埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2025|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
: i. g( {2 S9 ~# q  c
! J3 F3 {  k. P1 E饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
* I! l/ {# ~+ {6 N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。) c# ^+ \6 P4 o+ p
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! X" e" ]( w! j: v" W# V/ j7 K) @3 c% v" A# u& a8 t
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html; {3 e1 H$ `1 P0 D4 C8 [( I

9 A. E' Y9 a! y/ p( u致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选4 ^$ E8 e6 }. E8 A$ w

7 d& S- y$ j: m/ d英文原信附后,大意如下:
. L) a# P8 z4 J9 a; m9 N2 i) W/ w/ A- F) o0 r& w  w
斐尔,
" {" `' J; w: _6 g- f# b% o" K       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
0 V( s' C2 Z! C. bemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
* a- v- {# K8 y$ ~       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
7 e8 g7 J5 `) B$ o( _8 ?2 a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2 y& U) ]1 `0 z2 i8 q# l
能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
' X  H4 ~, e$ c       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* V6 [' r3 {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/ z9 k: X- S9 j4 i2 b( f
见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负
0 u, e) {0 _# {" k2 u$ }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 J# d3 B) J6 L1 u
       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
7 X5 n: @; s& X5 h; c( b,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& r' L5 U" r+ k, y7 o4 {. x" e”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。; ]" L5 a8 N: t! ?6 q4 m+ q7 L
       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' _: e! u: B# f5 M. r( w# o
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
8 i4 j% C( b! C+ V, e, z,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。, @+ X9 p4 q) g( B3 x& f
       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" s  c4 D8 g- N; M7 h9 [% n
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9 g3 ?$ s/ g3 o- `! O! d2 i% z  m; d
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
6 U6 q7 C9 g3 J% P0 P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
4 W' J5 ^7 B& e9 w$ t/ }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: w0 L) p) W8 l! I. l
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
7 h# v/ q* T; F9 t# ~1 v* @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, G) x6 y9 t# N0 [6 P
。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
. C; Z) X( t; }1 o2 q% `" v1 s* v& @4 ?录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。5 K+ N9 W8 \( ?$ f' 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
+ f7 f/ \" u/ w0 B1》,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
6 ~! ?# V9 A; hWikipedia。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
6 i  C8 `" k' B: ^" G8 x; `同意见的专家。
$ x" r8 z0 ?' S- ]/ U1 T3 w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3 Z4 k; k3 q4 S. h) W, x- m# D
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$ v$ V7 l0 i! 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4 ?+ @' {7 ^9 _/ G" m
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
4 N8 n: r1 t3 b+ p0 I6 J9 ^1 `: qCallaway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)' G/ M* F9 f0 U' X* c, Y& H
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
# N$ s3 L1 x' G《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 ]" R! b8 Z" A8 v这些被Callaway忽略。% q2 T! \' C& Z2 C% f& B, T
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
' I5 W% N5 g$ t0 e5 k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, q; r+ j" r2 G1 V# e
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
+ q+ m1 H4 Z2 ]' f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
9 B9 ^. `5 a' f% Z8 D- h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- v( Q& |, v* C6 k, x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; }* {8 @& }" }" s
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。0 ~: d' R: U/ V
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# o" W/ u5 Y9 L4 O
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
3 p! ^9 h0 S$ r7 v) B$ F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
5 r( O8 x/ ^% ]; }! u0 l) u”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。4 \$ H1 z! Q, O/ b; U2 ?" }$ R
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
; I5 Q) {8 A% v4 D5 S8 X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
5 n% ]! {: d; O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 z4 C; G1 Y/ t! ?! d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
. Y/ ]- ^, F  G! Q# z/ S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) u8 G7 C! _8 K& f
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: W: a: S/ l; h1 N) F3 h$ _$ _
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。0 R& }0 E3 x2 v4 \
% k# T! `6 H8 k: F3 a
9 e2 G( f7 r$ e2 ]/ I1 K
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
' C% b' |1 b- A" `0 c0 q/ s
+ T$ R! H7 Q" k3 `* [8 @. X附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结- m& ]5 t8 \4 ]% y
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
$ h3 N- A5 u* H+ W附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
  ^8 n" {  w' _7 n/ J附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见- G: x2 e' t' J6 v
" `' B- B% F% t, K
! p8 F6 Q$ w' P/ g; N
; G! \& F( O3 b5 W6 C
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)# `5 v# P2 W6 f' C
Dear Phil,
; ~( P3 f, E* U$ Z       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s' f2 z) Y. U: S0 a" ?3 v% y: m  R
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20' r# F- t0 n6 ^6 u4 C/ T5 l, X
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
4 h5 V7 p3 y1 o! ^% E. Nyou.
$ s& w& n( D  r4 h       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have% D5 Z7 L- o; e: j
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese* b. A) p- y8 M/ z& r; u
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
- r9 e' Q4 j; i- ~. i, _8 lworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature' c5 ]# _1 o# Y# x8 [
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more4 L6 \! S$ F& s
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 ~* i# O2 Q* Z4 Z  V; V; @
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.% M1 r) D6 J' D/ C0 v5 o" G
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
0 `1 }, ^4 O  E; J, o0 Aworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
2 ]9 U2 u7 d0 e7 W! U3 F" pnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish' x" ^% B, ^8 y7 R. w9 X
