埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2080|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 n7 D( c/ n8 r! L9 Z; {6 P

% w& P9 U% w% |+ n" q5 D/ Z3 n饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
) S0 P( }1 c" i/ r5 r8 z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。
' v& ]9 V6 B9 O" m6 E总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 K+ R. j/ M/ q2 Q& c
+ H+ |. q9 b9 q  x: r& i. l' Ahttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; g  n2 u* n8 X& `
( |1 X& c! w, J致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
0 i+ w2 j8 J$ C, p/ u" |: Y2 b) e9 t& n# m8 G( T) Q5 ^" }+ x4 p
英文原信附后,大意如下:
/ U% ~: l$ W0 O  u. v8 s2 e! C( f" R6 l& K
斐尔,7 U- }% g+ x% p
       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 Q1 v& k2 p0 ?0 T
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
8 z1 J1 a8 e0 k2 j2 u4 s       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 Q& O- v- L# r1 ?
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& m# h: s6 s$ n9 T% c7 t% d
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。
( _) Q  D" Q# r9 c, {1 F+ I# K0 _$ S       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞3 q9 C: g8 e) L- l- Q4 R) i: T8 ~
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0 Y5 D3 S9 s2 N% h& {) c0 Y- 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: T% y/ l; V: |  p1 ~) [4 \+ j& D
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。
7 ], U& J$ W6 M1 L9 }0 @       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
% T3 d8 d" T& `, B" y$ g- x8 h( g,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& B  ?  h" J3 A; n3 o
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。; z: ~- o7 Y  f& I
       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
- J7 H/ G- A) E% k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, X) t* D0 \
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 H* }! P. M8 n" f6 O3 Z. 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
/ Q# g: `; r: u: ^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
% C; C6 t" B8 d) U' o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$ m+ _) K; O+ l' x3 M- ?
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
. E+ q4 B. y+ l+ T$ p2 f: T300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六9 {. `' z  u  U
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
: Q+ n- _8 f, ?0 B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
  T  M3 Z, \% N/ l0 `4 I。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
# k: [/ b. j9 B' h8 t录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
0 l, N, {% ^& F, Y7 h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
9 n0 W  Y0 k* l5 ~3 ]  _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
9 R% x9 y9 Q( HWikipedia。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, s6 z1 ^& C1 h$ X' v, e. r
同意见的专家。
, @5 l0 |( l8 `5 S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 W4 O' D8 q2 e3 l8 R& W% k5 r
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
' C2 y$ B7 e6 t! ~" ^9 r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- Z2 V9 \0 D/ d; J% V6 ^
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
' s6 j/ o) B' s3 I( ]4 i1 b' WCallaway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)) \; ]1 I( }4 {; C( V
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$ H/ d. m" k. O' k, h" u" E! `
《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& n6 H% ?( A+ C$ e
这些被Callaway忽略。
, v: W+ a: B* y8 f2 F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  o7 D1 T, t) y
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: Z8 q8 B' A2 o
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。9 t+ n, h! M$ [8 ^0 r0 n
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, N& h5 \6 m7 F% Q5 \3 ^
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
. R/ w5 a! J" `0 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
7 X0 h! [+ Y, _. _+ G" Y% M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。
( \: [- X0 `; s$ {- t" s; 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
) Q# r; r$ H. S1 S! S7 P+ k4 x9 U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
9 x; @- F8 u& E  n+ Z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( t4 L; B& O" a- W9 n
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。6 d: z: Y' z" g2 }. a- `
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: Z" R3 b4 L" X# |9 C9 f; q' t
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
# X8 Q# Q. F& U/ C. y' q% w; O! n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
3 v! q# h# L9 ]6 \/ O0 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/ L* y- b* E& D0 t
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8 p6 ~% H. A4 x/ v: d
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。) H& E3 @  n( _# U$ s0 B
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 r7 }, ~3 n  w) V. ]. A
# j8 I7 G. x9 ]  H. R" ]; p0 A  C8 [3 \) z4 C2 i( `
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
+ ]+ m5 S6 }& k' d
8 d; K8 N6 p7 `" w3 ]附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
0 _1 f* j3 G# q附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
7 {1 C+ Y: C( i' Q4 i- e) t7 G附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
# _* D1 c. N# D( c$ ~  _附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: G) i# ^1 l2 l- T; g/ K4 ?( }1 }7 y
5 x" W4 ~' u6 p( X5 J; S

; t% p& ?1 ~( @/ \原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送). C2 N8 Y7 q( ]
Dear Phil,
3 ?. Y4 e" S' L! Y       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
+ C6 ~2 P, j! |- u7 lreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
2 B) F$ C7 n' B4 r) m3 Shours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed+ J' X7 e9 N" F7 D5 y$ N  H6 q
you.8 |! K4 C& F( ?  [) y
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 h( d7 f( D6 Q; M( P
