埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1818|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
4 I% t0 u& M; ~/ [2 V5 w6 X9 E. J$ o) _  ?- y, y; q
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。% N2 s, N. e8 a9 m5 [6 u
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。) b) K" S: J. [
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。  c5 x1 }9 B( _- ^2 g7 R

; \7 f0 V6 l  S& ?& t$ p+ q$ zhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html, s3 o+ S: W+ S
& Z9 B; b6 d8 ]9 E
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
2 F! `. P% U; {( y( y" P+ }8 ?& q0 }0 B  D' E3 l" L7 G
英文原信附后,大意如下:/ E3 ^) Q  x8 s- g- D2 c
" C  Z- w& M( R
斐尔,1 F" X- t1 n% q$ {# O6 ^5 S" T
       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 o! |2 f5 B2 z* r4 R: f
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
1 f1 b- J5 N! D1 M0 o: g" A       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4 T7 \$ h) R  h. h9 @* f: p) t
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
3 }  {  w9 K. m6 P; A& p+ 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。9 Y: I' e" K, Z" b2 q" E1 o* O  b
       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4 R8 W# t: l  _6 e1 f
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 L/ U. @) o* u* O5 `+ k4 ]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/ _9 T; {: B5 B. B/ d0 a# E
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。/ J7 l4 {4 {) B4 G9 m, m
       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 Y" ~6 U# X. H8 Y. ?& q
,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
; N% v6 ?' d; o9 _( V: O& x”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( W& x5 m* D$ z       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$ X9 |  ^$ F3 U" N2 H
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 u& F' j- ~% i,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。( W% T! O& m( Q$ s- h  b
       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& u5 E; i4 \/ t
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
  r/ P$ F' j2 x# t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
$ z" w# t. y; V; x( V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 x7 D" A: f" p300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
) F3 X' c/ T( J- g* s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! L+ B: v% X5 S: q
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
. q& g; h! k4 Z  C1 v' a。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
% E3 L  d( `3 u+ m3 @, o录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
! i  u& I/ ^3 c- I& 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: j" k. e# `0 c4 |6 d+ ~
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2 \; Q$ J4 S0 p
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* @5 i0 e/ w$ m, @
同意见的专家。+ V( K$ p: W0 n* d  b
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& L% ]0 u# J; `7 F. o2 U
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- p) @" z0 o# R
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
/ F% {5 c6 |6 M+ C《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ x) ]2 o  P$ H' a5 b1 ~) {
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)
! ^" ?! `7 j5 D; V9 j5 |6 b7 l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
' E- g; R: T$ X% c- w2 |《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
& l" J. q7 N% _这些被Callaway忽略。
6 s4 c9 ?) X: c7 C' x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 V. e( d- u' G1 F1 G( Z" e2 t2 X1 u
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
: U0 X4 f  Y5 K0 X3 K+ @+ b5 Y教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。6 f" g2 D3 K3 Q. h
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, j/ V) u& v5 C% [
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
, R! d* [$ L; [" @+ r( e$ v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/ L5 b7 ^2 ~4 k3 Y, h3 f* l' i; v
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。
' E# `6 f" h' v8 L, K6 D; B/ r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, D9 L5 @8 G5 y8 S' {3 Q- n
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4 X1 y: h% x& z! l  v
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
4 a8 e( T' Z+ w) Q+ W”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。* D- Z' [3 r: b2 o+ h7 O5 @. l
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- f) H, [9 m( k
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6 h4 ?3 ]+ S5 G. N8 B2 w
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
  W# E0 m: t1 B3 P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+ O7 q) l! V9 K
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
( y# J4 s* m% ]而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
% a- `1 ~( ]0 r5 y6 t6 }$ o4 ]我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。' h9 g6 A6 a0 e0 F/ R

( M# ^; l8 |/ l) }
' F9 H7 ?% h2 }( r! t# f北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
0 I8 Y' W; p0 @6 A, q8 v6 P1 R7 [3 d) B, b5 p
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结8 z  j, a* F/ K. F0 s4 _/ n
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
) c3 s: ^# N$ U2 u; X0 ~" r附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见) G4 l+ ~* P- N: v6 M2 C( R. Y
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见+ g2 ?0 r& m6 @- U' D  `' T& F

