埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2065|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
# y3 a( C. q# _2 O0 f/ G$ C" Q% T1 Z; o4 M* j0 \* f) p% ~
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。$ H# {6 h. l% k. p) _# X
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 W- r- [. l8 A2 G5 g( v% C
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 d) D: Y1 g( ?; A

& |- W8 l0 P6 T$ |# v! r6 I5 ^http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html* t& ?$ A! O) B: O2 U9 ^6 Z

( W7 }, |- \" a# q' w7 K致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选% J" O+ J/ H: Z; s" k" z

# g5 R) i+ L* a  M0 b. _' W英文原信附后,大意如下:
- {3 J$ s/ Y8 {! C6 v5 Y, ^9 b" x+ J7 D; S- l, ~- t
斐尔,9 S4 P" z* v( {; ]" X4 |9 a1 J! j
       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
3 h# B0 ~/ @6 l8 s  V% xemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。" ?% J1 m8 j- c: U. {. J
       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  }  d6 v& K' y* R) W5 Z7 ?
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% B/ r$ a( @  M/ _* [1 f3 Z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。8 W# L4 s/ z+ J) 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
' x% b) U* N; B" w; D% ?# \' l0 Q; L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/ P2 {+ u4 t" m4 N
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  L* S1 @1 C- k, E' p
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。) q( n! Z7 J3 ]; ~
       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
1 N! P) N' n# x,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 u7 Z" ~# h6 E2 h
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。$ E3 i0 L, G5 r
       Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她% D" t8 _4 @: T! 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, j/ L6 H! s) K% ], y  a$ v9 T- n
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
- i$ C# @# p+ \. X; k. X       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' T3 X& k/ n: K6 A, S8 J9 r4 G
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/ V3 e" p; E7 S! a* E: F
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
  v" p6 i( Y" A+ x% Q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7 V$ j. @: H. }3 k: x
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、六6 t6 V! s' X! t0 t5 }- O3 ?
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
  B2 p8 ^0 ]  [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
& W2 `9 J* [# Q3 ~* U。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
" f! I8 b( X. @录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
- Q( ]- \8 Q. k' 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
$ H& E8 j5 ~# b9 r8 C1》,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' _! O' F/ K# e
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
! j2 b+ j& i7 }$ j- T  ]* u同意见的专家。
( C$ h3 e4 K5 N* P, Y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$ h" V7 m" B& b9 t2 K2 A" K
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8 w) @& q! \1 I
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- S. N5 ^( R2 o4 L. k# g4 r0 `- H
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
1 g" T( \* d' r' i7 `- k/ A, sCallaway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)$ o6 J- h* V1 Y6 a, _  A5 [
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
! y0 F0 b; i1 i8 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
9 S+ Q0 N' u! ?4 j( ?这些被Callaway忽略。  q! a6 m# b- F" t/ h, S
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
8 u+ C! z8 l5 [: w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 E6 r# q4 ~! W: R教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: l1 u0 s2 ?% l. X
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
7 h' d! b8 R1 e' B/ P" k; y; x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; j4 g- Q0 m5 B( l6 S: n
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
1 Y3 o( j4 q4 t, G7 `, U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。
8 \5 q/ V  `0 E) u7 [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
% V  K! J! W8 F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# H5 z; g9 r5 ]" m
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
) O" O/ t2 f) H/ V; o, X”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- F# V5 N1 R- a% g9 C6 P* A7 D0 {
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
% N7 ]& n  m  v/ o% X6 N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
7 W, @4 i, b( y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
- \  U; q1 |8 Q' x# I. ]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; h# i5 f) h1 H5 b7 l% h$ ~' u1 q
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
" R/ k7 x" L; v" k而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
, l) m8 r3 y+ c# K, F+ ?1 l2 @我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。" ~  O7 I/ a) Z* e( s/ Y* ?# r6 v! z

% t7 W+ J: {! {- |8 w% ?) T, X9 g" p. V5 e1 a" K
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅2 R# F0 K) f# Y+ `! C
4 G  U5 p  f% J7 E
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结+ n6 _8 B' k' x  m+ Z. F
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
. K$ r7 c3 |! U/ G: j1 T# v* {附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见8 b+ B8 M' c; o7 D
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见# `0 p; D& C4 \; ]6 F1 r
* U1 p3 X7 X% \

