埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1853|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
$ g% R1 a. w1 b( h  }9 T
7 b, W& A6 F' Z4 T# q饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。- W. [6 w- ]: F, e' Y# I
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。6 o" M! s+ q' O# O9 t- _: a
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# O. P0 w, J! E, m% W

- Y) S6 w& O+ T! Y# o% }http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
8 g: L3 ?, ?" b5 g4 _
$ f7 d8 J  k3 b3 a8 Q致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选# f' V) p2 q- Y7 Q

. R# m( s  `2 j, M英文原信附后,大意如下:: x, c9 d5 |8 _( |' b

3 s5 Y( N  H9 D5 B7 G) t斐尔,
& x: P2 b2 I: x       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
4 I5 C, q" q8 p( `5 ]email的人里面小部分也给我来信。0 h- ?; {0 V" L4 H" p8 ]0 G
       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴
- L% _, ~7 P% z+ u% u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  |5 y1 v7 k, a- ?( w# _. W! F
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。
' c* y  w% n, w& O& [9 S7 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
' d4 U& Q1 \) |4 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: w& k. i# D, y9 Q$ ~$ @
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4 m, O' m; m6 S) z. h, g: s
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。  b2 K% Y4 p8 ?% S' v- _
       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/ D* S3 ?2 ?! }/ g8 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
3 L- A" f6 p- `& g3 m4 Y: d”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; H6 \: `$ `6 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
8 S" Q6 ]; D/ A$ E" W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  y" `, J. ?  d" G& M* Y  C
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
7 p5 n+ ^. J6 }/ D6 |0 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/ v' R! |/ l3 r- g' j. M
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, Y/ q" c2 S+ A; D3 [+ H* G* C
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
, [; p% ~- C$ p, V0 f4 J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; ~1 A: `0 W% W* n% x1 G/ m8 H
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# ~& v  I0 K- w. ^+ h
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6 t+ e9 o5 W- _/ N4 B4 k5 q( X
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目& m) L' R- c! 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
0 M* h8 ^" H/ U0 ^+ c0 |0 I录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。# o9 e  s: I+ z1 d" r2 H2 u. 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$ n3 k4 V/ J; G6 N
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
% C6 u* T/ W0 yWikipedia。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. A" U) c5 X& V
同意见的专家。
. e' p+ D2 V, O' J+ Q9 |1 d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
  w7 O2 t3 v  \0 v" E1 h% O, O# ]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5 r% }, T  s8 F/ p) Z
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% N2 G+ @1 S% m+ `- V. S
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。/ u. V3 J; H, b) O/ U1 m& C. Q8 |- D
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)
4 b1 i) f" ?- k# O4 S1 b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0 A6 y7 z) g; I' P) @& e% `) y
《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, x1 z5 X& K* {" Y8 _
这些被Callaway忽略。
9 V" n- A$ @% n& Z1 O: 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 C9 s/ e9 w8 y2 g! Z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
9 E6 Y2 a; v0 c3 M9 i教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。0 p* {) _$ Q4 A3 g6 W5 D) s/ L! b; 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
4 i; l4 I  H( M! ]8 Z/ |5 N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
1 G( Y- H$ \1 G$ T6 @9 `" R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
! O& C* @  w1 j. p7 t3 l, C$ l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。9 z. M# C+ @1 o& N
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) }9 q8 H' \( C, Y
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+ d' y0 [, p6 m6 R9 L
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2 {6 q  B" ]: Q
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
- ~' E+ z% [. n2 d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, a/ E0 P( l+ L* W: a- @  W
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; U8 i9 V% O( Z. a2 c
题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁7 {3 r- Z- u( x. w7 S5 n$ T* 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
: t8 t6 S! k! w! J* @$ W; 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6 V$ Y4 G2 q6 @7 m+ W! `8 h. B' o
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
8 c, S4 v1 F0 u+ k6 ^2 B; b. i我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。  g' t8 u% H1 |. X% s6 x: _5 V3 O/ i
. y+ ^/ U, j7 M4 b2 y

& X. _  _9 V. C+ m$ S3 T5 \6 A; N! H; b北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
3 b) t% k# J5 `4 N* s4 E6 M2 y4 J6 t
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
1 S* `& l# p/ Q  c) T5 t附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email+ A6 P; j1 r7 N+ C  M
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见/ c1 L) k) v5 R) I+ ~9 ?
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见. b6 Z  Q) A/ f" \7 g: b% ^7 [

