埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2105|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 $ n  I0 W! T* V  S7 T, O. q; s. l
+ w7 C  d7 e9 [2 M  N4 ?, s2 B
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
4 y8 _- |$ `' E/ Z; L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。* `9 B2 l- _4 g3 O
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。* C6 n2 s$ ^* W5 n- k* A0 [; ?

: U1 d$ Z" x: J1 n& d, Q8 j/ a( Xhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html5 U' e* {8 A' ^6 u/ S
: q9 n* l( V. P0 h& h4 ^
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% |, o# r$ l( J! k: s" F1 K" q2 q
2 x# m4 H! {8 \+ d6 S0 E- [
英文原信附后,大意如下:
3 v1 }; Z; D8 X% d. T
" C! @  x. Z& y斐尔,4 W/ R' K+ x( V( g7 m$ U- y7 ~9 a: g
       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 \) N2 v; y: ]0 }email的人里面小部分也给我来信。, |6 ~+ q8 z2 }6 x: e* I( b3 G
       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6 X1 L* G0 B8 K9 ?& Q& z$ i" i
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% Y  i; }% V  c6 V; W
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。
' x* ^7 G* d0 y9 h       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
$ Y4 i( U9 W1 ~; {; d2 B  A3 U. Q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
9 H7 X% l# M: s+ y, @0 b& P6 z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
3 p$ k# N: g7 {( Z. D) 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。
# p2 A) ~5 P" p3 a       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
" a/ Y+ M! T8 ?6 @,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; F$ G" g" k4 E+ k5 r
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。5 j( J: m: j0 Y! b% M
       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
+ A8 W3 A5 B1 |- w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 E$ V6 H$ t. g3 _9 l( C$ K
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
  O5 Q9 I1 T1 g" W1 U( g: b  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
; v. B: a4 U" r0 [0 ~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4 w* o/ e; h5 h0 \. Q
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
* p4 G" Z1 K: h1 K. i& N, Z. w4 a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
8 F" A5 C& D1 t* z' P/ e300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
) Q2 Q+ I- N: S$ H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
7 t) m2 u& l/ H: 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
; N$ d. B( t, e" {+ _% G。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
$ [! c& h; g3 y  ~录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。. a  J" H  S; M
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, G5 p' ?+ v) M. x/ |! y8 O
1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
9 ~# {2 m) F! Y' J% `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& D, M1 l! z. W2 ]5 `
同意见的专家。
3 Y/ ?, z) {1 l8 c7 T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 h% m# t: a9 i" _. A! h/ ]: r( i
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
* J' t' S5 X" R3 q( g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" D  e) `5 k/ N) R+ v* B! z
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
; q/ O! r: V' L. u# V+ ], ]# S$ @3 hCallaway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)$ |; Y( }, c8 v8 I' J
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
8 D% h1 @( t' a《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2 Y$ y8 d. R6 {- N2 H" ^/ ^
这些被Callaway忽略。
; b1 Y2 u+ q* \! `, i! D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& x' i, E  W- Z7 _
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( Q- F' H- ?& X( X! W
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。( ~! q0 i4 o' m$ ?/ K3 _5 ^
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; m' g6 U0 F4 u- O- V! n7 _/ 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7 y( V- {, X6 e  N. t
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3 S% ~* J, e- s5 r
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。: F  g6 ^; Y  X/ y) O9 l, z0 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5 X% }% [1 A( q: k4 a' Z; J, q* L, S6 w
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& |4 ?# V! ^" u; S& W: t. d
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
0 h( {# w% W7 N! K$ K”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。# U+ Q5 p( j0 z! R0 ]! C6 p
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0 M& L% V  v0 m
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' B! Q) K1 R- `! ~8 _0 j; W% H
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
+ P0 X/ W( c9 w. q: p% {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  c& {* D4 J9 i# P$ x9 P' ~
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
2 r$ B  M4 W8 c5 Z而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。& U; d# T: [5 {& r7 E
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。. `3 v7 i& b9 `+ c* y

2 p0 Q# I( t' ~* X# N0 H, w( Q6 a! |
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅! A9 y  g1 d7 x, w
+ A/ G$ f* c1 Z/ b
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结4 h* H* b' L$ `9 N2 o2 [7 U0 W
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
1 Y2 Z, G$ _, g1 A+ F1 D( B. ^附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见0 j- \" [6 O* u/ t, z4 r
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
% S) _0 l* ^2 |4 M
& ], V0 v* z" C8 @' |; e0 z" ]' b1 p2 o! U! S( c$ w+ Z
) r  `2 Q6 D! c4 ^% `* s
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- w8 M6 e% H$ {" s) i
Dear Phil,, i- j7 y& Z2 x; s1 F( W2 Q
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
3 [& h9 J4 @) m+ D- m0 ~* wreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20) X' T$ |6 l& g- ^
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 j) k( h5 w; I" H! o5 Fyou.