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
9 Y3 M2 U! n1 k9 o' F; [readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ f" X# h# ?3 Tworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
% L- e% K& r+ o; Bpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
/ |* {$ D2 z3 l* Vseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news* l- G( c! V4 H% D% P
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. ]6 R1 D( r8 g0 s& s; a9 }
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
" z- A; z& c/ lworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
- N+ ~2 _3 G' _+ c. anegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
5 S; F" W$ Y. g2 K& ~that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 [- u. ~% y$ k
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  S' e, F+ ^+ C" [explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal" h# y; z: r# i) z/ {( Y: R
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
& k' G% J* l. M# y8 J( }3 A+ land could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone5 b# I3 u' t) V5 X1 I4 j: ~
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
7 o0 @, V, W  |, @/ creporting." P8 ~& F3 c- R$ u$ Z" j
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
/ V& |; }) |9 o, u& Aalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by: C8 C8 u4 q8 S" R7 _) H
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
$ v5 y( l; U0 Q% H* [* B7 K4 tsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
% M4 m8 c* U4 q# l' \; spresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.& s! H( R  p! D2 C
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 {- o! ^& ]8 k' x+ g- _7 m* I  w# F, `more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
. i5 u; o' l7 x& j# Y& nfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50* Z$ I2 r. d& s5 Q* ^+ f; d
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same3 V- M9 f* c: f( G! {
event for men, with the second fastest record.
1 W! z9 Z3 \# d8 i- \       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye6 v+ y9 A1 \0 b/ l- P) p( [3 x
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
- B8 ~- j4 A' D7 ryear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record( q- G/ f  C" ?
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400# a1 d4 R! w6 z' R% d
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
* ]* p3 w0 b# s" E& Afor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
9 J+ t% l8 S" {. HLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed. G8 B+ i! }! S( q6 R
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
7 F0 ^4 D7 K& i- @& z3 B* }individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
$ t8 }# h# R8 bthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
9 g: \, a4 u' X: N3 ]those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was7 {, s% G) W. I8 g' `
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
5 m6 T+ o% A" m& X& nhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “5 L) d8 J& v! e# k
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other. Y) E* J# z- H8 d# ?
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% t8 @* X7 n& h, l& {
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the- p! ~  j9 P+ G8 r3 m; C
Callaway report./ W/ i, s- h0 j- p% y% h
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more6 m" z, E5 W% v3 A4 l
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
: o* x  r/ H0 Y9 g* ]# y3 Lhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
4 n3 h! k9 W6 C" F* \' pof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
$ r& I9 j/ W0 e) F3 U8 s6 pbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the; L, {1 j0 \3 U- u4 C3 e" C4 i" n
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
' F" P9 t/ a" N5 F3 Gpublicly voiced different opinions.6 ]! w3 h: Q" O6 G7 S0 `0 w
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
* v/ K5 g2 A5 s# C. G2 }! i- Ifrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature4 h9 q$ t( Y' q2 M
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' k( A7 o. H4 h8 ]2 v. H
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
9 v1 A+ Y; o, vyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* L1 n9 g: p* m4 B
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.) D2 |* f( i, a5 s* _: S
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
/ I$ U+ {- @9 `7 T4 o) vthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
2 G6 W# G! t6 N: phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as5 g1 M% ]# B& _  A6 e- w' X6 f1 ~
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that) g% \$ N6 {% x  S  F4 }2 h3 G% }! {
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was, L" c  L! `* t, y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% g1 k: f- z! POne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that& d6 `# a5 @( ?" O
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  f) E+ x0 y- y# X; U! d0 x* C
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June6 O2 ]# `0 i# D
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she( F. g+ Y! u' X1 T3 w; H
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
+ O1 ^, R1 M- CThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 t4 Z. F0 V0 z
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and. ~# [' Z( p( |! i! U
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.# A- V; ^2 _! o. f/ m
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
0 a: L+ a; X% ~0 S! |) r8 eobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature) n" t6 {4 D9 A8 W' D
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
7 ^( i! f3 U1 Y; o  _  A- V6 |0 Xrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.0 F! ~! l+ F0 j+ B, r9 e' V4 e
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not2 F/ h2 M) i% n! G: k
