埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1881|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
: m; @& R( Q' N% \) P% j- {
  l' L( w& L# i  F8 N& s4 s. l, |饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。. G* y" Z1 B) I% `, S0 V- Y
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。
5 |$ F# U6 D4 u总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) i$ o) n7 C9 r: ~' W
2 }2 H' f: Q- f7 g4 Lhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html4 y) @: T! x* K

+ j& `! n0 I; R1 p致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
( f; v3 T/ L% Z( Y$ r& F, h- w! g
- }) L6 F3 A/ X. `/ i+ G% e英文原信附后,大意如下:
/ ~' R7 o0 u1 `  e1 d8 x' Q$ g. I: B/ _8 ^
斐尔,( g6 Y* k, I/ b4 m0 w% K& a
       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) G& x- |, r$ f
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。( v2 U6 R* z0 s0 y( Q( r$ R' 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1 U. D4 y4 S, {* [9 ^# T, N
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
. _' v5 P; P8 S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。
: p, A% e& Y6 N6 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: _/ w. M+ F8 M7 C
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
: [, D/ I, U* O/ }& 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- P" Q% O& s# c% 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。
( e- U5 t+ L2 b2 ^       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
& x. J  r/ I6 ?% x/ t,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
) Z  }6 M" y& ~1 @" F”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( p$ }" T; O) k- e4 `       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
5 S3 ~5 `4 n* W5 {' f5 C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 I( y. ?  |. r! ]/ ^8 D,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。/ Z/ \$ R- `& Q( \- T+ M
       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
0 O8 }$ w0 z7 O: r. u1 O- G2011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
  e% h+ ~: A7 o& F5 B9 w+ o8 L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
% q. E8 q, {; Q- m& ~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
" L1 ~0 \5 E9 d$ o  C+ D300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, `+ `# d1 \. Z6 A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5 Q4 P% |+ F8 m$ Y, i9 J" u( 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' W! l! G4 [' q
。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
" n- \+ {7 x: i' ]9 G  k录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。. c; W8 b: w/ v6 W9 D
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. ]& I" u& r& c+ C" o6 _
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4 ^, a0 b. f6 ^. q+ S
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
1 m8 ^3 g- i; O3 d+ V同意见的专家。
& ]0 o4 M/ s+ n$ L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- Z: B* O! U$ s( D* ~* W" f
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 R4 k" T$ T6 \) ?$ \; j* ~& @+ S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 p3 @8 p* B8 o! i! e3 |《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。, Q0 }& a5 f0 P; X2 d
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): m$ j4 t0 c1 U6 _7 \% `. ^
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) h! {: H4 ]$ n5 {0 c! n3 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7 N( |6 I3 o  s2 p+ }. h4 C1 H  J
这些被Callaway忽略。- b/ U( P2 r9 g- z
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: Y. }  q# v' M4 W; e
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
* g2 G$ F9 \, C7 c+ ?教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
' ^* |2 ]( ~$ P! {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: E4 N4 M$ z( ]. z: 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! e* P6 O& `: l8 }, 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
. l9 f5 m, p9 B/ x$ w, ^% H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。! O- B0 E: c$ z
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( D2 s. ?" ^- k! b0 K0 B- o$ r* E1 A. }
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
5 ~' ]" G8 L0 q3 u1 ^0 S0 c1 q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" }. E) c! L8 Z8 q9 g8 ^
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
4 d5 G6 X+ f+ y' |- I% ~: l( s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
& Y4 v1 I( X( ]! u) n1 b/ l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
" {) J# F& R% M, B0 S, d" h$ l3 [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 X6 `5 f' D) y
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+ _6 @% Y" e3 y- N
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' |! c3 x; k. R5 x' e9 ?% O" c! G
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
  X+ b  k+ {" t0 y! v我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
, b) s/ H/ F, ?% L" ^% b6 g: r0 d& i+ M3 Y+ L+ L$ C
* z( w4 G. t) g) g1 I0 I
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅5 F  Q, v! K0 p6 `/ x# m

% q3 j3 i% n6 j+ b$ \附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结; H- Z: `# ^4 s: x
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email- l5 ^4 ]7 a  K& E
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见5 K) y% s3 k- p3 h1 U9 \6 ^
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
  a* n  D+ L. t, w( @2 @5 \& |3 g% r& K4 l% }4 [
) W  s' z& \( @1 n