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 G5 u/ v7 H4 |" J# adid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping: p- Q4 S6 [5 f$ P- u% P/ v! S1 n$ h
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
! o. \! ]1 s. e( W6 m* w+ Vstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
/ E) k  v" f% U; B. H! Fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone3 O7 K& N& ?& l" p/ |
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news3 y7 r  N# e  `: R
reporting.. C1 l3 @9 b; L8 L, c2 M
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
! m- p' a4 C) b+ t: j  J5 walready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
- ~$ K6 l4 ^6 r( W  Cchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in2 P3 a5 y  ~2 I  [; o
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A. X3 f% t9 A; W: I, `* K
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.) o  ?3 s+ H' i) q# c
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem4 X2 a0 m! g% J
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
" U) s$ j4 ~- w2 O1 L3 ]faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
. Q; m( U4 _0 |* {  x6 `7 dmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
0 C5 V5 e; Y, i. @0 X$ ], fevent for men, with the second fastest record.
$ E4 `: S8 ~2 `% I5 e' n       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
. z( w% i. N* wwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16$ e6 ^: s8 U( M) [+ P6 v- S! q
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record& M. y2 u6 n& p
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
0 X) x; a  J% w9 q% mmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,0 y2 B; u) A* M+ `  A7 L5 K: _
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
; i% o7 l6 ]+ `3 u$ oLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed; C4 F. D0 A6 Y4 x6 q& {1 a, @8 k. {
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the; t- d% z4 X/ Y2 O4 F
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
9 ^- G, h# V/ P* M+ L9 B% d' Tthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than8 B5 [" s2 Y. C) |2 C! T1 ]
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
# o+ j# M) u1 |4 ^8 @6 X- ~  W/ gher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
1 a  X4 N4 p$ k/ r/ @  [/ ~! M; Hhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
; x3 y* E. M: Bproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other. V- j) p1 z1 {$ }# ^' F
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
2 S2 O3 m$ v- A/ c7 j2 q9 v7 \4 mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
3 v. I8 K( A7 U. ]" @; `Callaway report.
! r9 C" _$ _* v/ k2 nThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
0 L3 @! S. P$ D' @4 `$ X  V: Zunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
; N# q, R. w5 U9 Q% Q- qhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 B& h! [  r: W2 T: e. L5 Qof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been( e  ?. d# H+ a5 @
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the! l1 t8 B3 Y0 Y& p; i% K
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had2 _6 E' D, }1 c
publicly voiced different opinions.( T7 c: @  [# l# c* X  U/ P
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
: P4 p$ P% U& L+ g2 L& Cfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
3 e- \! |' ?3 UNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
3 ?, R' N; |7 hpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
7 N2 z; O# y9 A0 m; byou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
+ h# D. G7 G) H: x! i5 p8 _of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.1 B- ]# j  Z8 R; N: b( G) S) R& ~
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think2 R2 Y2 L2 t; C5 A5 A
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They: J) J% P" K; M9 |
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 D& a0 d8 m& s) e3 t$ n& u& W
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that! x/ C- Q% ?( U/ b" G% G" P
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was/ T* c. t4 a5 c8 X
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.+ y6 q2 [$ f( a- U3 z5 }
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that1 m/ o  P( Q! c# ?* G  q
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the  Z/ a7 n  R: n% c1 {
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
' }8 b+ h- p" Y(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
6 M3 O0 L# Q* g$ X9 w' ^0 Mand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
# ~3 J% ~. o9 u+ n5 k' Y  Q+ H4 HThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ K, b* F3 ], n7 v* i' ?+ N- }1 \
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
/ O3 b( O' n7 nDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
$ g4 F0 z) H/ O! u2 z. l, RNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
8 R. X" ?9 s3 f3 A+ \objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
5 C7 V" y% I1 c+ w: `5 Qwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to2 D6 x: s" c) W' t$ |) p
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.6 T: [: m2 s, x, G% ^
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not  Y4 ^4 |" U0 d/ w. D* y
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced) D' s1 u4 ^0 c1 m% g! v  b
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
) q* n0 k+ @9 c# V& y1 qfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
/ l- c! J4 d( D; \this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 k8 G0 q9 Y8 A, I- j" `$ @
about British supremacy.! N# n$ Y6 x* f7 @& C
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many& r9 O1 M  }( V! W7 y& |* X
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
; j; D$ g. |4 BChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
- V0 n% J/ G4 k5 H1 }our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. E, m+ y* B1 f7 o2 [Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.- O+ U! n$ @3 S' M1 P0 F
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of. P2 b5 ~( k. f0 ]2 H6 s2 Q
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests& V' @5 R8 \' e1 B8 I
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
' k- N9 \6 y' A* y- Eit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
& `8 F0 P8 K' |* ^- r4 H8 R5 ?publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like! i7 k% ~) ?. ^; G# x3 R
Nature.
8 |0 U4 H8 w9 K  sI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ K3 x' U5 N$ Pthe Callaway report.4 h( r) \" C7 o' w" C
" d3 @0 p! a  y# L
Yi" M$ u3 V4 y0 A# I; V

