埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2119|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 % [5 R) I- M+ b: ?- W
( p2 D3 @9 s# o
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
$ }0 V! j- c* f' r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。" H1 r+ S' k6 k
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。. f2 N$ H1 Q$ i1 n* ^/ ~; r; q
& S, O- J: J. N9 M; \
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html' b+ S! D; {7 ?  n' w  {
/ H" ]1 i/ W0 L) S: }1 {2 h  L
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
! ], Q/ G" O: S5 x8 W" Z. A* G+ L* d3 T5 p$ ^
英文原信附后,大意如下:- X5 n  K( t3 a/ W5 P$ x) X

- e# b' i: S+ I0 W斐尔,0 a# @" ?9 c6 o& e
       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
2 z. w7 ^! W! @  [( W0 yemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
, T8 }9 Y( N# u& d! A; O       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 M  `5 e, F* E4 K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) k& T; p+ h$ D+ e3 O% ?" U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。! \! W4 [/ O' @* u
       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
, S6 X. m9 s* @/ [& v3 y+ F& 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- V: K$ W5 ]5 k- E3 {$ _9 X
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
! H" \4 I0 H0 @" g) r' q8 V0 f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。
2 J1 b3 R! e$ 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9 m1 e  G6 V8 h- T/ e8 Y, ^* h4 j! L
,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! @% t5 N  \”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
( y* V2 ?$ l8 q! p6 b; }& q: t       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
# J* A% f: g+ M- U7 o2 e  k7 z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
% l$ ]" `7 m5 E0 g,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。: [" S: a6 b  C  c. P) E  E" H6 U
       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
$ j6 B- V+ X% \, }9 o2011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
" g; ^( u6 D4 I0 y6 H合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二8 E/ B1 I% o( n7 S# h5 a6 @
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: a+ T8 f; a. H" C) I; R+ G
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$ X- \. S" ]' H6 U4 ^2 u2 _
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0 ]9 T( V6 J+ k6 U; s5 Z
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
7 ~% w# d! ?$ K4 Q* c: p4 w# y) b7 @。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- }1 Z: X- x- p
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
/ @- g+ d5 ~6 g3 C. U3 h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% s3 p; i/ U) e4 E. m
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# ]+ _, P& r% U- Y8 F6 J, o
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
3 q9 ^- ^  t3 d3 Q3 k同意见的专家。
+ t: D3 i0 y/ R. L/ o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
8 V0 w- g9 ~' C- V, R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# a( S* v: t1 J, A, y
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 e3 j5 O% O" f0 M& o: s
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
; O6 o4 T. r% d8 W1 }- TCallaway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)- h3 ?' C4 i3 {% H, i. D
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1 ~0 G2 \% B! F, Y. h1 q
《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+ H, V/ {. X2 f" `- m0 J
这些被Callaway忽略。6 c$ R" r* S" N4 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
) k- a+ z4 y% j. M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+ P4 X. N5 X. n* b: e; B% G
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。5 l! O  a- S/ 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+ P! \2 C( S: V7 r0 ?- V. 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. ?0 T5 l0 Y8 [# C# a8 Z# F
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! H! x  l3 m9 c" A$ c: v2 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。
6 H0 i5 a7 w5 S: a% X/ R' A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 o1 n. m6 o( D9 A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
8 {/ n7 M* [- x4 K. O: r& E3 d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
  J, I# A  h- \8 S”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
# @! `7 K0 w# P/ c6 S# f) M+ n0 S5 i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  s+ I- j: |/ q. Z, I( 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) y7 m3 j2 H1 Y% h
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
8 ?8 M8 t* k& o7 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
  B! M% k3 ~/ a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+ x" w8 ]4 J% T! v! A3 L
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
' i1 F8 H7 T5 n- `0 J0 N我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
  Y- d  c6 |; {, k
; t/ r9 Q& v: @' D. ^
* O) G7 ]* u3 L* O/ z1 k4 N北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
+ n: l4 K  U8 R" G: a$ H  H$ O  l2 _) ]7 H- n9 y1 |
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结5 T% T+ S8 A6 l7 [% r# a
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email, a1 b7 g! |0 P! S/ ]8 H
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见$ u4 J; m! C7 j+ v1 A2 y; u
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
( A' @0 `% H, B% X; Y2 G
7 Y9 w8 T9 T, j+ L2 p7 x& M3 Y1 ?- B7 G* `& L

# H: T) ]5 Y' D' a0 D% {: k9 p+ {原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)  g, q1 q/ j; L5 W
Dear Phil,
1 K) {& p2 ?9 h% w9 G/ ]; R- q+ A       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
: t5 m7 A4 ~3 y# W% x7 E0 {report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20/ D! s( [5 J2 ]; U% N
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed* O2 {; J" ?# i( G8 L4 E
you.