3 n) p) }, P& v: h8 {  s2 M原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
3 J3 r- [9 z; T3 N  SDear Phil,
( I1 c8 i3 `; r! \- c( E' R       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
* n5 a! z. d9 h3 y) D5 `7 Freport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 i6 K" Q- O6 z, p5 s5 H
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed" |  {) F! {4 _+ X& @
you.
, h% r% o  O" s0 P/ }$ D) _3 E       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; g& U. l  L0 n' `7 Rbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese5 L. E- T: [( }( y/ {" u
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
! V# o3 K1 v* E: c7 d: l( B  Eworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature/ e$ p9 y: g; B1 C. N
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ y5 S' K( J2 z: A1 c5 \$ M
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
' \4 ?6 `2 Z& y4 E/ C$ apieces much more than the regular Western news media would.4 R5 j4 {" [+ I: Q$ Z) p8 a
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
1 q) a7 J3 ]) p2 v5 k7 d, Qworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" m9 D4 h* R' T* ^" {5 d6 @negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
8 L/ \6 t" L/ b7 C# }5 x* r% Vthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway0 n* o0 ]* ]7 p% a
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
& C" e, o+ x1 m7 P) n, i, i/ i2 {explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal7 ]5 ?. ~& n2 G: k+ H; m) m
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; c$ I: [* l; y" Z3 m* Y
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
# v! X* m0 |7 y; B( C- A1 vto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) P. |! w: N. i% k# h. B% p' r9 \reporting." u. i% \" J) \3 a
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; K" W4 {. L. y! A; V( g$ Q1 Q0 Calready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 V# Q7 O8 h% d+ a4 r6 X+ bchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in0 T- |0 T/ p4 r; `- o
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
/ B- n, u3 P- t7 Y: m" Q- opresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.8 `' ]+ R' [6 v; u' e" l0 Y- T" @
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
7 _+ Y0 k2 Q( @+ L9 F% M" I$ Zmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds) d1 f+ }3 i4 [0 Z1 \9 g: b; i
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
7 [7 Q' H' R6 u5 S9 V$ O" Smeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same8 D2 v1 \- _# N+ P
event for men, with the second fastest record.
& ^$ W6 H- s: L4 g# J       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; X1 ]( a# j0 f8 G5 C, u, r
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
2 `6 ?: @7 e5 b  f, A1 wyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record$ ]& b! H/ d' w! a# p) @
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4000 p3 W" Y+ j# r$ x) G1 d: S7 O
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,# [* f% X3 \  a6 T
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than0 Z# D" v% q" F, S4 q4 v: Z" K
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
9 c3 L: e4 O& Fbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
- X% L2 Y/ ?1 H! findividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
8 F; H2 M* n4 Rthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than& U; s( k7 Q+ K5 j
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
- }! Z, H# H. o9 P0 mher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then- h: @* P* b3 t
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “; _* P$ P8 U+ D& [
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other- i- Z& }  M1 n0 A' {
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 E5 w% ^. E( S5 Nteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
! w8 r  l( h1 `) ^: h  nCallaway report.
8 i/ R# _8 o1 z- q. XThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more& Z$ Z4 U' ?$ l, g) U9 y0 c- c
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
; W1 d  W3 L0 z# ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ f8 l* `" k/ z3 ?5 u
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been" x6 @, z9 ]" C9 E: T0 h
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
4 Y0 c* ^- H$ K$ e) @9 pWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
: J( R1 h0 Z" x* c) D1 jpublicly voiced different opinions.3 z6 ]& o4 C7 H
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD$ ^" o- J' e, M" B2 X
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
: N# ~1 p1 T4 Y! X/ p' G0 ^Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
* [3 L: H2 W+ L# {3 P  {postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
! w% V5 \4 Q! a  Iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy- o2 W7 \& G* t" f
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.3 C$ @" ^% p2 o+ p$ h* O. d7 w) L+ a
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think! t3 _$ s5 E% d6 _% F- [
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
0 m; J9 ]4 v4 Z7 T( vhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
) p  o7 [% X4 L. r5 U" l! A( v! P1 aAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that7 [9 ?/ y1 A2 f( \( O  Y9 c) }
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was4 P5 q* p7 f: g, v+ F$ A: f
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
2 Q& v3 }1 K6 `* ^2 uOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% O3 U2 A  t3 x4 Pmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
5 f% ]& j4 Z* O3 }Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
; q2 p- N3 u: K/ p2 Z/ Z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
- m+ m# S% O3 J. W* I! p' Mand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
: P8 q, c8 Z6 p8 w- u8 z% u% UThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
8 |) U; y2 R! L% h1 f# ]and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
) E5 Q, y; ]5 S4 yDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; F5 c% u/ F! ?
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and9 {4 l1 H5 O, g5 V- U# |7 f/ v9 E
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature& f6 Q+ ^# v: l' D# b# G% c
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
9 K' z3 E. M7 I, z" k0 Y+ Brepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
% e$ Y5 [$ S6 O) T  h# fThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not# k4 N/ x2 y  U; b1 A% c3 O6 s
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced5 L2 H, X  K" h$ l$ g
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
# g2 T  U4 I/ ~8 u3 Mfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that2 |' b1 _% g7 W8 g( i& ?8 t
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
3 Z2 |# j+ n+ S7 Zabout British supremacy.
1 N8 y% H( a$ n8 o7 [The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
0 C2 [9 n( p3 U) d( @4 A7 e! [, Cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more) D" ?% t( h: F8 T
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by/ H! k! n, v- v2 \" k3 }& E
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
0 t' N! l" [/ K% pOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases., E$ Y- n2 n( Y4 |- j' a. @
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) K! E8 ^) K2 b+ aprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests9 V6 \" @  }2 b4 {7 g, W4 C
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,* h4 `* p6 W0 z) V/ }# |
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; Q; _% _  g/ D  F8 P8 x  W
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like) j3 H% |( b7 s7 v% @
Nature.; f( ]5 @8 }2 r
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
. R7 s/ J$ U, ithe Callaway report.& M8 R+ W& i' @% M$ A2 l+ V- Z
6 C9 ]" x% H+ [; t
Yi
/ L; X# D: m/ w. Y; o" a/ [, l8 U. V/ Z% V* M" e+ R
Yi Rao, Ph.D.- M9 {$ L( }9 |% i& q( E
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
( P) ~  r* e$ X7 a. B3 GBeijing, China# d: s, F! T5 T4 r2 Y
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·········
理袁律师事务所
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
/ U) Z3 p. P& M7 o7 m0 D6 x9 L) {5 ~. L原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

