埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2023|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
8 B" S1 T9 l% I! p' ?: \
2 V5 H% {" F; [! }+ n* v饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。5 z6 M3 r# Z- i: H
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。0 n! i( ~3 Q( b% ^; Y/ }9 j
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。2 h/ [1 m! G& V- q( @4 Z3 o+ }
) m7 I5 c8 S/ I
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html* P5 S$ E) F; q5 O
( E1 V2 V" {! v2 d/ k6 U) E2 l9 o
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
2 H6 c& [% E5 h  R3 N
+ D6 r' t- U0 g  n/ x英文原信附后,大意如下:
+ F* m3 ]5 Q* n# @9 L0 y
) Y6 ~$ k4 G0 P! C3 V1 o1 }斐尔,
. T' h" O6 b  Q3 k; y3 N+ ?! h       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
' O5 h# e( D9 U7 U5 P/ qemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 N/ r2 s, O% ~       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
/ X& R; }6 G) X6 v+ M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  C- k0 }4 [: ~  X8 ]
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。: U+ \4 @9 u0 A
       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8 {9 `6 ^& v3 G& ?* s
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
( ?5 m, e* [' V5 }6 |! w7 [8 _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  t! O& I/ d  c/ f  h- `3 O! W9 D$ n
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。6 J* O$ ]; }! K" o
       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( S& B- O8 e3 E$ e" j
,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
. Y3 G! K5 X# T1 {' ?”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。: [& y# |: s$ J% s
       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
0 C! s+ `1 a) U8 {& D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. ^0 q* h; s, y1 U8 a' t
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。% F. r* z8 E" n2 |' q0 I) k
       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
4 ~# t3 b1 t0 h# j$ A0 i$ l8 K2011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; A6 X0 L% _6 [! e
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( q5 X6 I& B6 M5 T3 Y; h( 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
( e: w7 Q1 y5 u2 l' R300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
& o3 d  }7 ^% S5 e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: ~# k" q: d2 D& g- d
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
# l# B9 w3 U# H, T5 p。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+ g" @1 q' d  W' y: B) Z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
1 n7 G. V/ q6 A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
" b' R3 ^8 z4 y% r1》,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
( E0 K, N$ y! n' v% M  Q! CWikipedia。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
2 p) X1 v2 K/ p7 I同意见的专家。( d* Y) \5 L+ `# Q
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; x# s0 P! p( J2 w
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' g; f9 \  V9 k, m% I1 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
* W8 Z( Z7 @/ T0 G: F《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。5 w# P9 p7 \9 L$ b4 K6 h, 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)
) G) B; b% g6 v* P. o' t7 \5 k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% b- z$ Q4 U1 V5 K, 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
! h) T& d" D4 r$ h这些被Callaway忽略。% o1 E3 z% c0 o
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
+ [9 D6 s# o; ~( G3 c- A英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
5 |' S$ {3 A& F& ^: |' ~. f3 b教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
/ R8 O; ~: G+ a5 K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
* r3 w* n& z# l$ x+ C" 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& S# r: E4 o3 O) }6 P, 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
: w" `' t; B3 e! t0 M" T6 m7 Z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。
. X/ X+ v% c: \* r5 |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
! S9 T. o; R- `9 @" ]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* a/ v7 ]( ]- p. q: z. q# X
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 c9 Q7 ?3 F  m. B9 y+ w$ V7 ^
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。) K5 j- h! \# e" U& \
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
; A! |* P) h! Y/ x  g4 \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
$ ]% d6 m9 O- }3 @! x  }1 o+ C" z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
( B0 T- g& W6 J3 [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
, N/ M5 e' V4 Z- [* _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# U6 v6 t/ k+ S, [  r
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。" X/ Z* }/ S5 s  ]% S7 b6 f
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; g! u/ B3 _/ |% N, f
1 k5 C1 P6 m: n
' ~5 G. z) e2 [- \/ L) h- p: j0 I北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
) g! A6 i- _2 B  `
2 G4 X) S, z6 X* m( s9 J$ D* Y" B附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- T6 s5 Y: K, H0 P/ _. }& k) x
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
. M% A7 M" ]; ^( \附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见2 F7 @+ S9 u  u9 Z$ f5 K3 c( {
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见$ b) T" ?; D7 w0 L8 l( v

