埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1950|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 r( T1 C7 u1 `& i
/ J8 A4 p9 [2 P: P, p1 m( G6 N
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。4 p/ K6 z5 ^  U1 N+ N8 S! w
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。& n2 w* m  E7 V8 p) T& n
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
$ T5 x% W- I8 ^7 `. N5 C) L* c
1 \6 y, p5 ^' O* l9 jhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
3 L) q' k( S$ ~2 L, f
1 O  l8 S3 Q3 E6 x2 k, H致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
* v, U* u: }. B8 k9 ~* l& O7 _% U4 k* D8 m+ q! [& @# n
英文原信附后,大意如下:, L' W/ c' x1 S7 u% l+ \

' Y) A' g; O) X% T5 ^" L斐尔,7 B$ @" v" q" u7 E+ a8 ]
       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3 ]5 p+ `: m. @6 T' ?3 J
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。% ?/ N- N( J2 g; a
       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2 K* r" S; `7 c+ n# A3 @" k
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
9 M6 d9 }3 W9 J' m1 C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 l2 ~. t. m4 ]! x! s: b+ t; I: S! k
       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. [/ d. c- g2 o# @; y+ k( ?
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
5 J7 u* T% {& c5 a1 p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0 b" B1 D( X& r
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。: Y; {4 o9 @" |. V3 }" v9 R
       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( p4 S$ J2 v4 e; e9 `
,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
' q2 h5 U0 a5 |8 l/ N4 D1 u”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。  k% I. d5 _# e+ p/ h2 N% u
       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
3 ]$ v6 y0 B9 N6 S; |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
. X9 f7 Q! ^+ s- l* B,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。% [9 ?& R! l/ a) H
       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
: P: G7 J; T% Y6 q* C2011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 Y2 b* f% v& A' F
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+ \" e+ Q. r- `3 I3 T
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
! h+ S" c7 A) a9 Y7 b. a$ ?7 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$ v/ D7 r0 u  q/ 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/ v% X# z+ \* o% j5 m- o
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" R$ {$ R4 C  i: g# H8 d$ ]; e$ H
。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" n: ^: Q5 q+ N
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
# W; ^. D  k1 Q% p4 p0 B0 V5 i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
' \4 p) T  b- ]: h' L2 {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  a, }1 U" H5 C+ Y, g
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
. F. n! G! _5 C, s' d同意见的专家。# o4 i6 T; N9 v7 p# C3 n2 l
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0 d, K" H1 p- y( Z/ 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$ R6 I% Q0 l. Y6 _; U1 i
学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为  W6 Z5 @; t0 ?/ a' M  N" R) _
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
( I- M5 O; }# C% E2 e: qCallaway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)
/ U- o+ D1 S8 A* A+ N  B- F的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为" o' a  G' ?2 F' K
《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+ X5 O  j6 ^& U) u& C, T  b- D
这些被Callaway忽略。' L2 [  `6 z. s- T3 z0 y
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/ b1 }. W$ C" u. 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
* g0 k, N( u; j# y4 w! r& A2 g1 n教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。, c7 t- e$ R! E! [8 I* a* Z0 ^+ e
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; q5 o% G( ~3 \) _  L) o: h; D
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
4 ~& Z2 h( {% O, T2 y' B2 C; m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, F0 l1 }: S. [& g/ d$ k/ K
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。
# B6 E! O  @7 R7 G5 }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. T( _  i% t, I0 i( @2 P2 m
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3 [$ \! S. L! j+ l. e" {
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/ S7 T& y" p5 t7 r- o0 U
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
- A" Z- U3 `8 j8 \' D) 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. _' i8 k  X! ?2 i) 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
* }; ]0 m4 z1 I9 s7 Q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6 w4 y" D& c- J+ X$ D% M+ V8 ?
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
: A, q' ~. V- x% r/ j6 a5 n; ?  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( W/ }( f8 B* O6 p: ?2 K
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
0 B7 L/ b% [: \/ d, J我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
, ~- H+ T8 T1 g+ ^5 j2 l$ {" p% Z4 t' u/ x% J# o- w4 M5 ]
  e4 j; M* g- u$ M0 s) S
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅# ]/ D4 c8 W- ~) _
6 _5 j" b  K' R* L' R" q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结7 K( {( g! M% L$ M2 m0 M# l
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
7 @" J  i6 u; I0 X% V8 Y# b附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 W0 W1 q- b1 u% \$ E3 L8 P附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
  L2 Z# h$ g  K$ b" p- I" K8 P
0 U: A& Y% v4 q: s; [7 Q' |& i) ^& j$ Z/ s# I4 w7 A
' C  }' _, ]7 a$ e$ v
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)$ A! \( Q5 @4 e  N( Z3 X# h) |
Dear Phil,
8 \' v, v6 }5 c+ i- {1 `1 a+ b       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s9 G9 V( H* x$ d0 Y- n, V  N1 I
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( L5 c/ H7 ^0 w/ Xhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
) _% G. k7 j" m0 [+ T) Z& n( ?' Uyou.
! |7 b, U8 T" @5 y  B/ A3 s       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have& R6 N* C8 @; P+ m* @* \9 Z
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese- O- t# p% q9 W( M
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
! D  u% D  e( n! Iworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
9 c% M3 p' |! }  Fpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more+ Z& n; w) g8 P
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
" g6 O6 F* H6 @2 ], G' Npieces much more than the regular Western news media would.- d. x3 r. G1 m- z7 l
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' v' c8 D# B$ E
