埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1864|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
" G- E( U- l; G; y- Q1 X* Y) R  P8 x2 t/ @3 c/ h
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
6 ^" j; `! X8 {! B; d1 i3 t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。
7 g6 Q8 o4 G0 q6 ?$ d  O总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
" z0 }% r9 ~8 c7 s1 v
7 E7 y6 a9 |4 c5 f1 |' C& Q. |: a9 Phttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html2 E6 W7 z/ d, z' ]2 w
6 k7 c$ J% k$ P! p8 R" r) W  [: e; c
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
2 f& [" B2 d/ {, [1 D9 {6 v; N2 C$ b5 m7 f$ e- I1 g* A
英文原信附后,大意如下:
  f2 C* i5 D; g* u: ]
' Z2 k8 S: e+ O- x; \5 H8 \斐尔,
" x0 J8 U; p0 E- J5 q       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 A( A$ n. ~6 }, J/ d
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
3 I' l* f1 V( R  `6 K       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
' G' X& Q+ [  d% m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' c4 F. J/ \; @" L6 n
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。* i- }: v% c% _5 R# t! O! _
       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# B! J  K- M9 y- P, h
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- D! L3 B. r1 ?# G# d- M6 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; x; I, b# f9 ]4 t% \" y7 Z
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。; B) R8 d; x9 j, q4 y
       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% v7 y( e) l& T' U2 O; r
,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
) |3 Y8 t& x; }* H”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。! D. n4 B5 u: 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
9 [& g& F9 _5 i$ ^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, D( m) Z1 S, u! e/ N' j6 a$ P
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。( l1 E3 r% u" V2 x) Z
       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
$ G& W* Y7 ~7 w5 y) L' Q8 Z1 u5 u2011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( L% ~/ i, N, c0 F9 n合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二7 r0 q. p+ X- l
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4 v; C- K$ O6 o' V& C5 q& N
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、六3 M) K! \) T; |% u! G! s' d2 A
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( l# f% D1 i- \) `) V6 a5 n
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
) L6 v4 d2 a9 E。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( M# p/ J0 T4 G+ A
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。0 W$ R% [2 Y% e% S2 S; o
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
* r$ K1 C5 p# a, P: p; q8 N% }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' X& e8 c' {3 T  y& ~
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( r! ~! F) H$ T7 S" M' D- c7 i
同意见的专家。4 {+ P1 R$ ?7 t' T  w
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' s0 s4 i% S5 V- [
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% u& D' ~  s( z5 U3 J
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
& P7 u5 [, L& u9 J2 E# c《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
0 v1 }3 A6 F$ s: ~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)5 J) j5 u5 C6 O8 B" I1 N1 J9 {
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& E- F0 \* J/ c4 C
《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
, h( y) Z4 G* X, @- N4 @: Y这些被Callaway忽略。
/ v9 P3 ?) y. C0 y! y6 `4 ?* C& e英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给0 k0 ], m; r3 r/ n. A- Q: s
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
* K$ n& x" S3 y4 j: o" F: q: j教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 f* C9 t7 b, w. F* 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; Q5 \9 B5 {& C4 U7 a. o6 U& r
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; t4 K/ B1 N( v" X3 W+ R0 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! ]: l- Y, z: Y( k; h' L% i
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。$ {" S( T  n% f" ]2 B
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. I. H- r3 D; Y) [3 ?/ s
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
1 i( T& n% J; j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% g1 T6 u7 Y3 m' Y3 p
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
5 U. |# h) T9 Q9 u" a/ [! l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
  F4 ~: V$ `" P. p: F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
  T' }  H0 W: q  U6 G- O  z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. ^* t4 L9 W+ Y. P5 J4 R4 {
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 P3 ?3 g+ [& W6 z  k
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
6 [( g( N& T, i  g4 ^4 y而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' h! I2 i/ W6 I9 b" Y1 k2 B3 C
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
, I0 H: j- u( j# q% N8 q4 G: n$ P6 A

4 L5 o. _# `# i: I* m, _北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
( q( a3 U/ H: l* `$ i4 }
2 i# o- I3 i# c# R+ d附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
( [/ q! z0 S. I+ @附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
# f* j# x1 @* E6 g- L8 l' C附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见5 u  _" n8 S" L* `
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
, G4 X1 ?, c# X& m1 T8 P8 _: y/ ]4 `+ ]3 |7 n# F5 Q% F% @6 c

9 q1 y8 u$ f. d# V6 Q& r5 U# l6 S2 T( x. I" z. k/ X9 J
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送); y" ], `; g2 O' j% C
Dear Phil,  V, l( C+ t" z& d# H1 h+ w9 V* H
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
# j% B8 c$ V; _$ e: Treport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
' ^% c1 g% a3 }' ahours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed+ m! q6 C' v3 J: K; o$ ^( u
you.  c. ?) n. L6 @' n) w) a
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
/ y9 w" S. ]# b  o; t4 M% j1 tbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
/ h. V) T! x7 d* S& I3 @8 c- qreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