8 N; J. R0 E2 e- V" i( r       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have; ~" {) n7 o( V* m6 G$ {" ~
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
: w5 \2 I# g9 W. V* G8 S8 Creaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
' g# H' y9 K/ u7 ?world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature" x; _" o; X2 j& q# V" l- x
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more; k$ b/ `4 G( b$ V( H* N
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ i- B4 {; i! X8 V3 U( q8 }& o% H. Ppieces much more than the regular Western news media would./ ]; c. E! j+ X8 j8 D4 r" I3 _" v# g
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the$ l5 u6 ~9 K2 P  I& b: n+ s% M
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
, d/ n+ x7 w0 T! M  lnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
3 _2 U7 {0 n1 j. Z0 Zthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway* H8 X. j5 R8 Z
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
7 u2 u5 J% `' Q' Q& w4 ~! Gexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
4 \7 Z  G; z. K! }, Y( \& l9 sstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
& T5 [( G) p" r/ o1 n  W+ Z6 xand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
5 r% W; f# i  j) z7 U! \4 u1 Ato cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news& \, b* K& G8 _+ n5 {% w2 z
reporting.
# ]3 @" B" Q2 a8 h       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have# E5 l2 w7 z. T8 T
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by: }" F  ~% R1 F" K- j$ H
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in5 I# V# W9 `; H  V: ~
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A9 @1 A/ A+ o, B* x9 A( V
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.6 O, u# w5 e# M5 B& ]
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
+ K( o+ J' Q4 ^# j8 P! mmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
. m& J  c3 [$ i8 E4 l4 F, g+ ifaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50% O9 W# s/ p! ]8 n, V
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same3 f4 v* |3 k) ], R! ^& ?
event for men, with the second fastest record.
. L; m2 T, g! r: j+ n       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
6 h8 {  o; P8 d, Iwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
5 Z3 Z4 w/ m2 n1 b7 M" pyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record8 }! r; F$ ]) u* b! K6 z' v
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
% O$ e+ g; g' \' d: w+ y* N1 lmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,, E" T! j6 w8 m6 z* k# Y
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
% L) M% _+ d! f. O: oLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed  M5 C7 V& B2 P! W
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
$ S: ]% n" W) t& l$ Uindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
$ k: G0 n' k& |: M2 x8 t) Qthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
2 V# d+ f: k  }, ?those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was" D: P4 p5 S" S. n0 h# x8 r
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then$ ?* i( m6 u5 T
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “  u2 F0 b. C* a
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
/ [; T- d0 q8 c6 Iswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
- e' n* B. B; Y1 B+ ]teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the  z# s8 V# ]% d4 s( B0 z" X
Callaway report.
9 G4 q# O7 q, H6 L8 IThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
1 O& `% f; B( p; i) t8 `$ ounderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
! q9 i7 z9 b. V" W% `* s3 _here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description7 R2 [% ~  Q/ l% a5 U* |
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been  b4 W" ^% `6 u2 Z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. D2 F4 R! V8 A% o! ]+ ^
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
+ r& L; U% D6 j4 Q* U  F' Xpublicly voiced different opinions.0 I% i) ~! ?' h1 s5 M1 }+ Q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
/ A* p9 z$ X+ S0 m* u) h2 z- t% \from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature- E1 P3 v, |$ `) z% L
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
$ {$ ~" t2 o; c& Vpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds! @- z& D  w1 G: e  P
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
  X, ~: m' K. i5 Nof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
: Q* C( D/ y: ~+ m) ^2 vThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
" H$ M8 p$ }! \1 H2 ~1 tthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
' |. Q# I9 A0 C$ nhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, W7 ^( }% G! t+ X: v
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that) R2 o2 M$ M* L& c3 g2 m& |
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was9 T# U+ A9 \+ n/ C$ y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway." f: Z: e# T$ \  J
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that% t4 `0 a5 B5 d, [/ ^3 _4 }1 l
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the; ~- m  ]/ r5 c
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 {0 W7 G5 }% c( C(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she: s$ P' ~3 N6 g! P1 h4 f% E
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.2 V( P# O! r. _7 d
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
( t; U+ ~" I7 n$ Sand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ j' B$ a% b+ V' R$ a
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. X, G, Y, C2 V5 t! XNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
6 y2 |2 w9 p- d9 w/ h. C- \" Yobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature, {5 W' ~9 M" F* M; l; _. ~
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to$ [% ^- w- g. Q  u% ~( M6 T
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
4 E" N  K: m1 a2 LThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
  A5 g7 C  P1 Fshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
! J( u( O+ n+ {7 R7 S5 V; Pus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
- v. h7 y% O- V7 X" Hfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 p* t, \+ P# {/ n, z9 u* o
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”4 d0 h  t; e$ F1 M
about British supremacy.6 Q( h* M% n& o1 d! {! O* M
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
% n, `5 w5 M' o" M, B- wunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
/ m8 j2 _* p3 u$ JChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by% a& }0 v7 ]" y8 T. S0 \0 T4 ?
