埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2306|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
) T& E5 s! l0 O. g0 P' ]  v1 ~. ]% _/ x+ k: x8 L
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。0 R* z0 ^0 `3 ?; k
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。% j9 c3 |) E/ r8 X, c
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
5 o4 u$ w8 U2 H9 g  l3 g; {
* @+ F7 y: l, j6 J. p$ l" whttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
. B! S' S* z9 j; y9 a' Z  U) i3 l
# w; o/ m$ C! t0 F% b+ q致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选4 d$ t' m; T& w/ Z* A& g3 x6 M

5 J) o6 i9 ~, W( n英文原信附后,大意如下:
& {% S2 @) B7 p  r% S( E% g/ D, }/ Z5 F, m
斐尔,
" H$ A  p% B" N' N& ]' H( \       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
/ b" ?+ o9 m. {  o& D: Bemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
4 Y) k4 d# e' o- |* l/ I: ?       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
* P5 H$ D% n- O$ F+ i6 U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 @. m" P$ C2 J0 n- G8 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。
- H8 x- w) c/ \- H7 r9 \       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1 I: a# [7 u- k: F4 w! p; I; b
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7 O' M3 g1 O$ O) S' v! O1 T4 d
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
  i5 L6 \! v! e3 U; j5 I" J7 v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。
9 A+ T  t: e3 w# D( U1 h       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
1 k2 i8 [, _, @$ y,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
9 h1 D5 z8 Z0 V. U- r”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
% ~. K4 k  _4 N# [( [       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/ \! w0 `" I) V% A6 A" t! Z
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
. k3 d: O" e2 b( F- }$ P,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- n& u" u# R3 N: C       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
5 g1 x6 a- q) Y2 Y2 `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
6 `* f  |. J9 S; ?1 v+ g- p# }; g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) X$ ]  d5 B. ^$ S; q
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3 Q1 u4 y5 J. l8 K4 K7 f9 P
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- Q! q$ |: E! r- B+ w# \
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: W' [% j5 o" t/ `
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/ `0 c# B) U8 p/ [' a; R
。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2 v9 E: f5 H$ V; t& L8 e3 y
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。- h6 E& E' @( W: e8 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; }6 g2 J  F/ g3 D
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
1 q- r( p* k7 E1 i6 j- tWikipedia。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# e% Z8 i3 \) I, r# I5 Z
同意见的专家。7 w2 N# `; @0 U' E; _9 {# ^- g! a
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
7 k8 G) [: O1 u9 `% {4 K5 d+ 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
! S* s4 W, B& S; r* |; L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9 _: E( u0 H/ _) Y. W6 H) S
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
+ o( t/ @2 l( p" c/ [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)
, Q) T9 @; z' f! p$ t$ p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
) a/ K0 e' A" k6 g! S$ F6 H《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/ R4 [& \5 |0 ^. ?  W" [$ \0 ?
这些被Callaway忽略。
) q' @' c4 t" r% p, e# S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
( b( G' Q1 m' S# 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
6 v7 a+ u0 C% v, F7 K/ r6 {# l( c: M教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
# C7 q+ S# u5 W, d) o: h) U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 @  J: e& x8 a# J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
: S% m1 F3 y7 E4 X% F# S5 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4 B- B2 a* c5 o$ 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。
2 y! n8 {/ k) {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# V5 s  p1 p! V
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. U' i& F! R! ^; [3 f' b" O% P
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6 {5 d6 _/ W4 ?9 t9 E
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。+ v+ e: z' N: I6 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
  W: w4 x3 ?: S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
' m" A8 a3 l  p$ w2 c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
, X5 i$ l  J8 v/ l6 E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  l  f9 a6 P9 R3 H% r
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" U2 A9 K, q+ \) M; y; Y
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。" ^! p+ d9 U' f4 y) O1 e
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
: m* m- R; k& G' @* M2 `/ |3 E

5 c9 F$ f: p& r* B北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
- w9 c8 w* s- O. A8 O; c9 ~/ e) M) q
7 i( t+ H7 R+ X. Z7 `) M5 y! r附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结7 m  r$ }/ r  f- Q: t$ K
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
- P! g; G, n+ H) K4 e# C附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见( g' D" ^# r3 S/ ?" j% h9 T- x
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
7 s& k4 f* T4 J5 `4 G, b* ]  Z/ v3 C+ C5 d1 t6 T" t- v( j  T

