埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2249|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 8 M$ u( v  V* }4 d
$ T4 w0 E7 E+ ?$ a  R8 w
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。; K5 w- X/ J9 u8 G6 }9 R1 E. 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。
# O4 Y8 v+ b4 b- g% W6 g6 k; F总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
9 a$ g, M9 f) e. b# ~7 U8 ^. }6 g- D3 T% }8 T" z3 [
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
1 S+ z' P/ k2 \# `) M# w8 @6 ^* W" K. O( O6 j& d1 L9 ]* ^
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
1 ~: d2 A- q+ \* g3 J( |
& i3 h) n$ r/ F6 f7 C英文原信附后,大意如下:
4 U4 @$ {0 I7 v0 T, _, L: I7 Z
! R7 A/ r9 p7 V9 S* y& q. o斐尔,
. F/ r5 M+ B6 F       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
8 R3 U& ~1 Y* P  {5 }( eemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。# X2 l# V& b- b  {2 _, }8 T
       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
# {9 {- z) r' T0 p& {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: Z# i% O0 H% j
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。
3 s* o0 [4 B; y) g- D       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  ~! A! d! C+ G8 _1 ?- s- ~6 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! m& A. g" z9 |0 b3 w7 m+ m
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
4 v+ k2 m/ ]2 f" A4 n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 P! J& [7 G* K2 k3 D5 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% R$ d' ?" W& v1 ^. q* f* }
,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; i/ x9 Z# M4 Y
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 b$ A2 I' n: Q/ j$ g       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
* t  T' d* }0 }5 }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
6 t( n5 u! |& k+ T1 r" h,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
: E# J: T2 `" B, N. g" `1 q       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. L+ ~) `6 ^/ Y* g
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
  W  {: m% j+ L3 u2 W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# Y8 p( d3 T$ G3 m9 b. O9 u
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
1 G0 r8 L8 _  C8 H300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! Q% c; q4 p1 @
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
. N  B4 J! i* ^) Y9 {5 L7 g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
# i4 T( D  f) F  l/ K/ ?3 Y6 |。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
- U3 @2 ^% M, r$ _- V录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。( x( k+ b' \& `0 L1 p8 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
* w% W3 H5 l9 O2 ]6 Y1 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
/ L: p( P+ p5 P" 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
6 v, `$ }# z$ Q0 z2 g& R- |同意见的专家。
! c; c; C# f1 G5 B" y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
' r. A( E) o( U: `2 y) I$ D5 I3 l, g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
' v5 e# h0 r# N1 C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/ Q, u  m9 R0 p4 E
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
0 j3 K$ o; R! I0 P4 j) `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)
1 X3 |  B1 {3 d: ~% z: }的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
) ]3 Y3 M! G& L《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( q, p4 T1 }7 M6 {
这些被Callaway忽略。
2 s! i: Y8 R; B' `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9 C; w5 d  N0 \
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9 B1 N4 W& ^8 {2 F- j( G( w
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
3 `6 d3 p- F: C$ Q) M8 k' r/ Y0 H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3 N1 S  ]( @1 p9 O) l* p
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
6 H% z4 T8 {1 {* b; b* p" |- 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
& r  Q" c2 q& Q0 O& ~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。
; X2 [! y+ P) m0 a) {+ 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- q7 M& x2 X8 u+ _6 n1 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
, o. l$ [3 h; I' s% t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
. B. w& c* ]  q1 g# K; B0 l. J”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。/ g) y) Y% E: h% o8 P# x
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/ E( a5 ^1 c5 e7 A
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
- d) l, s3 t/ L$ o* Z7 j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
$ ^1 u6 L2 ?: p, N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& T+ X( @( Q# _
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5 d0 B$ N8 U# C/ I- |
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
) ]* T7 w/ c$ c2 _4 K3 Z1 D" ^我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。7 G9 r6 K9 h5 S" q" I/ p, U

3 M" B7 p2 ~% T3 F, c# C
6 `6 p* i. s/ K7 @北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
( }0 Q3 N; i! g! o- R, I* x0 y. K2 |7 Y9 f7 g/ a( e& [
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结1 P8 K$ \: R: [
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
0 N$ B( J) `. f# x, [+ |- J附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
" K5 J4 P$ X; X5 ?* {附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 R3 u9 {: R7 q( S: }' Y/ F+ ^. f4 D* p
* T1 z5 c0 z0 _$ P: D
* b: ~4 R7 B9 t6 Z& a
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
% z% ]/ c# l8 |+ uDear Phil,% \( E. F. E8 m! K9 L
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
) Z4 G! z0 D4 preport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 206 f1 u7 G$ \- I1 |  L) R
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
+ e7 @  }2 a& K) `, pyou.