' @/ D3 k: O4 Q/ O8 a5 o( A' p4 l: [! ^4 T) @$ u
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
- G& ~0 @! e" r7 j; r! z$ e5 sDear Phil,
6 z4 j' {, [% f, {& t       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
/ O$ M& ]- {* n" Zreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
( D, n6 N7 x* @# q6 Rhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
$ W* h. B5 @+ I) |0 pyou.; A4 S2 s8 r! Y1 r# E! m- ?/ q
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
& P  G2 B/ T5 P( x7 f4 l: W/ b% Obrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese) d; i" T2 }3 i" k: `0 P9 k" @/ x
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the. i. G9 _. e2 F' n
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature  g, Y( W" @% ?! g* y. C* k. N
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# q, S5 W$ @( Q8 @6 d1 kseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news; X' t$ Q1 l7 M
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.2 J. Z* V: s/ J. m" r
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the3 t4 @5 R+ Z& |0 w% W/ h# p; R) Y
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a7 x& Z: ^; u# O9 Y8 L
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish1 P; A' y7 e, @- l# x' k% U
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 q$ j) T% m7 [( \6 z2 o" V. bdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
, r  r) S! ^6 Q" P) s& T! c6 Gexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
( f% k( ?+ n8 Pstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* \6 C7 o; n2 d& l) ^3 |
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 }/ `9 S# Z: {to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
( E$ e* a, P: X6 B0 j2 ~" }; Areporting.' `# C: U% _$ ~+ `
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have! |2 ~4 J" ]6 u. M6 y
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
! d7 u0 ]4 S0 _2 x, Gchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in$ U1 }3 w% ~( z! U* C; B0 L/ d7 I
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
/ d2 m! |. _0 c$ Apresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
( s- M3 s7 o# F/ _) q6 ~$ m       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: [2 ]5 e9 w' r! j4 y3 X
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds/ a; Y) P/ r# |9 j5 Z
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 508 B* f+ r1 }/ u7 N* I& K
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same( A5 \) g3 N1 T1 U# P$ Z* E( L
event for men, with the second fastest record.
% ?# \& l# ^' G. Q3 J       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
2 x( r8 D5 n# t" c. |was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
4 Z) s. F* p; C; h- n/ _* oyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record9 D% K7 b* L# ~" Q$ g
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 B$ z# J4 z  y' E$ @  K% f
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
8 T8 S- ], v4 y' u, Kfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
! n) n8 [" X+ E; h) J* |Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
" L  B9 A; A2 F% v, U' t# \behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
! }: Y$ b6 b9 ]- P* D% M- t0 Iindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower2 [! i& B! {2 |9 p3 g! R- y
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than+ n; W8 D4 s; G. ~  O# s
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( h3 i) v+ y' }; P3 Gher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
7 D: J2 o0 Q: W7 W* vhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “8 m7 G* K( ]2 `! ]
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other8 d; s1 {( r/ u9 B8 I
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the5 F# [* _5 p" `& V- l' t
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the9 p( J9 B, n4 l* W
Callaway report.
- p) D. O8 Y7 p$ r1 q. |8 RThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more: l" e9 d; [2 x. @0 _
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
2 }7 ~! N9 E# p0 i5 d5 _. s6 Bhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
- T; n& p+ E+ P- i; m, |$ wof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been( r( x* ?$ A+ Z3 c* i
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the* L9 I) `7 n) X
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had# Q) q, B* Z$ W% [7 f/ @2 u4 u  A6 S
publicly voiced different opinions.3 x9 b1 F" E* D: E: @6 ~
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD3 q- b9 Z8 y7 {+ D  p1 E
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature  |1 L% n9 w- a, @+ d. R
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent: {! _' a; Q4 X& }
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
; V/ i1 L) q& p$ I3 E3 Dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
! e  o8 X+ t& c& Z8 j* Uof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ s: O5 f; O8 M( ~There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 X6 S. H: b# l  \* p
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They0 v& T$ h- `! ?  Z5 u' q& t/ C
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
$ I3 O8 ^4 O0 E9 VAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
5 n7 e8 H7 Z1 ~/ k. dthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was6 _2 U& N( P6 q! ?0 x3 L% ^5 |
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
$ e  b3 ~* G" [" zOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
  G( S: C3 N, R$ Tmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the# z/ ^& F0 u. X' K% r2 M3 E) G
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June0 R, N! M5 ?: p9 |+ V6 u
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
- `6 Q7 b* K4 ?/ t' |% @8 `, Vand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.6 x  K" ?& d0 K" B  l
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science+ f, `7 d  l% F1 `. e# F% e
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
8 q9 R/ O5 I- xDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
5 a( q, C+ A7 k( PNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and/ q2 \  ^/ q) a( O! B& U/ z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature+ l+ J1 Y! B, u
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to. X* l7 @/ x1 O4 V: N* x
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.5 j4 N3 q1 B/ @" L" q7 A
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not6 M& S9 }7 N) c9 ~: d
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 T- h1 w+ j+ w7 ?$ Fus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather) y/ h( C" D6 m
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that. i" F& J0 L+ W! q. t* B, ~
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”- P, j8 c( d1 V
about British supremacy., r; X7 c: R0 w
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) n! @7 V. E' |8 s- \unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
9 z* X5 E' Y2 \5 e, i  E- D+ b+ ~Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
3 I! |( }5 U# mour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
: c3 H4 t$ n7 N3 _1 }8 ~Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
8 V$ X9 N  v! r9 dYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 v! x% h) H4 _* h2 w' p" Y5 H# Yprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
" _& c! \) m6 u* O, k8 k* f/ h0 ybefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
4 r9 f+ Z6 u+ A+ p( o' V, H# Oit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
" j6 f" ?6 F1 y: m" I- opublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like  O! T! ], g! k# i
Nature.
9 t. q( b& o( KI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
+ h" Y' z7 q( e2 A7 _+ R8 Rthe Callaway report.0 r9 ~8 A6 ~, J. [" V
# t# o# n" _3 @1 n- V, T
Yi# N. F6 B/ ^+ q, n8 _
! Y! M; z8 K' N1 i
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
( R& `& F, x( q: S( GProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences" q, n1 `  \1 u# D. x% I
Beijing, China( k5 j% R$ U& J
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 & z, C6 K, w5 C; h- x# B
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
4 A% |$ j. O0 d# w
原文是公开信。$ V6 F  H3 v/ {1 a8 Y
! y0 p! O0 U' g  ^+ M8 z2 b' Q
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 7 y( }# ?5 q! e! l3 d+ T
原文是公开信。
8 I* G! o/ T4 \' F* o
  q8 [  w2 j" g2 j5 \: |  N小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
4 y! ?* Y; ^# T7 I* ]2 F
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, p9 U8 I* E1 s2 ~, [* v* `2 {+ C0 Y+ \
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。# q. T% U' N$ \. G8 s