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London9 q! T( Q4 X1 d* M* w/ q9 W
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
. @8 k9 v! P; c% R8 u# VYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of6 E' F" R9 I$ n& M* i) M8 Y4 m
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
; P/ [5 E7 `! q/ U! ibefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,# _: X% p" \6 Q6 R4 D- j
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly  [* P; q1 H+ S: h' E( x( O' Q$ s
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
4 o6 i* C# T+ B: O% W4 zNature., A8 c) ~0 ]& W( E
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
2 b5 L! r5 W1 dthe Callaway report.
" s% _! K: P* r+ }9 ?3 Z. Y( Z$ e+ W* D, v
Yi
- `1 V  L8 O; z% N2 c! b, S- J4 s% g) M7 u
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
) o) H+ e$ ~9 v& k9 t7 z7 U8 q- sProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
, E9 h7 V, _. ?, E& cBeijing, China( H' v" l0 ~. E! J/ E- Z
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 2 [# I, v( s+ B% ]! T
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
# y) x% ~& t% @
原文是公开信。# u6 o6 W* K4 E  D* N8 S
# G) z4 r3 Z( M8 s6 @# t
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
4 a# N9 \5 I( B( d原文是公开信。; U, q& L+ t  C1 \1 E

+ E8 C* h2 l# j) R6 q8 b& Q3 o0 L8 ^小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

2 }$ V8 q2 I, C) @7 @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
* G' @9 o) Y( |6 }$ l如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。, P% R1 ]: b5 g0 K

$ H7 o6 q- L2 T7 O* vhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
0 @) }$ w) z$ r+ c2 T
' z8 s& U5 m6 l( W9 Q& L* i8 U7 QFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
0 m5 s1 `9 X3 X7 c& k# v. v5 t- m) F3 v& r9 h
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
% l$ H7 c9 [. h& c% A2 h  W1 J, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
4 J/ s# y4 Z  I7 Kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& ]+ k- T5 V( m6 K
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the5 ]) [9 m( ]5 a5 Z) N: Z
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general* \/ V" X, H  T( l. d
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors9 J% [1 b6 t6 l# b
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,6 e! N4 R/ \: T7 u
which they blatantly failed to do.
7 r0 y. ]5 \2 v' F( Y+ ^
7 i& P( @) H& k+ {4 W4 SFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) X  p% c5 Z- g( T  g
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in* R5 I3 u/ o! X& q5 W9 t, o
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “6 {! o% R, Z$ S
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 W% `. J9 _8 F" \1 Dpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, T  G3 l2 \& Q' m
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, e& r; ?9 O( y, W
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to" X) e7 h% G$ J8 X
be treated as 7 s.$ X( Q  [1 ?% j4 d/ U- {
% Z. O! I  A9 M& k  }) H
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- v. f6 K$ H/ ?still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
/ Q5 _9 s; P* g5 T# ?impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.3 [/ o6 O9 _: C/ d3 y- D4 ?
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
: [7 H- m( A- Z1 B1 W/ y, W-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ ~' L1 l+ H& r6 ]2 G
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
3 R8 t3 @7 J9 P( y0 Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
# k+ {/ N* C0 E' \, npersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
. ~1 _8 e# X0 T% ?& J9 d3 \6 Y1 cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 ]; x0 T: S/ d* z8 V3 B- F- f7 Q. h! I# Z7 R* Q
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook6 A$ N: @, r6 F, u; t+ o1 f% o
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in  Z: |: E% ~( o1 {
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so# Z; c7 \/ D/ [5 O  V
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
' y' D' I8 e1 _' P) l* y' ~events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
5 c# _9 t% N/ ~4 M6 h9 d) Jbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ F5 C* w  n( y$ o$ vFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another( v% Z. L. r. E, n. X
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 d3 C' U0 d: s, G  U( p8 X
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
" H& W! A# H$ U" K9 }' o5 D, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this" R% e' H! G, f9 I$ ?