1 E! B' ]/ L$ X8 A; _
* Z0 _8 G5 g* v9 W
& {: F  X, s, _9 B4 X0 _原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
  f9 d4 H9 q- a0 uDear Phil,
4 j3 S  R  C3 M: o: G4 N       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" A) w- a1 k6 Creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
& ^& j( V1 V8 z* L: qhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed$ ~7 F+ {/ B/ @  v& m( K3 w
you.
0 m* p# f; j" t# I0 y" q# D: `       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
5 v: q4 b, D3 ]  O3 ?) |3 ^% r3 M  obrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
$ M; G- d' C. |( t# I! b; Ereaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
# W0 W' d  r% E1 P. j& Kworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature& ~, i. Y3 K8 R( J7 F
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: W8 |" q6 i1 }6 i5 B1 Pseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news2 q; b8 r$ A8 j3 J$ b7 q: [  |
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.8 P5 v  n5 Y6 l, E1 ^  h7 x8 b
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" ^  E. g" [( u" _
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a8 p# n' m$ ~6 a0 a
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
" \2 p! x& p8 Q; h& |6 E9 f8 a& Ethat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
3 C' T5 |" x& Z0 ndid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
+ ?' \6 B. X) v) D0 Nexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 H8 i. l0 V+ L  b4 Mstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,4 D, ?0 z! a8 @# }4 T# d+ t
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone) ^5 d9 }- I, x9 u# V. p) G! @
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
8 ]9 f/ J6 B. L- F9 n3 r& freporting.( T3 |9 s& H5 X4 [
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have; C+ A) G4 r  E% K: D  e
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
+ G" Y" _0 ^4 ]' Xchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in) d2 K$ T& q2 b
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A$ V7 d3 Q2 _" H; f" |
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.5 W" ^  n8 L& f9 T
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem0 g6 T) e3 u6 ]0 h! ~; u
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
  b2 F: C8 m5 |& x8 |1 rfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50/ z, ]5 \( j6 }5 W
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ O7 f1 r  @* f2 V* A1 R! n
event for men, with the second fastest record.1 J$ t# a) i) J3 o
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
( r7 ^2 u7 H- Y3 |, A* ?: iwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
7 {9 W$ T: j- l  Ryear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record0 C* [5 l) L. Q% ?% O
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
8 S7 l4 T1 Z4 q2 V8 ~5 k8 x" Dmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
+ [8 T9 G8 n" s6 j: y) c$ Afor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
: r) J7 z5 @% [' X2 ?4 O! i7 R- GLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
1 O" X1 _% ~3 r7 I/ p' {behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the4 s& Z4 y6 K; A7 W) B) \
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
. z" v" \' T) Z9 W, v5 Q  q1 `  xthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than1 Z8 j& V* b, a/ ~, i5 O( w
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
* B: @# I: ?$ y, Q( R- \her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then# F& T" {, H7 |& p: {4 k6 u
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “, ^$ i  ]5 p1 N6 w& u& [# O/ d+ h9 ?
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
$ t/ C) u9 m5 b5 r$ |  wswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
! w8 U* v% u+ h! y7 }* n6 \teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the. C( z5 a& y9 m. d4 S, n
Callaway report.  _5 C3 Y! m5 Q8 |: ~
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more1 l2 o$ E% B  H& @
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details( N% V; W% @& s* D# v9 G6 ?
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description. o; \! O% b% {5 L5 Y. u6 ?
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 J4 G9 |( Z6 A8 `1 b$ U8 X9 A
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
! F' h" m# G$ b# AWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
1 h7 M$ W6 Y+ @( K. z( A3 r3 jpublicly voiced different opinions.
( C# ^9 v( j: L3 E; VYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD/ }2 o# L# A2 O
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature& w  q: z+ k; r) V
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent2 c7 [* ~$ F! p. u$ c/ {
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 M+ u" k% M0 V) u9 W  K# dyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy+ m0 \% k! f) Z, K/ ^5 T
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: g2 u4 P1 E& {# J1 i1 p# M: ?
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think7 K0 Q5 `7 @9 @! }
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They$ U1 T; d1 f. a9 ^
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
2 q$ M8 a  M6 u7 m3 `# @Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
% k0 h) `' i- _3 Z! w" cthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was- c) [- J$ Y+ a5 a
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
0 y% ^' _) K  o+ A3 pOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
5 O% k. ^" |8 v1 ^; pmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
  j- b2 M" e" i" \5 r& |Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 M2 @% N5 k& Q, i6 ], }( `0 _! V4 t
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
# I, w6 D. e$ u" ~& s; Zand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting./ `5 d0 @2 R  S) H
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
$ a) K3 F1 _, y0 i! Eand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and/ n) r( h' `9 U: W4 A1 u
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.7 u9 t+ E% U/ L' P
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
; F7 r) c3 W- E/ f. zobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
* B- Y9 A; T8 C) z3 @what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
! w" d6 ~9 W& j2 w; o& l+ X, hrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.) ~& r, T5 F" A" K
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
) O/ [" t1 s2 Q. vshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
2 D; E# K+ A" I; y% zus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
+ k+ p# d' Q/ w) Pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that  d' ]0 C* X5 X: D2 s
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”% V: s# \6 H/ M$ ]
about British supremacy.
0 I3 ]7 {0 K" S* d( MThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many; o. C3 r  _8 l, Y
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
6 W( U" u+ j, M: C0 NChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
9 o+ H: s( y0 K. R* |our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London' j1 R1 A; _6 w% H2 T& @
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
' \' H* k$ u: rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of7 R  N- r- h: q. ?  I) x
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
% K: s( D, V4 L/ }before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
" b+ F/ h  m2 G+ _  Jit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- R+ Y0 A# n2 {0 O) cpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like' F; D7 T, m' ~3 z% w
Nature.9 y5 g3 N; n0 {9 U! ]' `$ f2 s, l
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; l7 ^  r; {/ o) Athe Callaway report." b9 Q0 L* D2 t
! ^# j4 P& ^% f, ?  u( J
Yi8 ~) N: _: l8 @5 i! A4 S