' M; b9 M" U2 `1 X. |4 ~8 C! y
/ }" W. B1 k! Q) }( E5 ]9 r: w8 U6 @# k0 M. L0 J! f
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
/ M: @/ j" I! g4 QDear Phil," ^6 g9 ~- t8 {' D( D! n
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s" v1 L  d0 G1 H/ o9 n  l
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20  E3 i' r: u. o7 ~% H+ A- N
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
( P$ C$ i2 O* B4 k( Hyou.% b- N2 h9 [' m& z) ]
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 d, @6 c6 k9 T% P2 y1 S, q
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
0 t6 o$ z$ W6 `' j) mreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the8 d3 P! Q# y* N* O7 c8 W- O) M
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature4 Y$ w' T- O, f9 _) V
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 u& H7 f2 @" W- d" C( n
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 v' q2 {4 f7 c2 ^3 c/ z9 J
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
( |" Z4 `* A! A' i6 w9 b( s       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the7 ^0 H7 Y% w3 ^# U' S
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
. ~8 Y, X$ K$ I4 [( S( N$ u; Z, knegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish0 G3 {. c4 z  x+ _* e3 W# O
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway6 R8 L, l3 _+ a/ e8 J- K
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
9 q; |6 Y; h9 n1 f9 f  [explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- p) i/ X; s0 }& u* q
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
* F0 g, r$ r( h* \, `3 Uand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone: k& y& I4 W0 L' e  u+ `' R' m+ c4 ^
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
8 s# P/ g- c4 o" Q! G- Y8 }3 wreporting.
2 n! S, R5 w8 J3 ^       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have0 |" G# x9 h0 @
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by! B$ h3 g/ ^9 M- j5 N0 T
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
0 h0 U1 F# ]  P( E! lsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 d7 H5 \7 ?5 G) X' l1 {
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
+ [3 S8 `3 R* `; E* y# T# ]       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem" x" y1 B$ N' ?  r
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds3 P. }, g  s5 A. b4 Y! ]
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
  A! t/ g  t9 X0 Ymeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
9 S2 `8 f5 ]% r; Y8 Devent for men, with the second fastest record.
3 g3 ?8 J% H# {       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
' g/ d  Z6 z+ ^7 Q% l. j4 {was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
6 k3 Z7 e! e3 {3 v5 s7 B9 kyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record- o  R8 Y$ Z. [5 Q/ b
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; Q! J0 J+ n3 s: k- r1 s# Gmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
. r% F2 ~; Z$ o' Z5 L$ R! H/ v& zfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
& u% ?4 S, A& N4 b( I$ eLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( C$ R( Z# Q5 m1 \% h9 e0 p" S
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the1 [9 `8 A! F# N9 U# y
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
& {- M( R& M( m+ g5 ?* Zthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
& ^& `/ \2 j$ y$ m3 E0 W; i; D6 ~those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was; f4 n2 V2 ?, V1 Z# G
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
! O+ l; @6 l0 }/ p8 A* v; the would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “3 w3 O$ v% B% p8 n# d/ k$ x2 n
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
" M8 f' c" [  _; a& O3 e! }/ O' K4 F0 @swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the6 B/ p5 m- P' ~0 s* w+ b
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
- Z" l$ }+ o! j  e& |Callaway report.3 n/ T  p) [7 A5 C5 O
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
4 V9 f" `. S/ o. V. uunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 r( {9 \8 I2 u8 O: Zhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description3 c# r5 T6 g7 X8 H# [4 t
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
7 E6 C9 z. F. C+ |  J( `better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) P1 [5 B1 v2 _3 _6 C4 V; Q
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
3 a: O+ ?8 s' P3 K7 Y! x% U1 gpublicly voiced different opinions.
- O9 P7 g) ^5 u, x1 b1 ]3 oYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
) {9 g/ p" h# _; a5 Z! J! x- t8 Vfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
# y, q! d" d. fNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" k2 V1 i7 f$ D9 Y6 X4 }+ Lpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds; P' m+ i4 A9 R8 U3 g
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy- B* U1 e4 e/ T7 Z6 X. Q
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.# [$ l  [$ v$ Y8 I6 x  v
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
: d5 V0 \- ]8 k& }that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They9 x/ y6 q; {" v' u
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
/ N- H/ N1 O/ D. o: |; kAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
) b0 e9 V9 e0 B8 [! p# y7 |the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was7 p( @) j4 r+ h! e. b
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
+ f. @# W4 ?& D8 E- C  X& j& L6 @One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
/ N0 r  |, H/ z  Smany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the+ f- T9 K4 V; a3 T2 [8 N8 M
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
0 p# W+ o/ a' B+ J  y. V(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 X8 Z* z+ Y$ @! n" _2 ^
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! S" {) Q2 z0 L( H% ?: [2 I1 QThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
# F/ t) T2 k& h+ c9 x4 w. Gand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and9 b& P$ X& j) |; a' O) `
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
  T4 J5 U+ u4 Q0 ]+ O& Z; RNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
7 |7 \3 z0 F; R7 N0 }$ `objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature0 B/ L! h2 h9 K+ P0 k9 Z: @4 J! ~1 ]
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
) R2 E9 B8 y. y- @, _* U( Wrepair the damage caused by your news reporters." {) B2 f! j8 Z
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not5 S3 g, R2 b8 D* k) }. ~9 G8 k6 D" t' ?7 F
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced) \/ p  L( ?* {& F3 h% ~
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather2 {; ]" n& k% ~4 ^& |9 w
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 t8 c* ]3 v$ A5 Z
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
/ W7 n; v3 `: B& ]. Labout British supremacy.
4 D, w. U. f9 K2 ~! i9 ~1 ]The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many. E; a  A! f! i9 E; V$ K( E, K
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more  O* A' U8 O; C. a
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by- C* J1 u3 w3 j& k" f
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London% a$ j! s* ]; x+ y3 J8 D
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.; ^5 ^* J2 ]4 W5 \) X: l
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of8 V% J- x% j! d! o6 H
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests' x, a; ?% F  R
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
" q+ p. m9 J: Y! r* |2 ?; @it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly& Y2 u+ t2 o- L$ y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
3 s# K) G% {1 @Nature.
3 ]3 f5 C$ C+ ~I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
  ?4 Y& y9 e- I8 t1 j* S- rthe Callaway report.1 R1 \0 k  L# Q8 a3 J4 C
4 _! @% a6 C: y
Yi
4 {2 \. P1 E4 u5 X8 Q) B; s. {. `8 s8 t8 c" U8 ]. i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
3 f2 L6 ^: z9 j& o9 X% H! M/ iProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences2 T- N# P/ e6 Z# r9 s* S' Y& \
Beijing, China5 M9 G: D4 o3 @4 S9 l9 U; r
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
% X. X% o2 c. Q' Q( y. Q* U原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
1 r% G* B2 _5 g$ i& n. J
原文是公开信。3 i5 M+ m6 I& O

