埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2259|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 / @* z; A3 y. m: u

6 u1 Y# R3 J( p1 _+ {饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。4 n% n- S$ c. D: l- U/ O7 V
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。0 U; |1 c& Z# M* t$ K' k4 R! p
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
* D' A$ m8 W/ O) b3 K
9 S/ ~) d" r  o! j, A* H4 x# M; Q* Dhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html) \+ n- U' @8 e  q3 }4 C; s
+ h  ^! [; p$ b: S
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
: g, f( ?1 O! c7 g; d6 w# J6 i
* {$ J# d/ y8 q英文原信附后,大意如下:
% ^1 Z$ H$ _0 v, @6 Z) m; l8 n, ?) u7 r
斐尔,0 g$ g2 [, A) B: G- p1 v
       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
) \" j9 c0 ^- C; @" D& h# Y( Remail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
* {  S% D+ Z$ Z       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5 t- P8 i8 x/ M, f, W
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: S8 X" T5 V- t( y" Y1 R5 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。
5 |& k9 a9 _! N+ F1 e: ^: y       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
( f( Q3 x5 l8 H& h: S5 V! ]8 G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
$ L4 E( t. F3 Z" i4 R) T; b$ l: W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( `8 P6 E: K' r0 N4 k
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。! q8 |1 U$ R8 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& @/ U" T7 m* X0 v5 j8 l' _; I6 Y! V
,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% ?7 B1 v: T  W1 i& }
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
9 j" G( R! a0 L9 l       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- S9 W2 C/ l1 h( j1 V8 k: d
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
4 R- Q/ K4 B3 ]' a7 }7 i,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。1 s$ b1 t! j! Q/ M$ J4 ]! V
       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; R' C6 w( ^! C" U. E% i$ L9 ~" N
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
  d/ L' N7 S6 x# g$ _$ \" 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
/ v- q$ O7 s# S* v9 S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
$ ?. B6 i' o$ {4 @' y300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. d/ a' {, C: C
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' C/ y1 h; z& }. O1 l8 w7 L
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
, H) S5 b* n7 P5 o。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! P: @- q3 j- a$ p
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
% K" a& j- x2 f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, z5 u, G; k* G) _( ~5 a) E
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
& ]* r; S0 t0 X' x& nWikipedia。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 c7 ]1 h6 F) M" J; J% H
同意见的专家。9 t8 {. D/ y" u
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1 d4 l1 t( O' X6 y8 ?; @7 _
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
$ w4 @/ g( W2 w0 w% N9 N: A! B- E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
  ~% u. N% [4 T  S& l) M$ U/ P/ y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
8 a! q' V% h  @* t  l) }! X# }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)
  c- f0 S3 j% X3 w6 Y! x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0 v4 R% n1 M0 s9 V2 j
《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
# ~0 ~! C" l% Z这些被Callaway忽略。
( {4 D" d$ k2 b. 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' u7 C8 e* g2 q' t6 H: b% p3 U8 A2 H
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
+ n3 e! p/ \1 y. H  }7 u% T0 o教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
+ h* B5 N/ i% B英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书
8 |9 p6 l! T" [) G! w( N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
2 m/ F' |- F1 |; F; ~2 V, r7 [1 v/ e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
4 n5 G& e2 r$ H6 h! Q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。6 z# g+ s! ~  n8 k7 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) o" R, w" ]" v' l) 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
- |3 r5 i+ i) P4 H  x8 }8 |, ]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
/ c$ L* I8 A1 D6 i$ o”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。" x! L0 E& A6 U0 H0 b, y' h' K& r
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, W: i5 F+ t. y% O( Y
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
' W# e& {& X/ x; M+ {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+ @) N. X' @, o& A# C$ i9 z
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: E: R/ A- F& @- a
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# G2 j' h, [0 R
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
- j% o) [! W. J' {; ^9 d4 H我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
& X; w# w6 C5 N# r2 K. O2 x. q( n8 ^- [" e. [' R9 N( ^3 t
3 l0 J; }& w$ S. F3 W
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
  j) z4 h0 i' g# F( `+ d/ u7 V. `% y
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: G. J7 x+ i8 ^, b
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
* t- |0 _" n) @; N5 W附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见- y- A; @5 F. S+ I+ ^( F! L
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见* j. d9 K: b. z4 I; L  I

! e6 ?$ j8 h1 A* S  D# Y* P' f- B( g5 g; o2 x' {4 a4 ?1 w2 G1 p' w! o
: f, k/ P; s  |; f0 L
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
1 a4 y$ N: q' _Dear Phil,7 h$ x- N/ [6 e4 W" Z* H
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" _! G$ d! E; z* n, a8 Sreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
) k: V- A6 C( ]! Ihours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed0 y" `' E" _8 U$ N6 X. O$ _" j
you.