. K) C) U$ G9 t7 W/ Rworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature* H, p. l6 I5 C% J( z% O
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
- l' E! D; i( o9 C- aseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news7 x) m8 ?. T; F# |& M) m; ~, g! [
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.0 d: ^% Y4 Y: t" H, {' E5 r
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the% O7 {) P2 ], b, Q, p6 A* M/ z
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
  L; K/ W0 C8 B7 \& C, ?% _negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish; x0 ]/ {  c; V
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 S, c5 @( g7 x6 Pdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping3 C, Z5 J. q' L2 q
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
% S+ M! ~$ f4 ]( l1 Bstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,( h" ?7 B" M4 l& u  K! b9 E
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone/ l% m' y. ^; g4 o' u$ b
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) X: @6 t9 A! ~- a- V" v. Qreporting.( _: t! L  q  @2 A! O. y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have! Y! i, i, x. T! l* l6 `# {
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 w9 s0 Q8 m( q- N% n- n" W* D6 j
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in( H) W. A  }( b
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
+ s  r( }+ r# Q2 F* m3 n) Z# ipresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
& V2 K8 @8 P4 F" R$ g5 B# g       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
( e' o4 _# b+ v1 q! h+ a: c) gmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds9 H' v8 B. _% _8 `! P
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50$ b# E9 W$ P( i4 W2 m" k+ z6 s7 m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same4 N2 W' x! d# J7 l8 d
event for men, with the second fastest record.
- ]! ?- Z' h6 b# z# B! A6 i* D/ T       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye4 H: G( _* `+ X% F, f% Q4 I
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16$ ?4 h$ @0 a3 q# c1 n* H
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record, \& ?7 w) l! J( C. z. h" V
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
  H1 k/ T0 h' f2 Ameters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,0 |! Q. p7 k8 s% z
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
- J4 \# K, T" X( M3 b" VLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
' q4 H' m* @9 R* @; obehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 w) s5 w) A, M3 I) n: W7 W2 C! eindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( K. m6 ^- ~9 o
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
  ^- x4 [% ^* P6 j& Nthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was" R$ z: Y) s% B. G. ]! v
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
4 }7 L8 P+ R* [he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
4 ?1 j) _5 I3 e4 @problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other6 }/ v2 e( b& @5 J' L
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
  [+ {0 I7 B5 |! Xteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
; n+ b; ~  e  a: |8 W$ I" [Callaway report.6 s# U# u8 x3 a- V* O
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
4 w" U/ G! S* ^2 [# _0 X! runderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
' k9 P& j2 c0 o& N9 t: ahere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description1 ~6 {5 s7 @! M, u
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
8 ^1 r3 g2 k& u) I0 }- h, ?better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
3 \- v  _2 F5 Q; J$ CWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had. z) j9 ^5 \2 T# I. S7 W) _
publicly voiced different opinions.
. m' o( n2 s7 w- K0 q5 @8 hYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
) q, g* _& `6 X- s' I/ Pfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
$ x' j  L* t$ V2 A7 u* I+ C0 NNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
* C) {( S9 C9 q8 P( M3 {1 vpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
0 b( k5 L" B0 D( i6 T8 t4 Syou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy& {- A3 @" j3 z7 J' T
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue." I2 K# S$ c( b$ M+ ~
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
  V( C6 P6 J% h& Rthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They3 C0 e$ O0 e/ U* o& c1 p9 ~& t* V
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as5 |2 x1 o, d' ~7 `. g/ Z
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that& i+ |  P% m; R. @* x& X
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was6 Y- O* C7 r! N( q' f3 l
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.; i' |# R, |6 J4 b9 l
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that: W( H$ G: d. P1 c6 Q
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
  I0 X4 W" T. W# A4 WChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 I. ?( u* t3 O3 q& F; A" a8 Z
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
; s2 X" [9 [( e; S4 x" p* Gand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
  ]8 {& ?; X4 F) D. @- I: O& l# `The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
( Y2 w$ K  M/ H' Y* C+ Rand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* W" m! J9 L. @- l! J- S2 T
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
& y. p# P$ J2 U% g, a5 T3 R8 CNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and  w7 g! L3 F6 G( s" o) e" m8 ]
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* x5 m5 e" y+ O- U8 e" y
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to; U( H: K* q7 }% [% j  V" m& |3 @
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
, T6 ], b5 U2 pThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not: |- \0 k9 Y4 q# q/ I. `( {
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced# j" x7 P7 t  ]7 o* @/ W
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 I4 M) {7 i) M; C4 z
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that( j# W1 v; N$ Q; y
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
2 b7 ?7 b9 T- q8 Yabout British supremacy.