6 H2 G% B1 E" r8 P2 c5 E2 c1 J6 G: C/ X" ~0 }, @
. ]( @; U8 ^9 R& y$ E/ P
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)' a8 S+ Q$ [- U; l3 v
Dear Phil,
9 n+ J7 j9 T( t: J) L4 u       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
9 k5 o) r' U6 L, C' X) E1 Nreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
& k9 O/ U8 h. a/ `2 [+ p  Ihours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
3 X, T( v1 ]' I$ l* S' j- \. qyou.
# F4 n$ b2 i. Z  R  o1 S' \* H       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have: c# F; X5 M" I9 d) B! P+ B, J" F
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese2 s9 D, S: Y: D% J* z
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the0 o. s! J1 X. v" t( U) h
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
9 X8 ]: A! v+ `" ^& j8 mpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
9 N. [; v8 x+ Iseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news! m3 {" n& D1 h7 C8 R4 q: @
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.9 B$ \. X3 S$ P, X7 O* K
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ M6 A& f& i. v  Dworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
$ Z6 B/ n, Q* V3 ~* L- Qnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
3 N* m6 L6 ~4 T. N2 nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 j! Q8 |, H; t: d# [9 Ydid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% I. L- j8 l+ ?9 N: L; C, S1 J$ Jexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
2 X6 S+ j4 F7 S+ _standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
6 V, ^* c" G5 [. cand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone5 |  H$ J' ]  x
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
3 c+ A: ?' S8 I5 k" Greporting.
0 I/ ]" ~. n( H$ ^       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have9 e% A; X! N" M5 V  l( [: P8 `
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
2 ^+ R4 l3 L1 p) f& R$ X1 zchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
% o! g  }; O5 p7 A; L" }sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
1 H9 H/ v- j) ]$ R2 Bpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
: E7 r" H, Z- v+ X1 a6 U, @       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
) m! W  x* w% I- t& Kmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
9 |  T& ?! ~# S5 ofaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 502 \+ |' W' p4 [3 u
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same( @* P( k( G7 j1 u6 c: f
event for men, with the second fastest record.4 P# P; h* @4 X2 z6 k5 m
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye  q+ e. I3 |$ Z; C
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
- p4 j( {5 U, M3 I' }) w( @/ U, Yyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record' O/ b, ?4 }0 p/ v
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 y+ }* D) c  b8 R# t4 @8 l( \meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,- Z# ^+ \& D+ k
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than$ X! E& ]- |& Z! M. F
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed! {+ O  X& |1 y# N% [  I$ L9 K& T/ }
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
) z3 A* W, ^( {+ Iindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ W9 ]0 b. N4 {5 ^than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
, ?" r- S  ^1 l* Z: Rthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
1 Z3 _9 M1 H4 x* xher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. I; A3 d) C4 m9 ]7 k- y3 Y- t
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
. e+ A+ i; t; Hproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
& p- g5 T8 E0 s- g6 }6 I+ J! ^" e4 Gswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
3 W$ {) ?5 R# h" B6 Iteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
9 j( m, T2 o4 S7 J) M) ], s7 KCallaway report.
9 [8 R4 Z4 n  S3 L, ^: ~There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
7 S6 K, {% R) f( e* B4 W1 Funderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details$ S) B+ h0 d4 @& V- h
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description) c* M" _$ m8 H, r1 ]
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
: h* P( j4 X( u3 I/ Hbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
. `$ t5 y  e# x9 }; D. e5 V- H9 PWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
3 Q' M) W# b5 |2 V. z' l1 \9 }publicly voiced different opinions.( C# @- T$ ?$ O: d
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
% K/ U5 S9 ]1 R2 l2 o) [0 J9 dfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature! `. X/ m8 ^1 E
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent8 h; A8 o' I- ~
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
1 O, v7 P  a. ]. ryou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy( y  }4 h9 X. G4 q( S
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.4 ^0 M  g, v, D0 P5 C1 C: L
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 T* n8 ^2 k" B( {# ^- b* n9 Fthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
% y" L6 d2 W. khave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
: r) Q2 N) a5 PAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
1 s5 s3 ^7 m- z' q2 rthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was6 m# E5 r3 C' G0 s0 N) b% [" r
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& I6 f7 H' N, e0 q7 _& B+ vOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that, Q! o; [, n* \2 v5 U
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the; }5 @! u6 V/ |; L
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June+ k2 h& N) o! X1 v+ Y4 s; l$ F
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
# a& p$ d) |# X# _; G1 m! band I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
" v, p3 e6 ]( _The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
( e& |; H0 n/ cand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
2 B4 t, \7 ^( l+ qDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.' f& m. j6 \7 u0 c8 C5 t& `; ]
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
" P% j) t& {  Z  |6 hobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
. h$ J' Z1 z- S. r3 D' Jwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
3 K2 ^4 g+ e8 d% h# p3 ?4 urepair the damage caused by your news reporters.4 F; k; y, |) @5 i# |: u/ |
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
* K5 X6 \8 b1 K% Zshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced' L6 q* o# g& G
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
! |$ f* @$ g" c& k/ E$ s. Bfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that' t& X+ d2 |2 X! T( K* l1 x" \- D
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' |; p) r0 {" `8 N9 G
about British supremacy.
# B8 N. l" n& |. S2 x) ^. eThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
2 z2 f/ N( `7 w3 ?unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more* C% U8 N4 [: W% K
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by9 W3 X: N9 K. V
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- B/ }& n8 P" @6 r3 z0 hOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% Y# m- J" l4 g" n8 |Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
# Y. q( f+ p' mprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
2 |7 H% h$ ?1 q% F' f; Rbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,' \/ W% b7 o* m5 X' q; X7 w
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
0 k) b) }, y4 N4 wpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
0 r! f9 A3 M. a5 N2 X7 bNature.  M# n# b  d* H
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ M9 o& v  d$ h& kthe Callaway report." G0 T7 g3 N% j$ Q/ j0 G; i
8 _8 ^" z  m) s: l, }7 G
Yi
, W# F1 h# Q. t6 s. t
6 x3 j& M- `  T5 \& a% m1 `Yi Rao, Ph.D.
' O- `/ B) S6 a; c" x) ^Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
5 Z! y4 p4 l5 q) v# }: x7 |Beijing, China  j( Y; w: O6 r  {. s
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 % x5 S* l( Y5 a. x( F- z' r! E
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
# P7 L+ `. m+ W0 X: [" [1 v
原文是公开信。
6 h' w8 h* ^8 Y+ ?, Q7 V% ~, r/ ^7 i  u) u  q! a: _' U
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 - U( Z* q; f+ c8 c; G
原文是公开信。
* h0 Q9 g/ z$ H7 ]! A
5 n5 w  d/ g" S  k; S小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
7 Z% O) \+ y* y1 w; W: z/ B
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, T* ^6 C1 b  m& h& o$ V7 H% P
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。, g3 a5 h; H3 C- d8 x- a9 W

