埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2070|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
6 I/ O0 e( K! @# l( K9 c2 |6 J" z) @$ \7 @- m
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! g- l% r5 ~9 E7 @7 ^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。2 M( J6 U/ J' Q* e/ z3 G
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。  F* o- \; o4 p; i
0 ]  ~1 k( y! E% F' w
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html' u9 M, v( K& X1 I) Q
: p( @1 V2 ?2 y5 J4 L% @' }) k
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选1 {* _* F$ j& B. L& E+ b# ~; j, q
/ W6 O3 m* o5 _5 v* C
英文原信附后,大意如下:
$ o7 p8 b" A/ O2 Y/ e8 H1 ~* O4 ]/ V7 n" K
斐尔,
* |0 w, G. K0 |( J5 X       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
9 \& h2 O4 T; V5 q0 P- b/ j: femail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
& p; [- A; F" W" G       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
) R1 r; W, r/ n# 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
- J( J1 B# \) D& 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。
; i' v# L: w6 H, A2 v0 i" h       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
8 _) @- B  K. x& C# q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
6 |" m, K) w' p7 J" a! s  G# v7 T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8 d9 Z3 O$ f  |2 l
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。
3 g' J; |$ p: H. ]: F       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" S9 Y4 `1 k! t
,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
9 l8 P4 G& H3 w”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
/ D. }* a7 L  Y5 e- d" j       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! q* W7 f6 S' s9 ?* G
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, w2 ?& a2 ^% b% [
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
9 c! W% ~* S& R% e+ J/ O       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 o( q" w5 D3 y  @# @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
0 P- g  Y1 g% e5 S2 _8 x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
- E3 ^5 q+ I8 Z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
. ~0 s% ^. ?3 q& Y300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$ W) B+ j5 ?
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
' e* k) e0 Q2 @3 X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
, k. i* J. Y4 F0 P( ]: W。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: r4 D& ]0 R+ @% A" r' a
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。$ P% Z. K: G* q3 h- i
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0 \" f( t( b0 V4 l3 ], F
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
, k, _1 F+ \" l" u4 _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
) t2 O+ D( A+ W% }# ~同意见的专家。
4 W( D1 a( G% g  f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; c" _; O6 ]  z8 P0 `6 Z
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
6 w! k7 W( q4 T. t/ L# c# B& ]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
/ y7 Y- B) @% p/ |《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
5 R6 t% V) m. o$ N  M3 ?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)% H( z: R& ?1 h! t$ O  A# h# \  z2 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4 p+ s" X0 q0 y/ 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
6 H2 m8 n5 n( G  {这些被Callaway忽略。
/ }2 I0 m- U0 B/ E# m7 Q* `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 x% z  n: H# t- N5 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. p3 J8 n- p$ `" \7 n+ U
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
" c6 w' y, j4 i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2 c  l: b* z' ], y6 @% G4 o) i4 g% G
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& h+ p7 o- q* F% m) A
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 B3 z) x+ T3 c$ e4 D, E& m+ Y
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 p' k" M6 e
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
) S, D- L. R& Z1 s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# p& w, R4 j/ `1 P
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
) ^, n7 a# B: a”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
1 ~; h2 R6 Z3 o( Z) G# [+ s, _中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞$ B& O4 Y  Y$ D  `0 ]
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 V! a0 Q( @  s8 X2 C$ @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
6 d7 b3 k2 R7 x7 d# @# M. t5 g6 h的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次6 m6 Q4 j# H% h2 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4 l# ?7 V- x) A6 O1 }$ J1 ?  D% a5 x) i
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' s7 P$ Q6 V4 F1 H
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
% ~: s7 q; a1 A9 M/ b& b3 G  O0 L4 L' D

' h& F5 ^3 B- P. z+ x( b北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅4 @; O+ q3 Q% M. Y& o# ~  d
$ {% o+ n# K2 m, |- |# c( o
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结1 Y5 Y# i- p, M' M, s* I
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
: Y  i7 l! r6 n# q& t附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见6 A$ }5 f7 D5 O# P/ _
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见. k8 b/ @4 U; B+ ^8 Y+ J5 E( l' N! R
. @0 L# E' J! e1 X6 }+ _
3 t3 s( z4 L1 e+ H$ e( ^
, r" v$ q8 e2 K8 b% t
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)$ F, G, I% X. l1 p* g
Dear Phil,' g% m  h: h7 s9 k- b
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ l# A3 o, @8 R& I# ~; H7 e
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20, f/ ?: S3 y8 o1 m. s4 X
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
" @; b/ S/ ]& W0 h/ n% C& ^you.