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a% }) X' {9 i0 W
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
2 v& S$ H( O( A% W( pthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 ~( i* {% [6 Q  }- Idid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping; s7 B4 e2 n  w2 e3 l" I
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! R" R- g& @2 N' v, {+ m
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,+ @% h0 O2 n4 ?1 s
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
$ s0 w7 {7 z% }& p; Q7 |to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) Q! q6 n) e, Y2 l8 i& freporting.3 s  j6 @) m( Z; @+ k8 k' H
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
+ W6 V3 {6 W4 Galready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by9 T5 {6 e3 f7 B0 B: a
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
5 B' M- O! h# h9 D: isports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A7 j+ {/ n$ O! c' p* J
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
* i+ m! x! Y* I" j       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem6 @3 O; Q* W& _( z% ?8 h
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds  ^2 A. W% l8 b6 X& f+ n7 y
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
# @$ C' _+ W1 Z$ U* R3 k% lmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* W! h6 f0 W9 A6 s% F- e
event for men, with the second fastest record.
1 A9 S7 J) _0 d3 C" y" ~       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
5 N( Q. b) u! x) S6 iwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 168 [: M7 B1 J. ]9 G' ?: j/ C
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record/ Q$ b/ n; o+ w, B% }# b, I% k% C
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4005 t% b& S1 d/ o4 I! r/ j  R# Y- x- U
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
) ^! L( y  F5 U; U6 A* xfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 s* U' @; }( i/ q$ q: Q$ o6 kLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
9 W$ R# u& Y+ n& S# P5 qbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the, ?, L2 K2 `9 J( ?$ _! P* s
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( t; T6 k2 @! ^* u
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
+ }! f/ z# T8 u/ X' Jthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was* K6 m2 R! B' _3 Z
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
. {8 x" D) X  l8 k, E5 X* zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
  x: N; D/ E  B$ I; r( r7 Wproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
, x" e7 L" m0 Z* v5 p* |* sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the& P& w/ r( F+ ~$ G& O) B
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the8 O: _3 C$ m/ [' d1 ?
Callaway report.1 A1 I' M( q! i0 r
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
" E/ v: Z# {) n! xunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
% R! U# p: _; ~) }$ Z; Where. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description2 Z: O7 M7 R! W5 F7 j( g7 p
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
. I4 j: R" ~1 d/ P. Y0 Fbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the* a8 Y! i4 T5 T6 Z# q/ e0 `
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had0 `* }& H+ ^  i+ _7 f
publicly voiced different opinions.
* U1 \  p7 b4 ?: T, P8 PYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
- Y0 p( I3 S8 S" Gfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
3 E5 t# i- b1 l& Q  r2 B3 }Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ `  A4 L+ ]8 Y( }+ w& M
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
% X, _& Z8 \- Q& C& Fyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy+ @& d7 J: S) W8 {
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.$ C! ^# E) c7 L+ a. [6 n6 {
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think% |3 A7 \0 q3 b" `# o: y6 `
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They  Y% d+ e/ }3 D  _; S9 _  @: ~
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
# o2 E% I' @3 D$ UAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 j6 e3 W' |' E" |  Fthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 f3 t# u, O1 L' p
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.. S: E2 W# z: \8 q
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that8 d2 v7 S* I! ?( f
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the1 ^/ ~' o) M+ m. x
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
1 \/ W0 c+ D& W8 ~  {4 C% c- `(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she  l, M! |- f% _. q! \
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.$ L: r9 d1 O- N5 X: j1 _" d
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, R4 D$ C3 ~  O* M4 Cand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
# i8 R! |  ?; Q& i( x& `Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
7 s& e! n' }, P2 a: {Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and1 F9 ~2 C+ u2 x' p8 |6 |
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* F" o7 x$ P7 m! _# t6 x
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
7 \9 C7 h1 z' V; ]6 R4 Irepair the damage caused by your news reporters.1 b* L5 B+ y  H* s
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not( q  _# l2 d: a6 s$ ?% P: Y
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
, f. H) [  _* G7 j. s7 Bus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather( v# ]6 \) I! ?+ y4 C( J3 W) y
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
: V4 o+ b. U( s9 F  R% }# ^this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 Z/ z: a* o4 T1 H$ |
about British supremacy.) a* q. s( D( I9 E, j* R; [+ z
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many  b6 [5 X3 ~6 s" B9 y2 {
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
* q) \- M! }# o) F' K% UChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by1 d- i6 a4 l# X; Z! Y  k
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) N. I4 |$ l0 x+ Q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% E& L& E$ A2 Z+ u0 x" j5 kYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of: X1 _) K8 G- o! z
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
# i8 W) r& c$ O9 i3 wbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,0 h+ q8 k# n! @
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
/ e, r$ @& j9 G+ F' Vpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like# L! @5 n) S5 \
Nature.; J! C3 s9 u( c3 X
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance( U: ~% q0 N* I+ k7 O
the Callaway report.2 G* w! j$ n/ p; q! {7 c0 {( D

