埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2254|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 7 ^2 D0 E( ^* @. I% c

; j& j" z7 H0 K2 y饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。" r9 Q: n9 e2 j5 E/ S( O
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。! i0 Q9 Z' S' r, m6 U
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 F* Z7 P# u- ?; [2 p7 A
+ p9 c7 H* r9 M/ n$ U0 X8 Lhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! t4 r: q4 V! o, X- s2 q0 q/ U  x* K. }  m( O, O% D
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
0 J* E( x+ X7 s8 @: n3 E3 v9 o4 p( G3 d) K4 T! m- J2 x  k$ ^
英文原信附后,大意如下:! q3 R6 d9 w4 ?& z8 ^1 f" u1 t5 [
# h' ^5 H0 c7 G5 b6 V! w
斐尔,/ h1 C) c' R  Q5 X1 _
       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 q  f/ G, g; l3 \  M6 z$ demail的人里面小部分也给我来信。) W3 S4 F! S  f" v& R
       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
8 T( V/ W3 p* i( }& B" V/ d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
  G! v1 b1 S- y% L% B! {; H7 o6 Z  w+ }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。5 w9 j8 l$ F: P
       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
) b: l4 x& O* R7 @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
; c. i3 D$ ]3 ^8 \% m& r4 y# s- @0 i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$ W0 p5 b9 w) v
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。
0 B" g$ N' p% C& 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
6 i, f3 ~& G' r,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% g! T8 o+ K4 O9 I0 E7 S7 r$ i+ s$ e
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 I' ]# l: V9 d% o4 I7 l/ C       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
  `% {6 s  c% m* B, w7 m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3 d) k: M5 F  Z
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
: q$ M2 f$ g; _! w       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
2 P) d( B" w0 m2011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
" X# R- g& [$ A- q, x- G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
7 {* I" F7 |( T4 I# N+ `1 W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+ W' G8 N9 j9 h; J2 j5 _
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  c- `4 E+ |' l! R6 N* ~* j
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
, Z+ S4 Y5 T  d# t项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目
, l( y7 z9 C$ b+ g7 q! f( H+ L。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9 t1 m, Q% s. n& H/ t
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
8 E, C) a. K' J6 _* f! ?2 Z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 j* l3 Y" S* o* N+ a1》,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
+ g. O$ g6 }8 s2 m, s* `- o; BWikipedia。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
# Y" i( U5 O; G+ t( {" P9 T+ c同意见的专家。
% S% w0 v0 F; x0 }$ j, R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2 m2 a9 ~" E0 I, K2 }0 O. y* g
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
; \0 C- y+ x1 e( 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
  W# R4 B  K+ `) r《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
0 i2 L/ G+ a* T/ s; S; i- KCallaway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)
6 ~8 |/ {4 E8 R$ x" p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
6 P1 p9 l  U# }! E( k9 p4 T《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$ T3 h3 |' Y" M$ M- a' d4 Q/ V
这些被Callaway忽略。/ n' e* ~  u, r- E! g
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给
9 t/ _: j- w" p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1 a! D- m. z4 R* Z
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 m: F5 l/ w9 Y/ r/ T/ Q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3 d7 d) _% F5 t4 R
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
' m( _. l: r- h. o+ a5 l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
, ?$ j; X  `" {- {( H" R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。
) S: m. U" Q% a4 |! @' 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( m* y2 a! m2 k  {6 z( d
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
  J- N7 [, C+ K' U( k  x代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问
7 M) {3 V) J$ o+ u”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
; p; B0 f2 }1 x' T5 ?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% P4 G/ Q; }! Q: Z
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1 E3 W9 `4 d5 h+ {$ G
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
+ ]" @5 I, O! b; S! m. {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
  o: @: M5 w5 w! N: A0 n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7 D* b+ b2 h  a; a1 G
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
, P, ^( k$ i% M' v% ~3 x6 E我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( ?$ f2 a8 y0 C
# r. L. w1 b  \( s
) V$ k/ }9 O+ }  a* e: d2 w
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅9 `- O: q  p& S/ y4 f5 @
8 D; }+ x& N; a4 L1 y0 H8 a
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结# y' M; L$ {2 \; |" J- \. x
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email  f4 [! }4 Y$ l- N  ~7 S; i2 t: Y
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见1 p# j, \: F/ B
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见3 V# d0 w. e, @4 F1 L
: E# V( v: c' e. V6 t$ o4 E7 B0 b. p9 Y" }

