埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1943|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
) v, U/ S9 o) p; U5 i9 I$ W/ Y, j0 u# Z  U6 h' ^' k
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
7 X! Z9 i, Y( _/ u/ a- \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。
. }; b/ V; l, h( N总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
) E8 B+ ], g7 p1 w+ C" x3 F7 h7 S6 u, u5 K6 _. R! G
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
9 e! L! U  d4 ^- Z7 ]  o" h8 {+ k
$ v$ \# [2 F; o致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选8 f4 [- S# p4 V7 P, c0 k& u
% C% Z9 a) F+ p' `, D
英文原信附后,大意如下:
: z0 a6 l; p% N2 t9 I( r
( U! a( \+ I" H* q% \8 M/ E斐尔,
+ u7 ~: U9 b  z# Q6 E* E/ P       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
' g0 ~2 C) q3 s( n- x( a8 `6 Uemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。' z. p0 R" b( |+ [' {
       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! Z5 N7 v  g% `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% {* U3 N+ t9 R0 Y
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。
( o$ t4 C* L6 `  b" P       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( d0 _7 ^% c4 ?  ^" w
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
$ X. r4 T# @% C0 b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
2 u  U/ [$ l$ V5 a2 X2 H# }/ U0 W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。
  x/ ?5 \  L1 g6 w, d       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7 n7 w7 y# D& J9 H: u# Q+ q
,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
; G" k3 n3 d( v  e”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
+ i9 R" @3 E: P- T; o+ Y; w2 Y2 r       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
1 }7 V8 t* X9 t& u, }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4 A# v8 P2 V3 Z1 h0 I
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。2 s+ m  w; e9 t0 d! H* @
       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
( w1 a" Y5 `% E$ W5 s2011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- `: Y& T: T- ]1 O
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( X7 }5 l8 t8 }* B
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 H& ]8 k1 x% h) b0 a5 F6 C300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
* x# @* k7 w" ]; L  h  B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  d1 j4 j2 [# p5 V1 a
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
' V2 Z+ F" Z+ ^; Z: k。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
6 {, h4 }; U- M+ z! w& O$ H3 r录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ n. s! M3 B5 s0 |# n4 _; y
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
1 V! I; D9 ]0 h1 z. D$ X1》,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# H# N8 u% D* G& a2 C
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
7 e6 o9 \$ \( g; Q; R! j, P5 Q同意见的专家。
2 E1 W; x4 q; q0 R. P" |) s9 N; E+ C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9 M/ D. r" P: F8 O& L; 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
2 @: N: h1 j3 R, {5 [! K. }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+ L2 U0 Q" f" ?! d( b4 p8 ]4 G
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。9 F2 j8 I8 O. |0 B- e: _' b4 s
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)/ ?/ p3 M/ \% C# G' ?
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
; r* M" o% a4 \7 z% L《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6 e6 T8 P* m+ ~) }( ^
这些被Callaway忽略。
6 E$ C8 b+ [$ W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
3 e' c' r7 n4 q9 E6 @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& p+ F  y1 L+ D; z6 k$ ^1 r2 ?
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
! a2 Z3 W0 e- w3 @( @! T2 u+ L9 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
- S# o2 A0 p( a0 P5 X8 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7 J4 Y) @  `# g- ?) r; h! o
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
7 R6 W2 G9 i( D+ Q: 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。# v7 G3 w/ q8 ], V/ K  H% |
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
, R6 F. S, k, [0 s; G& L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* H3 d; y6 S  G- a! q" f) B" R! T: J
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
8 Q8 c+ W# u5 v”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
; S5 f! N, C; ?2 ~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
9 a& p& X# N8 V2 Z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0 i* R3 Q& r8 C* R, v2 q# J' U
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" h( F# V9 b1 W
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9 _. x* t! A" q  l9 d+ g5 I% C
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
. f) ~0 c8 V7 H6 o9 f而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。$ Q6 u5 _% E) Q+ n# C9 o" d% Q7 Y
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。, g* _1 c' [9 F  g( [$ ]
; z( y+ N6 i# M$ Q" {
( t8 Z, r( f4 |6 v
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
% M$ a6 r3 F) T) t
2 h5 C: C' D9 g9 V7 G附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
/ I* h4 s% R) K7 M' F& D附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email6 ^, U! }" ?$ e! l& o
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
) f7 ^6 G- ~' @0 ~9 K, E3 j. L& H附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见/ n0 L+ Q9 W9 Z5 M1 p
/ j8 a% A; g, w+ v  c
! O+ R! N/ N- u( R8 W

, T$ f- J9 h0 ^% ?原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)6 n, b# ~0 ?/ `- p
Dear Phil,8 Y  ~- L4 m- A# l9 F$ A+ x
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
5 n* b0 Q9 A+ a3 mreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20' b; Y) W* o4 Q: q  H+ f0 o
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# ^# U5 }/ g1 s! E6 e( }
you.