3 k" V+ D( Y3 C$ j/ M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
6 C& B, q: ~0 u0 x- O原文是公开信。
( P% L+ W! V( k# k0 y9 G/ B  b6 k3 h( L$ R4 [/ Y4 v- ?0 ~
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

* \" t' a6 O0 n! v- S$ U/ 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
& I5 \: }; R+ ~! Y如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。- v9 p1 T( X# _; y! m3 [- h
! N: }( c1 h4 C+ ^8 B# _. C, s+ T
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 U3 s# m9 x3 j8 R- p

; l: V1 A5 B% z9 RFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 z. ?( \" p9 f- p8 a9 V" c0 L
9 b9 n# Q$ Q8 Q! e7 O7 EIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
" q0 I! I- X; u. Q1 s5 y( t1 l+ f, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science8 ~; L5 j* ?; y$ _
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this7 L3 q3 b1 |$ B5 I# W% F1 d7 X
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: J* ^. g; n6 N" yscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 R: F$ h7 v& y2 `4 h1 ?- h+ M0 s: E! fpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors' K. [* N" v: @8 N& j; w* x8 W: V& s
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
7 T8 M5 {& _6 _& p  Y/ Owhich they blatantly failed to do.* S/ M0 D) U6 ?2 `2 v+ d& K. }+ i

( H3 Y( F- J  p0 dFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her& W7 K: b9 h- l! P+ k; y6 m
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
) {# f- k2 b. x# g9 N% Y( U2 Q2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “( Q! b3 k! l" M- V$ W" n
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
- o% n: R! q1 M( L! w6 [personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an; ^0 f1 J% x; ^. s6 f2 C
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the3 r, m, {% ]6 t, L
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to( m4 p6 _+ d' T4 H# l" c
be treated as 7 s.; c2 a6 ^: V; @8 k

* ~' h; A6 ~2 t' X! y; c& y6 U- zSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
& v& w2 m) _* x2 o* Y: _7 ystill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
! c5 y* n  R' f3 t- {5 ^2 fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.$ [2 X+ [7 D2 ^) k2 K3 ~! c
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
3 N; U! L( f! c$ M' H5 j-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; M1 A  R9 U9 i* ]) U! q
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an: m; r" n$ |2 `
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
: e- I% v3 f1 m4 cpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
2 R7 }4 l- m3 h3 h5 ]( [/ h1 Cbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.+ k  Y$ c9 p* E, Y; h9 C

