埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2244|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   L+ I. e% Y* L& L
! _! x- W+ O3 W# \
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
& p, f2 `' c6 q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 {4 `  n: Q. V* b5 v& r- I
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
6 W# L+ @3 Q# Z" I9 I6 ?2 j
5 O  S' @- z( Y1 e& n+ |http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
5 z" D* M8 z" f/ d! t1 v+ ^$ O* K
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
/ f3 d3 p" U/ u1 p4 {- B
* c# z# K$ r0 m7 u英文原信附后,大意如下:
+ z/ |- I5 X6 h+ }
; B8 U( k$ N9 y  c' C斐尔,
# A. P, a  o+ H# V# q4 V       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7 y/ |) U1 ~' O/ L
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
, Y' S2 h  b4 J' R       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 Q% b1 U- s2 r# l3 L2 D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" G) O, V8 E5 r2 ^
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。8 ~6 g3 y$ K! y! _" _
       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7 h) s* l' a; ]1 d5 g3 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
; _! b& X. ~$ H: D, n2 {# n5 B# R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
$ I, }& U' H/ Z3 k  H# j# \& H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。! N/ ^, R  B9 ^7 m2 ]4 F
       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% |) m- `/ d$ |$ \
,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" M9 X. P, [# L
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ w) J- P3 W1 t       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7 Z+ Y0 ~8 J$ G+ A+ 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' ^5 R5 {2 Y2 k8 Y& c- f! K0 ?
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。$ j; J2 h1 e( a! Q' 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  F* e6 j& C4 R* _9 X  X' |
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+ m  i& H! x! i( x7 e. Y0 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
5 N, h; U( Q- c" m3 `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- M8 h+ ]1 h! y  n5 g. ?, h
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* O+ b+ d7 A  x! m" n# h' o2 a0 f
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# F! o: `, k2 H0 F9 _$ L, M  q
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目& j1 O4 x% V5 e* T& a6 n
。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记
0 z; g1 ~/ e# H录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
. Q+ q4 d% W- o* U) F; u, M1 n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 F! h: m6 u7 {3 T3 i9 Q1》,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( ~1 h3 c* L7 J  l! `6 N% T, C
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 V4 ^# c' ?# P
同意见的专家。
4 x, k% `9 w$ l" K, X( Z+ i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
, C, v" E& f& E* x3 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1 ^3 J5 W3 ^& s0 Y( Q
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# D8 t% v, e4 S$ F《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。6 N7 i; f8 Q) {# `
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)4 J, G( I- K( T5 |+ D6 c
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2 H0 W- a; Q8 F( ?2 b. ^4 Q, t
《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
! B( J+ @% N9 G% O4 I这些被Callaway忽略。7 S9 L0 m5 n% k: c
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$ }: N) Z, X# R$ l  n* f+ C- f
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 Z) [0 `4 e2 i7 L+ F( c7 W" T教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
2 H, }8 q: r) q- U2 {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8 W. r* u$ `, M3 R* `: o
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
" I9 q% Q8 H" {2 V; ]/ X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+ A  L# T  F% e
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。5 f+ Y; e  B0 |% ]: k0 \$ g
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. F6 m# Q) W+ f. O4 Y$ \
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8 F% [- E6 I5 _6 M1 [* 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
, P  t5 V4 U+ ^4 T- f! p”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
1 O/ G% k- V7 t2 I5 U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
9 ?3 n# z, _5 A6 n. K& C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+ n+ _! a: Q* C7 ]
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# A* b- T& G+ x4 I1 G; W# s: @
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
7 V: }/ o$ S6 o) u: v# |1 O. j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" A  r. g9 d& A6 W: |$ t
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
6 J' Q& w% q5 [, T" O0 Y& h: k我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
" D5 V5 W% K/ j9 z: k9 X
% N- T6 V$ g  k; n/ \+ b- C0 h; r- T" c+ B0 a: t6 S
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅, s& b# l: s8 e: P1 A) @

$ w: v0 k8 \8 g& ?" I2 Q  B附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结1 Y  H( V, V# B) H( t, ]. d2 ]7 \
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
# ^% E  b3 \! G+ h! e8 U附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见. n; D- x: d% N8 |; ~5 V1 U& ]/ G
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见9 ]' |9 h2 m4 C