; u' U0 Z% h- p9 E2 R, b9 _( V: H5 D( G  ~* Y" |
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)( F  S- S4 n* Y5 Y( @# E
Dear Phil,
1 m) j( L' K1 {       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
" m( ~0 R9 ?$ E$ l2 treport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
0 d. p' m7 c% j5 M( `- f; }hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
& N+ w6 L& k) ^( r+ [you.
" Z0 v3 u2 O5 Q7 T+ L0 o& w  n       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
5 R4 s2 i/ G3 }" z9 T3 rbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' S5 u2 B1 I; k, J. e1 i3 I# F+ ereaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the2 L, u7 ^$ k9 H" ~2 y; n/ W2 ~3 X
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature+ p+ t+ |- n( R) |
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more& D* f/ A% r  v+ }% e  n
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
9 p, L4 o1 d* O" D5 m1 Vpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
( G- E# F/ P( u# ^# t* Z; \. I       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the  e; D" |8 ]6 Y' d
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" z5 M; W( _. _$ ?# l* J- M! }! k- Mnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish3 e# Q+ Q( k. {7 S0 i: [0 o
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
# M' J% ?8 t; D+ E0 s& V' n/ ~did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
  r, {; d, a! d4 d. ?explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
( G) d/ L# ?3 }( lstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,. v; E1 K# U6 [* `8 i
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone& @! i- q% G  P+ R
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
) i4 f& E# O6 T) A2 L( Ereporting.. F; s  w9 {) i1 d9 \
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have$ u& E0 G. r" N7 {
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
/ Q$ v. w7 t+ J- t+ }changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in3 B& I3 _3 d+ v9 Z' |5 ~3 d8 E$ \
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
; U) |* Q* D* F* w' v( ?presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.4 S4 b' v/ S1 V
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
2 Z; J6 C) I9 V+ ^more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
( [8 Y; M- g6 \- I/ yfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
& O* s) h: a, }& Q# l, Rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same$ h! S" a* ?- g# }3 X$ i. L
event for men, with the second fastest record.& U, E4 C5 f; c
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye4 ]* Z3 D6 u9 V& D2 o
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
% w  Q6 r4 |$ z& b9 e/ A0 Ryear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
% k5 C2 |+ Q2 j$ i. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; M5 G$ Z4 o4 _' Ometers. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
! P' [8 l8 D  W( z( `9 c; i. T* ~for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) b$ F/ [' f" k2 `# oLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
$ q& }# ^) W" G3 `behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
7 @6 B; N, z) j5 z( k7 h3 ~individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ K5 N5 l, a4 \' d: _3 C
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than' M3 t0 s: w' w' S$ `0 ?! I# h' _
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
- a1 m6 [0 J7 D1 L7 S5 mher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
3 T; P) g2 J1 r  L/ o. N$ she would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “7 c. n& ?0 V( U, F
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) ^% r6 Y" d/ Q7 B
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
+ b$ U9 L4 |  g+ w+ |teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
  C) p- Q$ i6 P/ UCallaway report.
) F/ d$ {! r) rThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more) u" m  A4 {, t+ ?: x  h% }
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ ~0 y4 U6 J; o4 J+ K% t% q1 shere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( z  y& {; M: A1 Q. ?
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
! @% H, c- h! z7 o, nbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the0 }4 z0 Z- x; g: E
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
7 o1 X; i1 m7 V7 Kpublicly voiced different opinions.' I( I5 {" ~% S# R8 z. o
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD% v% u2 }9 f: V9 @% s
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature. i5 T) Y+ h& y0 a
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
% U: A4 [& e& w$ I2 Opostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds+ v/ x9 }3 u/ A4 B! v" q9 ?
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy9 f; O$ Y. Y8 _# Z, p7 F. ~$ Y
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
. o/ I: v  u$ b) ^+ _& |; bThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think, V, H4 X$ ~- A! D
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
8 q2 T4 d0 L$ i$ N9 F* ^have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as7 k, o6 X7 s9 X
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
2 C0 ?9 h; k" r/ V* r+ Wthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was- ?' h8 s2 O+ [* m0 P9 H3 Y' B
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.8 @/ [: t; N* K1 x7 Y
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that3 \% K( T- M4 A. @
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the5 L, \6 [: D5 F
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June$ D" W, l* l" K" H2 O+ L3 k/ _2 Y
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: w/ o8 B* b8 `8 }and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
* G% q/ O0 F* R1 B/ C7 I7 qThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ R) l3 F& P  z# ?5 T
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
% C, L5 B) }' F: M" ZDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
" W0 c! i' G6 l  E, ]( }+ UNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
4 v$ D, S: D9 W4 `+ R. Z* Qobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
1 q$ ~6 O2 H0 v0 awhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
2 b* q# E8 Q9 n/ orepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
; ?$ M& z1 B; Z8 F9 J; ~3 FThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not# U$ J8 S7 Z4 D/ s6 C0 o5 y$ F7 x
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced% i2 w0 L) C, D! {
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
. r! {9 q# F5 c: b8 }4 tfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
& v7 |' c7 ~- c$ _9 v( A) sthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”+ u7 b- Y0 A$ p& f6 T& i
about British supremacy.* r4 o# w9 U- E4 F: m# Y
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
' q* z1 Q$ i+ ^) g( o2 E' z# gunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more% A: M- g; c' S
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by  j$ a) M) i. d! I; L7 O
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London6 @# U' W+ v0 N$ `2 A6 J$ ]$ [
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
/ _2 h' @9 P( a) }0 rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of$ s# O! h' x' O0 B, U9 S- q7 t
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
4 Q; \/ T4 t; j9 @* u" fbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,6 I3 W- |9 `7 `. T
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly  h+ K  |) d, |/ Z
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like: }# ~( T8 W/ Q& i& w" c
Nature.
! Z+ m2 Y2 v# t# U+ u  g- {1 i# CI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
7 T; _5 Z4 n; K/ v) sthe Callaway report.
8 X5 D" a" a2 [5 D4 }$ Q7 l. j3 p. P+ b' j8 _, n$ F
Yi
9 c- a$ b, m4 [2 E5 l) c' k: N! Q( c1 |& o4 g3 W
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
( z; d, M. p* n5 E) b. s+ ^! Z4 d6 l; sProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
7 ~) @5 J& B& b) w/ QBeijing, China
* d5 V% S8 l; @' _0 B
大型搬家
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
1 H/ x! A# L& a; n  i( |0 f4 \3 o, _原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