6 e- t: Q/ d' T0 ^Yi1 {; s8 M9 N; A" S

9 }' H; Q' P9 C& P" G7 W0 JYi Rao, Ph.D.$ S- x! M# T9 R* R
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences, A. [4 I& d& O" Y* o. f% l! l% U
Beijing, China
- O( m7 _' H2 h3 ?/ o. w1 L
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 1 ~4 }! r, m9 F$ k* c/ c
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

4 w" q% i; ?3 x4 f) O; z- d  R原文是公开信。( B; h7 m/ |' ~9 M4 H/ p8 E
# J: i- e! |8 y
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 R  `9 o- K; Q# D原文是公开信。
% N3 y+ j1 |8 E
. g; m+ V" X! t5 |' B" t, w  y小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

# W7 i8 m0 h3 Y; q1 e% f) y谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
大型搬家
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
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG
3 S9 h8 D* I4 F$ y2 C5 ~- L如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。: d! Y/ }, @4 P+ i" m) ~9 E  i2 [
/ `" k1 ?7 @3 {9 c  m
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
% o* W  ]" v% @# [; ?* O* O. ~
" K- i+ g8 _! c0 b: eFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania9 T$ ^) I- e7 n6 O' B' H1 ^
( k; k1 f4 M/ p! ?
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 O3 P( U, \- ^3 L: {0 }8 R
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science; @2 |6 g- m8 Y& n2 N% r+ W2 e
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this- E( J) O+ q5 d1 p. R$ @9 x
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' M' V  _! v  P  m$ ^: W- ?' O& V0 L6 Q0 D
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) }9 g4 |4 Y' W
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; M) z; K" n  q9 J: N
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 J2 [& K( O/ f
which they blatantly failed to do.6 |5 X+ e# `& G

* E" }8 T3 N$ V: h7 h! u7 CFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
/ A+ R7 d; i% D7 jOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in% V4 d  a! x( Y5 L
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 \5 }; ?3 I* b( K( C  H
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
0 i9 U9 R9 K& ~personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an" @4 d# }! z5 k; \
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the2 E) z& I+ b; l. Q) _' a
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to. D+ h0 Z. L" ^& u: n" P
be treated as 7 s.& W1 R2 {+ C* G  v" k3 D' P8 ^