, [2 X: r. c" }http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
/ u/ _+ R' ^3 P2 ~- i9 I
8 t$ e  r# k- _* g, L' C- E1 [FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania8 {" j  E8 K/ A4 M# N0 Z: c
0 d8 c+ G; @8 C" N. [9 b
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 R9 B. i' ?" A. [( M$ G, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 b; Q9 Y, D% c+ s/ Q
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this& d  ?: N! }, \: k' i' K5 Q- u; L) T
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
: p! O1 I, g2 ]scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general3 g( X! n4 Z. Y% b4 @7 v
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
* U, {3 W, j2 oshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. v& b% c+ V* vwhich they blatantly failed to do.
1 z+ |% @% G" a4 F7 f$ t4 {( A! }6 W& N' F
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
, y2 ~: R4 ^) A( N" ?, A; lOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in3 K8 B9 @5 u' e+ ]- x$ m
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 H# e( ]0 |! V! M
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
" U& B2 Q7 C0 q* O4 M( Q1 Kpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
, G6 t  g6 r, iimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ ~' j7 z& p# h
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to9 }4 f2 \& @% i# ]4 O1 k$ T
be treated as 7 s.
  A0 O9 I1 T9 q. p8 y
3 k( r$ _9 m. `/ \: kSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is' x; n) B# S- j& }8 h
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem% o0 E3 k( T9 C! i* P% ~8 w/ _
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.0 M  m; C4 C- i/ O" x5 L; o
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400; Z3 z6 A6 m* |3 v6 u* D, ^
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.2 g0 d* g$ r$ X% s
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
- I( K; ]+ j4 W* p9 Delite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 ~4 m% [' ?9 m' C
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”8 S. S  ^3 x* l4 v2 {; `
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
* j" s1 i, ^: D! j% F! n. d
) M9 b* x! _5 w8 F3 Q% p  eThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook# }, `- S% D( R, r7 z* B6 L+ u, S
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
0 V& B8 Z( P0 v0 m$ ]the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
' Z( Z& L) L6 Q) T/ fhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later" a4 e& M% Q8 e  T- C- n/ Y
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
- m% u1 z. ^- n2 m' Mbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) }$ E7 k2 J4 u- |" a
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
+ X- H1 ^" {* h2 E8 U5 C; r: ~topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
7 G$ `- N9 e# e% @/ {hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle7 k. y' V) K0 M
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this! U8 @! h( P5 b* K8 U$ c
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
0 _3 ?7 B; b: M; Efaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
0 d2 l% c4 v; d% Qfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
+ L/ D- E9 N5 `* g' s# Maside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
3 P- v$ u# p- F7 Limplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.1 ~! `8 q1 C) y. b' L, z2 N

