埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2253|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
) _/ {# S3 b/ K+ A9 F/ _
" r) J' u9 b* N1 Z6 f0 M0 C饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。0 Y! M0 j0 I5 c
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。$ f! }* i2 G; X; H+ K
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。2 ]; b6 e2 e8 s& U
( V0 e; |% S" w( f2 q
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
1 _6 M" G) O1 |/ ]/ e# B0 Q$ e" S2 {7 Q2 s" G
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
+ J+ z! V8 e% S7 c! O2 D
" C- Y2 y2 k! a: L7 V1 B+ w英文原信附后,大意如下:
* z" `. }# c* o. V) U- w- r' I! ^) N2 B+ p1 @' G& H3 z9 N. ^
斐尔,
8 R3 i  ?  A1 q* w  L# \       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你8 l0 \( J9 N/ K, l' q# m
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。, @9 J) O9 C0 a& G4 m
       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴- {* z2 n9 w- M4 ^
中文读者比世界其他读者更看重你们的新闻报道,与科学相关的(即使关系很小)也可# J9 `7 r8 k% N* \) q$ i
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。; x! x& W9 n% n$ g6 W* q) n
       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
9 E" k5 |5 p( Y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
. ?# u3 a$ }; i" P8 O2 ?3 m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
0 j) T& j  Y  Q3 v) l3 R/ d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。
: m4 j/ q# B4 }# x" 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
2 U% {8 \4 r" f: t, |! g) l1 ]( L,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8 ~& e3 Q% ^* U& O1 \( G  p
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。0 t2 M2 l: g1 a
       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
% u2 E' X, e" F' t) W) [9 y: A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& M5 G) _9 e- D: V! M: {" ]
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。* w/ X/ \& g' P
       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
% `3 H- [. m1 F2011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
+ a& _: p- c/ l2 G% U* B. F+ S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
- W1 C, Y/ U7 u4 x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) e8 x" v. a) y7 X# I# F$ @
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( k# a) k4 t) y+ y
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, `* E0 I& R5 ~" P/ _$ L* ^0 S7 [
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: J4 @; O* w' a" m: c# K/ P8 {
。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% M' t/ }7 a: K1 u
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
8 l" [* o) I4 ]0 \5 X$ |# i7 D4 S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
+ x7 W& M7 p: P9 d$ U0 \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
: z( U3 i' ?# w- t# gWikipedia。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
$ Z7 D, q9 M: I# L1 q5 l. f. A$ P/ o同意见的专家。
$ {# h; Y3 |1 _) Z/ a1 F) i你应该收到了"XXX"博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的; ~4 }- Q4 e1 m- g8 C( W- 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
. h% s  j7 b1 ?4 k! o# S' e8 Q' u, X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5 ^6 U! w1 G, \6 R& q
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
7 c4 S: h% p7 z: e/ z  hCallaway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), v8 P8 J1 I! w) ]$ T
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, f7 j) z2 g, c9 b0 E
《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4 v* Y' D' e$ w
这些被Callaway忽略。
! j7 S. z* v5 t5 r- C9 |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5 W7 U0 m. a/ u# Q/ m9 b/ ^
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
6 J+ J# T  d8 X6 u. G4 |6 V教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
5 d  J# o9 w: b: P/ |8 w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
5 V4 v9 O: I2 x  o3 z! |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( e6 z$ w* S  y2 }
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
; t7 M) b0 u/ w; P$ s: `! O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。6 s# R( l1 b7 W" x1 Y+ m
英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉,即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而
0 ^' }/ C) {* P6 q! v  ~0 z' 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
; k- }, c3 P% T, b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 Q6 D6 |% E8 r# W”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
8 ]7 i7 G9 m+ O/ y( e' l% t7 l# e  T* |& v/ ^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
2 f3 S3 R1 J$ n0 I) c/ ?# }5 s. f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
  H7 B/ x. N/ Q" o1 n* G9 T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
& Z  K, c& g) g0 t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
# k( Y$ S5 H6 _( a9 s4 G# V/ E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- I6 y  m) Z5 k" ^/ O1 s6 P; G
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ P& I6 z/ r' \1 E0 d
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。) y* ~# c& y3 _2 l" I5 g
, s# ?% M! F" h. ~- z' P

% s" ?+ Y; S  Y. B  ?北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
) }/ T" q# R+ o* Y) \+ [+ }; F0 ?! I  }, p
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
! d3 f7 n8 x/ ^9 z; M附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ ]: ^& v1 R  @# ^1 b附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见$ b: O; ^$ M2 `
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: N( G1 `2 I$ R. l+ H1 f