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
) T- h; ~! |, t% ^/ ~us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
/ J+ V# L: M, z: [  Kfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that& d6 X  }# P1 ], d' ?( S
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”  ]8 M' _) c5 g1 K
about British supremacy.# O! k9 i/ w1 X
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many2 e. `7 L; o% L% k4 ]
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
) w% D  f* T% E( t& p0 RChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
" P" c7 b3 T* X) u; C4 X2 cour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London/ `9 ]7 U  d+ j3 c: m! \: E, M( i- x
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
" U- u  j. c! A  h9 @( j) H- h8 MYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of" C/ I* A* N1 w, y8 k/ D
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
3 p1 @; v* q8 o, O" dbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ |8 @! O' ?& _& i
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
& q! s: T' Y9 K: c- m( tpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
/ E1 f5 v* w6 q# n: K  e6 l" WNature.: _3 C$ O: {3 V4 K  \# w8 O
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance% h' k' {7 Q! D9 j1 p
the Callaway report.6 \+ J) z0 p! W; \, Z
! ^+ c/ Y* A0 }& d
Yi: O1 v9 t8 ^. _1 V" h! |* m
, _8 d1 ?4 d" y! L
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
. L9 G# _/ y& L, ~Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
; D$ ^3 o- y% Z) \+ g; uBeijing, China
0 |5 {3 J! ?5 p3 @! F* 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。
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?
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!!!
理袁律师事务所
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
0 ^( P( w: j5 X1 H* q5 }原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

. p1 G5 B0 D) D( C原文是公开信。
. W. k: |# ~! L  M! t& j4 ^( Y1 m. W% 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 5 \+ _# z+ b: k7 B# y
原文是公开信。
8 y7 \8 e* d. X! f! s" C6 E, P( m( r: S
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
* \+ A8 h" \# I
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
理袁律师事务所
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 JIANG3 K0 V5 h, A9 s( h0 h
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
' e4 M* n" r. s! ?4 B
) {. U6 e: C3 {6 s# T) qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
. a1 G8 n2 M" u% H7 e3 k8 O9 [) T" e' t* j, G& ~
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania6 c' g$ A# X: ?& g' [

, }2 W( b: ]: TIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself: @& B' G' Y5 C% P7 Y& u
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science0 C+ m7 Q3 c3 N, V& q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 r3 |. B* m% E9 pis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 M8 l/ z" I) A# Q7 \' m
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
* ]- \, c8 r$ C! z" V; ~populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; A/ t2 s6 T/ k  p/ H
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
- v6 x4 ^& B' x( F4 }6 P4 hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
2 t% ?2 i5 u  k$ i- c
# m7 |6 `4 n9 q4 D4 xFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
$ @7 F% T& y. EOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" C3 x, O4 H: T4 z9 g
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
# o$ q6 l$ a9 tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 r3 i: C( f1 n9 \0 Q. Ipersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an4 g9 R' l( x. }* E3 j# l5 w
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
/ H* d5 M2 `$ }/ Q! z/ sdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to, u- r+ h' _) @' d2 i- c6 c
be treated as 7 s.
( ~& }6 k9 y2 _  f4 v
& z0 p; g' t( @6 @& T" n# V* tSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
: E# Y& l2 [1 N8 `7 P- T1 o7 Vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, E, T. _. n; N4 r
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) y* x' h1 Y$ F, |. zAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 k1 ^# q% j9 V3 J* b
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 u: ~# a" Q: n0 t" F
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: P; X  s( ~1 L; f$ X
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) z* E) j& ?( a  z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) h8 P9 B9 f- N) C( i  Y: x- d; m
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.8 L  n0 V& Q+ @0 o
; m% @/ K3 c5 B5 a
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& t' K2 Z. \+ N9 t- B4 ]- v6 Eexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in3 Z, b! ~1 o  D' B
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
* t& X- c% ~0 H: Hhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later+ l7 g# ]" ^9 @0 O
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s2 K7 ?6 M/ Z/ {: U: k- m
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 T4 K4 t- {- ^9 {/ r- F
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another! o" b6 o" A& z8 [, k  q# W
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
7 ?+ `7 X0 Z* f/ j/ O) phand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, V* y. P9 L# H$ P$ D$ M, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
! Y# |1 t$ @( E' v! Wstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds1 j! R% x6 C, v& M# W  B2 V
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
8 z" b9 l% ^! |faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
/ O+ U0 t( d# Q6 B  |aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 [% Y% \* t8 d4 w& T0 l/ \" eimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
1 }$ A! M- }) j$ V( N  [) {0 r/ M: y+ d
1 j$ J, c1 _1 G7 xFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, d; {/ @4 U  q% E1 q" ?
