埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2051|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 ! ?' I: P$ q7 Z% }

# r! T9 a* {6 ]8 C- N8 ^* F! |饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。( O6 h0 t+ G- C. D; i
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。3 k/ e3 s$ t6 t1 J4 p
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
6 z7 X/ v2 z, z9 ^, F
' I( d" [8 Z  c; J# L( z6 [http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html9 J. _. H/ @4 ~1 _$ V

' A( T: |" E. v! W+ B+ s! q( G致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
' \- U+ t+ T5 R* k$ D# m* p0 w) p* d, h8 ?; G+ U1 K
英文原信附后,大意如下:$ j  F& `* p" J5 n& @1 P, z: P

8 {& W0 X# l) l; C斐尔,
- U7 y* I) i2 F       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 R/ Z: N6 T  K, H9 n
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: ]2 C1 A" f: H       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- c- q- J( ~- \" S
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
, m6 N1 F6 ~) }# V# {9 {  _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。
3 a0 f+ |1 L( 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& _! S: P( v/ z+ C, d
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4 T: p8 E( m& W, ~; i
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
# F( G) R5 \6 W, H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。
7 P# z: ^5 Z  z; P/ j) f( {       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
4 X; l! D. A- D  A$ k,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
, l: L# N( s0 T6 E1 o* n& O9 F”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。3 N; {7 w  Q: q, b
       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
, I2 H2 V2 _' 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: ?1 o# j& w7 ~+ I+ u) @3 m
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
, O7 E7 u) l1 X/ U2 r       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9 g- M2 ?  Q  g/ [6 y& v
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) g, X1 o4 P* L  K: 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米是世界第二3 R% k" x# e, S0 F
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5 A0 S, n6 v- {& A+ j0 ]4 Y
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
% w# H$ p6 B0 [: ~, d" O  ]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; |2 ^& }  h  f4 J1 I
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: g( ]4 Y# f3 w5 Y: ^
。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" Q; d/ |' i# J2 v& w
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
- Z: m2 f5 T; m7 I  l! W/ c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  D6 |, ?% c9 n" s& ^) Y1 J: `
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
) C; p* j6 p' @, l. a- IWikipedia。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' i' J9 H6 g. Z. y) g; [
同意见的专家。( J, J. n9 {  s  o! C! e
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
4 N' Y. O1 n5 w; M- k6 ]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6 _' g- p- o; J- M( M& z
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
7 {/ R7 S7 x, g* v《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。+ _) X$ L) [8 k4 A
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)
7 t+ Y* y3 w- n9 E3 F) 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
3 P) O9 |! W! {8 u6 P4 Y《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( s  y! @- Y% s  J& r6 J$ ~6 [- W
这些被Callaway忽略。( D. e/ R# W, z; e: Y) b
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
- o& O) m/ \$ x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3 e9 x; M1 Z4 I3 G8 z' j# Q
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。( }5 Q; f" w! G3 }! A
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
' `! f  H# T9 \( z7 h% E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
% H/ u; ]. j  \: S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
2 b9 J+ v- m  V$ K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。1 ~# D4 i" h1 Z: n0 I# m
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
1 _3 V6 j! F/ i2 X" n, Y% q. @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  r* x8 U2 d: {4 I1 \
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! G) @( [- W0 U/ j: v
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。0 \: Q& {( T) b( h  f( p  ?+ l7 E
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
) D1 T" Z8 F) @& b( J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
& a# n, P# z8 G; x+ `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
+ P4 E8 B, s, B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
& G, m) o3 j; A& 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* G/ C% _* ]2 j. r6 T7 |
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 `5 y9 ~! }- B1 C# Z7 O" t我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。- ^6 I- L+ N% G5 X
) o6 Y) D4 j& |7 r1 Z  a

; C9 J5 p5 c4 F: y% d4 c) w北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅$ \) ^" H. X* `- G4 Z( o+ C: Z
' a8 [& L" P; v5 U% ^8 A1 f, _
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结0 A( k% k  L9 W' ^" x
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email: F1 z$ w- T( x) r
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
( {( `  d8 R: t$ B* A附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见8 |) U  q% |8 X$ m6 @
0 q8 B4 P$ W. v0 d, [7 l