/ f0 f# |/ I0 J. s& F- n. O6 f- v       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have7 Y. ]7 j( L! Z; e" q4 L/ I
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' g. R$ B6 L' _6 Y- greaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the8 R6 L% f3 `. ]$ I5 o$ H
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
& S% L" O* j1 H2 G+ t! N1 a: @. wpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more: {" ^5 O$ G3 Z$ O/ H$ r
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
6 j) G+ p$ g2 N8 Npieces much more than the regular Western news media would./ m8 Y) Z* q/ }) c5 w. l' _
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ V1 F" O& t6 x+ R3 V0 ?: ?worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
6 d& B  m3 B8 |% `negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
8 r& C! D$ L/ g, ?that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway7 d& E$ E( J4 q+ L6 L  y7 {1 \2 Y
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
6 Z; ^! b6 E6 Iexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
2 h  X7 }( x9 X: Ystandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
6 V4 P9 ]) F4 N4 U9 U8 |and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone3 I# N5 O5 s( r, r: L$ `
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
+ k% F" y6 u( k5 b0 Zreporting.& K6 F' I- M8 W5 |5 _0 z$ e
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have. s  P" F8 _9 _1 A  e
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
/ \) h3 U1 O7 y: cchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in- y  D/ g: q, Z) p! N
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
- L/ `" ~2 X( i- R9 Z* Wpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
+ P9 g& t& b: o) R1 F       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
; C4 v; x( @6 y% J' @  B2 z) @! @( Bmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
% s1 \% a& _. U/ K) b3 c9 rfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
8 r4 x" Q/ C; `/ p) Z: xmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same5 p' K1 @. i" h9 D: b) o. p& c
event for men, with the second fastest record.
$ ]9 t5 x6 z+ ]. l, D       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye! c( W2 h* ~3 v" V0 o# t( r
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 s6 x- Q; b) i8 r8 Kyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record# \. H9 p6 b! {# a( y
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
/ [/ K3 C7 t( e/ d) N* Z' D2 U1 umeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
/ K( d3 R9 U& t% nfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than( H  f. Q, [, _, D) i
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed( G% O* a  F+ g- z
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
' M; z8 \5 g  W- {( pindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower  }8 J; A8 {$ K& E
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
4 {+ I- A5 y3 w* zthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was( E9 k. l* S; @1 T# O9 p
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
2 {( d6 A: t: zhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “) m; `0 M9 f) W0 h; s4 J, q. `4 T
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
6 [6 j+ M& s. r& Y3 vswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
/ h7 w/ a# h. ^- h. |: T1 G( rteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the9 Q' h7 Q. m' F8 f# V
Callaway report.# f; {$ a, U) ~2 p" D
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more; ?+ i3 ^7 R0 s1 T( v- E
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
1 t' J6 E! i9 N: K1 G9 Yhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description4 _+ W  q1 i. ~* c1 G/ k
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
# T- y" k( d8 Ybetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the: ~0 \, E- S# J7 \5 D2 R
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
8 B' l) M: E' s  Npublicly voiced different opinions./ L4 p* m* i5 i  J& y
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
. r! M: a! }2 p/ w  D5 u6 Qfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature7 z3 J+ u; K' `3 ^! S/ D+ m1 C
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' F% N/ W! D5 W6 ?- e
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
! ^& F* K% g* M8 wyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
+ G4 V2 [% {& |1 P2 t# |* x0 [( K/ Z* mof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ T: |  \/ [1 z* d6 x2 iThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 N5 w) i  j# @) v1 P% w& \that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They8 }2 j5 e" z, p. D. z" |& o* K# ~
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
4 w5 {( F; T0 T) z% H8 vAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that8 \2 C- W( ?/ e- o( o0 W$ g
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
$ e2 c  q0 `4 w7 Bsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.: R8 C: N1 ]5 g$ f" J/ v/ M% N2 ?# S1 l
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
! B" l+ z0 x$ [. M+ u" z: a7 [0 Bmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  R* i5 z/ _; y( U) X
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
4 b. @' h6 i6 Y4 U8 z(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she8 ]5 B) Z( n' C: V
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
# B# _; K+ U' _* ~1 u& x2 K- SThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science. b/ S1 k9 y- Y* G& H" I
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 v/ o" V, h! s5 z% b9 g- Y
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
! s0 F+ Y0 D: t9 ~Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and" w6 n8 }! h9 Z/ B& [4 T
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( m2 P/ \# q. f* z2 l. r2 y! k+ e
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to2 }+ ^* g# E- S- {4 s
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
7 |3 C7 \- ], DThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
) n) ^0 y  [; d) _7 _+ }  Kshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
9 C* x. v0 Q' ~us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather- j. X/ B, D5 c. i. x
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that0 o# W! o  x. A6 Q+ ?. h
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( M/ B3 v" Y1 U0 m# ]2 i: N% vabout British supremacy.