8 {7 H" _6 P. K' mThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
! |$ V- I" _+ x/ r; Xunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
& N3 X9 T& a6 L: MChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
# j; L0 E- U9 ]our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
6 a& ]" U4 k  U: x1 e7 W0 [( ~Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.9 r' g+ S! e( u. @" w
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 ~7 `/ l% ?2 p2 l8 |professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 c: c3 e  z' Cbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,* q* q  }# u$ ?6 c
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly& X. i$ `5 A" h( a
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
, y& C, J" o  B4 k9 MNature.& s  W. X7 B2 {7 ^6 J8 t: S, F4 `
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
2 U# v# l0 ^/ ?+ _9 Hthe Callaway report.% w' n; b9 j' U6 o" z
8 n3 i* S( N, B
Yi# ?& `6 S, a" a: a
$ P/ u% w7 \0 p6 c! h9 \
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
) J% D' R, y( m) z% g  A# I, \Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 x# D& O- G( G$ s0 O7 \
Beijing, China
) a! R9 Q  U( D1 N
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 $ L3 i1 X2 G8 f
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
, k5 X: t$ Z1 u( ?: ?
原文是公开信。
8 e6 c  c; B5 ?, o, a" z4 x# L. b. k7 _$ c: B8 n3 [
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 / V: L0 c0 m3 O- C2 l6 v
原文是公开信。: w5 M$ R8 N/ \7 Z, ]
  }) u$ d* ], A* [; ?, J
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

5 d0 x+ y1 M* |0 D1 p2 k0 D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
& M: @* T0 J' q5 @0 d4 k如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# Y! ~$ c. b& x; ?" s
' [9 ^6 C" P; k7 E; n+ o# dhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html- B+ r7 `9 p2 f5 l% a
1 N. B  c8 U% k& D) C
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
7 [5 Q& I8 L  P4 v  K5 j7 f% ]3 l1 @' Z/ z
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 T( r3 `5 w- w1 U2 ], regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
" Q+ k2 M. j. V2 z% Q$ X7 \magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
* b, f# `( B: ~0 P7 |is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
* ^' W+ k6 ]: m# M1 t1 A5 Jscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 t  k) W" m9 @7 L0 }8 n% z/ T
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors0 ?$ r) L& }/ z  f
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
  J8 W( v* _/ N% }which they blatantly failed to do.7 l) i4 T9 k2 {* \5 U
# q7 O: E. v- H% T' [
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her5 n: h1 }6 l# c: O# @) i
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
+ c# F2 W! M# q- I- v: J! M2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “8 M/ Y  t5 j7 m0 h! j  V
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous2 l$ t: X# g' J2 Q& Q# f( V8 ~
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
$ A; ?+ r- D4 Jimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 o0 a5 d8 Z/ p
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 ]6 ~0 c4 e$ z0 K7 e
be treated as 7 s., d" q4 u9 T( D# Z; {

3 b6 m: m9 O$ M, T% h" KSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
0 O  n% S+ ]0 k. o+ V1 s& Cstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
- G8 E0 W2 W1 e  C0 @* [2 g% Limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. ?7 e# |7 r; k2 f! I
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400! \8 L/ S0 q% c/ W9 j
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.- Z% H% V1 c, m+ l+ z) V( P/ r% b
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an5 X4 p. u3 L9 G& [* V
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
( E! I0 ~0 A. }3 l- Z# U; apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% Z2 w& c$ l1 |3 Y9 ]based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! N+ O5 Q* G# R( n
, q; Z# e) N% V+ ~: x
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
  o6 t( t! i: u0 D$ ]example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in% Z* m# F/ s8 _) M
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& |, c" E4 b7 @# ~( |, s! r3 E5 She chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
" _6 t& @9 e0 I1 y8 Q+ Y; Oevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s* X' d6 s! [2 I& S* ]* ?; H
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 F3 y$ E4 u" c- P! D6 X5 HFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
) G+ s5 v8 z7 l0 X2 {topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 n. l5 d/ t' f, i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle4 z' {# ~# w* g: Q
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this9 }7 H- j- a& [3 e6 c
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds: w# W6 S% r  _0 ~
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam$ y2 e% Q' }+ Y  E9 O7 P5 Z
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' n, ?/ v8 p; Q
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that+ r( f0 Z* h1 D7 _% e
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& e1 }2 w' n) u. u7 U9 V3 j
" C' g& T5 \- a/ j. JFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are& O# `+ ~6 Z% Z1 X9 W
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93- }; g8 m3 a! L4 O2 ?