: n; K2 `% j+ a* U       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
' c/ f- y# H5 m7 ?' |1 v4 `; R1 l  @% Rbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
* y( m. X% j% B( ^  p, treaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
7 J7 P5 e4 O4 }0 {world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
, B" o" ]+ V, F: |publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more1 h7 j- s& z- I5 O
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news- q+ a3 O: x' @0 O
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
6 ^/ L  ?# i, d, [       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ Y  g# n9 `0 y* O# u# }/ iworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ w2 h6 \) `( F" T
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish! K' O+ J6 \. A- X+ z
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
  y6 R" ]$ q$ B3 Tdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping! O8 H( g1 u/ c0 u, a6 f
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal( I! [" w' A; P
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,+ D: D/ V* O0 h8 ^6 N: l
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone& y2 p2 N" H0 b7 x$ q
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news4 Z0 R! l9 _$ v, r+ ~! K
reporting.
1 I: ~8 Y; S. `! w& p# |: \. }% ~       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
9 d; E5 _0 k! oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by0 J0 X- _4 N6 i* T' Z
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in/ C' e, e& [. c
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
9 L) _, ?* g) |) _presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
8 _9 e" H! y" J5 Y# D       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
) c$ }* z9 M) y8 v) H1 m* ^, }, xmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 \+ Y2 K5 Z8 p" [8 r
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50( t+ \! x# n% a# c; o7 x6 b
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same" X: C; [# x9 b
event for men, with the second fastest record.& f! J: f2 ^+ u/ {0 M
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye6 M+ J/ L2 q* l+ k- Y1 @: \
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
/ w' |0 i- f4 Q) r/ t: Byear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record! y+ H4 H; U- ^
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. W1 ~. U! B2 F* b5 R2 Z$ Qmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
. s- Y+ `* T: k, i2 u/ Tfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than) v$ O8 ^; J, W# F" n+ g5 h
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed3 z/ Q8 U, O: c' y5 t/ u- _2 ?! I
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the& s1 E" _% \3 p1 d4 P/ z7 A
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
+ Z6 i* U( |& T+ ~" o' xthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
$ s6 o- c" h. ?+ x; a! {& dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was- T% D6 k2 N; H: v* g/ Z
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
+ m, d6 g. D0 {( ~he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
$ I( B  Y. j* V8 @problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) W% O. I% L9 {" \- G; o
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
% g8 {5 z  e' f" r9 R7 Steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the# y7 p1 i) v. [' a7 {. O9 r
Callaway report.$ [, ]7 L% m1 Y" G
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more. F& Y! D, G7 {" ^8 _, a& L. @# U1 A
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details- F3 H2 D/ e% c, O
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' }) O  E9 N2 H3 L+ d  ]* [  V, }
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
4 R/ w1 W1 l. ~; Y( v( ebetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 u+ Z0 J$ k" ?$ m5 D# X4 |' pWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had5 `$ k1 }9 g' y6 ?8 }6 d& {2 ^
publicly voiced different opinions.
6 R; Z  Y" u( F& p' TYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
  _# }8 X: p+ T6 ]# \from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature0 g; W1 A8 b5 C( X% h& V
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent0 t4 V$ C7 F. g0 \' B
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds8 `  `2 k0 ?7 t9 _" A1 a$ _7 u
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy2 |1 z# X* h& l4 k6 A. c
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue., P) Q% y* b" |' I& P$ a
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
- b+ i, d$ |5 Y0 N) N$ ythat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
8 X6 f' e" o+ U  z& G0 {have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
* H8 w; e# _9 O# JAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that4 R& K1 I( N) ]: S0 I
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
% b# T# i% @/ s3 t4 i( m3 psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.* p' R. r( m, H$ L: m; v0 u, t# o
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that3 D. d8 |; {7 a3 f2 B5 t5 `
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ z% V' }4 h( B" e
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June! q( D: ?0 ~6 j9 K
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she* {. Q! k; y3 t+ O
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
; q+ f9 E+ h& h8 Z5 M* e+ ]) T& b2 MThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science8 ^7 q$ v* P$ z% b9 E* z9 X, b0 v
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
) ?7 A9 e/ m) H2 \/ q; D# ^& e; b0 FDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
% x* {3 F" R0 E/ {3 `Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
% _' o' D. H- P8 K3 kobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature, q" v3 }: ]6 }* o: ^0 I# F$ J: }
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
4 I+ o  m  N0 Qrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.3 H* u6 G2 U" z! s# G
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
, h; H, o  [( c8 E* Kshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' T+ I" o( K2 @! B( uus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather5 A* ?2 B: o0 U  d. o