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 S, S1 K, t  z* I( v+ w: ffaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam2 m2 a9 H: z- f* w3 k
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 f1 e! [9 a3 K; g& q/ _- X+ @aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that( I; u( V# r6 B, [  T
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.* X/ }( f  ]) e: v
. I8 W) P2 G5 o( M6 W! P. z
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
2 w9 h$ {# F1 y& N  W8 ~four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
6 I- P  y( O* g4 W# K' z3 ds) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
! q' O/ c3 O$ a  i3 T), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
0 t" M' s* a2 o0 b: s! ?. W" Uout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
4 J4 S- g0 Z. X" T7 f0 ILochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
* p2 e9 K: h$ y) r% qof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
' x5 r8 N  I5 v- b2 `logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
. o3 c+ e/ F+ Z  X+ a+ nevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 T$ X4 Q7 X/ e/ Q$ a/ |works.
8 W( H* }8 k* x5 ]9 D9 u" `2 r4 D( W# ?/ Z9 g# s+ }( M
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
7 q9 Z2 }" b) @( b* Cimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
: r. N) }: H1 ]* O) R5 ?: _kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 A5 N" U% r8 R2 G* G7 jstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific% S; S. [/ H) p. Q3 v7 E+ x3 X- W2 y
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
! C* W1 E$ Y6 x4 M5 breviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 I4 ^/ v9 y+ U6 \9 Z
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to3 q/ k1 B* V8 Q& a$ H
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
0 f/ A  l7 L4 \# h. h  |to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample' Q- _) l# i0 p: t0 P8 W
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 U  g( U  Z5 N7 R/ s
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he: I; O0 Q) d1 M2 O  M$ l% C
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( V; @. [- Q8 O9 F: E$ f) D. e  `! U
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the" j7 s/ ?: X2 C0 b; _! L
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not1 B+ e+ S, S1 ~  S! d. |" t
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
1 n% E9 b; E; z# B3 x. z7 w. ]. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& i6 ?. V' U# d5 l6 t- Y/ Y3 E6 \8 @
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may. R4 j, n, B, {- y
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
4 q8 E1 @3 f7 khearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye1 ?% l; X* i2 P+ f
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a8 D, p* \, {. N
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:+ \: Q( T- }# q7 I
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% C$ |8 J  {0 G1 P4 b2 y, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
$ ?' v- |/ u3 v+ t: }; Nprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an+ X% P4 ]. F9 Z7 W
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight" _# n  a9 b- u, z. U5 Q: n4 D: s5 p
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ B% ]) {5 L' O
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping/ M2 O# o. n% d* c& s7 K
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for6 V' w* C  a  U% `( I3 }* Z
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) }! ?+ d3 R3 u* m4 f1 CInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
, g. \* G8 H9 j( D. d) U0 G; @! M7 D# U
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-* H' ]0 i0 q7 E
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
; F5 H# }. f; k6 f- L. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for4 y3 a  \: L) V' G) n6 C3 ^3 Z
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
9 b% F, {; N+ O$ Y' k4 gOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" S% a. n3 A! u, H5 \6 Hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) V6 x# [; Q9 Sgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope/ F% ?9 p5 o  @' M0 \: z$ o& `0 _
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
  Y) V4 i$ w+ x; N) s' N/ \7 U$ Gplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this1 s& f6 u# i# B
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.2 f8 h8 \6 |2 t  |! {# K

8 \5 p9 D/ n. G1 x2 tOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
; Z0 V4 N" n- [intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too7 t. V( B5 o9 N1 D' c, `
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a8 I$ u- Z$ }# d9 ?
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide5 P( }; q/ N$ q0 V
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
; f8 ^1 H. R  x5 R  S, ointerpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,+ o0 q6 e( B* Q+ [2 G  ~  o
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your# |; E, X3 b3 {5 d# @- r
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal5 H4 I, ]/ q, W" t7 y
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or+ \* q0 a" y# L% s6 m% u, V
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, 2026-3-7 02:04 , Processed in 0.316807 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