5 X1 t0 Z0 \1 H! ~
  `1 [! @' ^0 W. S原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)+ H- T1 ^# R. ?2 v+ t# J' J' o
Dear Phil,1 ~6 A! R1 e( n  [$ l: H
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s! A% m9 a& B0 u0 U
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
3 H# J; c" |0 h! m9 Q$ r/ a: [hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed9 r. q% e9 r' o5 g* A5 K
you.
8 S, T' H! ]1 B/ ^/ U1 e6 [       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
! W1 p$ Y$ M7 fbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese3 m4 ~) I! ?0 i( p% {
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
9 F' O: {8 S2 m9 u3 dworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature( ?5 N1 C4 `- _. k( q5 r
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
% H5 a! e& B4 e- f$ Gseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news+ L+ ~& n; ^# a7 E' l
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
7 I( @' Q1 i( R, t/ f' y       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the; j& d" ~0 {4 W* `- j
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a# }  a/ {7 P& @9 x/ r( F# m% x
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish5 W: y0 K2 C* U8 U
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 o( P& _+ j4 E' l5 X1 v, ndid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping( ?# z5 a; X3 M- u$ Q" E8 l
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 \. G6 C9 G% M" o. \2 Astandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
8 b6 }/ X3 }/ q6 ~, e3 ]. L0 T, oand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone4 X! z, f0 R- L2 L0 n3 J3 B
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news% q6 U, p2 P3 c& u/ c: r9 F$ ]
reporting.
) A# \; [3 t. W. Y& @5 U2 L8 _       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
/ L# U9 c6 ~4 M  W3 N" jalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by6 g6 l1 F) C2 e4 I' O
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
2 Z5 l- r& ?$ X3 t* Nsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
- L. g0 l4 ]8 |" d5 E) `4 W5 N% a: s( tpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.8 F7 b, R1 _) Q* W* I
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem, j: W5 E  P5 l* U' B) y* s6 J
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds2 Y. o5 z/ r5 o4 Z
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 506 D9 H) P) X5 S
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ b7 S/ y  F0 H- S) M% x, Kevent for men, with the second fastest record.
; \) A. ]7 Q' t- H       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
$ y8 R; F$ s0 n) c. f2 S+ cwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 163 p  r8 T' ~  V& A. a$ X
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
. l2 l7 z2 I9 e. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
: P( k% u+ y) Z. Z4 J/ g, M% F% T. gmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
/ ?( W" ?9 Q$ Y; `) Vfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
+ X3 e  q6 R) y' B0 zLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed0 p) K% s2 B+ }$ f
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
- F+ F! X3 W, \+ V  ^2 g  iindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
) B$ ]& d& S3 d- Vthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
' x2 ]: D& N: |; Q9 @7 `: }+ Zthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
: A3 K& }; v% p, ]her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( a8 q1 m; ~( T7 I+ V+ m1 g7 [5 T
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
7 f& H4 j7 b* Yproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
$ P0 c, O- H* T7 B( A4 M1 T( Eswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
/ ?5 ~6 a6 z% q3 ~% G, u5 Ateens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
; P. ^* |. ^$ v0 ICallaway report.: u/ p/ S( D  q( s% ^5 w9 x! v
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
3 d9 Q+ t- X, ]0 c+ X. c7 Bunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details$ E$ ^" S) ~8 W; J  n  J& G
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description/ ^5 ?+ D0 k  l' C
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
3 b" |* ]# J9 ?$ ^# ^7 P/ bbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
4 g+ ^5 u; ~2 B% t7 zWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
5 a; \" C' C6 lpublicly voiced different opinions.
* i; {4 C, s0 o0 K  r5 K$ Y7 kYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD$ j# W6 D; I3 j( U3 q8 g
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
* K( v5 Y5 X( I1 V' u. l, t  KNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' W% e- c/ I% X, w! h$ ?/ N
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) a1 W1 @& ?' K4 r2 ~
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
) A9 S" _3 b* M9 m7 ?of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.& T+ @  c  s9 G* r+ }
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think8 a# x: I6 i7 @. c5 F/ c# V
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
- D  J- \3 {% H+ `9 Lhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
7 ^  Z# w" q7 p! g/ T- R# c, ~Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 z$ s' r$ B) e4 h+ o* ?the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was) K: e7 P9 p  e& G2 `
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.# ~/ p1 \: e; G, \* V
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
1 W: H$ Z; P3 N! ^: y5 `' Z3 zmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the4 u- x$ o* z4 Y3 w
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" h8 t/ |( m  g(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she" Q" u. Q8 v' @* k9 v
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.) b" ~* ^# s9 S& t4 m. D0 E
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science- L2 `0 D7 V: P7 Q
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
% @  V5 R" C" [; e# v3 ^/ aDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
, N8 D, w" p- `5 A  y+ \: i: w6 GNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
6 n4 m) |& F$ uobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
2 ?9 C; M6 D+ D% Jwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
% N1 I* V4 W9 P0 \1 W- jrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.# l0 w# ~7 t% A4 X! h4 r7 C; o/ N; S
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
6 u$ b+ Y5 Q) L0 e0 F3 {0 tshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
- e* C1 A% u8 N4 D8 s, \2 n7 Qus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather$ w2 b% t" I# ?$ P4 P$ W4 E4 G: J
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
1 n% X1 X6 |! G5 |3 v( U: ithis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
) I& C+ a- ]! c3 j' Dabout British supremacy.
5 e- j2 o" @/ }! S- t8 U* i' Z6 bThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many0 t  n4 `  S8 X
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
1 n3 P. ^9 ]( w1 i2 M5 S  |" EChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by! P3 f8 V2 {: t0 H7 l" ?+ c
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London& D' D5 S4 u% c7 r- z; W1 ~
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
; W9 w* w; l. C( uYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of& A( b8 r: U* E" P2 B" ~- ^8 i# r
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
1 `1 z3 X  P% Dbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,0 d! F  @+ `3 U6 x5 r
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- a( P7 w- X8 a, lpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like' X+ N8 y5 l9 Z0 E. W/ v
Nature.
8 s, K9 r/ ?2 |8 o0 X% E9 ~+ jI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance; [" f+ k5 P, z
the Callaway report.9 q/ L) A3 a1 e" Z7 N& Z5 z6 J