/ ]) _7 `8 e3 qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html, n9 }* d9 T0 p2 i" g8 H

2 q! I) ^/ r3 q  `2 `FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! u9 a# C3 V$ x5 g

) m$ F: C4 c$ @: ~* X2 A: }& qIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself+ F, r7 q% q( e
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science4 a  o3 X; F4 T6 ~* l4 |' s
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this4 e0 @" t; Z3 F6 |: K3 m) r- G
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' `8 L4 C% R1 A; Y! I9 t% m/ _
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
! o7 X6 I1 q- E/ |' l5 X$ Kpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
8 q, h( W# g) Cshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
. r5 S  T. E: L1 {5 Pwhich they blatantly failed to do.
$ h) ?; ?; g+ W
4 v0 K, [  z3 h5 T0 _% NFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
; g: Y) n& L" W0 S/ B- |- `/ KOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
3 Q0 S& m$ `- M$ W0 g& \- F2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “4 f$ i+ P) f7 r
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
( }, {9 {, d" U% Z! u" w4 `0 I& W0 opersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an5 E9 U$ H1 I5 C+ x% _5 k) s! N
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
( l9 N  G3 M; ^4 |! U* Q( Rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to3 M; i. |3 P/ E* a* ^
be treated as 7 s.
2 o: o, R' X' _  M3 @" H
5 L+ n7 |! x- r) g1 [/ wSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
' S$ [8 d" u6 A5 `+ r* q! R* u- @still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem9 @+ C8 w' [* H% H
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
" H0 ~9 S4 Q  D1 C2 T& sAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
2 @- S0 X  R0 U-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.% \! i9 j- D: @! G
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
! o1 c" X1 l! n$ welite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and- z2 o6 N0 a- A! j( e% H% m
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”6 p, u+ Z8 ~, e8 v! g* ?6 C
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 ?6 }! d  C( a+ V+ `