6 E3 s" d  f7 K% Z8 I5 C0 z: S% {" q; L' U# x# I& \

. S: A8 N5 T, w& `( k; F% S原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
* f- E# u  Q* mDear Phil,0 Y( L/ V1 t5 I2 S
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s4 H0 O8 h: ]5 l; Q# C( X( _
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
% @2 T; y+ h8 w1 j( m! dhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
$ I& @5 t( r9 Y8 y' Ryou.- _, O& r3 x/ G" }
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 s5 A. j4 Q1 M. I' C
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese2 f% }1 Z+ s/ I, J2 Q4 x3 e
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
8 r0 u% ?7 p$ T, T  cworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature6 h6 [' ^/ h- S8 X/ D1 W& Y: W
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more3 c! E7 `: ?, R; ]: i" W- I
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news( i" X. p5 r2 g  ^( k
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.3 }' e7 I  o4 m3 e
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
' h( H8 y5 M! E) P8 t& jworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
8 G' p7 O( s6 _) k  I/ Onegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
4 P7 S+ J! Q6 l' ^( C4 Dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 L7 H* F2 w. G8 o
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping. Q4 w/ r, t0 [6 W1 u7 I' D
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal( X% y/ s4 ?% @6 j( @
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,7 [: @4 s' ]( Z+ t; A8 [
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
) y5 W/ h/ i3 y( L  Z# \to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
/ n7 G+ n5 v- w; {6 creporting.
! U9 s. _! d- c7 J4 j  p* A8 z       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
8 u$ v$ T! K* v( J  k" ?3 @% balready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by. s6 I6 y' T) G( J8 u5 m' X
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in# G3 p4 I- A6 j& p9 Y& e* h7 @4 u
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A  H/ b* Z: a5 m- g
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.7 d+ V3 z, K# x, O/ z
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ L  l. |1 w8 @. c$ U5 Kmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
- n; Y" y5 n' U# ?faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
& ^* z4 ]4 M3 ]) [  w. ?5 a  w3 u2 |meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
. \6 l+ g/ f7 o& {) l+ g  @event for men, with the second fastest record.! ~) `; e  U+ N) T
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
7 o) _7 N% q  ]( [was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( ~- s* o8 t& m9 g7 \
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
" q. h5 J# {9 X* e1 |; l" ]+ W. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
" f; L6 F2 O( Dmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,1 _6 X1 H+ k5 D
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than5 Y' ~( S+ H. x" V: \
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed& [. Q1 n* e, Q% S0 |. U! R  W
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 ~3 z9 N: c4 N$ Pindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower& C& a0 l8 w6 L0 o4 c# a1 W0 c# j
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 F  Q! b7 d9 O
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was& a2 a9 O' [7 ^9 E' B3 D9 B9 S8 G( v. D
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- a3 D/ P. T2 y7 ]+ v( xhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “. o, p% i8 ^- [6 _. P5 l
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
' s5 @, e/ ^6 i" E& i6 I/ gswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% `, k2 P4 i- d% \# i4 [
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the% K0 W# }$ g9 ]
Callaway report.
7 {5 W6 f# _2 M) }/ W/ I  JThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
0 |) f$ c$ D' B! `( U2 F1 ?! Kunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
% G2 G' q2 o: v7 S* Xhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description; Q( a' E: Y  d# B) x/ r7 @0 `; D5 K
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been% t( _: A' O5 R  f; q
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the3 d  f, _5 u4 R' G; C3 A
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had: E/ R5 L# C5 `& T" C6 x( `
publicly voiced different opinions.8 X% t3 n  Y3 q/ l
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
+ A" s2 P1 B3 Dfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
- L* N  j# ]: I) cNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent! {, B5 {( |# W* W5 p  S+ o" C
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
. L# }6 i3 l6 B. A! ?" n! \* ~you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy: c$ u2 E+ q8 i, p
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.# ]: v/ a& ?8 k- h
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think1 n5 R/ \/ y2 z: u6 O
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
" q& [2 K8 j; a5 f5 y( c# e, w& I4 Uhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
: r6 f0 q/ j4 c, e& m/ o) YAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that3 Q; o6 y7 e$ K9 S7 u6 S8 _
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was( ?) p/ p" s! G1 |
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
0 x6 e# f/ p9 A: _! h7 JOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
: T2 ~  \9 b7 m0 S6 emany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the9 }2 m  v4 _2 S/ A
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
6 j4 ?/ x/ _8 ^- r1 j) A9 r5 Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she) [2 |0 _! L7 [  p& K! t4 `: e$ t& G
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.  k' D/ `7 R! A# I8 ?
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science9 V9 ~6 I# P( u* r. V; e% A; F
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and  j) {1 t, u5 K& }) o. l! p% B
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.; f0 d: R7 b) p1 t
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
3 V1 J( l5 R7 |7 aobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
2 [! p# g! _& W" |3 Ewhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to7 n& K0 f  q$ ?; q4 j0 J
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.# X# P$ G* N7 v0 Q5 N
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
9 M. J+ d2 Q, |: c( F  N# Cshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
. ^9 ?; _4 w; U/ Dus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather, O. g+ A: G* b
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
& C" o; W7 E4 M# ]this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”9 ^2 J9 @  o* j5 R9 a
about British supremacy.; E6 H) k' j) E4 J) D% H2 {: ?
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
6 ]' e. O# m# h4 cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more+ b( I. ?: }, {4 p
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
& b* h$ t- T" Rour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London4 N1 L* E- ?' y2 V
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
6 q* F' I% N. `; r* I: {; ^9 uYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
: t" b% I) ]. s" O! J3 w$ vprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ C/ G; o% G9 W8 @# Q3 J0 C
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
' u- I) ?) ?. F8 C( Sit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
! f) ]1 r* Z5 l/ _5 Xpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like4 a" {% J% ?4 i( N
Nature.
$ ?. W& {* Q# w! aI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 l& X9 g# T9 T  J0 Y9 zthe Callaway report.3 x! i; j9 r% c. g! ?( m1 R
$ u; a5 ~+ `& V0 I( f) }
Yi
$ _, H) \* P- a( R) y8 z! [9 Z# s, q+ m$ k3 L8 i7 w' T
Yi Rao, Ph.D.' s6 q$ R' E0 y  f& |
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
( X4 g1 G7 T% v5 r, n% fBeijing, China
3 @+ t% `3 _, N- l( r' U; A7 P
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
0 K% T* c2 l. m4 j原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