/ s8 J6 m) }+ Y( y       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( k7 v0 o) b5 Ubrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese' a3 }7 h  X0 }! C/ e# f
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the. i2 x& w3 G$ l0 ]0 N; l' X
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature: [" g5 U3 u) p0 n9 s
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more, Z5 U# p) B, n8 [% w) G' J
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news2 T! }- o2 y" p
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.1 L. V9 F$ M! j0 A
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the# y' B' x* H. @
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
, c, S0 ^# P: D0 ?; o9 I3 bnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish# g: G: y2 L4 D! V6 n0 g, H
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
# C# H5 S# A$ Y& Wdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping  z0 x% \& K' }2 M) m, _! l
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal1 |3 x" J: {) R) \4 V
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,) F: V! l7 Q" e2 J% q
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
: A# j! z/ H4 y* S( E# Oto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; o5 v; W/ f  u/ F/ @8 x9 Qreporting.6 A9 }, z( g" `- M5 g
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have5 H& m, _; x- h& J6 p& ~
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by' e' F! E9 I4 y0 [9 N5 s
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in3 C! B  B; e2 U  |+ C
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
' y. _2 S8 @) b& I/ y% v2 `! G5 ^7 T) ypresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
" O! u8 Y' O1 p; I8 N       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem  g( N8 _$ j, U6 t1 P
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds! ^& ]+ O( W0 K" d% r4 {
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
! @! X  Q$ l( ~" P% M$ A2 tmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
# y+ R% `7 P2 yevent for men, with the second fastest record.
4 ~% @. a: Y! R0 N       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye/ o( G8 V2 L- G! ?
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
: P3 ?/ W7 l' Y8 _/ D3 B0 O& uyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record" }1 W: ~: o- R' K
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
3 b+ V) ]* Z7 V( `5 Cmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
1 m6 T8 x! P% K( a* q' w, c; O4 jfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; y9 s' X* K* G  K. `! M
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
+ ?; F: _/ E' J7 m0 M6 ]behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 D& s( ?) T# Q# A8 S) `: P
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
) Q5 I0 u1 t0 J1 S! nthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than2 U* Z9 i8 g$ P, K  [
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was! H' i4 o4 A5 W
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then3 v7 H3 d$ d, k5 k6 b
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “/ }/ S2 Q* T2 Q4 v- W
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
: V) d5 J$ h7 J$ dswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the* k. p5 y9 G; E8 _
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the; t; X  Y$ A+ ~; a( b5 \
Callaway report.
% [  X  b; u/ H% JThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more1 G4 d% Q  I" u7 @; B
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
) k' P2 ]- C) c, _here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' v! e2 J/ k# {4 ?0 |* t$ ^
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
. r+ F, k; ^1 [) U( gbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
2 g8 m7 s% }* bWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
+ {7 g" D$ j5 w% d- j7 bpublicly voiced different opinions.
% Q# v6 \: t! i: s1 ]  vYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
# t1 `- X- ?* Y% E7 z$ Q9 Zfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature+ o) l) |. a+ o
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent6 Z, _8 _" W5 X( c
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
- i. N( U. i6 n! zyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy" t# V2 P" ?7 N: _( X" J
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.( t$ J+ B4 r5 t
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
  ~1 T# n; X$ n& G; kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They% [# y# m* g7 ?, z' q8 t+ r3 S
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
; h. I2 y: X: S& S  BAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 ^! P# C/ p2 v6 D2 xthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was2 z) P, D# |9 s0 W2 Z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
8 k* x6 B/ }) U! u+ GOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that  Y% s& F3 S4 r8 t
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ W4 Y7 C7 V; U; M6 B' H5 R1 j, e& X. Q
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
5 T. a' n1 P2 t(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she! W2 Y) R" {; t! q8 h. t
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! m' v3 r( r9 d8 V; }: e3 qThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
/ h- n9 Q3 _' U0 r) `and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* o6 d& S) ^/ o' H1 H8 x
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.- K0 A2 W  c% H* F/ P! ~
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
& U( ~! d0 ]! x9 k  P2 F3 {: vobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
' {* x: l6 M7 Awhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
9 ~6 U9 @2 T8 N/ b" T5 P& E4 _8 b/ frepair the damage caused by your news reporters.8 b7 o% g: i0 F3 b9 R9 }
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
7 P' z# U0 |4 `/ i0 H- Cshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
& p4 a7 ]* P) v. x! lus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather6 u) b3 R! @6 A
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that; m; H: h/ ]/ F$ p" a  R
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”5 f# V# @( M8 R/ o
about British supremacy.