# ^8 h" p2 g; q4 u" p' CThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook1 o) I% P" t5 V2 T1 B, M' m1 i4 i" m
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
+ M: P, [0 v! Z5 d, k" [& Y# Xthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
2 Q5 w0 ]* _# P& Q3 K4 ^, [7 V" phe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later# e# F, \) d& l9 R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s7 a8 Y/ L( Q  i5 }- C
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World. x. D/ J( O3 P& l* p  b
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
2 ^7 T, `$ l8 {topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other+ j( h. j7 Y+ Q5 W8 v
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
7 @* r( I5 t' D  D, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this; ]) Z9 u% M+ z7 N7 E1 v
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
/ D  _% F# e. s; C; A  bfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
# k. E0 F6 T- E6 o# t. W# Hfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ q/ `2 `' ]: q3 ]8 Yaside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 X% R3 P8 }7 b! x8 x
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.* X" a+ o2 B' m8 B1 N
6 y5 D5 u1 I, C! U4 H, M
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
- Z- D+ s3 \% W7 v4 B# a  [* Ifour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93. S3 ?7 f  Z) @7 H/ A+ ~" @
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
* n6 j8 h2 S* L8 ?), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns5 g" ]# d3 T" S  n9 T6 R
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& s0 S2 h9 x1 s/ ^! f1 l; m8 LLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
& Z6 R: h2 F5 B5 v) aof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it. f# S, E3 y0 f) Y. r, g
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in1 Z& a( x" @3 e. H" x, O
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
) g1 W# O. H# K3 T. ^( M2 M. ?works.3 V; Q$ v& {, {) f* n0 g$ b
) t' m& v+ n5 ~0 Y! u0 i
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 E" m1 W3 u: h6 U, z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
1 V6 d2 [, E+ s; ^7 `4 y6 Dkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
& V5 G2 x! D% H. x5 {! [standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
6 S, n0 `0 [; c2 zpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and, u- D1 v/ p# p+ Q8 c% z8 O7 b
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One! a* t1 y: @6 F& B$ S9 G, ~
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to$ X0 f7 Q8 Y, z, k4 i
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
" J: v6 A6 z% q# r$ i& {to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample: P- _! e& Y3 F2 H, p
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
3 {- a, H# o) D7 ]" }8 J  M; ]crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
! Y9 u8 u& i% o" @* |* d6 nwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly$ Z5 i' z6 o& X% z4 V
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the: H6 a4 e9 t2 x( o9 y& V
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
; A2 h" z6 Y( O+ ]use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation% L$ H& G  U: p% f8 }8 z
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
6 h9 d# Y/ U0 ]2 k( `doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
& k& o; k% e8 ]# [) l3 Abe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
6 ]4 I+ n3 c9 `1 l& I) W# nhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
1 c8 K0 s; b" z% F. i. Z/ chas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& g" P. c; ?5 h* G6 [0 B; ldrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:1 G# m( E8 M5 z: _: t) [
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect( y! \/ f6 K7 q" q5 e) {" m0 K
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
; s' `0 m0 h& b& p( |: H2 w$ wprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an5 d; C' Y6 h3 y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight0 u# g- c& f; G4 F. j
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
( x' n$ @( R9 p4 F" YLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
1 j$ _) b5 O3 j1 ?) vagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
- W$ W, o: m% s' s7 Ieight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
3 g3 k8 o) }! x; y% o# @Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
4 b; d1 }; E) c3 N4 U3 G
; J6 ?2 h. c+ i5 Z5 oSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
+ u6 }" y* V- e1 W8 t% Rcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention+ t. ]  j* W+ k" m! D7 [
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
1 e$ z: [6 H4 h- X2 KOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London5 d& c) d& q: L5 X& n3 w  C0 f
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
" q2 h2 b' b% B: p7 k0 Cdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic! W9 |5 f% t3 A7 a0 c
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope4 d3 d: U7 a5 G6 l* Y9 f
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ h+ y; H% ^' u/ M
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 `8 K, z8 A4 S% Dpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.! X' R- K0 j4 M: D7 i( @) w

6 N& j7 z9 X7 m6 u; bOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (: ^; F; h' u, k  p- b
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
. W" j! N. d* |) i0 `suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 H- n$ L" O/ ^' w" n8 l* b7 u$ s3 `suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide- j5 N' w: u1 m
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your1 I% A% t( k+ j4 c% B& B
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece," o4 g0 N9 F5 f5 A; ^2 t
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
; E- F, M& P/ @/ H5 [: E9 t9 U5 ?argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 T; I1 Z1 a# n) k6 Ssuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or& ^5 P7 ^- Q' y
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!
大型搬家
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, 2025-11-29 15:32 , Processed in 0.151763 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