; e8 t  l/ e: U- [/ T       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have/ C5 B5 Z# u& C, Q  a1 ]+ r
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
6 E9 \3 s  I0 c$ Treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the4 \0 T' R) o3 [3 W5 d% c, ~3 D
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature1 ?9 m" t9 i  i$ h2 S1 }6 A
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more" j$ y3 @4 ?8 u6 U& S" c2 ^
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ s4 X- Y( K! F5 Xpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.9 g9 m, `6 m9 F8 F2 f& J1 e
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the2 k. `& a' a& h
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% [+ [1 F# X  a$ X+ J* Pnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 u9 [( J3 d. t8 {
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 [# u$ a3 w' |7 X& A
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping2 q2 p9 |# g4 l
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal) j  J  x4 b- I  ^# d1 u8 c/ P+ h
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,) g! @# n9 b+ x0 @% p
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
$ ?9 O' J5 q: M8 cto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news, V, d) J& x9 ^6 G7 \
reporting., u: K7 n, r% r( {# Y
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have+ L* k! o  H# i: F  Y6 {. ~
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by% X; }6 A0 }- \. x! b0 s
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; f, n. n! J  l' gsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A+ `  J6 }: w$ p+ Q5 t
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.) E  Z4 ~; H. r1 R
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem# q7 e( Z3 e; g3 H6 J5 S
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
, a& c7 S  n' l2 t# r  rfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
0 }4 ~6 x, H3 \% lmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
- ^% j; s4 H% E7 f$ jevent for men, with the second fastest record.
3 s3 h( h$ E( T) C8 I0 `5 e# o       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
" I5 @/ n) ]9 U/ _! B, swas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16* a6 I& I. l9 K
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record2 f# g' s( X' {/ w( a. G
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400" y/ f0 m. N- o, _8 F0 F
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,% e  M& R9 Z5 z7 M5 ~& _2 N
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; e# c) @! W+ S! {& Z: ]& G$ D3 n
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
" w+ \/ W+ K" Q, q) Ibehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the8 t' h0 @; @, P1 G: G( x
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
; D1 M. S. s/ d+ g7 G2 L+ ^than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than7 M7 {) P; P+ r8 d0 [9 d
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
/ W/ a/ }" ^; jher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then8 ^+ M  X# Y/ a- M" ^( v2 ]
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
# S) q$ ]% c" j9 A+ V3 Gproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other0 B. U( G0 N& i- U$ k# w
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
5 q" X' Y9 B( v( A* s" t5 Zteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) e. k4 [/ V. u6 V1 V
Callaway report.7 Y; V. J# k0 I: ~+ A2 d2 M5 D
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
" q  L4 H7 F# r) I  l) yunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
3 s! k4 G  ?. Q* H2 ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description* v. q. K" J7 [, @& [- S* H3 r- V
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
6 @+ z' j7 z+ Hbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the' L# q7 Q  ?* {3 q& `3 o9 x5 W
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: f3 U% D& u1 ?. b8 U
publicly voiced different opinions.
4 [# X: O  }! d9 N6 YYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
8 l: f  z9 P6 O) k; S4 p9 sfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature) \% l2 a0 u* s' @$ U$ P6 A
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' c: C7 g& e  D' s
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
! ~) ?0 O# \+ k( n2 d* ^you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
" s/ ?3 B  y8 g4 `6 r  R/ t# Z( \of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.- R3 T; J( }. C+ T! ]2 ]
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
8 n' `4 A. P- Y/ j1 P' P. ?that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They8 `9 [6 s* E4 Q( p& A
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
1 S  d! c( Q2 D! v% PAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
' U: y. T0 V  j6 D0 M0 Bthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
% E, g, d5 h7 M6 G: q% isupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
3 V  ~) B) x8 r: v4 zOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that4 ?( s. t8 P# c, n$ G  D) d: s
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the* M7 h; Z* @$ W! v5 n
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" y. s  X/ t3 J3 z( n4 p; P" |, K(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
3 L9 M! ?+ [( d! l/ m6 R. z5 O8 X% Yand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.5 Q- ^1 @& f  x& n+ j
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science* g4 q& V5 R, C! b' C; s
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and. R6 |. O# }# e9 [/ Z5 H
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.9 \- {, Z% ?" U& t& I  Q: ?3 N' F
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
) q1 Z; u5 b9 W! ?# e/ o- f: lobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature+ ?2 P; \7 e; y% F* g) i4 P
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to1 b0 M; x/ T9 N: ~
repair the damage caused by your news reporters." L, Z6 J5 v" V! ~1 f
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not1 P& `) j. T. ^; H0 t' v5 [, u2 u
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced8 H. N6 N0 ^% y) k5 t) S( J
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
9 }* m; K' E& D& y( lfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 E6 z  ^8 S* U' s& cthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”! V7 I) i2 b$ H/ t8 b+ p
about British supremacy.