* O/ w% v, Y7 o" C; [3 S/ j0 K$ NYi Rao, Ph.D.( I1 s* B# H$ I' u
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences: I2 O7 ~" {- H- \" F9 E6 r6 h5 d1 e
Beijing, China7 g' J/ F) R; m4 M& \' V' r, x& 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 * Z1 [- s* E4 [$ I3 \
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

, J( ~! g1 C& P, U& `4 S7 f原文是公开信。
8 r( g# e* m" J4 {$ s. B" M7 ?8 d: Y5 \
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
: |) t6 Q# z( q  K3 r原文是公开信。
( `, h- e5 U7 O$ t( W% J3 z4 {# l3 c: C, j' T2 C& b/ F
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

9 u# H; z' S) l谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
鲜花(5) 鸡蛋(6)
 楼主| 发表于 2012-8-14 00:55 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
其实比饶毅更牛的回复是 Upenn 的 LAI JIANG; t3 ]6 d3 \! B8 {( Y, M
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
% f7 P/ j6 b4 x: O- O* G) w$ ]2 g3 C* Y0 g$ b4 ]1 x6 w
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
$ ~. X4 `( k  [. ]+ Y% M  O; ?# |8 I0 K4 d6 u6 v
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania7 u1 s8 ^, Y' t: V
( j( B9 G- Q4 y6 F& Y: L
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
2 v1 R& Z/ F. n* u, x1 w4 R0 a$ s3 h, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
& N3 D+ m! D, x0 q$ ^  w: amagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% F* E( m4 f* x! d( b0 i
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
, Y. ^: b  J! o. [2 i1 k' w! `6 tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general" G4 R. C0 a! ?: \: ^
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
9 ^0 Q( v2 I) hshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
4 E# n8 U! {6 Q5 m- q3 _/ ^- D+ _# g7 Uwhich they blatantly failed to do.' [# W  F% c8 K

6 x& Z7 @( D6 I/ X! nFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
5 D( {6 Q6 \3 X3 b* }3 A  b; lOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in" {+ o6 M7 R& f9 u( P/ @9 n/ e
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 q: U6 }* N7 }0 ]
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: ~8 w* ^  r3 @personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: p- t$ L& Q6 A1 cimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the6 R* N. d0 n3 a8 e/ H
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 `. d; j+ r6 b! S7 B: [. f; V
be treated as 7 s.
/ g! X3 s3 d0 a& }9 F9 O- g3 {% W5 K9 C6 y
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is6 I' U  T, R& h  \
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: g' o6 E" `: |: M9 _) fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters., W5 y/ w4 @. e( G9 D2 g
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 G6 e  \, s7 p-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
: [0 t5 |3 d8 n' JFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an' v2 y7 t, y: K4 P) e. o2 A2 k8 W
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
5 }; t; g& V5 B$ z5 K; apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”  x. u* {6 n4 F
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 Q2 w/ Z9 W/ s