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93) e0 r& L7 J, X3 N3 C; P/ ^0 t% O& C
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
2 Q' l8 p- W  L% u), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
5 O& b) v/ Z6 d9 Q- Oout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) w# m5 g; L+ }; f+ d
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
+ b* e0 p9 i, K4 f) F: Kof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
+ o+ ~+ |' s' H6 b. V* Elogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in  a, `1 p6 g, b  X, L
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 N+ Y6 T/ m, ]4 zworks." P. V( N2 s/ i+ e+ i4 s
/ G5 E+ g1 ^3 w7 j9 b
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and/ @, h: _2 O% ~7 a) w
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this0 k2 @* s4 }- i3 N3 Q! ]. q
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that, {% [8 Z% o* n4 w
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
' o* R6 q" `! n' gpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and- i+ o3 k+ I" ~) ?$ Z
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
0 U; D0 [  V& p6 E4 O2 s; B. N' fcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ [8 L" v/ E" Y- e4 \5 m2 ^
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
( E9 M# i: h9 ?! _& _0 X. ato a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample2 [# j9 u$ ], _2 w. X) b
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
" J& D) i' @+ h; p( qcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
# h: M. u) A" \: |9 M3 q% J( Rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly$ J/ h& A& S2 Y% N
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the; I. E! Z# p6 f/ a. j8 ]) E
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
( C6 J5 Z, O- c4 t1 Puse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
' E" \' J, ^, K" ?3 r6 P. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& K6 @: k; q: Q  w7 q: S0 e
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# ?& c8 z6 T* P0 Ebe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a8 e7 z2 A) u7 k3 f7 P
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 P/ Q3 t0 M: S  Z- Y6 N1 z
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
4 i4 e2 O& J) S- s0 y1 Y% qdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
; Z1 C& i( ^: Y# Yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( o' C& c& [) _, H( l! \
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
* U7 \8 \; N& t3 c; y) aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* I# i- `" @* C; Tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ o; p* x- I9 y5 V- Z5 w  Y
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
% z5 P3 z) r% U- J* v4 s+ S' q# ~/ QLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping% m: E" X8 L/ e3 e. P( `
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 s: O! z% q7 h
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.3 A2 @8 j. {; N9 c
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?% k' [$ b# k6 |/ m+ R6 ^6 l' W
; Q) E! D) E( ^7 @2 }2 Y  t0 [
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
- [8 v& \1 J+ `competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
) I* }4 v; L* Z: Z# s1 `. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for* O8 V$ H9 l  ?) q& d- ~1 j
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London5 `+ k) j% ~1 Z- e: r
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for4 t$ O: F  B5 I2 o& ?+ Z( ^  ?! T; T
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 y, y" g/ s0 t0 t, z( B6 Wgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope& K( P2 L$ X* y5 T
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a3 N; `/ k+ E  W5 P* n: P% V0 P" R
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this9 O! P& e% ]% u. ]! V
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.$ D; y; ]8 ~/ k. q4 s
$ B) {  B7 t) h( I
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! b1 F4 F& Y3 X- r% p# m
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ p% R/ O7 L( X9 _
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a0 \0 Q: {5 J8 J3 w- L
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
8 }3 l1 d8 N) H6 m3 B( eall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
. t9 ?6 J! {& S! ~4 c3 _9 [interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
5 i' Z, H5 V; L  C; n5 wexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
0 t: D$ \3 v3 U8 _( i8 M$ Rargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
" v  M; ~3 s/ ?$ Csuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
7 R/ ?, S  F% i1 _( d- Q8 y$ breporting 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, 2026-2-27 13:21 , Processed in 0.153729 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