埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2086|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 & O/ N( f, h4 |

' @; T4 v% q9 |饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
/ h! n' |% @  n$ \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 r9 [" X  j& |! C" @( S
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。. u8 h$ \4 B9 Q  _
" y, k" {. S2 m9 R& P) U- j# p
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html- f4 T. T; y& j% o

4 w! `( U- l) \致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
" _7 [' ?4 s# ?; k: g/ v. {8 G1 n3 u& [+ r; C
英文原信附后,大意如下:
2 `" v/ k/ Z$ P9 |0 G
" O; q) g8 p4 R) v斐尔,- t3 d5 p9 p* U5 I, ~
       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
- e0 q7 _) p/ A; A: Uemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 i' n$ x# U8 o9 ]6 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& J) ]. R' N5 k/ o& r3 m8 j7 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* v9 j/ H! G& R% q; b+ \& U7 M
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。
0 I$ ^, v3 R" a+ L       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
1 k, y1 a/ l* u8 P9 C" 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
, c4 D' }+ E7 e7 i! f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' {$ ~. j/ P1 t" }3 ?; h7 f/ I
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。$ b+ P4 P/ E5 t% K% D- N( 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5 s8 P; ?" @; x& E) d, w
,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
2 n/ ]7 t4 V3 g& z9 v. y- s* K' f”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
' G7 X+ I* Q8 P* o% d. k8 g/ T       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
4 ?' ^9 w- H6 N6 H9 W% y3 R# L- e) b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* U) q$ I9 N# p3 D
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 z9 Q9 q% ^  g/ u4 z       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7 |, B' t! r( o/ \
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
% Z4 \; H! e! o5 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# |! D7 ^7 D+ X9 i& |3 ]
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 ~; v0 _1 B% u) g% H0 O" 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. d6 G9 ?! s# }% a+ M
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 r0 W8 E7 s5 K  E, i, L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. D0 p$ b! h* F5 ?
。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
1 C0 Q* \2 T5 ^8 [录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。- u- m" h4 k* R$ B
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2 q  k( j# ^" W2 T3 ^9 N: I8 [% i
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3 N) m) x+ _- t9 S5 L
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" x8 ~3 i5 k2 j" q% T0 S0 |
同意见的专家。3 |) K9 C6 }. d5 N! ^- u6 O# M
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
) s) [/ z$ `4 c+ A5 L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
! b9 q# _  k* e  H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4 r% p! o# i" K, @0 x5 b
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
% ~* r3 v" K7 f7 |$ {! h  X% ]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)- l, K8 p( x8 k8 }
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
, P+ H( K8 O' k. m( r: M《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
) H) J* p+ m" \6 h9 R1 d: N这些被Callaway忽略。
$ G% I6 G, {1 J' M3 J; |' b5 w7 G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
: m/ Q" m0 @4 Z: o, G/ O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2 O7 @$ x+ B0 I% M* ]4 |9 N6 K( g" N3 W
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
. h) ?, d2 [9 b; Q$ }2 J$ {英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书8 ?+ h4 `+ f) H( ^! H3 ^. V$ l
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
, l4 f" l! H' ]+ C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
& N. M+ G4 Q9 c2 \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。: l' t1 r4 V) M, Y9 {: ]" K7 F: o
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0 w3 ?- B# y& G$ d; f1 h5 P6 k
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8 M  A/ z3 g# ~' a0 \
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
1 W9 m) x% z: h4 M% e”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。% G; H- @; |# H8 a7 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' S% `, e/ B0 X  B* }- P% ?. v2 p
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
( k4 y/ n3 F/ t) }0 i6 M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
' t) F: I& d8 n6 M  J+ b" Y! 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
# V- _: `3 l# W4 `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
4 x8 ], P/ n, b7 H3 O而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。( X$ R: {3 d0 n  @( S
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。2 o6 b& X% P; Y6 V! R/ d7 |
( k: s1 o7 t, i; r

4 E" Z0 T3 G5 ?4 B( H! }北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅, y: p0 m: f3 L. x; m3 h- g( x3 ]

% P/ O; H2 }' W7 G附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
8 e; P- g2 T- j附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
% R* `3 T7 l- u# o% ^( C附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
& J( G% P) h- a3 ?1 S% R. z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见/ X* @- Q1 E* h' {% |& e* I7 T
/ w) q5 D! W$ z5 C
- [) e/ v( |9 A  C( Q( k( {