& Y0 _9 U' D9 E3 w' G% ]原文是公开信。8 U3 J, D/ B2 O1 r; K

5 N/ Q  W8 e5 D) I( X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 ! M7 L' L) \) o5 M3 t
原文是公开信。
  d2 l& k* q3 k; R4 d7 l
, K8 d3 W: _2 p) ^; m$ B4 h小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
+ x) i3 H3 H" f6 U  X# H# {
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
9 n: C# Q& I' D# Z+ B5 N如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- S; M- v, W4 @( t: M$ d

) `) ]. ]- [0 x0 j2 Zhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 G& U9 ~0 |; o4 x% D7 v# Q; `" ?0 ?) ^' y, E8 Q7 o% E
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania) j2 [: @/ Q- ^- o; `$ N" o# e

: M7 \( h6 ^. F9 e8 tIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
* P7 t6 l/ @7 @2 a: F3 q+ d" m, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
/ @5 Y, B- O+ r6 A8 l% i/ dmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
& O& y" i6 e4 A2 T/ ]is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the8 z& c. q5 K# G% L( S0 l; o% O4 d
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general9 M; J) h, b6 g* a8 R& k2 \
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors0 G! x$ |. M9 E3 B* x% ]- b
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context," q( V9 S2 H6 k5 {6 q' q2 }5 Y
which they blatantly failed to do.6 A$ U3 F+ K# m3 r1 n( f5 Z

: m) ^& X, H# g; m6 OFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her& v8 D( g7 b$ @2 C
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" ?8 K) N' B$ B. i1 R( T
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
5 O6 K2 L0 ^. ^4 ^1 ?0 Canomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 q- C: l  `6 U4 D& ]4 y3 Qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
# |! o2 H2 A4 Z- h3 e4 [6 Dimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the4 n4 q% w) K+ ^1 Z; y  f: E* L
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
+ o: {; |# [, O8 V; A3 ?) n' ~be treated as 7 s.) R- Z+ f/ F- L4 B