$ p) [* G# \( \       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
/ H9 {1 C% m$ Obrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
2 {* w; y' M* u* x+ R0 A9 Areaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
6 A& r, K7 S, R* y' x$ E7 Iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ v: C, i  Z6 lpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 m% \# a  [, X  n$ |
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
; N3 t: T1 N  L# A; @6 p) G( ?: K- Hpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
0 X. P1 H, j( p4 q; h4 G3 [3 @       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the- E3 g. O1 Q( X7 y
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
3 F7 N+ K0 o# Hnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish" J4 i; z. }: q. K
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway/ {2 j9 `8 \" E" m" C1 `
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( H8 Y+ K- k- s4 aexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal$ o: k0 M& c0 |! \4 H
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,) @. {' O' r# N& n' m2 `+ e. `- V
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
* O/ }# q9 d! [6 Lto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
: t1 o4 `5 Z9 T) d6 b4 Dreporting.6 T8 [/ b2 {" _' P: ^, Z) Q$ Z
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, n, @7 m! t) m6 talready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
( `5 A6 V+ R) X. y) kchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
. d! H; `- y) N  F& P9 Hsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
8 R3 }. E3 h8 H# ipresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! P, v" P& q' @$ u. R) P       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
) p& C. v( l! r; \/ f- {: ]" Umore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
" R( O& N/ l0 T! G0 Jfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50- c9 M6 z3 ^- `7 ?- I8 g: G& J
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same, N/ }1 T+ c- L) d* i
event for men, with the second fastest record.; z3 {" \6 r8 @1 r/ Q% e
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
1 K6 r6 }% E( W: U! h6 t4 Ywas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 162 M; J3 P7 D* k  N
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record5 i3 ^# Z  E; x
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
& Q' N+ n+ T7 W% I- g, ameters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,. f/ K! z& M1 Y1 L; I; Y5 n
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than. j8 ?# ^0 O- q" q" {4 w! ~3 S; |
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
  O. J$ K! p% Z( w1 pbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the8 _) \. T; S- ?1 I
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
, L& M% L/ e, F+ J) gthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than+ c; u8 z2 w. }8 K1 K& o
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
5 l7 S9 [& S* X8 Vher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then- a7 e- U" _5 |
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
& p3 s: V7 A0 W% t  W* jproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
# [6 ]6 a3 L1 T% h, n/ Gswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the2 ]9 R, L# F: V' ?4 y/ D( c
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: Q4 q' ~3 S1 }7 \0 bCallaway report.* U! k5 U# F7 c/ t% f3 ~
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more( q7 p/ h. w! _! f4 l# I6 R! A. i$ k/ l3 A
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
) t1 h7 y) g7 c: S0 i8 R7 a0 vhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( L) t( y5 W! p/ n/ Q1 w
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
2 |6 K, E% r. Gbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the0 v! `8 A7 C3 Y5 G" U
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had- g9 b8 Z: E& g+ L0 d
publicly voiced different opinions.. f6 H( @3 D( J6 T
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD! ^6 u8 j, l+ I: Z$ s, E
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
0 Q4 y! S# {0 T& K( @# b& jNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
, ~+ W, M' ?2 K7 j) Q! E% Dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
, I9 }4 |7 o. F$ t4 Dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
, p+ \. }! g4 N; R' \of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.- D; d2 l! n6 r
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
, X1 r$ P% l/ q# kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
' l- C; [" x0 C& s" X6 D9 I/ Khave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
( V- Q8 r2 I- {. V9 @" ^' x3 CAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that/ t( o0 g& d( M( c; Z, r  D
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was- t9 Z# M3 B, W/ D7 Q, S  S( W
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.% }( z* X& E- e- H2 ?" `- i
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
+ t$ q& D9 w, b3 @2 X5 T6 z6 ?. f; E7 lmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
$ ?# L+ `5 @$ b# f: oChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" c+ k7 {  A+ U: U(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she9 X' K5 @, ~3 K
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
7 z3 q/ O: ]  S8 S7 B1 j& D. ?The British have a good international image, partly because of your science8 ^# P: Q9 T0 t3 v# Z# n0 @6 `
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
# D2 t; y- r7 T/ rDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
+ x7 z" R! }" u, Z: r' hNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
7 v! j( j9 z% Zobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
+ I8 e# q* n0 \/ ~, w- wwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to6 f2 B( E1 Z" e2 d
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
  o! L7 Z; S, K* d7 jThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
1 u. b! t4 t. I8 j* J5 ^) fshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
2 g" A/ ~# W- C' }' d2 v" `us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. M5 f6 T7 d3 k& P- u9 dfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that% e( G. a* y+ z  d1 m+ r! J