; B% N! v8 X" e7 B4 q# AYi Rao, Ph.D.* Q4 m9 j8 U! W2 f7 Q% s, S
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
3 m  [, r" D1 ~& w) jBeijing, China
- ?" x8 b+ e8 s$ `+ y
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
, B- a  g4 F% }原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
( l& O* ?" v7 d! G) Q0 i3 Q% o9 f
原文是公开信。
% w! Q  J- C: C* I
. h. C6 _" y8 w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
9 i7 G: ]/ }+ S. ?原文是公开信。. _% c3 L5 J" d  @8 R

" u% ?( S, V$ G+ a- c1 k, |小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
0 S& U( u( c& p4 N
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  S0 |6 J: ~2 q, V
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
, s1 p- R6 P8 R* `$ @: `
; Z  u5 i0 e. bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html4 }0 h) d" |# S

: f+ L6 U' l- x' JFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
, ~5 a% `1 t' b% c" k0 {! D; B/ g" Y! E9 [
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
/ \) r2 ^2 _0 E( ^. S1 D  A4 G, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science, K6 n$ r: b! t) ~
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this9 z/ t( L3 X0 S2 Y
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the! _) D8 [9 B- M, h$ @& H& Y5 i. H: r2 E
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
$ |  y) h  W  G' W! g+ T- Wpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors; c: D3 f8 O- L/ z* [. q
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
- j+ g" z* J6 D; l% y% ?- x9 _: ?- s: awhich they blatantly failed to do.; d1 i! W. [! a
6 s* z, a5 @1 x5 C
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; Z$ V" ~" k7 J, z' }# Z6 ROlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
' B$ Q% L* w  N. e2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “7 l) }% ]2 S  q* h( c0 l
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous: z! C  M, d! h7 q: A  H
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
& V5 e! p7 s; l, ximprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
# `# U, c4 q4 R- w' }. ^+ D1 adifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
) {" X7 Y! i# E' l# h6 n( gbe treated as 7 s.) I, C; X  J1 l' z( I: q
% v1 g/ ^) i% n% d$ M
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is) e% S/ W( x. e! u" O; C7 `
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
  _/ ~9 D) ?3 Z& |8 h9 V! gimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
. i$ A6 B% v6 Q2 {An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400. Y, R- r) d3 t' k. f7 M
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.2 s' B4 Q: k+ V+ W9 H. [. ?3 ?
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
5 p0 F. w) R, I/ z) `elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and0 f9 S$ m( R" ^0 r1 c& S' l
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
9 U5 i. E9 @4 E& o# V! @0 |) {based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.) K2 \- H4 p: i9 v! ~" d+ k
  U8 o" V( _; w1 K' V7 {( a. U
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook, U3 i% [4 I% ~$ p, ^
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in2 o. r2 Z0 _! f( p* W2 Y. P
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so5 A. ~. z2 s. n  S' S1 G0 |
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
8 J1 F5 w' a2 Vevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
8 \- O6 Q! l  [8 O( ]best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
4 v8 d- t4 f! t; W3 p: YFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
' ]! b$ k: K3 T' w* S5 }4 mtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( d  X* C  R9 Z  v2 n, _; ~( ~' i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 M5 k, k, p7 O" o" k. [( |, w6 f/ s
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
; E; [/ b0 r5 F( C; ~strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds% F7 j+ Z- H7 ~: v
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
7 B; t3 I2 |3 g% xfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 p2 [- q1 s1 t- ?. paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
6 u2 _- q" E! uimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
  _2 A; I$ }# n! h4 L+ T5 J/ `2 [0 n( O$ @$ r, a- J- Y
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
/ [2 o4 |% h. q+ j) @9 L5 Nfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
' M. y; O# L( |7 @/ X& S1 X9 l- ss) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
3 W, n) w7 K6 J2 J$ j1 l), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