& R+ Y$ f/ h; X2 m% Z' k$ Q4 o. Y- k

8 Y, i0 c! ]) a8 j9 B) K: F8 B% T原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- O; [, D4 H2 ?/ G$ T. x8 ^
Dear Phil,7 x0 E8 D2 t9 w$ n* K  A6 c
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
& V8 t7 O1 n6 S1 R% qreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20- l+ g7 E0 D% q# ?4 ?( \0 k, z+ ^
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 m$ }* `% _4 p# o+ X( T' s! Eyou.6 V7 s5 s' H6 \9 V$ H6 j
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
: `2 B7 k1 ?" r7 J' _" Vbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
  U$ P& p! N% o$ ]% kreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
0 L5 C1 R# a7 H, B. y; _+ mworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature. H. y$ N( s6 B8 k
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: {+ d1 D+ |, [) A) S# }4 Y8 lseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news! }4 d6 ]  \  W) N* j: [
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.9 b. h8 ~- d9 n  J5 e% g0 ^
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the3 H; L1 j2 T5 H; K* k! N9 k  ~
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
4 t! K% i7 \+ x& R+ F5 S0 w6 dnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 Z; O1 \& r7 b
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
& {# [# l1 Q1 I( X. Y2 edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# d7 j% e7 J3 H2 X( N% h
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! }; e! C  k5 v+ a
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
2 z) i0 u$ N0 j2 E( j; s! Dand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
5 l' Y! y7 D# [to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
2 ^+ n; ]' b- Hreporting.6 C$ m% \4 ~' g5 \! o! m
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
& u4 b$ N! a! y7 T1 K0 P3 M# Oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by  m" g9 x- g  Z5 C( R6 @
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 O/ x: F: {8 W) C: Z( r2 X
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ a% E  F# s$ \/ ~% K1 Wpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
2 n3 C# w/ m3 d* R) n+ \/ |       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
9 s- l2 Y: c5 {$ Q# t1 [, t( Y4 \; a3 }more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds+ c+ k/ n/ q; }4 X
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
  L. W' p) r! M/ a: F! Kmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same& }5 W9 @3 n8 u8 }: {. Q4 ]
event for men, with the second fastest record.2 r0 A% u2 w  z% ?8 T
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye' r) H" i3 V' @" M. D: `7 \
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16) T6 {8 @1 E# W. M" {6 g1 d
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
6 P3 V) \  W: H, a) N% z; G+ ?- v$ }. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400  u1 r* q' y* K/ R7 ?
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,1 ~4 z# B  t) o3 S
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
/ ]- L& U2 m9 g% A' k, [Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) ]3 D# e& C4 x& @behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# e: ]* l& C  g3 Eindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
$ B/ X$ F# f- K, w# N$ othan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than5 f: D) M, H+ K  H
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was  [) F  Q4 N9 }# A5 q
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then5 \) ^  f* z- _- q3 _% f
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
3 r& K1 ^- R+ v$ j$ a" y3 I/ yproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other5 d0 O% d9 u/ P8 q2 p
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the5 L% n; l' {2 @0 s. L8 @
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
# b4 g7 a' A& _# i! qCallaway report.; X# |$ t' T; X  _% P
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
4 k1 z+ n/ b( H1 s; e1 f  ]understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details( j$ y$ z# g5 w! }7 l5 N! ]
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description# k3 O$ Y: Z; [2 F- t' g
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been/ j; V* ~5 {* w, @2 y' G  m
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- S, E9 i5 |) a8 V* z+ T: aWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had3 x, k  i5 [9 Q' F+ q
publicly voiced different opinions.7 V0 X. R) v: h& ], P
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD7 F0 ]/ X3 g- j1 _
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature. j: Y4 M& k. z; A3 T* W. x
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
1 G' v0 I" r0 X3 w+ Cpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds: |3 X! @% m7 j8 x. R/ t$ d# a
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
1 o9 P( n! T2 B/ tof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
1 A$ P% y+ w0 a- P! m8 j& @+ J/ i% o2 ZThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
/ J3 U( B, \% x, ethat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They" N+ V8 N( b; [" d
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
% r; x! \7 k! [6 k6 eAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that2 L! i* i8 l, t1 d
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was3 ^! j* i3 J. c8 h6 C! r+ M
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
3 U/ c' t: R; J! d7 i; n: VOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
1 q% r+ C0 w+ J  l$ c/ a+ zmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the9 N' K8 @6 B$ p, t. W  V
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
4 Q+ v- c+ ^; L' `- t8 j. Q: y4 B(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
. Y: \! w& v3 _and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
8 X8 N$ P. U; J+ }6 rThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science( r( L# b& j9 D0 J1 T, n
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 G  K  A0 W1 d/ j
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
$ r. i% d5 d/ R1 B' K  w2 u2 qNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 t% O& d, T* P2 v5 k% \
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
5 u7 k' E# q/ m+ w: [what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" C, R6 o- c* _. Urepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
5 F& z3 y  `* e) o- i. {: JThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
& ]/ Z; ]/ ~- g( b! |4 nshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced0 G) o" r5 q8 |7 Z$ ^
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
) B7 s& b& G* H: a8 Rfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
; c2 X) G7 l1 t  B" l- H. Y- q- p6 gthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
5 Q' t7 Y! \5 h6 r, j0 }1 Oabout British supremacy.
: w$ R) j6 b, CThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
# A. a; m  a: t9 g4 d6 Cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more8 y8 `( }! j' l% H7 j9 y; x
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by0 m) h1 F% Q$ Y' L9 ?* X  r; j
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
8 l# [! W; `" b, m+ N2 x) ?" cOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.6 J; n1 _5 K$ o$ B. d# k
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of; R1 f/ ]! _1 T- J6 a" C# I
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
; e: H$ V, f% U2 t2 m) G; a6 vbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' `, x! x# S& ]- i) O
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
( _! U( c3 O) G. |; z% r0 _publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
1 n7 h9 B% F2 @* \- m7 b7 ANature.
7 M3 F, l- e) C) g) A, s% z$ {I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance2 G8 r  |3 _; O8 m
the Callaway report.- W* K& N; Z3 T* g' @: q: [