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
# D) t! U/ @9 I8 q$ N1 a0 O2 sabout British supremacy.
  _& S) L0 s1 E3 }The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many/ Z! S5 x. R$ M* q$ `
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more7 |+ h1 c% j" s# `6 \- h
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
; `5 W* m: W, a9 J( K9 r3 qour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London, ^( S5 q, E/ e5 h6 P" b
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
" n+ Q6 w8 G. I- ?. WYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
8 b5 k' l2 b. c0 ?- P# M, \professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ D0 p  T; D( f5 X  k7 I
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,  D' o/ S: v. i: z) G
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; ?6 ^, e! t# J' J# q
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
: d/ t; U6 G# C8 Q- g* U- DNature.' u+ |" y) u5 U
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
+ w& M; x) C) f* H1 z) `& wthe Callaway report.
* L( o" g. ?. |- _5 I
, ~$ e3 \0 B9 JYi
" y" N1 ]7 ?) G% D. P% r! @" p7 Z- E0 |0 Z7 c: @
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
) l( z# X( n8 G  jProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences! I+ U! g2 s% R" u
Beijing, China
9 s, J9 k2 k8 T1 p- U' ^7 ^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 * p5 _7 Q3 @  j* A; w8 A. c
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

: x0 \" y; {+ Q6 J/ Y" i7 W/ K% m原文是公开信。9 H3 F5 l8 n9 P& N' T9 j, f: ]
, B* p# x  T1 }/ u, N
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 ! F5 U( y8 e" O/ E! t6 g* j; Z! e/ @' r
原文是公开信。
9 {( m1 d- t, |* I5 ^
3 @# V& T7 f( ^2 x: m% B) y8 P小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
3 a1 ?7 A6 q% K2 h/ O
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
3 W' A$ k% o2 d# v- e如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# J9 r- X' H5 M3 a3 T9 c* |

8 }  f$ z2 C  E0 O, |http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html+ k0 q! A8 R' o

8 r5 k; I0 V' R1 d* k' hFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
& J8 ?! K4 \# M  l7 t! ~, J4 e! h. D0 n5 m2 S
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
0 D) g8 {/ I( ^% J5 p' D$ z, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 _/ a, j# g3 l
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this" j" ?% p, N" }' F# q% i9 ]
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
; y% Z" S% O1 I, A, N$ R9 {8 S0 lscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: H: |1 y9 A5 I1 l, Hpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
$ n" e  W; E$ x5 D$ ?should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," ~  ?* t# q5 k4 f6 m& z
which they blatantly failed to do.6 N* b* P; K8 C0 s( D1 G

1 B8 Q1 v2 j* M6 ]First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 S- w$ Y% K# y/ hOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
- W/ v! h( s3 I+ u9 n5 U" O2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
: b( {7 _. w" V& d( F+ e/ J2 janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
9 d: w, E4 z8 Fpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an6 [1 a$ X; @+ h
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
9 J- a. i! a. J  e- U# }difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
0 g$ h: l5 _7 O3 hbe treated as 7 s.( S' P1 L8 ?% V6 B) z
) ]/ U' k& q! t2 |2 K1 m7 q
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is4 K) Q, w& z- l- u
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem: M2 {6 L# ~  y8 _
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' e+ u3 `$ l' ]8 g* a. T6 _
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 i: O0 G. J% v$ I, N-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
! X8 p) y5 r- ^0 ^# A/ ?For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an2 c5 |2 Z( Y1 d, t% ]) ?4 u. E
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
8 k1 t+ W, P& }4 j9 h. z; `persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”) L% y4 n6 Z1 C% G! p
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& ^. K+ m, e0 `$ v: C" k6 K. p( X' j& S, \0 h( r; h& J
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- Q* G3 C3 u7 p% Y
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in+ ?" n$ V8 j4 ]
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so! ^6 ~- I" {  F& U" X
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later  B; Q+ \  @7 c3 `2 J
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" F) @& Y" J: r4 @5 N3 `: Q3 qbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World! K" x  r2 d8 G% {. n2 o
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
! K9 ^' y' g# V0 _7 j7 @* ctopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
* u% d+ e; J% L2 Lhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& U) L: B2 O+ f# v: H, z, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
( O" T. Q* c! L* ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
' A- v1 a+ O2 c8 N; `3 I5 e/ |faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 n& a. f5 N4 `4 M( v5 Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