* A" V7 |/ S% [# b0 v原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
9 v$ M& P" k$ k- fDear Phil,
6 L# ]; `3 h7 e' i       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s3 h* n7 C; w+ J+ X* V
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20) g" l0 X0 e" N3 [2 v2 {
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed+ A/ _1 A" @1 g7 g$ o" b9 K
you./ c2 r/ Y9 X- d  q7 A
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have5 R8 L' t( X! s$ l7 i3 e
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese3 J+ V5 c: [* s- K7 r7 d
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the9 n) ]6 i# P( I0 [6 y6 b
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
+ F7 ?% G$ Y# `! Z6 Ypublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
" O6 X  n3 u: k4 Nseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
6 l4 T  k8 D4 ]( j, ]4 R8 Xpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
" J- a* T# n1 n% E4 C" Q       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the. u7 n" q. p" v$ \& K* X
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a- j1 {) p  a" M5 K& O: I9 I! X* c* R
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
( H  Q% g( @& _$ mthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
5 N3 \; M' S  K1 f' P9 Tdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
' B7 G- |* o( z2 t  g" C; Jexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
  Z4 P) ~: ?/ f8 {& Nstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 L+ T1 C+ V! X, P
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# F5 t5 N" N4 K
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news( d3 ^# B6 Z; B! D/ h+ ~8 x
reporting.
& u3 c8 g9 h" Z1 r% |& p       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
) u" s5 P' o  Dalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by, i+ [; G0 C/ G
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in% B; B$ {, V  {5 O3 c! S
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
1 ~0 i8 v  |8 k5 \# wpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! b- ?7 C. T8 ^6 g" h       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem& {% y, P) h" f0 t
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds! {5 a5 ~$ b& R" d7 }/ y
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50# {5 P- h: N- l% e' r
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same* d& v2 {7 _9 |* ?
event for men, with the second fastest record.9 A" [& X3 `: W6 R# _
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
- v+ z4 S( {' s3 }/ _$ Mwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 166 Y6 ^) n, F: @2 g* Z7 a3 K4 ~* H
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record, v( `8 k+ }: X2 z
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
& @+ _& c+ `+ i  i& Q- {& ]6 ?. ]2 \meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
3 }3 u, U- ^7 V! wfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
& l0 U! b$ k% A3 ]! MLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed$ X2 r: j( r8 d
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 q5 l# G' Z! H" I+ X: l* r
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
) B6 V  L5 \6 ~than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
' `  D9 d4 B% ^& Bthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( m( v0 u5 G$ q' J4 W. Vher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then( `! x8 i! k) ~5 X# C
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
2 h: r, C9 C7 fproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other9 z) N; h, {; a# r
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the) ^& g- v) T5 {' {- w
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the6 C' B" s9 B; H; V6 K& ?: h
Callaway report.  e2 l+ k! I& q; _& ]$ s& S
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more3 f% o/ H2 K  l8 ^! h$ q+ E
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ ~$ v: o* x! d9 I  shere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 b% `  j! b; _( X: Q' Dof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been) s$ o" x1 G$ R4 ?. |! `# C
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the- b) T0 N* d3 r- n$ h' I8 V  _4 G! e
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
( G/ x1 S4 a3 V) Jpublicly voiced different opinions.
- I* Y- C' o& `" ^& a2 i8 oYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
. m$ B& i" d# h; n) \" j; X8 Vfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature. I) `" f) `  W
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" S5 v1 {, m, ppostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
2 c+ B! X) m' S, ~. T' myou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy5 n! m. V. u8 F) h% b
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.( u/ F9 N* M5 C/ ?1 `
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) V, k1 H( [. w/ X% N6 @* D; Z: N
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They) t' ~3 q# u4 b/ Z7 a
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as/ q; \4 `8 L7 a4 }5 c
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
8 _: ]7 M. v7 \+ o4 Athe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
, M" r) R; V3 V' ssupported by facts neglected by Callaway.: g+ s  d% h2 x# V$ {9 T
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. }1 Y7 y3 W. j) @+ J( ]1 d, R2 jmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
# H4 a# q0 y  b- {1 vChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 z: A& |9 y/ N
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* z/ A: F+ Q! V" ?4 C+ ~+ Kand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
" n8 u$ x# N' I/ sThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
4 C3 t) V& |% ^2 K" S8 ~* aand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and7 q3 e3 l% h6 e
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
% S" \8 }- R/ n) k+ jNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
, Y) M+ s  Q; U3 [objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
& a' e( p# i! b! t6 J8 l. e! j; Zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
$ A6 B+ Z) _9 l8 Q+ @' yrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
- {9 z6 C0 J" }0 x, LThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not$ m. L! w3 W5 c# s+ `' z$ m
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 Q$ |5 u  X, g+ a4 R8 rus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 [0 G( Z# S% K7 A
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that/ J$ E7 {/ e' [  M% w, |
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' O- e6 S- S" E! L3 T: k
about British supremacy.( j9 d: b9 m* P
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many2 M' G+ _7 x, V4 n. D& c1 ]
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more3 ^. j# Y! T5 l6 `) p  p
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
# t9 _* J: M4 z# E. sour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
0 J: O" c; x6 [) H' S, E2 Q* G8 YOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% h. C" g# C% j: Y4 [$ b/ RYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of" [9 D1 J2 }# J. z( c8 v
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests+ u9 ^; Z" x9 }/ R: G5 d
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
2 }* c2 |; t/ e0 t1 q: L4 A! E! lit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly2 @; @# ?) C" u- j4 m
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like5 N! R# i  I, s8 ?
Nature.0 k2 k% t5 S) ]/ |) S
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance4 C$ ^) K$ x0 s1 {
the Callaway report.
. Y; n3 Q# b5 u* |5 n% ^; Q
- s" x" K" y2 C: G: EYi" k7 K+ y. H3 o: S- y, L* }