: a( K9 i1 @$ [4 sout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,! Q! p( T& [$ c5 k% W0 T7 G, @
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind+ K% ?% y3 \! Q, }. T
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it" X1 A: B7 M, x7 Q6 I4 O
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in+ r% u! H6 A! W
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
& k' t4 I# q4 T, H6 t$ Xworks.
8 N+ ]* K2 w+ m. U, l
' c2 b/ a+ V$ c: x5 c8 T/ o5 \7 AFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% B' G9 F/ D/ |. i% C4 r( Q$ Z. Y
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
) v+ b6 W; a$ |8 B8 _kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
% N$ X- {! V: u3 n* u4 ^* g. [% estandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific  h- @4 s6 Z: `5 u( c; [3 ]
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and# D3 o- ~$ w6 E; l0 ~" i
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One% Q# Z' P( R& H$ F9 X: G: F
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to' I- E% s' V4 t" z# R: Y9 m2 q4 L
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
- B* y+ j% F) \7 W1 i9 Y7 P; Hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
4 D. I) v7 h; sis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is$ N2 c6 e4 I# ~) Y2 p; G% t( t- ?' O
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 m  z: f; I- n. }0 x$ p
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* e8 o6 ^; o  i2 }" L4 q
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the8 e1 g$ |+ {* P
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% ?% |, p4 m; y3 ^% U
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation: D+ g) `/ P" }5 Q5 |+ g' W( B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are* C; W9 D  b# {" N( z4 a' r$ ~) _
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may) b1 H/ ~8 Y& _  e4 E- f9 B9 T4 R
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# x) I+ s( {' t$ d% D' R9 Uhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
, [: ^4 p, H6 `9 T! ?7 chas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a1 K. d6 R+ F: q: l% F
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:* n: ^* e0 t5 r6 ^; X, H2 ?, L
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
$ a  q$ v3 M6 L; E, E( @, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is3 y; H( p, a2 ?- Y5 U5 L$ D
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
4 J! {2 p7 k; C* rathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
( }$ Q+ J" u; j6 Hchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
- j! R% m" l' c; A3 qLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping$ l* P5 p, O$ D
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
" l1 \+ [6 b2 A* W- W: @  r1 W+ zeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, c& d- ~& ~/ `& a9 n% g) uInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
3 T, f% A. m7 C6 `7 ?' R" U+ p4 A- y- y: D
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' ]( n4 B8 ^* N
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
& ]% l$ v1 U! [. u2 i! \3 t) b. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
4 C9 I4 J8 Z8 O. j" JOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London0 h, M$ ~( R8 X
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for9 M& ^* e+ u( ]2 x  w/ N# D
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic4 \% k. X5 G$ g! s$ e
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope6 u/ k; k9 l* I4 ]
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a! p2 J# d" z" r2 O
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this* q! I8 t5 f$ m
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.: ^6 k  C; W# d; O& |3 v. {3 _

6 V" f. }- ]" Z4 E8 n, gOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (! e7 _. e  s- L
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too$ Z5 q# ~' Y( \% g  T6 ]: m/ ^
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
9 F3 _8 h8 \" G( k6 X6 Osuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide& q# s0 q" Q0 |9 {! g- G
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 A6 h. U% |6 `5 q% a: U' Q3 k% }
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,  {" _# i; A" k9 F9 m+ D. _7 ]3 J
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your; c9 \) h6 E) g8 |% f3 ]
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ o- W6 d2 a6 `) X5 f
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& w% ]' v. q$ y. i5 [
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, 2025-11-20 13:29 , Processed in 0.196951 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