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: s  K  N4 ~& ~2 k2 E
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ F, {1 ~! B8 b( Wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,8 [/ b/ u" [2 U
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; f3 z+ c+ q7 @8 d( Eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 Z' Q; r+ O3 ^( _( V$ Clogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in0 n+ |' f: P( h; N
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
! C3 o  E& \( h; iworks.7 c  P2 G! l3 A+ m7 V

! P5 k. d* n6 s9 d8 S2 j* BFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and1 f* a/ U, I( ~, [8 B
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
; G  g; q' M  F0 |kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that. y- c) d$ t6 j& v, l5 I
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific' s# T$ `, Y9 {6 J7 R
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and7 J  j5 x4 p0 u+ }  ]- q
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
* a4 ~2 Y) N0 zcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to, M4 [2 p- r, O. n4 R4 e8 x% y! `
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% G; T  j! ^  T9 Z! @8 h
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample/ m9 F9 O. ]; L: P0 A( Z4 F( P
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is+ u5 j5 f4 ?& f, K; y; a( z1 Z: M
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he5 w' h  h- Z6 [2 V  H7 R
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly7 u8 s0 ]- ?- W1 w4 I
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* \2 Z: V; k  c6 y; H2 `past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not- v" X/ a2 H4 d  W' M
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
( @) v( @) v. H  b5 p. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
) k6 m0 ^  J8 }  K) @: ^doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may# o# `4 R2 f+ o' b' @7 y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a6 \' G8 E! Q5 U3 V6 i# l
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye5 f- q& S% O& z1 o( {( j+ O8 F- E
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. R, v, ^9 _1 v5 K1 N! ndrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:6 H, b- L% c4 \3 u5 @, o
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
' w# x, I& G6 o. G3 `, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is/ i" j1 b6 c8 r: }
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ f& ]$ n5 ?( A' R$ P8 j6 Iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
& M! }3 O; H4 S8 o3 n4 S# o. Fchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ w3 C, v5 n9 [8 e1 n: |. @Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! N: [0 a# P& d5 }, gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
. r* T$ Q6 X+ \5 u3 Beight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.) D7 c# L& e" X9 L- u% W. c% L
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
9 ~2 S: C$ e4 o3 i, i0 G
  Z7 b  z& g! F( e3 }( v8 v& _7 rSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-9 |- \, c; e0 @  T
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention" Y* w9 A( H, \; U
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for  v% Z$ q3 Q' x3 x% U
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
# M+ n3 S$ D5 z& G6 I$ vOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
) Q2 J0 ~. N. F$ a: ?doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 E6 C" x% j: p3 tgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
# s- ?& Q# y7 B4 h& R4 ohave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ Y3 E, ]: Q. _7 N- Dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
( b1 d6 q1 t: S4 h7 |8 qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
& |* d9 p$ D! ^2 t' Q# h
1 t" @9 d3 L$ Z8 ROver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
3 k3 x) x# ?6 f4 Q$ {0 uintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
2 y: j/ B$ v; E' asuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a( u+ V) ?: ?( E1 d# _+ I$ k4 [* E
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
0 v( p3 W# H! L: f$ ~. t" C+ M8 Xall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your* v* {% l* Q" ^) `/ X# M
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 _1 ^5 f0 B3 R0 ~; d& }/ n& {8 C
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your# D0 v% Q  b" n+ i; I
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
, V0 ]- B* u" G6 }such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
3 P! y! j% a9 e$ u) s- Ireporting 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, 2025-12-3 22:41 , Processed in 0.183412 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