& A4 d  s& t2 Q" q3 C, W3 [: V7 {, B- O+ DYi Rao, Ph.D.
4 I$ P. G6 b: P; p) O5 jProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences% \. k8 C5 [! J. P3 T& h; @# P
Beijing, China5 b& Q& ^3 r. e4 \% Q" N: ?# k
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 $ y/ t( D6 Y4 p& b3 u& ~( W* w
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
. e7 E* {4 r; K
原文是公开信。
0 m! F- E6 ~6 D
* X, H* t# A: t2 ]2 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 + I, D4 [( m0 Z4 b! u3 h. m
原文是公开信。" F5 c- J% I: Q& {

9 k1 X+ h4 P+ j: ?, D1 U$ Y小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

2 p7 k( w0 f& J  Y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
1 s* S  {- d/ m5 w, u如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
8 J/ Y2 Z# i. W3 `% D: G' S$ L( V+ `6 ?+ L0 W! A! o# S8 t' U" l
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( X5 T4 C1 n( J& L: B4 _

. S- B+ |% |7 V( H& S% Q( m0 VFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
/ T+ ]% l. [! X5 y
. x. X% a! Y2 P' x+ {It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself5 b. l) f$ k" a- S8 z
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science$ @( L1 B  u; d4 J
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
# y4 j1 L" i+ f$ B% mis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the/ M- ]/ S4 ~' e! D; k
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) ?, x$ k: W0 t; N& x! [/ u' g. ~
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' D0 |$ N5 ^' o3 L+ M7 D, Cshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! {4 Z0 E$ Y. K# {) h% w4 a- J! R
which they blatantly failed to do.! M1 Y! V* G& X
, t6 Z0 e4 q/ H: `
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 P" s1 g) C0 g; ]! i5 H; xOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in: A: v- t  m+ h& P( E, j
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 L: c$ m, L9 D2 u7 {1 k
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
$ x1 u. y" c% }; d6 f8 lpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an, S6 O% m* t) Q0 x9 D
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the, m0 G, a1 e5 g: D, C2 m* o; S
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 n# k9 x7 D, G  E/ ]- `
be treated as 7 s.5 T8 t+ {$ @+ w1 q7 M# S* y5 s1 M

- J; ^) [$ L3 W& OSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
4 }$ l+ q: }! Y% _+ O4 b0 B# T5 Ostill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem( _; v4 w" O: r; V
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) ?: ^/ {$ \* X6 P9 F" R2 g  N) |An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, |3 q8 g" u8 H+ b  f
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
/ f% U( D) g% X0 x9 T! hFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an8 a: i2 Y. h3 ?! Q/ z
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and8 v2 `- j+ G* ~6 Z
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 [1 H: |! n0 i+ Rbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound." d- ?, ]$ m  G$ E