% I' \( S5 m8 R/ z) [The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many7 n. b8 \. l; m: l5 E7 `6 m+ u
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
1 {0 g9 m1 }, a5 Z4 z/ j0 HChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
7 N0 x6 {& l$ D' n0 Four public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% e2 `4 h8 G  e$ M) r' o3 iOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
* a5 I  Z% [. ]& kYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
4 P; D) D& Y1 ~) J9 ?professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests. G* Q2 ]" n+ c! R) Z- N
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' t2 l" v. ?7 q
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly- B' p3 d% `& x4 g
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like$ Y5 L! X  d' v
Nature.$ l& c% Y3 w& S& B: O9 r+ N
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance) y5 X0 |1 ~- n6 B% w0 I& ^
the Callaway report.7 a0 ?+ v  C  F$ x1 G: e
- p3 \* M/ Q9 r4 Y5 z0 f$ s
Yi
  j! {% r; m1 V) W: c: y9 C2 `- k7 o* E
Yi Rao, Ph.D.) g* k0 Q. ^" Y) W& x! P
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences. d3 U. k. d* I7 ^8 \1 m
Beijing, China
- Y" s  U$ x$ s8 O# ~' M8 _
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·········
大型搬家
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 % R2 f+ L! N2 g9 C; x- _" Q
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
" _7 b* e8 L8 k7 f3 \
原文是公开信。/ v0 V7 Z8 ]# {8 y4 K
9 u* j2 I* l1 l& i% t! f
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 a- a( ]7 E0 E6 n+ P
原文是公开信。- @1 R( S! A) d: j

- ?5 K9 ^- P+ }4 C小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
0 W( W' d. K+ ^9 ?0 k2 T3 J
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
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
4 ]8 @4 q# k7 a" ]) I: H3 [9 N9 _如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
. I9 C; H7 U' f0 a( J+ j
; J( G! C9 ]- r$ c- t/ jhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
# ^7 A7 y9 i. X4 J% W6 X* s9 s1 h) h; Q) z9 x+ [5 {% u
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania1 Q/ B8 Q( m% s. a0 M4 K: P" x

9 P( I( v; Y! o3 @. HIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
- d8 t1 b0 \5 `* h7 k! t, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
( A2 m' k# M4 X5 g' Omagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ x# v. ~! h0 J0 J) P% mis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# G# ^" Q! G, v& T7 p% ~# Iscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general. m2 }9 D5 {4 U6 M# Y) }
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 Z9 x" R9 ^7 p
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," L( y3 e. ]( e4 G; v% a: k; M
which they blatantly failed to do.: ^# s: ?) c! t+ J8 W
4 J4 |3 |* g" R7 u8 O. F$ ^9 V
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her" ~. w& ?# L8 A+ Q0 f6 m, k" Q$ _, g
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
, i8 @# W# h# ~" D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “$ B7 X. y% m% k8 O7 h  O  v
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 Y9 a& j. k7 A3 I2 P( Q3 Npersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
; t. [8 h8 l1 v% wimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. R8 h# z6 M2 e* k! g) Kdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
/ o8 h/ H4 y  b  f* B6 ]+ ibe treated as 7 s./ O7 m8 r8 L6 g7 I( \! n, \

1 g& V7 H8 v6 Q+ r' Y: eSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
) i4 w6 O7 K  m; A8 C. w  |! Mstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
. Z. ^4 V& f3 [1 J# Oimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters." N* b8 l* f3 y, I$ v
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
# E3 Q9 z9 Y7 K/ M1 y1 k# d* ]-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.) @3 r1 a" @: k. L0 F2 F# ~
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an* r; X+ {$ [; K9 ^/ }. G
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and, U' Y4 j) Z  B# i& V3 ^
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”* o: T9 r! j; C! z* V% V* X
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
; n2 x8 p' a9 f
' w9 H  ]  T( P7 f6 L. s/ A/ mThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook9 O1 u9 b5 K* |6 f( d# @: W
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in1 d7 u! S: `( L( ?( e# B
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
# [$ p1 w. A% jhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
* i& n! M% I% V" C& V2 w* Devents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" D1 D) V) K; x% E+ m( u% N+ ]best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World8 b% K/ k3 u3 [; H5 C% h. M
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another& ~0 |) ]3 [2 o" v' n) {- C& j/ P
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
  `& }2 x1 I4 s6 g% e+ mhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
& ]& d. J* s+ H, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this3 M: v6 D2 B$ ^8 W0 K
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
/ Q0 P! B3 s8 P  Sfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam* S+ C8 p6 u  k1 l# T8 ~6 {