: U- h5 I- y9 D- C9 Z原文是公开信。2 e# W& I( x& t! A5 w+ x) }3 e* b

, }% k# m( ~* z  V3 e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 : I; i# W2 H1 B) \7 w
原文是公开信。
: `# `0 L2 _6 W
7 _- K/ H* {9 B) S- h/ k# m6 c小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 v* L' R6 L& E* y; {) [1 u谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
理袁律师事务所
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
3 q" S, G$ j/ c3 e如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。2 V. R! ], o/ v& Y+ B7 ]

( m9 W; w, w2 v3 _- {http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
1 w7 D; g9 Q+ C7 r" I* A( {- O& [: Q2 Q+ M& N# V/ \
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 n$ l4 a% @# q; ^" Y- D
" M0 O! T1 d; `It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
; B: u5 b0 B$ o  ]# x4 Q, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
0 T+ d, F9 {0 [magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
7 P( j9 X4 F3 g' qis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
, M% u6 W) m1 ~# E3 c. Cscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
7 Y5 @" t5 r' w3 w) npopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 a& _1 W  b+ c9 B! K8 z
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
/ E& Z# A3 l9 G0 {) A) j* Ewhich they blatantly failed to do.
0 T  l) `+ K* n% c; r- X
5 x" ]$ L. T) d0 mFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her) P" [6 z, d$ c
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
' b/ R8 F3 T$ F, D; J% a2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “. c3 g. S9 v7 P( T$ O" r( R5 ^( i
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous: {+ d, p8 t2 v2 x4 [: O+ i  B
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an( f0 ~6 J' ?+ Z# d5 A/ A9 a
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the$ {+ [: t& v( M) w( ]4 O; n& ~
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
0 Q" e5 h# l4 @6 B9 Gbe treated as 7 s.6 L# g1 o- b2 Y

