埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2156|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 ; D0 ^% k" Z. S0 c6 R9 p  S
  y) N: p) S4 D) _7 \+ y! l, U, n1 P
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。' V; h4 P- f- s- |. n1 L1 T% S8 j
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。5 T* r8 p$ M  J4 W4 p2 g3 S! l
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
' R* \; u+ e" w0 U" J4 E
" ]% Z: b, U: _+ d+ yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html/ m  W- t# V" k

6 x, i: \; H- i! V致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
+ H; Z+ a. ]) M1 z4 C5 i
2 u. e9 o. E3 [" p" t& z英文原信附后,大意如下:
( H/ a9 K. P, }. T  z$ b: \* w, @; n2 D
斐尔,
- O+ @+ A5 C) 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
  C6 `: J7 _& V) i0 w# ^+ femail的人里面小部分也给我来信。9 g- {: U+ m% X! O8 \
       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
, A) F7 i' a' P! v( E$ _7 i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
* G5 z. u& `7 U9 e. T- @" ?. R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。4 r6 i/ \) Q1 X$ x: f4 X. K# V. t
       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
) g# ?  c/ }' n; P' c# P/ F; Z弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意9 R' `  t% f" D
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
5 n" I; c. W! H* I, [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。5 N$ {: L$ d! [3 _
       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
0 j. N' \! i; s: l7 r,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
& \* N+ [/ u8 ~+ U4 q: L/ O9 K4 C”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
. ~9 [3 N" L: N% J. F) z       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
" x7 ^: v. D( j6 A& }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
# L- y6 s! C4 P8 \,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。, F7 k9 {: W8 O2 F* W+ N4 `) n
       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4 X. K1 D* s( Q8 X# ]/ i+ G# l7 M
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
0 W; h1 o' m" |3 t  y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" K0 [0 ^& E/ U  b; }/ g0 x* 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
* y2 r" S* j. y; ^2 S300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 q% f& ?9 m, y1 t9 e& y' \/ P: M
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9 S0 M, X+ s6 L3 m: S; a* z
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
( U! X, c1 J1 [* p* j5 }$ o。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
7 ^& U* r: A2 }, B2 J# o录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
: C' s+ U% o9 z还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件
1 z; W* L' k" V( G% A3 Q% m. z1》,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
+ F6 E- G/ F0 h0 r2 LWikipedia。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
8 e* |( y; ]2 `  B同意见的专家。
2 E3 s; s4 \4 B# I* S1 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4 K# @& I+ \. g; a" }8 }8 E
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/ q+ ]" N- w8 D8 v+ A
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
; U- S4 _2 V' D8 z! [3 @' a! V( w《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
3 F0 T7 h* p$ ]- \5 y/ s3 OCallaway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)
' [  x7 F" o) S0 Q) Q- D' z; R0 ^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
! r! K4 j! m3 ]/ u( k7 Q《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% i: J; Q% \8 b$ D/ |
这些被Callaway忽略。6 d9 S4 N# [5 ?' s# E  ~
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 }' B& f; \* r  h) O& I% W2 e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
' p4 j3 J* c  H6 G$ o! ~) A; D教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。  M4 U; @' |. R! N# ]( ^" k
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: J* R) s" |: ~* J5 b
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
+ h- d  G- x- M1 H: ]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
, j- j! c! x7 V+ X9 e% L- 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。
0 d4 _; o5 }/ }( N! 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1 u2 I0 Q3 [) ?) S- H& e
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
/ c$ g* N4 {# f' R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0 n. B/ r9 m1 c7 v+ Q/ c& _3 E
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- T3 }1 r5 \$ h
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
  Q3 N1 z0 o0 N+ H' g' O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 w" F0 s# X  Q4 p0 {( ?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# m/ r3 R3 P, z3 l( g! S9 q  |4 ^
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
" n1 q  a$ l: ]; d; f4 H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' k) M  B, }% \* ?4 l5 m0 h, @
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
5 [- `. p3 G. X; m; Y. q5 f* e我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( I9 M; g0 p( ^+ G3 s
( ?6 V* ^8 ?3 [7 ~

: c6 y5 N) u- |' {北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅: z+ H+ B- E6 G* f7 K4 p
) c! R2 G9 S& v+ t
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结8 m- ?7 R$ m7 a9 u: ?+ v
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email- z' H' S" ^5 z$ [9 h3 }9 U
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见& I/ E; _6 e3 B6 }4 f0 G6 Q
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见3 V& u" Y# n( v1 p