, K& D( i. x9 U4 f  _- }Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
1 k/ D2 A( G! x( hexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- d( J# I' {# p3 x* j
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
8 g6 e9 B; q+ `he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later( X7 ?" k. F) \# |
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" O; ^% \5 h+ `+ R- \) dbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World: T  k8 r0 I) h( W+ u$ k
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
/ A; k0 @% r2 ?( [1 \/ ?topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other3 ?3 u6 |; B" Q. r( e$ K
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 ~1 s* O+ ^. b8 W2 j, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this5 ~" t) c# |. C" [! v8 u! ]$ ?
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
: T7 D+ S. K8 l( f- ~7 Afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- o/ _3 f7 t9 l! Y
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting9 n! y1 Z( a' A$ |1 H5 Q+ O
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 ^2 P8 ]3 \3 ]
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
7 }; P, D, m+ D4 k- M
+ D' [/ W! m5 S' X: MFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
8 [) p$ p; l0 q' {& c5 ^four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.938 X9 L3 @$ ?# R
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
7 u( x" Z! A/ d), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns. I. Y" u& |4 R4 v" E
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,' W0 y* \/ i, `6 P
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
( f& I; j2 J4 \# u$ C4 F; aof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
0 u* i" k3 x' ~4 R% Dlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 g& M7 O" |- N( E4 Q5 g
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science7 \0 ?/ i2 n& U: q' K8 c- u
works.: T6 S. `" w; H5 K/ E! G3 S$ W
$ e8 }" k' ?* s9 f: |0 j: [2 x3 x& c
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
. g; {6 x/ K9 n, @& u, S- d( z9 U/ b, J6 [5 ^implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this: B- H/ O2 g- ^! L/ v8 U8 T3 I+ S
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that% L9 V8 q4 ]2 z6 y9 K
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
! @$ |7 M4 S/ @2 t7 \papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and9 {, B5 `- t% c, R5 J. G" B
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One- o8 J8 y( i* g! \; ]$ s
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 ~+ F: @1 _( }* F0 I/ m- s! v
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# F( v) x/ f% A# T; E. _to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: q3 v. Y3 K" O
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
% C* J2 Q/ n' U5 R) Ycrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he" W( L* Z$ H$ I9 D
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' {* C5 |5 a  c0 X1 \
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: d7 V2 E, a$ |* j2 spast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. P, K7 ^- j" H& m1 O  _# duse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ `# O+ e" Z+ }/ t# }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are3 \: U& E1 }! r
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
4 ]% D' E2 A8 ebe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a/ G8 `  k' {/ p- ~& A
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye6 }5 o. t* \) B
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a) g# V3 ~$ {# O
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
3 }  Z( d$ w3 `% }9 T1 wother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
. ]3 k" I3 \( @: `& w$ z/ G, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! m( r) B- r4 B( p( q# w: ?& |0 n
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an6 p1 |2 _  Q. ?5 P8 A7 y1 z  ^2 H
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight# I# f" m$ w. u  g
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 B# Q+ S* y7 j/ J
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping0 _: P) E  A4 A
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for* [- k" l+ r. X
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.) M* i4 z8 s* L3 F4 x
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?# {3 h# U* r7 b2 a; |4 F! X

: l" S2 n; t8 C1 |2 u% jSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
1 }: K" s( ^: Qcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention: `0 z* ^% o# s; Q1 C; k; z' q+ ~$ Y
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
5 N) Z: B  k# [" DOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, t4 v7 V% y: u1 O- ROlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
, {9 j6 K4 R" m# |8 i7 t. pdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic3 n0 S$ q2 |( `" l# v1 L
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope% O5 |; ]! J1 ]9 R$ L8 l. m
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ X6 ]; b( ~  O4 Eplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
* X2 w* m) N" M  Xpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.. @( ~+ N1 w1 F5 B7 t& v1 i

5 b, b( C2 G9 K$ N. DOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (" n/ y: F- m% V& E
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too8 I7 O. P# h/ x: \+ w; A" v  k
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a( V* }6 U( D$ N- k3 e. J
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
7 i) R6 J" X$ c: rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your' p3 W! z7 ^( Z6 v# A. |
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
4 p7 |7 g% u8 z+ T  n' fexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your: h, o& f2 l6 i* `: z
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal! `3 u/ }& ~: M; c4 w
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
1 [2 h6 t3 e  h& Vreporting 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, 2026-2-11 18:44 , Processed in 0.177814 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