- |: x3 _& }) ?4 K' TYi3 W1 S! ]! ]* }
2 f: ]  D  m" _( U8 ^
Yi Rao, Ph.D.! U  Z  j9 t* {0 w* g* x8 z2 Z
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
5 X* }3 W4 n# H; t3 MBeijing, China
& ^' R+ G: e6 [* A$ Z, V
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
$ h; P/ s2 v8 I9 \  C0 D- T原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
  `! I1 V) _" f) g$ A0 }8 p3 I
原文是公开信。: o0 ]2 W! g3 w- V6 i& T

* W* [, @0 [9 _小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
大型搬家
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 ) f4 _( {- E, m3 v- ]9 I* o
原文是公开信。
, |0 @" i/ P! g( G6 G
; M" I& I8 A) G. o2 z小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
; L4 L; z2 V4 X. p  K$ D2 K
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
6 \+ B2 r/ M, e9 t# {如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
8 M- s3 h9 Y( f, M2 d
+ t1 z% V! r. t* {' r  Nhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
  ^$ t: u) S7 H" K* f
) U& ~0 R" x( qFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, L2 l% S; Y8 C, G, _6 L
- q: j, Z# @9 k9 ?
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself8 c% f. J, [( S/ U3 |
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science7 P& g, P$ t* D: B8 J
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this: s! {, g1 {1 v
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the0 P$ y8 R: F: W- ], L: {
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
5 j8 a/ g" r' ?, t2 Gpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" T8 {' X9 M9 F) J" d6 G6 O
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
& s; v* k( f, p0 h6 p2 Zwhich they blatantly failed to do.
7 c+ ?9 u$ o$ t3 ]4 c: ^, {$ a3 M) s
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
+ M& r4 ]  u7 G' TOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
6 X; q* X6 x9 F) j+ D2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 s% O0 Z8 ?3 S- |0 |( l. Lanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 P1 Z8 l2 J/ ~personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
. U+ n7 q, z% d3 Kimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
3 ?( q+ y% F$ V8 l8 Sdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
" m) e# E& @- w+ m( ^be treated as 7 s.4 }/ L* `- \% w% e7 P; g- }+ Z
1 h  {5 T; T% `* Y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 _% v) R: W/ C
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem4 x: j/ H" h* M& U8 x9 W
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.! w% u/ q. j  i! |# T$ H
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400" V* M% f) d' `7 `- n* N
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
" i" Q8 y, G: u5 u' r) dFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an! V, {9 Z$ _6 W9 c9 S0 J6 O# i- ^
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and  x3 J. ?2 {" N5 f
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”2 X  }8 Y4 N: C3 }4 }/ X
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
9 Q- U1 O) M" U: k& o8 S9 Z4 v0 v) y: V5 W( f
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook& p) {0 t3 I; o2 D
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in% h' s4 _- b: i- H
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
, N8 b8 x! P5 k+ r& u# n6 {he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later3 @6 Z0 k6 l3 P4 Z5 `' k
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 F$ N" @) }% Bbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World+ M2 p6 V' c# A3 S( T0 H; t9 H
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ g4 d* {. a/ t  b" j5 qtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
1 B- k7 z" A* z3 ~' e6 k6 ghand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle# v9 p7 K+ c& t
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
) o+ ?( J5 t% P7 Y% d. ostrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
9 g( {3 O8 B- o: B5 P1 qfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% B3 x* ^& \' L& L
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' }6 k% w' {0 g9 I5 O; {
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that" D6 S1 ?4 W3 g& O" }
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.) t6 `0 n6 p: U  V6 e( j
: Z: @# j- T2 @  h- {
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are! D4 Z. _* a1 W
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
( @2 o0 O8 l1 ?" I9 Es) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s5 c! d, a5 K" s6 I& N4 K$ l
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns/ b. Q5 |, A- [/ Q  t
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
9 g: p1 Z( ]. q; l% q1 @; yLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
4 D9 d' ]  L" |- z! B0 S, Eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it0 F: S0 v+ b+ X% d
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in$ V( H/ ?( T1 q2 @" `; S* e: _) q
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science$ i6 f" E; h5 h. _$ v
works.7 p( s. Q6 L( t0 m: l, G9 f