6 j- Y8 u; ~* Y$ |% `6 k5 ?- Q3 R  T# h' b( k8 I/ [6 D& m; J

+ _/ }. Z. t) A  y( ?原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
: k0 [5 X$ E0 ]Dear Phil,; @- p# t* ?( X' B3 O0 [7 G1 B
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s/ t# a: k% n( c& h0 G  L
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 208 I$ X" W9 _$ O+ ?" E" t
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
" y' {; K! Z( w7 ?  i# ?* myou.
. h  @% Y, `6 A# [6 {/ H6 f% f) v       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have7 M; V9 D8 ]6 Z, [/ F
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese2 [& o2 A4 w- j7 h
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
" E" U5 E5 X$ s* Sworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
: R. J3 B) a8 m2 M) J5 c- ~publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 ^& O) B" f+ @% _+ d6 o7 a
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
# W+ U* j( }% y, z, W/ ~6 ipieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 r& q) B' U1 g4 A  _5 \* d: @; J9 W! p       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the! K# j) M3 [$ X" }
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
' G9 D) l* Y8 v# D! C. _" rnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish& ?! ^5 ?# l' f
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
, Y' k- B0 e0 C( v2 [' g9 Mdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
9 f4 |7 |* H& h. u: @explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- a" P7 s! r$ P3 D; a9 u! d
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,& ^, B8 @  O6 F! W; W
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone3 r0 s$ B- i; b, B# X9 Z2 d
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
$ P- n6 ?. f& t3 ?7 O, Preporting.5 M# O0 ?7 J- J* T$ P
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
& H1 G! `: d: q6 y& W+ R. c5 Malready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
; \4 Q, l7 Z9 X! N( o* t; C" s* ^changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in% }" b9 S& ]) @# @" i
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A1 ~8 N2 F. [+ X: W3 S
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.7 V; ~' f9 a& e' ^, b8 O: Z: ]( V
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem( o6 y+ `9 B" }  w: a. r# D) n+ R
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds' }8 j! ?: c* c
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50& g/ n" M5 f6 \; N
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same; G$ F3 @6 d9 s+ P1 x' W, O' w. l# P
event for men, with the second fastest record.
$ ~: m# U! |0 k4 C* ^" J4 |" \+ Q       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
0 h# B+ ?) \, V6 u2 O& c/ s/ Q! Fwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
2 R; U8 i* M6 s2 _% Eyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record/ c$ V+ k# `3 N# W7 t
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 b, s5 |5 S# `) ?; }" q( W9 K6 b
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,! E9 U  B8 b3 N
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
4 J9 \: ~$ E/ J0 g: ZLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) v% K9 e7 d4 `1 n1 R4 y7 R# mbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
9 J9 N% q) U/ Z5 r  T3 Yindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower* D5 g( v- y! C3 p0 m+ Y
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
; ~* A8 ]! p, z, e2 w3 }1 x- Wthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
1 X' }$ k& s  j: Uher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then0 e6 N4 F- Y8 x' [% K3 t
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “7 ^* W# S6 X9 B: S
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other* T9 `" U& Y7 Z" g& Y; |
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: V3 A- s: l7 j( g% Y1 g( P- steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
( @) [' Y6 k4 N6 l/ [Callaway report.
) C. C& @' {# d: pThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more2 S" s% Q6 L: {* B
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details. X0 K, E! A  H
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description* c7 m/ \7 |' k1 Y, d6 }  b. L
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
6 j' B/ v, y; s' _7 Mbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the1 D2 O  ^5 W* Y7 N. d8 p
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
6 ~8 Z. y# m+ E5 q2 M  @, Tpublicly voiced different opinions.4 W* M4 u; `0 }1 ?9 z8 `
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD2 \# P) P) }# s; }, l6 ^
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" s- ]& ]4 A% u2 eNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent) z. A$ K& }. m) j; j& b, J
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
, C- W- i- ~3 kyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
# l( ~5 r3 y. }5 g4 t$ aof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
: U& [, M+ w0 W; C* `There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think- O+ Y( T  F% o' U4 F+ H
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They% q  \3 b/ u+ ]
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
$ c, a; O" R( q' V: jAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
, @* o+ R5 y0 F' z* p7 S" {the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
: F: @( s! X0 V5 D  h; d! n6 ?supported by facts neglected by Callaway." {' F8 N, X" u) J; f8 Z
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that& L7 O( k3 B5 q/ W4 R+ r# b& q2 _
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
& Z2 w( }0 h* [. E/ X# xChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
( k2 \2 U$ X' X(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
" S9 ~3 a4 i9 {/ x2 B, band I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
/ I$ z" `0 {% Q: Z) L  H9 L2 LThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
' a, w  Y) a) N4 O) k# Uand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and! }# m/ N) e! x6 I* ~' c0 Z- D
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.5 e' e+ ^! ]$ R$ F# X3 g& z
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
$ u% I* |% _3 X/ Q* H' Pobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
" U, @3 h  t! B/ a8 [5 o8 }) {, h0 Cwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
/ Y5 ?+ d2 a, T8 V; |repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
- Z$ g8 O, `/ l) S. `# \The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not5 [4 h& h. K* S
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced6 w2 Q) T5 N# w# J9 r
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
0 ~  z1 ~/ H, R* [$ Dfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
$ F; \/ P" A# f8 G- Pthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”$ F* _# \$ g  s
about British supremacy.
; P& M5 e. ?. {" K7 kThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many3 s; a! J( {- M5 W
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
6 ~: c5 [2 w# V$ FChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by8 l4 |9 J$ v1 `5 F
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London: C: t, @- N8 R. \
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.. v4 @% ?  r: r8 b& k6 V' S/ c" X$ ^% D
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
6 f& k4 Y% G0 K4 K) r0 l# T, ^! Sprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests& {! k- v* D9 x/ ^( y4 x
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
' @; r2 B$ X8 j- P# u' Lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly' g, z5 w' W/ O  h4 }/ O9 r  o3 Z+ A
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like8 ^9 Y5 |1 t7 h( q! b& Q9 ]) E" @
Nature.
8 X2 n6 t. y! r' k, lI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% I* f- @; k# N' ?% ]
the Callaway report.- B- O. _- r) i$ O  g

