5 w5 O
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。! c- e9 }% k8 V" [
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); i6 z6 `7 B0 [3 u3 Y, ~7 {4 n8 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
& o- ^* W5 E( q: N3 h《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. v7 N) G4 X- S9 H" g
这些被Callaway忽略。$ W# }& t) c0 ^: A  S9 g
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给2 y1 N' _5 u3 P& v( q$ ~
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
- K5 o& i+ s4 T教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
  R5 s( G  m; s% \8 j+ I! o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
; v& |4 d1 [1 _9 M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
8 X8 Y4 K/ y8 F1 b  {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
& i" v  N9 p+ |% Y' \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。
/ A' Z' k/ P% K& s7 J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" D+ ^3 q  Q( w2 k! ~3 [# k  |
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
) r4 r9 Z+ q4 \( g) D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% |2 x- C3 {  F
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
( k  ?* ^( b  N* j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% V5 C4 I5 I/ Y, I
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+ K) c$ s% J  Q5 P( 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/ q3 ~5 Q+ _% n! c4 t' n# q
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. s* ^4 O, x1 z7 N" z0 |$ 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3 q. K! K! y) z0 d, B6 b
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ d4 A" A) L* k% Q1 p* _- X我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
% O* K; V) ^0 _3 F* s4 I6 y, r( M! a1 {$ V  s& V) r  v

3 r* E3 ?+ w! S6 K# r北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% v& \( s: f' a; x% ~- @
. g7 S: L1 r& k6 h) j5 a' j
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结$ @9 v) g2 z0 ~
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email3 J. F. _5 i7 Y7 R9 I+ p
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见$ E9 D7 V+ v! c; r6 o" m
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 `. R! |1 a2 O1 Q. \8 ?* T3 ]4 V! ]* j0 A. f+ K- H, h) I+ R
' [5 ]  P( K0 O, ~: K
* {' }+ ^- x6 j2 B" t
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)% `  _0 p, W, C$ ]' d/ p
Dear Phil,9 z! K# u- X4 S/ k& V% {- L2 F; J
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s1 y: [) J  k0 I$ O6 I% O, q
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 209 r- `8 R4 k+ a' J5 @& o. a
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed' B: t! E" y5 Z$ I3 M
you.
9 H+ R* W( Z) J/ k5 p! A       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
0 W  Z- Z' d# }3 Q3 lbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
+ P8 ~/ v, @5 [0 O/ q8 v) Greaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
* w2 K( d" X: O3 v! Q( pworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ q' f  r# V( T* t9 N+ N" Zpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more. O' H& j4 q4 e: {  A/ W
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 t0 ?+ B0 n" C/ u3 I
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
/ n' D: c# g6 A( O. V       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the$ n9 V/ \' ~7 E) ~/ O( o) u
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a! i1 ?& k. w3 q4 O/ L1 O, e
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- d: I7 b2 L1 v* R( \that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway! M5 o6 u1 `3 R
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
7 ]: S  r4 D6 d( u  K) P; F+ E: Texplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) j3 u: H, R2 V1 Sstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
+ f" f: |& l( U0 z# `and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone/ d9 Z& @; m( s; E' N
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; u$ ]" n9 j9 N$ Wreporting.
! i) t+ b* h2 p       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
* e/ }3 T* `7 T' J5 b$ \already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by* D( C8 }- N( R9 v4 w
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
. Z  Y) `* a( N# f4 p- Lsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
' B3 H2 f; g* U' I8 D$ {presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.; d  D4 ?1 Y9 f. q# {' R
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem0 v8 Q9 j8 }/ t+ e
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
$ Y) y$ q( V. x8 h2 tfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
! w+ h- E" v% P  A! K) fmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* d- E( j' N, j9 F# |8 R" _4 Y
event for men, with the second fastest record.; J( u6 K; H$ P5 u( T* h
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye  q2 U' l+ V# D3 N* u/ V0 _
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 161 a8 O& ^% C0 Z+ [5 O/ [
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record/ o, A  b( C8 P) f
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400; X0 K/ _4 W, a7 J+ L
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,( u9 R8 S2 N" Q* @/ L+ D
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than- }0 _" L  p+ v
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
9 h$ r, z: H, I1 H: Jbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
) j( I1 P9 k1 j9 s4 Q7 eindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
9 F$ [6 O# M( a& qthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
  O! k4 p7 d0 r( j2 i0 n+ \those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
$ f5 @" A  m9 j, a- Q( h; R  ther strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 S# ~4 A& M$ m+ i. y; ]
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “+ k! }' }& j$ t/ \9 O2 {# B
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' x! o4 `& Z- P- h2 Eswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 j) G5 K9 N* P
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
6 _  z$ e8 q2 a0 [3 cCallaway report.0 V$ }" r  s- |" I: t+ i" s
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more- w5 g% t7 {! X  ]) j3 O% G, o8 W
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details5 `. }8 t* z; t/ l3 p9 `1 q# T
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
' l. U1 ]! m& g2 C" ?- oof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been4 O" j) V5 X: A+ p: Q( q* w
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the% D1 A! S0 U5 T7 J
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
5 P% J9 e4 Y: E  Spublicly voiced different opinions.! n* k1 S  j1 r: r
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
3 }1 k3 n1 F; `& t% @9 \2 G* tfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
+ @+ i6 G) t5 I3 i) XNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
7 [6 J( H4 ~, a/ D' O3 G# ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds. y  q2 ?5 L! H5 d
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy- o0 U/ U3 a  }9 n+ _% [* l
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue./ z# ]8 A  q; g+ T
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' n0 U3 r+ \% I2 s$ K5 l; W
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 d4 U- S- Y$ K% v# Q( N1 Nhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 ^$ a  H2 W+ WAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
2 z, u7 j) U9 j% N! f% ?the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was7 v5 V, q7 y* @% T7 J4 I( q, e
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
. F7 v0 G# y. p& cOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that" M; g5 p& z2 `9 F5 }  `
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
) o9 q" |" K: gChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June/ S- a, k5 W% ^* \2 O2 z
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she% B, l9 C1 C+ x  p& E
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
3 D5 i' A: [4 ~9 v( ~% O2 vThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science( @: t' F, `2 g" X' A& B
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
2 w6 w& P% B1 B( F/ f6 WDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.3 C7 ?3 c7 L7 v/ \
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and# i1 k0 j7 K! ^) e) C- G3 e
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- }( ?0 k# a7 \- h+ i+ Pwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
0 v  c# }, \- Z" k, V6 }  T; Krepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
% D- |' a. d, j' E. ]The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ n* P4 ^9 K; S' [3 M5 T% r
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced) S4 |4 h! L9 ~( c" z4 a
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
$ f  }. U! w- Y7 L8 t/ sfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that) _# R$ J7 i2 l5 E1 |6 A
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”: Y# E3 b  F' ?9 ?2 K0 @% K9 H
about British supremacy.
1 ?; `& |, p& N* e. Q# {2 S, y7 JThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
' i3 U, s# c' o0 \; U- Tunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more" i5 i- G' a$ C, B$ q1 E- S, I
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by% P# Q2 u+ Z, @4 `, C  E
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) ]2 j  A/ e; S# ?9 O
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
& _/ p+ Z& a; C& lYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: k/ O1 \2 F* N" ]) Y# e4 [professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests. y; t$ Y' g+ N
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, J  h. t/ w  n9 C9 Kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
. o1 K# Y8 j% X1 D0 ^4 Cpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like4 V0 s0 y5 z" i1 M2 ?# v6 f
Nature.
. [  E4 P, q3 HI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
' O5 V2 M9 s  p3 u. [/ t: ~the Callaway report.
, n" i1 G* C' g9 [1 Z2 W, G  l) _- f; J5 E# ?/ @6 Q
Yi6 U5 ]) X# O6 k+ p- X3 }