1 p0 n$ z. C# m. i9 RThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many- N$ Z" B3 g) b' @9 g! K; O
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more' m& n2 @/ _* {
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
" j& K" q6 X4 aour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London: V1 J9 j7 |9 y5 ?. |
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
, |( e- l6 M% o% t; UYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
& z: d4 z5 d6 Z0 U1 }1 eprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
" d0 H0 l! p$ j4 }before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
" X; G0 Z  n5 x; t1 m" e1 h8 `; Xit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly9 O5 D4 p6 \0 C- H
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
5 O4 X( z0 S) ]- e% ENature.
* f) Q0 s; b% }$ n7 D! _I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
8 Z( u1 [8 Y. h7 Y* kthe Callaway report.
  U* Q& y* T; U# w' n  l3 s
, l% C! z0 @9 c' {Yi  o# H4 b% w& x5 `! ^0 t
( d- F8 u" s" B6 H+ F. \8 V
Yi Rao, Ph.D.0 g2 t: T1 K+ N. q+ x- b
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences/ w: n: I! b: ^$ ~2 T( [8 \
Beijing, China
, K: M, \) o/ `% F
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 . s% y- @$ ~& V! G$ K  Q9 L- P# a
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

2 w3 X7 V0 t% L- Z2 Q原文是公开信。) s% ]  m* d+ I! {! |6 X1 V: p  p6 w
5 {3 R! |2 B% o4 {; S) k; k6 `, j7 ~
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
3 W9 g3 h( i0 H原文是公开信。* L$ \8 f; @4 N& k7 S1 ?

% r8 Y: E) T: A1 s小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
( L* w, D9 i4 _! l8 `! Y
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
大型搬家
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. k" z: K8 ]. {4 i! q1 v' }
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
# N$ V  n  J7 A) a5 e
0 O; Q+ b3 ?+ t4 K% g1 thttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
6 j! S- z) q3 A" \2 c2 ?5 X3 `$ B1 D- g# L5 e/ \6 N
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, \; z2 x6 R5 x) k1 |+ L# n7 _: \. o6 w* x
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself% q7 I% P8 U' w( t  D8 e# L
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 n0 x3 r8 r, L) Hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this( `8 G  m' V" D: |. f; {' Q
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
- z9 J6 |& A2 s) ~! V7 |scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
. a4 B! I$ m% Ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors/ O& B. y8 T' I+ t6 q; @4 Q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
9 v" w4 n% C/ G! k9 O+ ewhich they blatantly failed to do.+ ?- i% j9 ~8 O8 o
, R8 Z  m+ W  s
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her  M/ s5 i" a( v* {1 B
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in2 s3 g; O/ L0 x2 G, j: G+ N  A: X
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “! v, ^5 v# f* |$ n& T/ A
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
0 _6 y8 K, q/ Y! P8 Ypersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
- E! |! Y, O; `4 O4 Nimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the% F" j0 a5 k8 O4 M0 p0 n) _
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to2 P6 M5 I8 E, ~
be treated as 7 s.