* L2 {5 l: s5 h% R
! Q9 ?6 q( c/ f2 g9 v1 z& g原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)2 _& k% s: s& D0 A" Q& w* }- q* ^
Dear Phil,
7 N0 `/ `2 G( x1 e  P& W/ ~       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
) F2 T# j/ `0 T/ kreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20$ w8 k& K4 z5 j: G
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
6 N. ~) Q1 t. U, o3 d. M9 n" zyou.
# g2 p6 f: _7 U% _       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have" C( y( r' X. T4 a2 Z& W# F2 |% M
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! z1 u* V; V4 [; A$ Yreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: @, C+ N( D% x  _. G' `world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ Y4 e% Z/ c+ ]& ~% k9 E& V7 _& Y
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more  e( o5 n( u, s! h
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
8 h" k  W$ S! T8 j& C. p, kpieces much more than the regular Western news media would., H9 d( M7 P' k, U
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
2 }) t, N* e& G9 ?% \" Tworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
) _) k* |: P5 F$ ^negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
, j- T* v* i6 ]& `that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway- m# O: M- C; u0 O$ |) f
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping  o/ J3 `2 i- V% b
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
+ k+ W+ ~6 s. C; H  g: |; z* \# Estandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,, j4 k: [4 d# ^5 M. x
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone& y4 D* Z9 q+ b: {+ s
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news0 t& }: b1 j, ~2 ~8 c" p* P+ i! y( a
reporting.
5 g, d* T8 z& ~0 Z- n       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
$ I5 t& G5 \: P7 _/ x! v' {already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
  C5 N/ r6 L1 B' W6 F  O3 Mchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
! L- N: B4 H. `$ D/ l6 bsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A% n$ V. x! ~4 N& w. s7 j  O& y
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
5 Z( _7 U! L7 H' N9 {. s# S2 b/ F8 N       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem9 M. y  G$ ?6 A
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
% T+ h' t; L  T. `4 j4 q" Hfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
: t+ }: @3 v& b  b* dmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same& {$ s; A& L. ]* P8 `5 @
event for men, with the second fastest record.
+ V7 u0 }8 g9 u. M$ C       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
5 X% _) a/ R# k9 Xwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
- U) W$ I4 l' w) [3 Kyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
# ~& }& {8 h6 j* E- E. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4009 C. b% t; {: D; j; t% A5 r$ O
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,; m5 h2 g4 t" g3 [
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than7 I; t) F* W' w" }: G
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed. @' `: h& f6 x1 F. Q+ [
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the9 A6 g, z' M3 K. L0 `; z' R
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
- F* [2 U3 F; `7 R8 [8 Ythan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
- O: c! b! l; U4 J) b# Athose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was$ W5 D+ u8 z8 S3 s0 G; E
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
4 P) m+ a: }' g1 m0 I5 che would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
0 M0 M3 y  q8 [+ F' u- J0 l( \: Hproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
6 a4 o9 {% y" X; `7 S7 A" }6 ]swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
/ g3 {8 `/ X9 Steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the; j8 e2 B/ F2 |' m: N1 x7 b3 l1 l
Callaway report.
) b! k% j( b/ k) i$ C& DThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
+ S! `1 t$ @9 a- _; y6 `- Hunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
0 a, S5 v- _5 _( rhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
; Y! W3 n6 m) ]1 Gof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 N( r+ q, a7 o7 \
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the% f; H$ _6 }4 T: [1 g* |/ m
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& D1 W/ ~! L; K: v- X6 Y+ a9 K# [
publicly voiced different opinions.
- m) l: }0 ^' _4 qYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD- o  A" r% l! G# n6 h+ L. W+ X
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' s+ C. |2 p; T9 uNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
# Y* O6 ]* W( Q: ^# Lpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
$ J& A& B- X7 C! ^you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
+ C, i6 T  P4 ]/ S( oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
) F- X, `0 _8 u; u: bThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 l& r; Y5 j$ s. k4 k
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They' f" ^2 J0 Z& P' |. M7 r  V
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, P# W8 G; o% w( u7 Q
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that1 E* M7 H% W7 n1 A
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
; V9 u) E8 T2 p3 Osupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
3 o" g( b3 B9 I0 t* ]. T% TOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that4 O% y; D" m' u' b! W; G9 f- Y
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the: h/ M7 X# `; q* q* {
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
  O5 E' t& S8 G1 }* g; C" Z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
+ A! ?  y" c  Y) }3 cand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.2 h6 u, `/ E. G. n
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science- w1 }% t) t& M9 x+ e- r' R% D5 y
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
5 J  s: Q3 y. r" `5 u. ADarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.- s0 j+ \/ P' r! i: G
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and( x8 ^% Q) i- i, o/ }, r" [
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( K& E3 U6 f% }8 M+ T
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
$ B7 S* X$ V" e, b$ Brepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) D) `" v" [) Z9 L) o- ?; SThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
/ j6 q$ z% l, @3 s' _' nshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
$ k: G; s7 r  e4 T/ {us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
7 C7 j9 g& K* C+ m1 Y, w; @) Q' l8 ]fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that! u" f5 }+ a8 v- ~- f1 O
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
" v; R) q# G) D6 u6 ]" P& d+ kabout British supremacy.
0 J5 Y0 f5 J- h5 X6 kThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
- W9 M. }" d+ I' vunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more5 T$ U- x% t3 U  I
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by4 U' H, f" F1 K$ `5 E' k
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
5 Q5 U, ]/ W' X  U/ \) iOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.% C5 v! }. O1 _) @: F
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of1 z. {3 _* _+ N1 [
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
9 I, L% Q' Z6 C- @' i& qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,4 p* V5 L  X/ J4 ?' _0 U& B  C
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
& U* N6 c7 }9 cpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
: V! ~% O; p" x3 l! H2 |Nature.
7 o* [8 t8 J( u0 D: h) A, X6 _I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance2 c; ~+ `, c9 h' q/ h& A  }7 L, v- D
the Callaway report.) a) E7 f$ P# z# J
- ]/ h! W6 Z9 M' |! w7 @* ]0 h
Yi6 Q. V9 C5 V; w- C" B