5 M" r+ f) |+ \. V9 ^* [; ~Yi
' r' r9 q- ^6 ?
3 {2 J9 [8 d, I: H, kYi Rao, Ph.D.1 X" K' d0 r! V
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
- H# C# t: i: X: w: i/ XBeijing, China
- P1 F  V( X0 R( {% u
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 : x- q( {3 Z( A7 M% Y# K- p
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
2 J" I& @' S3 g" ^" z
原文是公开信。& \9 \7 @0 h' B0 H! v0 h2 j  k
) d: P  [- r1 B3 s1 r
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 g2 J* x) j) m! `6 Q' {+ E原文是公开信。) C% z4 u/ }& C' R9 x
; v1 D3 I: b2 ^% n7 f1 |& s+ v
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
0 }& e* z% g9 D5 {1 r7 z* U
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
& V( [  W, E/ h" n# s2 i如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 Z  i  e+ X( H% I1 @
. u( P9 I9 s+ _+ `$ [! Z
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
  _) Z' `9 ^6 A) S! q, V4 a8 y! p* N
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 c/ F& d7 X- U3 v0 i3 q1 I
3 |+ J' u$ B6 y: r4 M( `
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 r% A( e& h% ^. Q. v" K
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
" j, d- h3 f) |  d+ L5 zmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
% ]2 B/ J( v% X! Uis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ ~) N0 u# V* }" k. A/ w
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general2 }. q: E: Q6 S1 L8 h
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 h! K- K; K. J0 a9 X
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,, |+ _4 o# i; k! S% @
which they blatantly failed to do.# Q8 z9 L% G/ I. z' a( P; |

: T' R. y) s! h+ Y+ t3 {First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
* x2 [2 Y" z" o  N4 L( P3 s9 V! KOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
( ^. @! p6 u6 J( M- R- G+ }2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
/ o* G0 u- _3 \# {+ e: wanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous4 D% X6 i8 a3 Y- g$ [4 s9 K  P
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an- U$ L+ o0 _9 G) Q, W
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
- F" v$ e) s0 i! S- @2 Qdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 S9 p% {4 S2 ^* J2 h! g
be treated as 7 s./ h7 R  t( l, U+ ^/ C  G