  {- g2 U! _, f: ], ?Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
' ^+ r$ |  X/ _+ K3 tfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93" @* l3 t1 W1 j* j/ O/ y
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s* i5 o9 a" w, `# ^, a: r0 \
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
  P' j. C- ]" Nout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& X6 Y  {/ V. ^1 X' i) ?
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
  A  V" h; f% ^+ L/ R# cof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it* y6 o+ Z+ @" f# Q8 G
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
$ Z2 [/ Y" d% ?% n2 ?0 @every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
8 c/ Y% s: l/ Dworks.
2 E% x- S- x+ _5 M6 Q* R, b. O7 X8 o3 A- i& c2 U
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
; i, i9 S. v+ k7 e9 y( w% timplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
7 ?9 Y; j6 Z, jkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
; }# A" L) \6 g! ^4 w, t) z  qstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific# f6 O! Z* B2 O, j
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
) T: g' H1 Z9 P9 H1 ]" Y; m: Qreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One* l- X) v7 T+ k' c2 s
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to2 q% u3 c  E5 l, c! O; b
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
$ G. J  {- z8 I& w; H/ h3 xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
6 V7 u6 J  O5 J  V" F% U& Qis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
4 }( d. t; i3 ]! f. Rcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
  V% s8 Y" }! o1 F, H& zwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly( |9 G8 {) h& W" H
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the# ~" Y, S( O3 |' `. H$ q! T% D, M
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not9 l# x$ D( J3 F3 b' E
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation7 R! M- R- I9 |6 V/ ]7 ~* R; d
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
% w1 _. Z: O) p2 n/ bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
2 h7 p* e- v- N& H* y' I& Mbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a0 y5 E4 N$ O, E; Q( ^* K! @2 W) \
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
. B) H* {. z- x7 S0 ]  P: thas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
# I( t! f7 X: h. Odrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:) M3 T# R% s" @+ m7 i; a
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
9 R3 ]4 f  D# S5 t8 f) C- [. o- ?, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, |: x8 }& }- d& \
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 S) v2 i9 @: \' ^& k  u0 H
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight9 y; `# w- T3 }4 o/ [5 h5 L
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?' Z  {9 D- I+ O# X9 J5 T- P" W
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping: |0 k1 y3 {+ R9 w. v7 `
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& _+ e( ~+ Y: W6 G4 {4 ~eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 R. P( v) `! M0 a: }5 j
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?% L  q9 ?0 T! I8 I3 B% }; R
. `+ f7 {2 E" _( n5 E* u
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
  ?3 n  w8 G2 l; w3 a: c' Ocompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
$ m/ o; y2 _6 `) ]. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
3 x5 W3 A. o1 v" m9 T' JOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London2 {, N$ v# `5 Y: Q
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for5 g0 K; K, Q* ^5 U3 v
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic: p/ y3 r: u! r( B3 Q  ^  R9 [
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
" M9 I" ~, C( Qhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a  b  [. S% |' t! M/ j
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this" M  r* P$ z+ q/ J7 C* J$ z
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.; b7 F! ~2 t' ~2 L# \* g
4 p- b# q0 c" D6 F- I! K
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (0 u! Y, |( ~% W! y; @5 l
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too% I, r- H% [5 d
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
, z( ]& X2 v7 l7 isuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
% U& V1 i8 Q& ?" ?: v, Uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
  O, D- c, A- N& S. dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,0 g7 o9 [$ \5 {) ~9 g) ?. L$ E
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your+ w( L% f- r; o  g0 N$ R. m
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
! x& R' Y2 p) Nsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or8 N' A% ]6 h4 C2 q% h
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, 2026-2-24 07:26 , Processed in 0.132868 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