# ?  c8 C5 ^4 {: P7 xYi
' K# m: Q( Q8 V" ]) E+ c7 R! R* L3 Q. X, I, N$ y% T' ]+ j
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
$ Z7 c& U2 s& l8 \4 v7 ^Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
! {8 j% Y2 B# P' ?6 X, [2 V* D# lBeijing, China9 ?+ Q- G+ h# {9 |
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 * P( ^2 A7 v& {  J% w( H. w
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

* e$ ^1 u* _9 y原文是公开信。* F  X5 M8 i& B6 D0 B" n, f  p

  P0 u. q$ |9 W- J& V: q" F8 u. E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
7 I5 q' E$ c$ V2 q) o原文是公开信。0 O/ Y9 I  Y  y" c2 o4 ]7 ~

2 d4 W# H( z# W( l" d小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
6 Y  a. K9 ~1 c( F% e
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
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
- e" g; J2 N2 B+ Q: X& z5 K/ u4 H1 I如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 `* f" G1 `4 f7 L) ^9 |
' n9 n' l( \8 c2 c' F- _" t$ M
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
& ?/ W9 A6 Y3 D# o  h+ ~; |6 U6 H( }  W2 n& l$ _
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
9 A/ o" l8 }( o" V8 Y
  K, H8 R0 ?4 e6 Z0 b0 ~It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself' l% G* u4 p+ s+ S/ _4 E1 Q
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science2 p* Z* u6 M% d0 g; |' k
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
4 |0 N# b" W# S! H8 b& Eis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the& A  b" i$ u) \$ J6 S
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) |: X7 \3 P0 C! ^" ]5 c0 ?/ u% o
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors$ }; K7 `" w6 A
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' p6 @. a, A+ I9 A. w8 v6 \
which they blatantly failed to do.( }0 s& |0 h7 ?: k  r# Q- ~