" t- S( Z7 ^4 f- e+ n( c/ g- D, V
$ o* C4 g5 q( C! b0 _Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
8 z" [7 Y% n+ `6 n; vstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
! V# I2 R6 n* k. l, u/ a+ himpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.. j, e, {+ U3 g  ]" S' w
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
3 u0 A2 ]  X8 O# Q9 _4 l-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.' ^' N3 U" O0 C0 E
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an$ @3 y' R6 |% Q& Q. C
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and( y" Q- A4 |8 k* F! Q+ \
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”* m7 ^  o+ v6 |
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
9 M* b2 z% ]! |8 m4 h( `/ d3 r4 C0 H3 Y! ~8 A8 i/ z5 h$ G( c6 d
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
7 l- [( x: }. s) }+ m; pexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
. i9 o# r2 |1 ~& g6 Vthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
7 o4 }0 y- P: f$ F" Rhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
/ L' B" Z( E! k# x( E, L0 Jevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s% e$ L) O' x, o. W: S
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World" D% Q1 @; {( s- [, b
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another# N8 V5 n9 i! d; [0 ^
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
& l5 L3 d- u3 L. e% ^# k8 Yhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle: J& d- Y- Q* A( `! n
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this9 A2 U. k: l) u! Z4 N
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 e) z; o9 U1 ?0 Tfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam6 i6 ?" X6 E7 v/ a% H, @+ T2 s5 M
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting* C- A7 x* z' W4 k
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that' h8 e( j+ t3 q/ k
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.1 x7 J$ G% u2 w9 V9 w6 f
" V' G$ G, M, W: R. ~
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
4 A: I( t& V: j2 `( {four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93% q3 t7 @) T6 C9 x' D6 Y& Y5 f
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
3 W2 J2 c: v. V# E: O1 `6 {7 _$ P# m), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns+ {  L4 X* J) C9 O3 a! e  [
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," [7 \* E7 K# ~/ C* w) n1 x# _& T
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
7 Q/ a6 J0 y/ ^( g7 d, Eof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 g4 g3 x8 _  t, y. Mlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ H2 e- T, Q4 ^
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
( r: \& k' D% i6 }works.
( E0 X0 e- z; r; F2 z0 q$ H$ Z0 X! q* Y" T
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( h4 c# U3 B. P0 T9 I5 ~* qimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
- _' Z/ y2 e& l6 c0 j2 g5 G9 @1 Dkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that4 ?  k( q) y0 B8 I: G6 \
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) p1 s6 d* ^* G" _papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
9 P; \0 ]' V, o. i2 Zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
: d# y" B1 n+ [6 ucannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to0 h6 u1 [- h2 u
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
( r" a2 N  |( G1 {to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
' ]& g; E# H) M. ?is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
( K0 p4 I- |8 @2 Z/ u, ecrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he( A- h2 V2 i" y! r. @' Y3 D
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
# W, Y* @& A, f- Q$ Uadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the4 G& N1 O' [; }9 [2 r2 z
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
6 O9 Z3 a7 a4 R. l  Tuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation3 |/ ~" ?5 ?( ~  B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are# X& c+ H  z2 a, |( I/ k+ i  f' x
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
- a+ \" ]3 ^1 S# p, {0 vbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
- W8 @6 m( ?. l7 A2 @hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ _! Q9 I/ _. _& K2 s' a6 [
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
- Q/ V3 v5 i& l% Bdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:( d( O' x. P8 m1 m& M
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) j8 c0 p; ]% g; |7 I6 I, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is& F- X2 k* G* L. ?( G: m
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 _' u9 L" n2 C5 v
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- |, ~2 H' K+ v+ C7 O
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
/ V' `3 n# F$ z+ J% w2 m4 e; xLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping# `& D5 K2 `) T  s1 ~" o
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for- f! Z; i9 p9 {7 q& [
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.5 a2 Q0 w$ W$ k* M
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
. T- J1 _) k$ n2 S* J" f* ^) i% @6 M& y% W' q* \  C$ b
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-! {+ u: L/ E4 L* `0 A) d* x8 v
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! |5 k5 w* [/ [9 V4 g1 N, V. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 s+ `1 J6 i0 u1 |2 S5 ^8 k! eOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London. w) T; c- H% }8 c' V9 O7 F8 G, P
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
2 W! p! P( v8 F' Qdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
4 t9 e/ l% o3 X7 p* r) m$ zgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope$ w  q# g5 o  |# @/ S# q: ~
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
4 i7 I4 S. L$ }1 i3 X2 Lplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 F  T. w: G- T- j" Epossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.# j; H2 f5 b2 J3 z

0 q' g. i5 s+ t8 ~Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (" x! h2 z: U6 p( D. _
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
) t" P1 b: c) }! Esuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
& {% U* k6 U% tsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" E% z: s* T, p0 |: I3 e/ p: \all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your; h! u1 G. {/ |( k2 L6 R
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,* o$ _  R1 s6 \7 o
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
: p; Y2 r/ j5 B( U8 G  i8 Yargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
( ]% U: w! ~. Y) qsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or. Q. t8 [  ~: V9 L
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, 2026-1-19 02:01 , Processed in 0.204748 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