埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2202|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 5 {9 Y, {% h) v7 T6 Z" O8 q

2 V" ?$ a& w# u0 A) u* ~饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。- Z0 H8 ^1 m8 v$ A1 _
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。# Y4 a( n: \9 O6 c1 h9 {  j+ C
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。% n) @% p( q# j/ H: ^* K. W6 B
# n, W) M; f6 E
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! x3 H" p: f( T+ k7 @
7 j$ n. H8 A% ^$ p" Z  e+ U9 b' l致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
2 t# w& C7 ~' _) D& Z/ l% m+ Y+ {6 N
英文原信附后,大意如下:
& j) t9 {. L0 n& R: l
+ M- m+ E% i( J3 n" {: s6 N4 k" K斐尔,
$ ]1 @/ x4 A5 P0 m       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
2 e! \3 q) L/ {! X6 Y6 yemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: `' N1 q/ P3 A3 [       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
  Y7 ^. m% U) I* T6 q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
5 T  i% ?9 e+ O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。
" ~9 f. k  ~: ~) W       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: l! C. g3 m! o$ m6 _( j
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
3 c+ W. w3 X! e, d3 K  d, S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# e5 }6 Q/ I9 O$ V' D
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。
* L# }0 g' g- V4 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
  C; [) v/ V. D7 H( ~# _& e3 D,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6 A2 m( V4 D* @
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。9 h6 Q3 }2 r9 Y# B% K5 P" P$ r5 C$ O
       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
+ Z% N; L+ I& O" _. f2 c/ a$ N% N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
. ~  e" ]6 G6 B$ E7 ^,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; A3 T" H+ I8 A0 z% D# \: p
       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
( x# R0 F2 }: ^- p, v% y1 ]3 h: n2011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" v4 J5 K- P4 T: g8 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
* z0 l4 R; M0 y3 A, X3 ^5 v' F6 z% 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
7 }7 {2 R2 N7 s, l300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
. a) v: i& l) \8 b  z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
+ c5 u3 }+ D0 p1 g6 V# E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* \5 [; w  U# x0 n
。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8 A$ r1 Q. i& M. G& F
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
/ o2 |) S+ Y& E5 B! y1 `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# i5 i$ p4 M; A% g1 D9 M" b! t
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
/ K5 J: l0 C5 c7 HWikipedia。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+ x5 G( }2 \- i# ]4 X# r) ]
同意见的专家。
! B; f4 N5 ?8 P) G8 z* p8 N! _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
+ r6 U/ f" Q* \* a: O& G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0 u1 n$ C( i+ t# d8 A/ i# b; X
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/ c/ P6 k2 n9 k- H5 R/ q$ R1 x
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。  `; r1 Y$ X; f  ]& L
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), [( X# X5 T: S/ l, y
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- H8 B: O5 c( B: y3 T6 @
《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5 g" A" F! g' {( V9 ~" |; O
这些被Callaway忽略。
8 G! J! k% J  Q; [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- u% z! U  T% D. q& c$ a
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9 F3 B. D* U5 u5 S! D
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。7 u2 J6 T8 M, F! B# k  E7 g6 O
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7 B$ Z; S) |/ k6 R' p1 o' 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; g' f; y4 G
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) F; E" j, N& Y, O
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。5 w3 d: c) b9 i" e
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
( x$ t3 W9 t: l) o- J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
6 ?0 ?! P) O1 o; c. c3 A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 S: r# F, l- T$ n1 N3 O: V”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ Z2 c% ]/ t, i) t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
3 v3 _8 R9 p3 G& 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
7 k# ~1 C3 G" ~7 K$ F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8 ]& `8 w& l& i' X* P) s
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' B( W6 @- G" M8 U, W0 z4 A6 ?# e
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/ v/ t6 m1 }' {: e, _
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
; b, E8 Q) G0 e7 e我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
1 q7 \6 J$ \. F1 d: t) C: q0 o0 o" ]! J# `

- `# M) i; _4 c: j北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅+ S' j) l7 [; [

% f7 I$ J2 K# i4 H" m! g2 {附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结5 w" t9 d- P* E2 n
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
5 `. p( ?9 c9 p1 T# e! d$ o" ?! C附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见2 s7 a+ u, D1 \6 ~1 d. q
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见/ w- i7 U7 Q5 k; K! x' p