( |( L+ ]: [. L' s% T! I! {( J  ^% ?: L0 }, a原文是公开信。5 }% z# g- v/ ~' Z% @  B# Q
: b; I! n' f3 ]! [' v  E- r. }
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 ! D3 V( Z% F0 i( U- k9 Z% T- I
原文是公开信。& y7 E: ]+ j1 p  O; n$ f1 R

2 y2 Q9 P1 d9 i. W( r小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
. X# q* e; H/ m, ]7 Z. l5 ?
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
  A5 @! D. L9 ^$ F7 a* [如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。4 m% a) k5 H9 m# U! v9 Y

; c" Q& D8 W& T, ghttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
% d5 y8 u( W% G2 h6 S) G$ U* r5 Q2 b4 _; h
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ r0 U' N: m/ d6 ]: Y# N  f0 K. j

1 {2 J) [3 V2 `1 r* `- [5 J) VIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself; G* q- y$ P2 u
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science: Z7 y$ k1 |* v3 Z4 L2 ^5 H+ k
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
2 B# ]3 v) e" M0 A! [is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the! S# j/ j- v$ I
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general$ w3 x" S4 q+ O# L
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors- L0 s7 J: E! M4 b
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
* b- L5 x, Q# Z( s- Awhich they blatantly failed to do.
! N1 M2 }" D& S& G- W6 {8 a( Q( n  k* q* B0 j
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
! p  Y; m% g/ r& VOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2 D' S2 h' Q7 _) _, j2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “, U& a* K5 d# B4 M  \+ w
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
5 P$ d1 o2 ~. q& I- @" S8 `personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( |7 {8 H; Z% c+ e" a
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
' {6 ?( `* g7 U$ W9 ]difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
9 S6 X3 G! i, C& z8 J0 rbe treated as 7 s.5 l# d3 s8 I& y0 v; c
& G6 z% l& W8 X& m' G+ o5 P! Q
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
5 Q+ J( ^6 E1 zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
; g5 E. X# z5 M4 M$ |impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.! p9 _- e- F; P3 f3 ]& O
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
* z& X6 y$ o5 b. A# J# A- |-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ D) v$ L$ P6 K+ z
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an/ X# Y2 \7 ?5 t' f; r2 }
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and' h0 D& [6 N* D# B6 }  j: @9 j7 J9 u
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
0 X' h: j7 v) I0 n: ]: L" abased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.% u' o' F! X2 H5 |/ U
' }1 r) _* x* Y" O6 y$ y  t
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
; Q4 N# r! x" z' z, Z. i- rexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in- I" V3 d( Q) o: o. M4 t2 [$ |1 T
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 J3 |# t8 i6 ~he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later1 v: S& \  Q. L& N, y- v/ _
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
& j, @) `; C9 `7 ~3 j2 Xbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World# B' b2 Y( {) w' F0 D
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
, g9 A1 D7 e7 M# T. Q& Vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other: |# u/ P2 l3 B6 f/ J4 a6 O+ s/ a% t
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle0 n; v) j0 m  e) G3 x/ i1 B
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
2 s$ K# l  z5 U' l2 L! Sstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
8 p0 f* |0 n$ P! }faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam/ n5 e: O2 T: ~( |% l" F& i
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
: P/ j; B3 a% I0 Raside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
8 h+ m) n! _' `" u3 Q4 y7 `+ N! Oimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.# R' k0 T! G' \& ?" a
- P% s* q3 g" U2 N
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are9 g- }8 Q+ Q- n# `3 b7 J6 |
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.939 I5 u5 B6 q: W; _
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
- S3 b/ @9 W! V- ]# m), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns, u# Z7 ]9 j' `" c
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM," F. l' T2 \# L) k' L( ^
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
: Y: o% z4 N: q; Xof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it+ y5 H7 z1 K( K" w
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
  i$ i0 B) P) c/ e& b7 @/ [every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science2 q- {9 \4 Z* a- o
works.8 o& c( n1 l( ?) Q- I; n) U