' j8 f9 r9 f# Q% M- bThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
3 m+ u; D% E3 u! l- l" ]9 [example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in5 s2 Q/ }( J. w, M' t  }# U0 f% d+ y
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 n- t2 N) @9 j+ y: ]. E* h$ Rhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
6 n  H; D; r: O7 {, h; ]2 yevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
/ [' e  y0 [6 m; ?* Fbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World, m9 B2 o! |" I/ ]
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another% }4 o  N8 @( {0 S+ U+ @- Y/ J7 y$ P
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
4 D" R5 j# W" qhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 }2 I" y1 S& e- Q1 q6 W4 _* x
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
* c" p' b/ U: ?- p- u9 lstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 J8 r6 L$ n' i6 c6 ~7 jfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
0 _, O5 D! _4 l7 efaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 K- b! D& e  ^aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ }# h* Z$ R# m
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
& f' D& v! J/ S; m2 p+ X
5 W6 P# h% ]/ J' g) F; ?1 U- Q$ G% sFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are2 |1 J2 ^: T- {; p: f8 M
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
  P. @9 m  U5 E+ Ss) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
; K3 Y1 Y$ g5 G+ T0 J0 D), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
& R2 F6 H$ Z* O* V0 Aout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
! K2 d5 L0 e7 o8 m5 qLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
2 X3 I1 D% u9 b* Z  r- ^/ Z( gof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
  ~6 w7 k5 p" J; i( k% tlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
6 `* p+ `' q! D: J. L! \every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ @* G, O9 ~1 p/ tworks.0 H% }! K5 U' N0 ~; G" n, C

$ w# P( u) G# lFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! E, p% _1 S$ x4 j1 O/ _1 bimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this. d, w) @: b3 _$ j! ~, a' R
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that: U& g2 [! G* u+ Z( [
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
. O- S8 s/ L$ R5 qpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, U& K8 W4 q3 u0 T' y$ b$ x! j& P% W
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One, ~3 g5 q( _" }, v# q$ s  }( g
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to7 _9 {7 Q0 h4 K" N- T, e
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works" c7 l1 ?$ ]% s3 G3 _- O# d9 r
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
4 r& r6 S5 Z* e" e; Xis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is0 V. x8 ?5 b: @# D" B
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he) a% P* C" G' \7 u/ ]6 C5 n  M
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly9 }5 Y' n. q: a6 \
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
+ _0 T+ R& q. p- j& I* l+ g7 `, j, rpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
5 B1 v0 ]# I8 }2 D& J1 g' Quse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. A) |1 a/ _' P, v! c
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are6 R, z1 q% x8 _, d# ~/ n
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ F. f7 C( N% G& Z0 {  @* Abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
& r1 Q2 c7 I5 d3 g; T% Ahearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye* Y/ O9 t" e( H0 h* C+ N
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
( L8 g4 ^' |: l  E% J3 r% B" Bdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
. e! q1 F5 @; i% r  U% Y$ yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
# _  C% H( h% `8 D, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
) O0 H7 J( Z* b, `probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
! U+ @- c2 O7 b$ I/ e1 X, Cathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight- w) b- Z- ?* ^2 M: q$ s
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
) d7 Z+ B2 D2 XLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
2 ?- a2 T4 }  s6 _8 xagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
5 _' Z$ `0 C6 ~; U# R( c8 h9 g' B! jeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
' I3 A7 T: }1 [% S+ q2 N  bInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! p$ g$ Z7 C8 L( \

, V. N5 M# G# d8 ^7 z# jSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
# n7 e9 u  c* w6 ]: v# e$ g3 i* dcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention* ?2 M4 L* \( C$ s1 U
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for0 t" P; v' G8 T
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
/ S  q4 M5 C( c+ s% OOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 o2 {/ m' D  i( i) D5 cdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic0 n+ K6 ^2 i4 d  ~* j% C
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope+ h' Q) d$ {* ~8 K0 E# T$ l) {$ y% D
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
. V5 Z- Q  \( X: T0 vplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
( i9 d1 H4 b, H5 }possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
2 H& C8 a; w6 l) }
+ G& D5 K% {3 ~+ K1 F2 i& }Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
6 G% T3 Z* `$ ^# i. Qintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. h- v* x, ~; S$ S* Wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 y+ E, `" k& H/ A& w# O- z& u& e, c8 J4 l
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 d6 h% W! e1 }  |5 e' H5 A5 O3 _all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- ]/ Q- k, Q' a  ]8 iinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
  K, B6 ?6 G4 p0 ^explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
1 y7 B; R6 t. s/ _6 W9 wargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ O. z" u" r7 }such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
" U$ @  s) D8 c3 F4 w- p7 g; {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!
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, 2026-2-28 00:24 , Processed in 0.145470 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