; j& w3 N% J. C7 C2 qSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is" C$ x( P' I$ O; R
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem; X/ v5 G  A& ~* U  E2 |) ?
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
3 e- ^1 S% E* f) ~, tAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
8 D/ K0 a* M2 W-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
& h7 _  X1 F) x! nFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
' Q3 S( A# P: O% v) z1 Oelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and( r5 K5 S. ?6 t* c' F+ |! O
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
: {% I& c4 q( T8 n4 W, j% [based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- F) Y3 p! J& b
0 N3 E# X+ A) D- MThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook: g4 J) d" y% j7 B( y, t
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
( p7 {$ @' \" x8 q+ ithe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
4 C0 ]" A: P* J4 o' D3 h/ R5 Yhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later$ B. M9 d% }) r8 h$ F; t  C
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
) @& I# Z4 ?, x4 i: R* R" d2 r& dbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World4 S6 t1 O$ V, F
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another" q' C1 m' w: t2 Q
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other: z' \1 R2 W$ ^( k; c
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
; L$ g3 ^% _6 ^( M8 Q; ^, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this( k9 |, v0 J! f) y2 m- S" y
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
2 r: r( m2 i8 h+ p: `  {7 kfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam- t# T4 U# _  T* @$ D6 h
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
# ?2 _, Y5 ^5 v7 m  n! paside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 b4 g7 D" v9 I8 Q! p/ [; p* d
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.8 |: z  M1 N; [
5 B0 u. Q! P9 u' i; G1 W: ?/ R
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
# S( z, k6 G8 m; @0 U; gfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93; _6 S8 S+ E5 V7 L- o) ?' Z
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
* ~/ ~! X2 H/ Q; E4 U), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
- w( s$ \& f. Y+ S/ _out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,: Q3 ?/ G! _; x( |5 r$ A
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
9 E: ^. \# _0 ~0 }2 _/ sof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; Y$ `9 s$ r* E+ u8 M8 V8 C# H; V
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
; @" D. _% y% `4 y- U. yevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# f. z. ~* |. A5 H8 K  Z) kworks.: q! J+ h$ F& M0 k1 x/ _

. k  I/ V8 J2 y# q2 q8 f) i- {Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
( u3 L/ D3 x' a% @9 W  @- h  F* P) e8 rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
8 G. k4 J' P0 u6 b% j/ bkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 v% k8 [8 T7 I; hstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific( g2 T8 w; @( U. I( ~$ C
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
, u- k# }& u; `& f% u" V* Q( Ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One: P3 m5 m$ B+ @3 |
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ Q! X% p  H& @! F) p, |+ J0 Edemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works( [& e' L( X3 h5 s# I- t
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample/ j; d8 r  S  T
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is& n( D) f. D2 ~+ b
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
/ }1 j' z, c- {; c( ]: e' ]5 w, @wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly' @$ ^) p& h7 |3 ]. U! ~
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
9 H$ `4 _( y0 @past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
. d1 y' T/ X: D1 \8 cuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation9 V4 W5 e: O% k2 ?( B
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
4 ~8 f! t& Q1 J- _: T! |! N& k# tdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may! y+ q% l! g: n* x" f
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 A  X& m  T: m) |0 z" hhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye# o; j7 ?/ s$ Y9 @, x
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 e7 l3 ?$ W- y7 Jdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
/ ?8 a: g7 c6 g, A3 @# iother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
) f2 M7 ^& h7 O+ e3 K, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is; e! r" u+ ?  w$ ~) k0 M+ Y8 T  y, L
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
: U: b! r5 ^: F" }8 S6 Iathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight+ Y+ L9 t8 X2 i) H5 M' M. U
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 @, c* C; r$ o/ r8 C: P# I! R
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
% x  v  j8 z' H; Fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for8 v+ a1 @5 {" s$ u
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
+ A" U) k# `. k& G5 IInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 a- I; s( S$ t7 X+ ?" w8 s

, K4 v- d) Q! D3 ^Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-- k: u  [# o0 Q1 j$ X% T
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
) y9 }+ C% D) ^# {" y  e( j. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
+ H9 r$ \, ~% j0 z9 t& ~Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
$ l- k4 c: `3 ?+ g" b) l) UOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
# j" N0 j( ^4 h, a  c: |% Adoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
0 `  m, J7 c, Q9 b) p, @- d7 Lgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope! d! }# Z- x" J
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a' ^0 x4 Q9 b0 ~1 K' i4 y
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
1 ]. }6 K# p( ~! P' n. e& bpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.7 ?# D0 s3 ~+ \4 m( I' l/ o

# V1 V" [8 |  f3 SOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ `/ U5 h3 B' P( Nintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
, X$ o# ~3 j* wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
+ E- S1 S/ O' u$ ^8 Q0 Hsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide, R( a' y' ?) f" x) o
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
  R8 B* F  E1 L# u! h- Sinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," f$ v4 ?; l, r/ J8 j
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your" Z- u2 G+ K9 r+ S% I  N2 E4 g8 H
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
: g/ `: _; E, G' ~3 G; x& E. dsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
/ j, @- z. o2 `8 @8 s  S, 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 14:36 , Processed in 0.522590 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