* M1 B$ t( o# b& t4 qThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
! s: ^# y8 N- K6 y9 Yexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
( \* i3 Z3 ~  Q) M7 z0 W  {3 Hthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so/ |! L' Z" ]  y- w* b8 ^& b! I
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
* m( Y6 ^: K3 W5 b5 `0 V: }events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
) m9 [( K9 k# y# cbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ v8 u! c8 p9 A, k2 ?Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another9 g3 \) i1 s$ c( T2 u
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
8 s; D) Z9 ^3 T% X! p7 z0 i) |0 j! Xhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
4 u# c9 w5 o$ q5 m" j, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this2 v* u$ O1 p7 i* Y, L: Z( \
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
* u( [# h  k% ?faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam% y! t; c$ ?! ^% ]2 G1 U
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting- y, d% y1 J5 y3 h
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
: I! u# Z. D* S- k; y  ?! Ximplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
$ O  ]' W/ K5 p) u0 L9 g
9 E4 I( }) a( {$ @, u5 XFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
. F7 E& E$ T; Vfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
' d: S9 {9 X3 o0 S: Y* Gs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s1 S) ?( L% k* _& T. w
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns; {  E, k/ ]; T1 v! n8 G
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,5 X1 H' e  |; z* d
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- L# _! y+ m6 }2 R5 D, i0 J; ~
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it/ b3 m6 ?% h: T$ P! o8 W
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
1 ~: T4 A7 `* k% J' S% u2 tevery split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science# {; o& C! s, g5 C
works.
: D3 J% n  ~  ?& o2 n% {
$ w2 m4 q7 s' L7 s9 |Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and% Z6 n* I- r: ]6 }! a
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this0 z; y9 ~/ x$ U' v6 J
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that7 Y3 `& h, U# N' ?% r
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific" j" g3 G: y4 D# v" ^9 @2 R
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
. L2 q- H) z  Areviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) o  n& C& a( ]  j  ncannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to6 }+ O, J- r9 b; e! @6 I) n! y! R
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
, c: n1 p2 b! R8 x( G" u( s% R) f- r/ Rto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: f' G" Y6 Y1 j( n
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
9 H/ z; C: \' N7 n/ X4 x1 }- Gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
) y3 @$ M8 W5 l; j- y+ t1 b- c2 ywrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
4 b7 q' `) c# }# ?advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: i+ R9 d- f. x" K# G+ C
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not$ w+ q6 _* p! q, I
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" Y4 j; M7 P% o8 c8 W, @; t3 ]& m% q. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are) \0 q0 R8 c! }
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may- V, i9 u3 {9 f$ K0 n# _
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a) s5 k+ a, \9 ^9 f( o
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
) M7 s0 [; B6 T4 e# f4 b% H/ B( @5 Yhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a' h+ t  G* s5 T- a7 I5 N8 d
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
* {- q; l; s& j' V1 N& ^# _other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
8 |- V+ Y5 J, N; E, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is9 ~$ A$ S5 m+ S0 [$ U0 @
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
6 }% z% c2 R9 `2 bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight; |6 K3 {. t4 c( K" Q" o2 p5 h0 \
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?% T; a/ {" J+ n+ U- M' a! y" A; h
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 X9 a8 b  a, @3 vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for# L4 u4 J- ?& k( l6 a3 ^
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
- |+ T0 A( f, M7 Y$ k. C" Q/ pInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?" g/ \0 K# R6 ?. f1 r& i

% R1 P3 j# Q! V0 g- ]( }& O' sSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
$ k) |* J" J1 C- p+ Icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention# k- V& C, V/ l: ~9 H: j- z% V
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% B  l, \4 g% |: |6 w
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
5 f9 m' _& R" N# UOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
5 ^$ C  o+ h/ Jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic- @) L1 |) J2 j. G3 n6 z% D
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope+ a7 \/ x2 v! h. Q* n* Q( f1 p
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a" _7 k! c! n$ X( }2 ^
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
$ {  `- l2 p& n4 o4 L. K3 fpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
; O- a  n8 G" n% O- \8 F5 [+ w3 @" N/ X
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
* v  L3 p6 P8 M. n: W. f/ g8 O4 Rintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
9 f! {+ G( y; H5 F* fsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a* m% |2 t: P' |8 U' {9 e
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide2 C1 K7 o, |- q* M, \9 V
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
: O8 ~; F! w/ x% `3 y' minterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,3 }' w9 s6 K  p& `$ H8 d; Y
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
0 V/ K2 b" B3 Largument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 A9 d, Q9 B9 T9 ^  ~2 q
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or$ M4 u1 ~) F# v& s% I
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, 2026-2-12 01:22 , Processed in 0.108164 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