" i) J: W9 B0 Y& e( h9 UYi Rao, Ph.D.' B  P6 k, g# F- G$ X( S( w
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
2 i# n$ `" Z% rBeijing, China
( Y0 E% x0 c% z' ~0 z/ O
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。
大型搬家
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?
理袁律师事务所
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 , [2 c0 [! \1 a, r' G8 y
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

4 J4 p" ?; [' E9 t# q% o9 s0 n原文是公开信。) V0 Y$ H' K% R! \- \/ W! G2 Q

; N9 S( F1 t6 F7 [+ ^* X/ B% I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 A) ~0 P1 m" ?1 `% A) M
原文是公开信。2 _  R- o$ p  n2 `) {; ?4 v
* v1 f6 T' @$ N( X; `2 ^* L- k
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
9 c. ?, H( }7 R0 l
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
理袁律师事务所
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
4 p1 i! i+ l- ~2 `% X& X& S! m如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。+ z& y) {# k2 J0 L

9 b9 w$ R, Y; v1 f% Thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, C0 l# k0 |7 [
/ y  P  P' H6 h
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
- r! A; w8 ~1 y9 e3 _2 y: G2 e0 C& m' f. r
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) Q" \+ d) R* b, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ _8 S$ Z" U$ a( w1 D+ O% G
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this1 }$ S: i% C% d1 }
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
* w$ Y0 x2 @4 l+ Z1 E7 {9 e+ lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
+ N) d- `' W4 ?populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
$ a( u0 s2 U( Nshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% v, T. M% L  O/ A) E3 Dwhich they blatantly failed to do.$ s6 j6 x9 H* T# N& z. U5 J3 V5 h9 O
' X  G4 |7 u4 E6 u, n9 V
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her  G. X0 B! m+ }0 M2 z  P) r
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 I- u; r5 ~8 f& ?* n2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “3 e, j: d' q  i3 F' l; ]9 B7 A
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous& [) M# D7 o9 r% A
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, e) e1 d, @) Qimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
9 s, W5 _- t0 b1 q: Xdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% l5 l  z, ]$ \3 s$ H
be treated as 7 s.( d! y: S3 P1 \- p