/ d$ J  x7 o0 u! s4 LSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) g% q+ Q, i" V5 r) d
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 X6 {2 v  G# |6 Qimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
: t8 [& C7 ~) n9 W2 }An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
. C3 H, O, L. N$ e-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
0 p0 o5 @: e4 F7 lFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an4 n9 }0 s8 F% o$ {2 X+ S" o2 ]
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
% P( p- [' f9 N% i5 @. g* ^persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
& o9 d; G4 W: k  ^5 o" nbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
7 b. r2 R; T5 v+ z
! a% l+ @1 Y; g0 |2 T5 iThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. z; G, `. C3 g' c, ?
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 n! J6 ?/ H  \! {; `
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
) k# f* S0 m9 Vhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later) o; |8 [0 N2 N, q& r+ K; m' `$ x
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s! O) ]7 B* C1 ?' r/ h
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World9 X( T$ P3 z0 Q* m! F
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another2 u# O$ ~& K2 k2 U) y; @/ J, r: u5 A4 X
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other; t8 a8 ^8 L! T: N5 D5 A5 H: h
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* ?7 L$ N/ n( p; g
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this  G3 k$ K( J! N% D4 I: X  O
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 @* ^) O5 J7 N% x; y, K: |faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ @4 T4 s3 R+ l' F; ufaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting% q+ I' d1 ~0 H6 z  u7 f! E
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that. P1 Y6 `3 N6 h% j7 X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 S/ n( [2 P. h& r# ]6 s, d; D6 c# z4 V$ p' E4 _3 a/ x" S
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are4 q. p1 F' P7 m& Y# }
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93+ c4 h: c$ L. H! Z
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 c4 L3 v+ p* K& t) O9 f2 f$ W5 n), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ C  F: w7 G& F5 t8 q
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,. X( [' l' A3 _/ x2 r( t8 f! }  @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind. T; g8 R1 x# z$ G( K+ N) n
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
/ _  H! \$ L7 a& `) {logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
4 ]2 E- E# Q# g7 Z2 p* gevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science4 H" ~5 n: T) G% D0 ]8 y1 \
works.
# `8 G1 k$ ]2 M% v2 I' Y# _# T/ I! Q
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and  h' O- x% K. u( \/ \* a
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this  z6 q2 r3 Z/ W& F% y$ ^; @
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ t# e6 M+ H! T$ ^
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. |- @' ]" K) X3 q. q1 @8 \8 X6 lpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% [- }/ p! u8 O0 a
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One8 k8 W' f6 V6 x: L7 i9 O
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 ~! W+ o( j9 R3 {8 _1 |demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works6 m% ~+ g% I* H$ S: s
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) ]6 P8 ~/ P* v' m9 E
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ V: I) N* I! v1 W. \/ U, a
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; i2 G$ R" {( F9 l3 T4 K! G
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' r% V5 S6 X+ K' W3 f6 A6 k
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  i! A; q( q, m% E7 V
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
4 ?* _5 E; M0 l5 Y& ouse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
! N) H# T! ?2 m$ @- s. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are: ^% u) Q# G  e/ t# L- q  L
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
2 S' A1 q! Z# A$ {be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
  ~! Q3 L" o* W# u$ Nhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye$ D6 ]9 C5 N6 j+ |" H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
$ U; y! C2 W* I0 [drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
  S0 V) k" |) H8 e9 @2 ?# M; ~other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect. G7 y- D' f, o4 L! o" i7 o2 t; D
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, G3 O1 u$ ]! X$ U
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 U5 w4 S: _$ k
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight7 v3 Q' t% J0 {- R' L
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 q+ _2 c+ W  q! z
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 [. m- d3 G- I9 _! M; G
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
  ~# J: x2 Y) z. M, ]eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.' b' F% f. P, S5 c# J8 r) f
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?  M$ @& h- G7 Y4 G+ a; m

9 s: S5 S6 v3 n0 u3 b9 NSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% m/ }2 ?2 W" ]7 e! i% u2 U. @$ C. ]
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention$ G" c8 _/ A3 Z5 [) s, n$ U7 v! i
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
# P$ @" I0 P) b/ T* g9 S& v/ G% uOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London4 U+ P, l. e3 A/ z1 p
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
% ^8 C( S5 g3 v& E; [( g9 Zdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic. c. k  F, _" D! L& q7 c7 G* W8 l
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope  ?' i) Y2 ^" D4 U3 E
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, m' w5 L/ O$ g' Gplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. z( ~5 M( ^8 D/ y2 J0 Mpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; p1 J% K( J! q1 Q" u
/ s# Y$ E+ m. wOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
9 S5 J7 i$ z' z" ^7 u3 G8 H8 fintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. }" |4 h3 Z% y  Y2 H2 [& l, v3 Hsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
/ g8 a* G( v5 }% I0 a* w- D! ~suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
3 B3 O" z3 A* M  ^" uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your. W$ x2 b2 t& Y+ Z3 q, M; p
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,$ T! C, H0 |3 U$ I" t
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your0 P( |# ^0 F# `/ c
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
; G$ w- R$ V1 p6 C' Hsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ Q5 x: [6 N5 v) R# D  `3 O
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-4-18 20:07 , Processed in 0.299994 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