0 c% B( C" t6 N, R( r1 m" d0 D) \( Saside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that# h4 z5 E: _$ a" n! U8 p
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# A; g, L4 i+ Y: a+ G9 ?. n0 [& c3 ?3 Q* u
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are# X, S! K* H/ J8 C! {- C! F
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
) D# m: J2 b' w5 p( Hs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
# b& C8 Q1 O5 d2 n$ N), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
. ~4 t. t  g2 L, d: v( ~out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,$ s: u$ a8 d( g% L
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind' i' D" @% m/ \) Y5 [
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it# {" a- X0 o: s3 B
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 X: N( t, b+ t& b' Z( v
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science& h: ~0 a% W! W4 ~; y; I! ]2 S& [% ]6 P
works.6 P' y) V' d2 B0 t7 ?4 z
5 x" G3 v4 f4 m* i; p
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% ?- _$ D% B. R/ w- B
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) S6 S# k; `' z3 `) ukind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that4 }# K4 X' V9 M3 Q3 j
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ N+ ]8 p0 e1 q) }papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
3 P/ C3 i7 ~! H% O" d9 wreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One9 I/ f# j4 [; T1 p# @8 @
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
# m+ H* |) h' t  }5 B+ a7 N: Mdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
2 v5 }- `1 s9 y, k% Jto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 I3 A* T) R" s  Pis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
+ Q3 C7 j: o2 l% acrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
' h- f$ V8 P* F$ R5 W6 X6 Iwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
; i7 H  z4 k5 [advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
$ V: ~& d* f. A9 @past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not- I7 k, u' v4 ^/ ^! j, ]* a6 g; S
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
/ [; x$ Y* l. K. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
8 W* H  \; T8 z& @# Z! tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
/ `  @* Z+ L  H* R% m3 Gbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! P' ~) p) s1 ~8 f8 [
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
  u. F+ F, r. o2 f; lhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
3 E+ f7 X. v; [/ Adrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
! R0 b5 C5 O  e2 c' ?/ Uother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect3 U* w6 U0 |' H6 s7 q# o
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is$ \1 d0 c5 x( c. G. x3 C$ |
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
5 L) C/ d8 Q! ]! h+ Wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight' o0 r! t1 D" E! n
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?) I# g9 W3 G. Y6 Q; O3 X4 M
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
7 [$ f3 Z% O1 ?- nagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 Z/ j8 g- p$ C  P, c( W
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
6 g3 ^7 Q9 |& zInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
( w$ A  z/ G: H$ L& d0 y
# r9 x: m* }& {; u9 fSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. c+ n* G( Z1 k% B  C! Z' y
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
9 |; B+ n* B# Y. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for$ N: q% m8 b$ u/ J/ b
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 b$ h1 @2 F1 t) H% b
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
( s7 J8 T$ b$ u: p1 mdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
- m' ~& E7 l4 i+ _) T5 I6 l* X! y& ogames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope7 V. h! |( i7 a7 ^
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a& q: P# g  ~4 C7 A! m" e1 B- w4 V( @
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
; G8 Q0 n  F' ~7 M' {( qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; V7 z3 O  t6 a* g! ~' O; g) \7 w5 T% {- `/ J; |# T1 T8 V
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (0 E) q& j6 U6 U0 e. Y3 |7 y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
# X: i" B' ~3 |% F  O. b% w7 E5 osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a+ @3 |2 J% W, W5 T* p$ x/ s4 s1 i) q
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 h% i  a4 z8 z$ A  Rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
1 l7 d) g- d( L5 `3 s0 [interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
7 L$ H5 l. o" N( n2 e9 {explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your4 K1 o  z. ~4 R
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 G1 ]) }7 S# N- B1 W. X5 b, [5 B
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
% G! u2 \/ D/ dreporting 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!
大型搬家
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, 2026-4-19 22:41 , Processed in 0.167372 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