0 }" f' c( Y7 p" Q: l, Y3 ]Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
2 r) w1 t4 [) B/ o: h9 astill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
+ m: W5 h- p2 e# h% C8 t6 Z# qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.% |& \( t; P9 m0 C& i
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400& v* `; D6 }. }) d; A* X1 `* G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
9 _/ K8 v$ O/ ?. R4 h$ K  OFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
2 N0 M! }) \% Welite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
/ _1 c+ H# y9 l3 V, n% H( Gpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”4 l: m* u9 G/ {6 G4 v- ~' m4 K
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
  l. M4 L7 t- E( |3 ^, V" U6 F8 p: e! b* z  D4 L) }' z, J" z
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook) W- m" s9 \' C0 b
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
% E& h* @6 j% M( L* n1 Jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so: P3 H( h$ ]' k7 G4 j: \; |
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later" C6 Y0 N1 c! p$ R; U" |
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
5 ]% Y2 z. r& L4 Zbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
* v5 b! a4 F) S, j2 d* mFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
  T. N# J$ W" Y" U# C4 Etopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( d+ l& A6 ]2 m4 v1 o, R
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle- o1 Q" m9 @7 a- V; N3 W* ^6 Z
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. b, r' s3 P5 C7 nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% K' `3 n" q- }3 u/ q% \faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam/ U) z* G0 v- `5 T
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting* g+ P2 b. G/ ]! S- c/ s
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
0 m9 J& X4 {& r& r4 cimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
' c2 P9 A* h% n; m# r  `$ S, `+ I. ~4 X) x5 b4 ]3 W
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are; M, A. Z* g0 _. K+ {
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93" L' y. {7 G3 Z
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
8 M( ?6 q  t4 Y) X; K6 P), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. ~. ~0 h  m9 B* S" {5 rout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
8 M  _- h7 D! V% d% Q; ]# Z% p- [Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind8 X$ F! i, t$ `  F
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 V# o5 [) p/ F1 l
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in" _& T' w& S. Z6 L# f+ u6 ^: p. g
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
% r7 S5 t7 @4 D1 z: Kworks.$ w" y2 N' D2 J3 v" \

% [5 r" [8 q# B1 K0 M2 n6 \3 JFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( `& N8 x* a' h! _2 }% ]1 fimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 A. z" D. G2 ^9 q" y1 akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that; [; j; M3 l2 P( x4 o2 Y" Q4 Q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
- Z. D& q1 w$ N( ipapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
+ ~9 m+ I' [  D0 Freviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, Z( a8 `! [$ }6 R" L3 L8 W: o
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to1 D5 b3 R0 n2 w) T/ `2 c
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
8 w1 Z+ O& P: g7 U+ s6 {: ^' {" }7 Hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample  y' t( w3 }2 K3 A! O; i% Q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is! Y( S* u6 V, Q# a0 m
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he7 s; F" S$ R+ @7 \' C  O3 p
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
: r9 H/ h( }$ H6 a5 tadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
% n- N' k7 g; l/ {$ g! k4 q. spast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
- a6 Q9 L, x) H1 s' E' Kuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" X* W* F9 C' G! z$ `7 o( m$ S& q9 N. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
7 ^* Z+ L3 E2 z* h/ Tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may2 o4 _# |# e( p7 y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
9 A2 E4 T" v1 e% Y, e) Nhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye( i* {  f" ~6 e
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" w6 S( S2 n8 [8 x6 n* ldrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
4 q& M$ ~& ]7 y8 `  Iother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect4 X7 Y: d; Z5 L* G1 z, ~4 P
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
0 g) w8 V$ |! h- W. a$ j8 |probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an8 N5 y) {6 z# q6 _/ j, \0 U
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
. G. ^) k3 |6 _4 F9 p2 @: Uchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?0 o( M& S& z% T9 Z; O1 I8 @1 B4 Q
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 A$ w1 ?% Q2 uagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# u4 B  e4 a% ?1 X8 X* c! {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.- g! r/ V, g( W
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
5 Y+ X, V$ l' _4 j/ p* ]  e4 b& t5 Y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ z) G6 P0 G" ~
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
. P9 J6 S% I1 @. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for) A1 }' q$ a% d' q" H- ^
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 p5 T/ m7 b- v- P5 P. tOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
3 d$ J% L1 @& z+ Q/ Zdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
- J( n; F2 u9 G' F' |( f4 e# q3 h9 Qgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope; r+ k) {0 L$ c3 H" d( Q7 `" }: B7 U
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" G1 `3 E  p, B/ m: Y$ n
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
- D$ J+ T" H; a! tpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.* Q+ h. A$ d( G  C
- C0 I' z' t3 s# R6 c- O
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ D1 `5 F- F. K" M  Uintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too" }$ F# T1 k( }/ J& W% l6 a
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ w: ]$ z, }) x
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
# h7 n. }: u- b! s  mall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your( h' F6 u: @+ v! \+ S
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,% A0 l. w7 \; C( z0 Z" r) c9 w
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your$ O. Q  R1 C' _8 h
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
6 z/ p' W3 g2 N; M8 t. osuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
3 I9 L' p0 c; G6 areporting 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, 2026-2-22 11:03 , Processed in 0.185196 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