9 v5 ^; H9 x6 m$ CSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
) s1 T) a3 `) v* s. V/ }1 d9 M# L+ m% pstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) Z  N2 R9 C* p2 X" T6 ximpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
& w7 b( |7 [; H# P# ]8 \, SAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 h0 ~4 ]7 W- T- q4 R) T
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ H! |. N% ?+ N. ]) y. T
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
. X0 U: u4 N7 @$ Pelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and- H$ Y3 N' x0 a* C- ~/ O
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 T' L" z0 a$ {based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.' g7 Z: K. [) h
* X$ A* k: A: P1 {
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook0 d! s1 x5 k5 g+ a4 d/ z; o
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in# m0 P6 X& `7 q, k! T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so" q) Z( w. j1 k; Q+ @9 G( O
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later; u& Z  @3 Y% V- d
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
6 J. ^# X* }, z. r4 p0 u. qbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ k* p$ h, [, `! \' f! D0 s% hFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
; o+ E$ z& t% B6 L/ M! ]' u- Ptopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
& w6 \& J$ A0 J% ]6 U( ?hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle$ u; v# ~# V9 O8 K4 P* v; Q
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 Y4 P7 J! y6 V& z  I( ^
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds4 z4 g. v, i1 T. t& _# Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 X4 J, ]- h. G1 x
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 x+ h5 r* z# }0 Z* F! A( f& \7 \
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
* t1 `& Z: ]( X. e1 Himplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.+ |: s% i' l' T" h

9 ?* T  E8 D' i! AFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are8 ?5 G) Q" u. y6 J& @$ L
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.937 \) L* R% n! e- a$ |% o
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
0 s) m0 y+ N/ ?# R$ z$ [1 @3 ~), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns' y1 V, R' k4 S, h" ?
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
/ G9 f& B# u+ B& V, f, P, @( L" zLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind7 E$ T8 Z: I7 f. k, H8 |$ r
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it( J5 \& C; w& n. h$ G
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
8 P' A1 I, n5 H' zevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
$ b# A. H# \( P+ P; |1 rworks.+ j& x7 N2 r8 N# Z/ V. n
( A2 H: I: `/ Q7 D& D; `- I/ W
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
8 U" A3 y+ _' qimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 I- b+ Z" J8 h1 {kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
# [  t; {; S( V( A# f4 _* ^- mstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific: F4 U' L( q! \5 c
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and; E7 u7 K; Q- C  c$ ?4 u( e
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One; v! m, [/ e; e" ]6 V' x
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ j6 Z7 n( i8 w3 Hdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works& a. n2 l+ h% n
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
6 ]! z: C0 c% p0 _  G, {0 gis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is; M1 i8 E4 u7 D' Z$ ~
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
4 C! `6 h% y, p6 v8 pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 q$ s- I) S0 _; S4 a% {
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the" e* Y+ a) z7 ~0 M% A: N) u
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not/ {2 l/ X/ e, u* I
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
7 g8 r2 r; a3 C6 i' Y/ d* K$ {7 [& O# l  _. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are/ M, W# b5 B; s1 k" M
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- c9 ^) R+ E4 G. xbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
/ l0 U2 @+ d1 u/ ~4 Khearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye" m' Y0 S! E7 y1 c( i4 t
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 ]9 W3 E2 J0 L! x; Vdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
9 B! A, \7 j. k0 |$ Lother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect! d! s; C  J* x% y* q' x  ~
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, J, }1 X, p- P5 B7 z( dprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
4 l3 X0 J' ^# Z/ m$ }7 Mathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( c0 V' D+ W1 q% z$ W' b  H6 R" Tchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
0 _' h- W3 \4 Q9 m2 S3 jLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
" r" h$ a7 J0 R- k( ]# uagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
* m6 O6 O' V( X0 [5 oeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
/ ?4 P$ S+ a& x! EInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
7 K. A7 K3 G8 D+ @$ @. B6 K9 q$ z7 D
" R0 ~7 _# y( l8 H; oSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-+ d8 `- I* ]; D6 W! ^
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
  F2 M& {1 Z  f' ~7 k, y* E. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for9 A0 b; ^9 [+ O3 T) p+ g
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
: L1 m1 e' l8 B$ d# c& a, R$ lOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 U+ ^2 c1 {+ y* f6 \9 n4 Bdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 U2 J' S1 }- E; V- s5 I  \4 J: I
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
" ?/ Y6 B& R7 H2 @have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a/ ~) l9 f( Z# D! w
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
# ?- A9 `, X: u+ t$ R% Ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. V0 i2 N! s2 R7 N4 {
3 b& v2 r3 M/ ?0 F! B* J9 r  yOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
- y4 t/ m* I  T/ Z- zintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too& e3 s. O  C  w% f: I
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
" C+ ]: I/ K7 tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
/ z( l1 B7 @6 qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your/ O' i* C, m$ ~) R# b% x
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
. t* z9 a3 r' T  K$ Zexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 d4 Y+ h# J5 S1 q" q
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal: y: p6 i- C2 y' |8 L. R' a
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
; W! z* v+ r# H- yreporting 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, 2025-12-9 05:45 , Processed in 0.164311 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