* V6 L% u3 m5 n  W! ]- g6 T' c' h* ]8 Y- X1 X1 u! m

9 |# l# g/ O* q. D4 ]原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
6 O4 J$ q% N6 q% ]9 aDear Phil,
5 p9 h/ H, {4 ~       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
6 P2 P1 ~" s4 T& J" e2 ireport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, ]( S( h7 {2 d) m7 L2 E, k
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
) a3 V, s- L9 O; E( p; ^8 qyou.
9 v% e+ B! Z+ v/ a7 d       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have0 J! W; [) h; a: k
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' f0 C% e9 R& F6 V! f$ E! H
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
' K% [- a0 j( n! Nworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
/ m+ {- r5 A6 Z" h% epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# m- p! L# S. h  }1 P! i# Eseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news% f5 A% i! y6 k" A
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
8 t8 Q4 \  i, s: \% P       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 b0 `) t& c' o; D- t! ^, k% n
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a) N% M' G) B; y6 F3 {5 r
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
* A% f* Y/ v( \% p: C- o' tthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
. a2 H* z9 P0 ^7 u7 Edid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping( L2 Y% Z! d; D( |9 ?  A  c! G9 O2 r
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal  A3 R. D0 r  \. w' t+ F
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
1 ^. T! K; @9 H5 w6 P+ @$ V/ pand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone+ t8 X- S7 u. i$ P! F
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
7 X& v: W" Q' V" b" ~reporting.
+ O' i  d5 T* S2 n$ g* b       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
# ^* N0 j4 D- I2 `already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by4 o+ R+ g0 ^/ p6 |7 h
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
: W6 X4 Q% b8 Y3 [6 K" T; h: jsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A6 y: r* C* i& G& i' W
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
9 P, E6 j/ b* {7 Y       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
- X+ R4 q: o4 S  rmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
* ?9 d7 b) `7 }" L. Kfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50+ j* g- E4 }6 c. i) M
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
) d& T  V8 m. m: h4 e. pevent for men, with the second fastest record.
# ?9 ]: R8 d. ~; P- {) Q  |       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye% \1 \9 H* }. `0 F- Y: W
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
$ @8 ~# k/ I5 Q" T' pyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
* s7 Z1 X8 k3 [. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. o2 x4 M1 d6 P0 k. E. {meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
$ s, z+ c) n( G* N* b: e8 T, L& wfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
; n$ Y1 Y. N+ F: d. eLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed% Q/ a+ |2 E3 B, \% ]9 t& O4 W. H1 S
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# s; G! U3 z+ M1 r& Kindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ b% Z1 ~2 E$ w0 x0 s1 ~than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than- V- K3 K( n: B
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
! d; ?# W3 k5 Vher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 \$ v, P+ X4 l. m
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
7 Q" h" i4 ^9 [3 Y. F$ tproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
$ ]  _& l0 Z) s5 a7 d8 K$ Gswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the* L" d. Y9 @. q" _
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
5 x6 v' |( U6 P* u' a- @6 WCallaway report.2 `: v; F5 P1 F
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more# {, b* m' c. R- u
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
, z/ l. ~- U1 v& E% m; b# @here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description+ z& c4 j8 Q. c. x0 ]$ @
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been* E2 z, T+ z# C8 Y' K# D
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- B8 S4 {. j" D2 u; T6 O5 w* s3 EWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had+ m0 |! m& U7 |! W
publicly voiced different opinions.5 }6 w0 l+ e+ z0 }" O
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
+ d$ e8 V( N. Z8 X: ffrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
- [& o2 S* T0 J6 ANeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
8 u4 y. g9 }  xpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds1 h; V- ^5 m! }1 T/ W7 x0 q: h7 Z
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy  z" i; v+ s# R
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.2 g3 [4 ?2 C! X2 Y) C5 O
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think# F! z- S1 P6 ^7 ]/ \1 Y
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
4 @# |/ o0 b2 ~; d0 ?' shave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as9 D* F0 O( q# u9 ]2 \, o1 _
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 S# P3 Z7 p, ythe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was3 k' l' Q1 S" P' R/ X
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.+ V- l' L6 b- c, y1 h4 @" k; h/ K
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
9 w) b: m4 \0 M1 n0 Xmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the: e4 p# G1 p, g0 i
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 \+ q7 h8 M/ W$ R: m5 o. k(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she4 ^- z* h0 d2 W' m( X) P
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.( \1 ~* U  |1 U3 h0 {1 s
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science' P9 ^0 t5 i8 U
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and; d$ e4 X$ Y+ m) T, C9 M- X" z2 {
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.6 T: M" q) R; y3 O- V
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and1 o, ?; b+ L7 N
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature7 p/ p: W7 B( V* l2 r
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
  J3 W' \; o9 mrepair the damage caused by your news reporters./ u0 ?0 @8 G* s: x
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not3 U. P. F- I5 H# u( i
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
! C" \. P1 `8 @) g2 T, r( rus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather3 Q0 S0 T  k4 Z( b  f
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
+ Y+ E0 S! R& K& Q: E" C0 ~9 k/ |this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”( L4 T, |0 O; s
about British supremacy.
" K, D* q5 e9 A- J1 \- S* {The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many$ c  e0 ~1 G9 C" M, \' B- ~: Q% `
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more& d6 D/ j9 t( j+ f/ Y1 \$ t
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
' Z6 F! J& r5 p% n6 A/ oour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London+ v9 Y. w2 Z: p
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.( [$ n+ ^# G. b
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of" P% c8 b3 D. u  d3 U+ C. N
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests7 t% `! p1 h/ }, ?, J9 @
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,: o; b4 V' |, p: A
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
5 h6 B0 b2 _* U0 w2 H$ {$ |publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! b& a. f* s# uNature.& P4 A$ Q* n. \" O/ V0 c; j: i
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ Y0 L* f. ?- nthe Callaway report.
" ]) n) S8 I/ `- a; w, h6 ?' p6 A- Y$ r
Yi
6 s' a- ^3 ^; X: ]5 g% ^# e4 c) Q2 K6 ]% r
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
/ w+ @2 s- h( \& p" m5 ?# \- JProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences2 x$ A' M8 X  E' G* H) r
Beijing, China
' ~& E( z4 r/ t' P8 U' i
理袁律师事务所
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 K. P. K4 P% z# P  ~/ s
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