7 K3 ?2 P( L6 o0 U) P! l2 \Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and* V: ?7 q7 Q8 @$ G
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this" s) a( Q6 t7 m" R: c4 M
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that( X4 {; a! E1 \+ ^$ H
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific# k- l/ w0 d7 _' r0 O
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) ^0 c9 f' V! r3 v: j% Creviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
( h, `8 E. ?! Y6 L1 U3 I$ o% icannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
9 ]3 u; D& i& I" y! Sdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# H" r. _8 h+ H3 X+ {to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample# x7 U( |& H1 u8 g
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is4 `7 Z+ `! H1 n6 }0 i1 J! Z
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) w2 n/ q. O  ?. H3 l
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 ]2 _! C8 f( p3 X3 k  Fadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
, r  a! r8 |8 }& ~- c3 X2 Vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
/ A% G3 e4 q- [# j5 W5 xuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
2 {4 d3 y+ Z' Z0 z. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are9 ^: A7 z  o2 F9 z0 Y0 Y2 ~( {! e
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ \/ @) f8 W4 L0 w+ ^) ~( V& e) e! Bbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a4 w# }* d" Y% l" X% a8 j' j3 r
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) u' @2 Z3 W3 \0 e7 Qhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a- {) Q4 L* e2 Z# D6 U( p& f' [8 W
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:; q7 X- J- m: M% y0 H' }1 i( K8 j
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect, y& [4 V$ M4 J# G1 v0 J
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is: S) [- B, M2 {
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& I" A  M; a( U# a: Uathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
9 ^* ~, l+ U4 c$ c1 C1 Xchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?3 d) {4 {' Q2 u# y3 s' M6 a
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping8 X+ b# v4 g2 Q2 I9 _- Y
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ \0 K5 s( `( k/ U# @
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
4 h, w, y5 ^  X& V7 ~9 L) P+ @. u9 K. w$ FInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?  [4 b! l7 Q- h5 O5 v
! \8 V1 r4 O0 N4 N: X
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ E9 f  G+ ^5 t2 x. _; L- ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention. {- @8 a7 V! O8 `# Z, t1 u: P/ F4 k
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for1 i5 s& J% u# P+ m  {; U4 A
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) ~- L" [/ V) g* i) u* a6 m
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
) d" U; n7 M9 E: S8 _: S1 Ddoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic' [% u- i( {, R* c* e
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope* K: r0 A4 d7 b+ _% P$ k
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
% v! U( M# g2 j2 x% P+ hplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# W; h" h: j. d( D  Q+ O) g+ vpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 U# b5 q2 c9 e, m, N8 b, I
3 q& V9 x; S0 y* j5 `, ~Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (/ I) a9 ~: Q) I. y, v' m
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) ?) Q& l) v# q* |4 l) nsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 ~6 f+ m4 K1 i
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide! E; Q( I& Y7 J+ m
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
( i9 y3 }& V# j3 ^0 ?. U1 Y3 N. Ninterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
3 i/ |/ \+ I3 v! U% Yexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
' G: V- B* H8 eargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 N0 c# n' u5 c" w" q. J5 d8 q+ r) D
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
' e' ?4 a. j! x4 i7 o8 ~% ereporting 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, 2026-2-18 10:20 , Processed in 0.121650 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