' c: @$ X) ~6 _7 \4 e# ]# @Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
$ B% I" z2 p1 R2 t; u1 c  b& g4 F3 Qimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this5 W! X0 W  k# H  Y$ Z
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
  `) t! m3 _  O9 Estandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific1 l% y# Y* N2 L, K( B  ]
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and+ E! _4 n5 r1 p1 }: V9 q
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One0 r; ^4 Y9 \+ C$ u8 H& i
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to+ G" o2 B; P6 @1 i) }$ R+ U
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works; E. t; o  M2 `# |
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample( t- {5 }' k8 r3 Z. \) @% S
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is3 I1 ^2 B4 s% `' F
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he; l3 v4 Q2 ^" [8 Z! c* i  {
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
7 n' P+ N6 [- F* T! w* b8 Q! Ladvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
! L* D6 b0 ]% d3 {( F6 C  ^( Mpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
; D5 o: y' p  ^8 [* A1 C: \use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
8 w4 _" v& o5 R0 \0 q* p. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
& F! K5 c5 {) c+ c0 y4 j4 p9 P! Tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' b3 e/ A. A6 t! Z5 l! O
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
8 H' r  F+ Y: I( d, ?! P; Vhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# Y- J. A9 a1 E. P- q) `: O
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
. q8 h' W2 l! W8 e6 j  z! Fdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:1 ^$ d; T* S) K' \
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
+ v3 z! d2 w: g# N" d& d, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
! B5 g( j* D, |6 f7 [) w6 I0 {# Wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
8 R, ^7 U! g1 G& N3 f$ {9 xathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
5 j1 `) j& e/ H- c  u/ Q8 Hchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?/ V2 ^7 v/ j7 A. M* v  u
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
( ?. N' [+ V" }5 ragency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for3 J" |* }# a2 L# a' v0 o6 v% j5 y) \
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
7 z) X# |6 }) m. @5 l# V3 ~Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
0 A" k: C* R5 d) X0 d( N5 C4 w% ^, p+ a& F# e$ \7 w
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-% c  m" ]' l2 }  I0 D7 Q# x
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention! j/ x* e6 i5 O( T$ \3 J' u
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for4 ^  a" @: {0 f4 P% {
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London+ ?+ |- o4 I6 I; S# R8 n
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
1 S- S* U: T3 b# Udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
7 ^$ A0 ~  w2 cgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope7 p4 v+ D/ o+ F+ i8 z2 F# Z5 v
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a6 B; p1 _9 D: n- T$ D% U
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
- y, o" i& R8 b: J! i* n) |2 opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.5 J2 P3 ?8 U8 I% Q

" f4 B, U8 q" t, P. sOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (6 l9 g+ Y5 ^4 ~2 Y
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 q  _- j6 b; M8 F0 e5 z$ usuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 G) q8 ^: F5 w7 d- d! E1 |2 d
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
' a( Q# ^/ ?# x$ ~: B' V- rall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
' ]4 u3 g: b" T0 _interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
; d3 U  l' |6 y7 M1 F* ?explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; m/ ?" [8 v, ~7 f" K/ S: ?argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
$ B, }8 y7 b: y5 }3 P& bsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
% t; g/ R( y, y( e1 wreporting 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, 2026-4-21 08:17 , Processed in 0.302745 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