! S6 W8 t( ?" `6 s5 V' E6 [5 ~- }" _The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
* m6 K+ \/ [1 u* [6 Eunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
. c) X/ ]  @$ ~: vChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
& m5 L% t4 A2 Y4 O# j7 F1 R4 mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
0 X% X) v# l8 tOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
- n1 L: e9 Z% p8 `Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of  F$ N' j2 }" `$ U, E
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests5 o9 A8 k9 z: S$ M0 j. E
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
+ W" Z5 ~7 r$ O& `: hit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
+ n% R8 s# F. P8 K. v' P* K. rpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
5 Z! o5 M- M/ l/ ~- @Nature.
; ?# ?& U. D6 r0 s. D& A2 C# ~I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
" I$ f% I+ t1 z- `3 }2 a- Kthe Callaway report.
# \' ~, B/ O; ^9 L1 K: W) o
4 q6 Y$ z% i, sYi1 A! o' ~8 l5 i2 s# |

7 X  \1 Z) q. i; M! v0 d% wYi Rao, Ph.D.
5 y: {8 H1 E1 d# A9 bProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences3 R  _/ a) e7 K6 {
Beijing, China: |8 U  V# X' ~6 h1 g3 I& {2 v! g0 A
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。
理袁律师事务所
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 + X1 F; u& @! w: x, m/ n% O* d
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

) ^5 s, f3 K2 k- Q原文是公开信。
' `4 c; G0 C  v* i$ B2 O4 `  n4 j% k) l1 U! k
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
5 u2 b% W3 ^  B+ T+ }7 ~3 _原文是公开信。/ S! y! @! ]1 P- {4 a

* [; e1 v! K8 G  f8 a小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
3 |7 P: S' ~# R! ^
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 JIANG0 b' O! S- j/ _3 Y: _- h, z" F' S- s
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
: N! n  V0 [! O# t
& |) B3 Y$ [0 g& }http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
  o- [3 V; a# \' a
! I& M* j7 t0 C4 x' MFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
: l& Z4 i0 K2 E$ ~
( `4 e2 o6 P3 a. H8 j6 XIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself* F; C9 o( d  d. d; P# u: N
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science, E7 f; O" ^2 p
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& ]8 f& P( q/ e
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: |! }* U! C, gscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general) |! o5 t* {+ E
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors4 n- O) |2 y' v5 m
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
, x  ~0 D- w  [7 n( Lwhich they blatantly failed to do.
, O+ n% L/ i7 d* h7 g& o. a0 r. v6 Y. l4 L+ s$ X# X7 S
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
3 J$ v' h) p! A- oOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in& B1 f* T5 L! K! L: `
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “& f0 o* x; d. l
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
* q4 \$ L$ O+ o# A; Mpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
7 f+ }' O$ q+ R: m' M, Oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. W$ N4 Y; D, H1 i2 e7 H. Mdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to4 c2 C1 p/ `  }6 p* m
be treated as 7 s.