& Y' q, Y0 ^0 C3 }+ |- s$ S8 Q, P原文是公开信。' K: l& Q  k) F) u! O4 r0 S; ?

8 U% X2 G4 `# ]( e6 U& _5 V! ]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
& @; A. z* b; |0 H$ @& C原文是公开信。0 _/ D: k( }* O3 E1 P# V' ^
+ @+ p" p8 g% [' e
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
' n  ]( Y- h% a: t1 U1 C% E8 o
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
( o; B& X: M: G: i4 ]& K如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。, z  F* F2 P6 o. W0 \* Z

! g& l- ?( v3 m& dhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html! f( d5 t7 Z; `' f/ [% l! i2 `
4 ?) t- Q, ^" V' A
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania0 T/ n6 q( `- R2 e* k. o
( O7 u. z) _: ~7 l; ^' [
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
6 A% s6 I0 V; B* C3 m, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science, ]: R7 \4 j5 V% |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
/ G  C1 W1 n, ?3 ais not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 l8 s! ]. z/ H' F1 ]* p
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general  K, ~" `% O- p( S
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors& `5 _9 U# [2 q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,2 Z# @, }5 s  ^  e  h
which they blatantly failed to do.2 w4 w; Q8 V- w. Z0 Q

9 m$ n4 r6 y4 Q- C" q0 r1 aFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her4 \9 X: ]( S1 M  O& I% {
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
7 p# |/ a! x: c8 X2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ ~/ Z/ j' F8 T. x. banomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
. Z- s3 Z  Q8 h5 \personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an) b  z( u/ e) q% G) l
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) ?7 J7 V& a( P/ h5 P$ z* ^9 m
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% v0 F' X5 J; p. i, t- j& H
be treated as 7 s.
: Z) [) W3 ]6 t& g- i' y
  g7 @5 @4 X- k# e# z; j" G, nSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
; \+ A; L; P8 n; \still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem' z- [& f% w, }3 V3 T2 G2 U: ^
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& G+ W% R. S6 I# OAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4001 v  Z6 |/ ]1 Z/ W6 k  G
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.1 ~7 r. |& M, f/ n
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
# G. W  `% {! B  {! s. W+ @, x& nelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
6 [" _6 f1 [/ \$ Z2 C/ ]* ^persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”" X: E  g# R5 E: H$ w
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
  o8 P6 ?' A7 {5 o. ?0 r$ a' u& _9 I- I" V! J  J
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
" K3 F* ^% v8 S1 O8 A3 L2 K- e, yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in* U2 W0 T& ]+ Z- h1 j0 L
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, ?2 A0 P' |. t6 Z% }. A
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
; A( G& T8 t: `* Wevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& J1 W0 u3 p% W/ t5 Ibest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World- ^+ k$ I& h6 k; R
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
2 ?2 A2 s' Q. g# r$ p1 ktopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 g5 J& m5 s7 _hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) ^9 f- L6 N3 q7 Q) r
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
8 P3 n" o+ f, g3 M& q3 Pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
) _* {0 Y7 y  \+ x' D4 rfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam" X1 h8 w& k1 b- i9 K+ {
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting2 g( ]. m# y7 n0 P# @2 b  u
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that% t8 o" e/ c0 b0 m5 @8 _3 A5 l& X
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
# B$ _7 P6 p, B" [& Y! W1 V1 X& \& y1 |( g- L$ N3 m
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ l5 u% a9 ?3 M& l( ]# s: V8 p! G
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% H, G1 S+ W1 M( r5 }1 u& E
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
9 f7 j3 e7 ~( g8 q7 V), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ R5 b$ e7 W3 Q- T' Wout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,/ X/ X$ I1 h& W5 b* e7 h
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind" V% J. Q5 s- j! N4 h$ w3 j! P7 T
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
0 L: ?, l. m6 ~* h' T0 O: ?) H+ Vlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in0 K! K  f0 y$ v9 O' b
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( B9 z) U$ d# v5 E( d& Y* Yworks.+ P& U- ?3 L3 {2 Z; b" g6 \