& i/ K1 A- _4 T- TYi Rao, Ph.D.; U7 I/ ~# q% B% t, L1 A7 `0 P
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
: j5 }) H$ x7 t& x; h2 gBeijing, China
# }& F# L4 q) @6 C0 Q- b
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
7 K  {& I' C% v. x: r, M4 |* O原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

* o+ \0 }# s8 o7 s# ?原文是公开信。
0 D& l$ M3 ]. z3 A1 c# C* W* ]3 }* ^
+ D5 P; G( Q& o' _9 ?4 K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 ) H, b3 z* B! f( h) R) i
原文是公开信。
1 C- j2 W, |: G. s$ [3 n  p% D% s3 m! V2 ~* R6 A2 g5 G6 T2 Q, T3 w
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

/ v. z9 l  F7 ~9 X0 F  p5 P* m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) l/ H- [1 c' z9 ~
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
5 @# \. l7 e2 ~4 [* R0 ]
3 C8 q, Y7 z3 @http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 r7 S# }- h9 Y8 R

- j3 ]! D& s/ k. b' s( f$ D+ z; ]FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 X) t, T$ z" f' F

0 @$ j6 |) N6 |4 K4 qIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
! Q) M0 H* j. W3 s, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
5 S1 E- M6 P$ M3 t0 N( {magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
3 n& g  A  L2 N2 O# r* ?4 P9 x# u9 `is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: F* `' v( r6 J1 W$ a! Y. Fscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general% M3 v: A* r- W1 c, i2 c/ C2 E
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors. D7 o1 b! x4 j( `6 O
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
& U& M% I! A, B# Twhich they blatantly failed to do.9 J+ G: L0 q! {3 e/ S- K7 j
$ P% C' x+ f9 \7 R
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
% }" a8 K: d( j9 e" Z2 X1 r. WOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
. `- H+ X4 p5 @8 q1 @4 Z2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
; l5 h6 V" l3 h6 Banomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
8 U3 D: y5 y( ^personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
' N* b; q2 f  h9 timprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# ]+ X8 K) [7 k: b5 H4 ddifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to" H% ]1 Y% R; D8 ~/ ]$ b# A
be treated as 7 s.
1 _/ s9 ?/ M1 \: c' r
" j# M; g% s* }: W0 l4 sSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
- c! d6 p  X6 M$ f1 c' lstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem) o' Y; K0 p9 _; A% Q$ R
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
% j; c& f" m5 @9 e+ xAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400: \5 k+ ^! G% m9 E" t5 ?/ q
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.5 K+ o3 f9 Q8 ^7 g3 [, t& [) O" i
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
& U' C2 z: B% _% T* m9 d4 Aelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and; d8 Z' a3 b) K7 Z  |
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
% [" P6 E) I" Z  m: P+ B$ [6 dbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
8 M" L# ~8 G+ x) f" @! l
0 H: i9 @4 Z$ x3 P" m, P9 yThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook. N. B: ]  p+ E4 k8 c) {* n
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in/ q$ A2 d. e$ m! R. D  C7 q3 `7 {/ ?) w
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so7 Y! m5 y2 d) T7 _; [
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
: z1 O3 Q* Z. H  z. jevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% A, C# m* s5 L) m% W, G- `: n
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World# y3 f; i2 Z2 F6 c: Z9 A9 z0 A
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another, U6 o. V3 k1 g; S0 U2 `/ g2 {5 s
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other6 A/ }* \  l+ W( U9 [/ G
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 a. l0 n8 E! e, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
: L8 _. O; _8 B9 j' tstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 N0 `+ J# I( M, r& y& \! }1 `
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
9 `& C! z4 I4 B3 n5 c# ~faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting+ l6 Z) {* o6 U# E- N& y
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
" k: t  t" W0 Timplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
! ^! L6 w' B% U8 G/ h% \/ v- z( @. Y7 X/ H  h, b1 ?" {4 }
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are4 U! Y2 h. o! N, E  E1 l
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 d: i) s. N- K  Ws) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s( J; F( m/ |6 @0 W3 W$ x
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns3 l# s8 ?2 _. ?2 `- v, ^