: ]  V4 a: C6 V' q4 Y3 H0 [6 j; e# k1 j$ H
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is3 F6 i8 R0 T# q8 H" ?9 A
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
5 ]/ B. q0 e* k6 a* f5 N8 p7 S1 Pimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
8 Z6 s2 t4 m/ G4 s- m0 J+ ?$ }An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
9 N3 {5 f4 O& k5 c. \* S-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
+ Q; ]# W9 a6 q$ ?2 h9 r' `( |For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an$ c9 j: E' r( e' v1 t- _5 D
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and% ?3 i9 |9 c; ]' s
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
* N0 X' |- |$ ]. y; |based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
& o6 s, e' }  u
! w  ^4 P  K8 g- _& M( H6 `Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
# y$ N# ^, X0 C* c! iexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
; E5 `- Y0 B# v; Tthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so. I' {; w& @4 W  }. ^
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
9 [; p! @. Z1 p& n* J0 ~events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s1 u% M$ ^' N& r' W
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ r; X* O" q) t$ n& i
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another7 {* l% q5 x' \& G. ?' ^3 m
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
0 _+ Z" ^; R$ e7 c4 u: Y" G& Xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
3 v; R: A: T; P& N0 X/ z, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; `& @. S1 T0 Pstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
: n% w1 [& [$ U* [/ m8 a( Pfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* }- }7 M0 g6 T/ `% }  o! q) A" Pfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting; ]. K" y: I& H
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
. D+ u6 W% ~. `% T: c2 Y1 ^implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
; F# O: G/ K4 }7 D3 S
: n( i" D, Q3 U: Z: s' EFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ I2 a) e4 V5 n1 P
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93/ C9 H' O2 k( O+ ~+ k
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s: T' g$ w9 k1 m+ T9 O# ~
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
$ a* K! [8 V) ]" f3 N& [out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
$ b. s  k' k$ \! b9 m" l! A4 b$ C0 JLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
1 Y' c. D# k0 f. a* q7 @of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
7 @- V6 }# C+ o5 ~7 P* Z: k/ S" glogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in# x! f/ N3 H$ G" {$ E3 q. P
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science' M% @- I/ H) ]; }" B
works.
* D) v- P: P/ l& z9 \" l1 ]
" ]" [( w- H5 n* p0 jFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and3 Q1 z/ e/ O& X- F0 f
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this5 G% |( D3 d5 L- l' ^5 t
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% v$ k0 d9 Q  q! z& |5 ~3 Vstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific* R) P6 ]2 }2 B$ Q- i
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
6 M/ s' ?, b: mreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
1 n( C0 Q2 K( ]" t" u* fcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
: x+ @0 v: B5 s4 b' \demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
! H8 c# ~3 E7 u  F& L5 Hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample+ X' c: X! n3 Y
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is) F$ |% ]+ G# E1 ^# M9 Y
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
5 j# C3 [& }( G2 Pwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
; v% N% p. s! z% K& @+ Gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the/ d9 p+ U. i& R3 W  o4 ~0 N9 T
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% ?; r1 H; L& [; l+ B
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation' R5 t+ M! h1 [$ F( E6 S0 Q* K
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are+ e0 U- m5 n7 q" r
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
+ ?9 Q  `! m* v) j2 M. Y# r# ?/ Lbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a5 X4 M7 _- V' j; i2 Z) k5 |, Z
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye9 _2 I" ^' D; P
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a4 G7 {1 \$ ^: W9 f3 Y; B7 B
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' B. @3 N+ J8 y/ `8 Zother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ M3 n/ c: ]8 H$ \' o3 Z1 I: J, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is! {8 z' w/ t, C: m6 [! x  H# Y3 N
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& U! T2 Q, g3 n% f9 g: Aathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
' a3 E: Y( ~6 K, r& achance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 _& t. z& a# s
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
8 T# Z' |4 x1 D. Zagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for4 o1 }0 V4 H8 @! j; t3 i
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
; J0 j1 C" B8 E+ L0 z+ O( WInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?) e7 x6 H* r* N& T; s' H+ O- d
. @& ~+ T& P" k* E" i4 l
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. P* _$ G5 ?# i
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
5 U1 q1 V; z4 E6 |) |. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 X. H; `9 Q& O7 ^. Z; aOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
- L4 T- c+ v7 o2 W3 @/ jOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
4 g. l" p' C1 E* o6 m8 hdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
) [4 r0 a* u& @! M! e" O; Dgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
! Z% v$ @' J! }$ u1 R+ d& [+ Jhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 l$ W" k. H1 D- ~+ [' @4 C8 B+ {player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
  a& c/ p8 P: {( F' M, N* wpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. q4 G; t" {8 }$ z% f$ R4 b! }2 `2 F2 H  J/ z% W2 Q/ Q1 X2 ]4 i
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (' A; s9 v9 B' w& |4 f- H
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
& ]& Z+ |4 d: f9 l* Z+ J9 I: rsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
0 l( u+ |6 S1 k* `9 j/ vsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide& I& b0 L2 h6 \. `
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your  k% j: N: |0 }0 ^& M* n( v
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 r+ i+ P6 u+ z: a3 s$ ]9 e
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 L) h3 \' J2 ]5 a# v" n; G! Zargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal: M6 G2 w- h+ n+ M" L2 ^2 b6 A0 b
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or5 ]; H7 W/ |9 d" @' 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!
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, 2026-2-25 23:48 , Processed in 0.191444 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