7 z. ]/ r! n# B, }# t- s8 AFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and: @: ?# R0 \" E5 W& i8 P
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
; }0 c/ l" |  D5 |+ ^kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 o& @0 `; ]$ I! m* k( |4 rstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 F! a' Y2 I" }5 G3 qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and$ L+ g4 E2 E$ l7 |" e' s3 ?
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
6 l$ S, B  W# G6 G  g/ g' L) p$ Scannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ [, @( W  p. i- R& M
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works1 e0 B( b; @( y; O
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& W. U- Y+ h* d5 g6 V, [' g& w% `
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is6 Y, G* q: I0 D) P) M9 m
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
3 K: ?' M" D. S% \" zwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
- X- \1 t8 O. i6 q- b! s2 u! Tadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the+ t9 T  P4 U. r$ ]& P
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
* O1 |; J- h& k0 o( euse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
8 h" L1 ^: v2 J. W- l1 Y. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
; y& V3 p) y( u. i; k: }8 Odoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
) v! s# G8 E/ V1 |( y, Tbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a" s8 g! i$ S: ]! F
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) r/ z+ y7 J: n2 k! ?7 T1 T5 d4 xhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a! \! c4 D! t. r
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:. o, N$ V( m6 s7 {
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect/ A/ G  j/ A. A& S. l7 J% D5 ?. c+ {5 P. y
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is  O( U0 G" ^7 w& v% r# @; A8 l3 Y
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
$ z' F0 |8 E9 O' p! Cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight5 F6 R3 G) D: a+ d
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
: e) A7 \0 C" i# \" O9 i. |Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
# `% `6 \. [- |2 w/ f; i% ^agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 g% l. F" _3 Y8 }; ~
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' `" f: `5 h& Z' T/ ~Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
- T8 }) P9 w7 W" T7 D3 F7 K/ D7 m  X: m$ j7 F( |0 P' d5 N
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ Q* J7 L# ~0 g; a  z. P' A) l% p
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ v% `! ~9 E+ z, f  k
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
- a7 c3 M' Y, _, J* R/ ]Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London' l- }8 S3 N, o+ c' E9 p
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ L7 \8 i+ S/ m5 sdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic8 v2 Y$ \2 X5 {/ R6 X
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
( T) n) `! y1 W: Mhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' q3 |. P, I$ f+ V" D" n* S8 m
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
& Q: B, e: l% Y7 z% qpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.4 `! C: x" h0 F8 t3 u/ T5 Y( Q/ L

0 E" x) f$ X0 c2 j) s" }( BOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: j  d. Z- M6 ^8 U% V4 c
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too4 V% l* f8 S; O9 C) s
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 B/ m. O" d5 Z4 y: i
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' D" }8 k: l; B0 W" g( p/ pall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  w  A' X$ z. P& i
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
3 _6 |- Z  o8 B% F8 s" V# o/ bexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
) G& l" g% E! \) i# X2 [argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
# ^3 P" Q2 x$ Q' L; ^such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or: M7 R' O, h2 J: D  q
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!
大型搬家
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, 2026-4-10 14:56 , Processed in 0.142402 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