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,# X1 R  W) P* H# A
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; h& L0 u* x& v% Fof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it1 ]! X0 ~& |' y( Z% D5 {
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 ^& G$ o# L5 O( z, r0 k6 X1 mevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science2 H/ D# e7 g: A6 ]0 Z
works.
8 W$ w( N$ d8 j4 ]" |( M4 Q3 N( f3 K. H8 U
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
) a+ g. j. p% S6 ?, [implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this) A! _. ^, X7 q6 B/ s3 |; [
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that! K. N) ^; G6 X" Q
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
4 G2 a; k2 D: k( k6 ypapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; U& Q. z' W/ r  G8 `
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One# I  A  l0 P# F
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to" D5 d$ r. o2 m& J- b# d+ X5 V" x
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
0 E: Z1 G: b" x+ j) M3 t7 Dto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample4 i* _7 f; P& @6 e, o4 k0 ~
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 W. Q# ]! J4 K+ U0 ?5 Acrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he  N0 t* ^4 k! u# q
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 i3 M" M5 G8 n: b0 M4 O; J$ A$ Madvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the) x8 ~* D% A4 h" }" `+ A! J* F$ K- s
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. I, i( }# a! i8 W% _5 u: U! muse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 e/ G9 X7 E' ?" l( c% ], r" C. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
$ _/ x% O8 X$ B2 S; f2 n5 tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# E, Z/ P/ d4 C8 K, E$ P3 Pbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
$ w  Z* `2 m' thearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye4 t+ b, [1 c9 Q. y
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" D% _7 R3 ^  R. C; Zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) Q' w6 b4 T& y
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
3 n# F$ v9 a- r( a/ }6 e, m7 [, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is0 U9 o3 p- B6 R7 q5 b" e
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an0 r* d* ^1 \+ m# ~- }# b, b
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight# o+ V$ p+ l, t" U9 r  |  t
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ C. H" e  z# i+ o1 w! }$ JLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ D% s) L2 [& s0 p' |$ Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
8 i, O4 ~* \0 S7 r% E" ~eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.: M) p6 T# @* b9 R! d: t% S
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 Y0 ~# h8 z: c. O7 b; e0 N
  q- j- {0 l, `' }1 r3 G- z$ t) aSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-) l8 r: \4 E/ \  i
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention7 L( `( ?9 c1 O% F6 R3 x: s0 u
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
; \8 g7 e, v7 y$ e& c% ~# ?Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London, ]9 _- f) S  u3 ~- Z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
- J: u; S( `/ f& W0 m5 s8 W& h; Sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
! B8 |. h- r5 J- D5 V0 wgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope9 A& I; V) I( a
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, C, P2 g0 Z7 y5 Dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 L6 w3 N- M4 a' Q! [* [9 A. P4 bpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye., l; U+ v2 R" M2 a" p

5 _* d+ f3 e% X% fOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (7 s7 i3 z4 R7 V1 X  d) n6 W* t
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too3 e: f; y8 {( K$ R' I! c' d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a1 O; M' h& b/ M; T3 J# k; P+ R9 P
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide6 c2 v9 o; H6 y
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: x. C6 O2 s0 E5 T# [6 x, finterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 `3 C3 L' C) C  z$ m* c9 C
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% Y8 \; |" X1 v( j% b# Bargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
2 j4 R* h, s$ D9 }8 h$ asuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
0 W: `+ N% n7 ?% d. K$ s6 u% r  creporting 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, 2026-5-8 01:46 , Processed in 0.241237 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