' Q3 K' |0 g. i+ S5 KFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her, v, {/ v1 t& f  W
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- d4 \+ b# b7 n/ n4 g4 J: t2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
2 v: s" l1 q9 B+ C; P- m  n7 n% j- vanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
/ ?5 X) M! p9 G: epersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an: F* q- v1 U( @3 j
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
: J0 v- J0 b/ b/ T) }; U6 e3 ]; rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
$ R8 ]1 M! S, ~" x- _; B$ lbe treated as 7 s.
2 H* e1 p+ S( n2 n; n4 v+ L& o3 f, R
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is1 t6 t$ h  O) Q8 s
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem6 N. S1 E) x7 K9 P& i# g
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
, M$ h  o6 H5 C+ l$ BAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400% j$ m" e( Q5 M( `" S
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
$ o2 s- Q: g% D4 H4 n. hFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an# I( ~8 L& z0 i9 O9 O+ a) b- _
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
: z3 S4 n, f) s* {persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”3 d# Z! i' j, e+ F5 _/ j! }
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.* }+ I* @* D6 n: Q7 y, u9 A
0 ]6 y2 b( N6 I: ?. T
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- t8 ^( n$ m7 |1 T
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in: M, a$ _& g6 W, L" _" H
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so2 N% {& H# T( K4 \/ y& P( W
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 @: @4 n, Y0 Z9 c, g- K- K+ y9 }
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s3 X) s, e2 ]9 A0 ~3 G! M: H' ~
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
( `/ w, j4 ?. d* O! v! Q  ^Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another' \6 B( M3 ?2 O
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 @# Z# s% w# C2 H: l
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
8 Q4 @: g% h9 v9 S, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
. d7 K- o( x2 J  vstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% u9 w; P. M" yfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam: C3 K! u4 [& {8 S. l
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' o5 L. j1 C/ q& O8 r
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that5 o& x, v1 b( ~6 u
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
: ?, D  r! [1 D/ F+ b2 L
4 `2 B' ^  n% V8 c( O% A" [Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are3 V/ a1 ]! ^5 |! R3 A
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 {; @. W$ J/ W$ Q" J! y7 us) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
6 C- w/ Y5 o9 L6 ^  O), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns: T" ?0 v% r+ l
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. o; I. Q$ X6 S( P2 g
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
) {/ v8 ]! k7 P9 |6 u8 |of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
) H3 g8 g( t9 D8 Q. t; tlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 v; B  r# h! F) @* o. t
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science( R( h3 p; o- W/ T" Q* k" A: E% ]
works.
' e6 L3 z2 N$ |( e+ U) F5 s0 x4 S, z+ o1 `
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
& k1 F2 N  r7 }' O) @% R. N! Ximplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this: M& f  o! H4 f+ Q! ]
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, b: E% r. P# ?( q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. [; _. x0 K+ y& t! |papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, @8 ^6 f9 r9 A! n1 ]) }0 v$ ^6 U
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
! L! O% ~* \& Z! xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to, S- |2 }8 m! f' I, B7 |
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works/ j% |- ^" `. z( w
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample$ `3 G: k7 r4 a- k+ V, e1 `
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
, e) y" k1 B- X! y- X. rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
+ w5 ?0 S$ L+ D8 Hwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly/ h) q, N% }( w2 }. ?, l
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
$ K2 h  ?) `! \: ]' E8 M3 hpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
0 X8 S3 |4 ]  D" w+ _1 r& O( `use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation  \, W4 d1 U: H8 W. p1 a
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
2 K5 ?3 Y) m# i7 \! Edoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may" d, Q/ I" `& W# q8 x# U8 |
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
+ J9 j2 u8 h3 xhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* I  B  i' ~. R( P, n9 d
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) `. k7 ^/ x1 Y
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:% a, s: D/ z6 P  _2 z
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect  w7 D! n( E. R! f9 z
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
/ q* i: z3 g/ n1 u+ `2 G" Jprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: ?: z# z' P( M" b! C+ e2 ^
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight$ C, T+ R* J7 f7 x/ P3 O
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& m5 G4 B" X' }Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
+ g2 W4 D3 o: Q( v' ^2 a/ Vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for/ L5 C7 @, T  o9 G0 i+ q
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) u6 y0 M: ?4 sInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 y& E8 X: o& B+ ?5 L( e- W
3 A$ W+ A5 l% F2 h- t/ tSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' }( O8 v' b4 {) r, k1 T! G3 e
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
1 @8 Z9 s& t2 R. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( g+ ^: b; c1 T) t: G3 WOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London6 o  B! s1 i: e# S( r
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for6 F, R- u3 l0 a+ I
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
; R( L" M) k% R: x- {! Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
4 @0 R, L' J' k5 q3 D" q' y* ~have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) v0 L2 c9 G# t$ r3 B3 }& t
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
7 M4 T+ p- R6 ]- A6 Z, cpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.: ?2 b2 W8 F4 p) F, V* o& F; ?- K2 c

/ U6 c+ l' C( b  r$ Z& `Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 u" u' ~. F1 |1 p0 ointentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too/ b2 R# i& e* J! e
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a$ B- w) ^- t% `. ~
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 @3 {3 ?$ M/ f$ ?8 q6 v
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your0 q, P. R0 d' _& |+ i0 {1 f0 L; V
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,! p3 r7 b/ [% h4 q8 j
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your3 m# l* `; F9 G  ~$ d* D; V  a! k$ w
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
9 N$ A3 S0 X. t" C; Y. R2 gsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or9 t0 o; a6 c! y& ?- W  p; ]
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, 2026-3-27 19:45 , Processed in 0.211553 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