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
, H' o) z6 A5 Baside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
  ^  |. A" L. L4 T' V0 yimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
" @& e! d. \; {  S$ n7 G* k% G, L  o; z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. Z5 H2 `* Y4 W5 C# @four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.932 O1 L4 U- h! Y( z1 d+ v# j
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& a! V$ L. ?; }8 P4 M, S. y
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* x8 m3 m5 n" [# t+ \* a$ H/ |
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,7 q4 d+ Z) h( b
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 B5 _0 m: z) e8 k( w4 W1 {
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it8 ]' l$ \4 m3 s' ~
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 M% ?8 ^8 e6 k9 l2 ^& T/ d) G
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
. c# e7 d+ L* ]" J6 u: Q% Qworks." v8 @6 z( U" `1 Z# g

7 w5 c9 q2 p+ a; L; {Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and+ v) m- q  T9 X) ~  A8 T
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
+ o9 w! U3 P: F) vkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that/ @: E% p5 c$ K4 u$ y
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
7 S/ [7 {0 n* F& J- [$ {papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! ]" x. H! C+ Z+ j' c3 o$ yreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* x3 R* f4 S. A0 V! e( Y# A
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to9 r, `% c+ |" j$ i  y' c5 i
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works% _1 D" }6 y7 k% p
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( k" B1 }/ F3 Y4 x
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( |5 Q6 \/ Y, L' U1 `# O$ lcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! Q: _: Y/ w" L* J$ r( ?wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 X# o0 M) ?3 P2 H: D5 fadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the3 _! m- U( \6 ^) _4 F: G
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not9 Y6 S2 j) I% v4 n2 e
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: d9 b/ B1 S$ @+ J2 g: h, Z1 l* Z
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are; q( _+ R+ b5 F* F5 u* }1 }
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
8 z/ s" ]6 G: u) i4 Hbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a  R5 Q6 w5 A7 h6 q. X! C) n
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye0 [/ Z. t& N; z$ ~
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a" v+ q, r$ E! X1 N
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
% A, L8 m* c# L4 e& l2 pother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
' m: e2 b5 ]! y  |8 d4 `$ U, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 O% l' _) C) M- R; C, w9 l, {
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
7 t& `1 f& f' C0 t! x+ L0 V0 Jathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
4 L( g) Y* @( {6 ]chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?$ j8 w0 h6 G  X0 T1 D* x( r' ?- G# X) j
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping& s9 R9 H& _% N" ~8 P1 ^
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
; N0 g" ~) V  Z- R$ z: F7 C" height years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
* F  A2 Y( a( _) ^  M% XInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?( U4 m; g8 A; v# T" j6 ~- o' v2 N
: S. Z  H5 u9 h" ~" `0 r
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-0 T0 O) Q" c8 w  w1 k* l
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention0 A2 _% U6 W) c3 Y  }
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for2 g2 ~, N; p+ h4 e+ Y: c4 t6 @0 q# h
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: S) a! D. p. AOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
8 ]6 o' M! h9 A8 Wdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
6 \, b* M5 g! Y( xgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope$ l4 z8 j7 [. }6 R
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
: l& |  k4 C3 m$ P* fplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this7 Q. p- h, Q. k3 Z8 n! j6 L; r
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.% o0 V' O3 i- M, t8 w; Q
+ K, g8 @" n% w- d2 j/ O: S
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
; \" E! C) r+ W+ |intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
- ~2 A+ d, b0 R/ Y8 gsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
8 }: C% l: t! y) Z9 `: {suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 M" j2 l' U0 k+ `" w, ?7 Rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your; I6 e  d. L% H; C' T( R( ~
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,0 j3 [. {% O8 O5 ]9 M8 E- _& m% p- `4 P
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
6 y6 c* {1 }; Jargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal  x! d( t; j4 c  Q: l% k
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or0 c# b. C3 r  ]; M) E+ B
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-4-23 05:37 , Processed in 0.282322 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