! h' h; s0 r* OSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is/ R) O' C0 |5 a7 E4 G( c! d) t
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
/ d! W4 v$ X6 F/ ~9 cimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.+ d+ ]1 D% U6 F8 S+ G3 T7 h0 F
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 ?+ |+ f. \8 y! F! c3 H-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.! b0 f" F; g5 v- e; X. W) a, Z, ^- W
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ d# |0 B7 ~: l( l3 |6 q
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) T0 m8 {3 R7 u( ?" E4 E4 }
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”1 e4 O! g. k+ {
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.0 y  i. p0 ^3 r* L7 |
# p; Y3 I% N3 [9 u( ]6 S
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook  X$ ~9 Y; S$ ?9 E3 C2 G, W
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
! j" D7 y6 l0 s# U& n+ athe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so' |0 J* R" I8 Y2 G/ U
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
8 H; F7 H9 G7 g5 levents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& x5 j$ h- M2 Y& L' f& fbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World7 r7 L2 K+ a( P- L7 P
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another4 V% ]6 b6 W& M$ J2 O1 l
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
6 D& t: t0 [1 A0 A+ j+ l* Thand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
% Z/ h. ]% p% I/ Z, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
( d% e5 Q- U3 \# z: F5 ~6 _5 A- }0 c' Jstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 x( r1 r9 z8 U
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
1 Y' |! c# L: Y; P. n: pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting4 |3 [( i! B+ M3 K% {9 d- f
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
$ {7 ?$ `$ v; ~% f6 A2 Gimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
8 \- `" S) E: x- C. E$ l- Z- ?" E( w0 @0 m4 }) Z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are" p, L1 @- D9 Y  `- ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
2 o7 Z2 l$ P( i5 P, ]! G6 `- m" js) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ O6 f; N7 e% w4 ]1 _/ M), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns9 P- S) [1 F% v1 Q& R% @
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! ^" e3 j- ~4 ^
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
" q4 p6 }5 j) S% Eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
- G) p' z( G0 |- f8 o+ n+ k. klogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
5 i! ~! K2 L& F# S3 @0 ]8 x% w/ fevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science8 E1 ]; k# _+ M0 ~
works.
* m% X: V0 ]" b$ u4 r
3 \' R4 z  Z8 mFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 T! k9 {3 U  p: b$ Y
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
; u4 n8 D) N/ m% M9 c* J* z5 mkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
2 {/ b) b& n( n4 n: Q, Kstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
& U1 \) `& c+ ?/ _papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
( m, A$ ^/ Z/ `* r/ j2 D2 qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
1 P3 q* Y/ f9 a3 a1 T7 c+ I* ?0 H* Jcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to; |9 R( ]! H5 [* [5 k( o1 Y
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works3 I  Z( ?5 s. D5 E- g
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 I4 C( X& \( U' R5 K/ _is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is5 Q1 Y$ T1 j7 f9 {& R" H: I0 Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he" |7 I# {* e/ f
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' M$ M- |& o) ?7 `) V3 l5 W3 ?
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
$ m, Y3 L9 P- H' q, qpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 l# p3 M9 V/ o9 O) Kuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation2 V6 [3 A9 h: L% v+ c& B4 p/ F: T1 o
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are, @6 N) r" H2 @0 A# H; P3 U. }
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
! _5 @0 e1 ~/ p7 a  F$ `6 U3 `be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a; m/ I) @) |9 A6 M0 i8 C
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 ]9 X# T  p4 c! N5 i7 e! C
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a  x! z$ ^" v, [% k
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
3 N2 t+ a1 ?9 t% cother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) s" K9 l/ {; P& f% A, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
3 d4 M4 A! h3 `9 t- Z* }probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an* g% P3 b7 Q  [: c9 ?
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
' y- v% o+ A2 pchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?$ ^* @% p+ }4 W$ v8 d
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
- G+ f. j  S; A% H5 Ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 C6 R% f' g  {
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
# U* A# ~+ I) Y+ B; r3 ]' LInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?3 I/ S1 N& H/ t4 ]$ j* r

. _0 u! d# @& U; i2 jSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
: o% D* K$ y  X* V: f: m6 r! c# [* q/ kcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
, L4 i/ Y6 j- N. m; a. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
+ u- u9 {" V% H2 q! O" U$ f$ OOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London4 q3 Y6 R6 g; V/ K
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for  E$ D. m- l  s  A2 F$ ]" I
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
* U" O" H; Z) b7 g0 w& u0 Dgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
9 l& H) q$ h4 ?" \5 S% R- A/ c5 fhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
# y, Y/ ?" w6 k9 t! L. d0 splayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
: a" C' u3 }7 X4 N% @. \8 [& f' {possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! u* D+ O9 e) j9 w( y
: Q* L' [1 w0 l8 J$ IOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (% q+ s  G0 q2 B* S& M
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too: ~% D# b6 Y" Z4 _% n# |- z
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 U/ n1 A! {, T0 a. G) G. [suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide+ k1 h8 l1 ]- w/ l  o' o% L9 o
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
8 C. s- _! F! J6 h/ \7 {7 |2 Finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
0 l. M7 \! Y2 W  ?3 \7 j  i1 |explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your* T! ~) m2 ]: e9 X0 i8 W5 ]0 j4 B
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 \/ r# [! [/ {+ d/ N& L+ {) Ksuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
7 G! L8 {; n  w) i' n  c( W1 ?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, 2026-1-21 14:20 , Processed in 0.097398 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