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that- m8 S& `  T4 a$ W
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
5 J9 Y5 c1 J6 N8 E1 w5 Aabout British supremacy.
  e+ c- z3 f9 tThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
- n8 @$ g. D- d4 B/ Aunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
* R( k1 I1 M% I" V) x6 S! dChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by/ D8 A: `# l3 P4 u; ?6 g  V
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London6 ?& o: m1 {" j2 O
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% ^5 t! P; E; H7 m3 TYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
2 \" w6 c3 [" b9 Oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
1 f$ Q3 Y5 ^; t" Mbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,6 C- D1 \9 i- J5 o3 u1 m5 b2 ~. W
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- V5 [5 ?2 h. G; Ypublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like* y) l4 M, A* w) G; z
Nature.' r6 J4 K6 `2 S. o& P0 W
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ T' x" e4 U4 _$ V( `2 \9 B8 ?6 Q( Sthe Callaway report.5 v& x/ S  u" v8 M8 S
" ?- o3 `* W  I2 x
Yi1 f! R/ e% W1 @( n, @! D- n3 S' l
' Q3 ]( M3 w8 o
Yi Rao, Ph.D.5 z% {0 _6 o! M, R) z/ [! m
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences, @( t. ]2 F2 j
Beijing, China2 ~. Q& v' O# ?: ~
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 U* X4 w7 }* V2 E$ |原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
: \: C5 B! d" s; a/ @7 Z' y
原文是公开信。
. ^. t$ H# t9 U4 w+ g
6 v, P8 l& l5 m2 K7 P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
. L: v  s) }  a9 F) Z原文是公开信。
6 `' E. }, C4 x7 [/ C
  G' D- m7 @' W; n* Q小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
  j3 E$ j, }5 ~/ }! f
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
鲜花(125) 鸡蛋(1)
发表于 2012-8-7 08:01 | 显示全部楼层
理袁律师事务所
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! J0 ^7 a' P. f8 ?9 [  ~
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。3 s! a) ^/ h) R+ P! @. s) J

& l! L( U# k. j8 f) Phttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html3 I8 u6 M% y* v/ T/ j$ P

! K- h) j/ j* k! N- FFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
( d0 \. V- Q7 H( U9 Y) F. H( Z4 M/ k$ x
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself* M9 Z  j6 d2 F2 i& ^
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
1 T4 ^  [, {4 r5 V. p0 v3 k+ Hmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
5 O, ^6 t8 o# Fis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
# r; n8 s4 S% }scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
( N# N% J! V9 `# f, Lpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
3 G0 ~8 Q$ c) S  Cshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
% P0 }& H* w/ l. z/ ywhich they blatantly failed to do.
6 ^7 z+ U4 R3 }- @, q; E" R) x1 q) ^! b2 ?7 S1 y( I$ u% x; t
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
8 u" q: g1 d$ _( A& yOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
0 r% W* b! ]4 n5 s+ t+ `7 h2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “5 {4 u( F  P) d7 A
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous5 q0 A. ?; V+ L3 x
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
/ |3 z( r+ S0 E4 l2 cimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
, [& l; P8 D$ o& mdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% k  G) u) k, X! J) \5 {6 b9 M+ n
be treated as 7 s.
7 J' i& P/ x$ D4 T4 H% N- K1 g
3 j7 {, q( C: ^/ K/ t( j: sSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- S' [" \9 Y8 B& M* E: Q% ]
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
2 x+ l% x3 _6 s' E" r/ J4 }impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.' U9 ?- K) c! M
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4003 e% @5 F, i- ?0 V2 P" H6 d1 l% j8 o
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
* Y; A, f. z; N% X1 b  {/ @, z6 wFor regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an+ c! y* R1 c. u0 W" ]# X
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and2 a, q2 I+ ?2 Q1 Q9 o( a! b
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
& q# M; K1 r8 q' b( r6 ibased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.6 _7 ?( \1 ]5 ]% X" ^5 b
' n% J7 @4 a; R6 B! c# }
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
" h, s8 G6 F4 r! Aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
8 O7 U9 K5 V; j2 Z$ I/ f. A4 a2 bthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so' r; u  L8 B6 e% O6 o5 f2 p) `
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
% V5 \2 y3 N( E, z9 l% C' \events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s; T( L1 K) `0 L: j9 I, m. ^
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World% }' j, u+ ~( A* @
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 ?2 n; L6 P' B$ Vtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other$ \$ ^( |8 v9 ^! }6 h' K
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* k8 M$ j5 G& [, a- a. i4 t( i
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
# h' W, w8 m+ m2 y$ m4 u8 }strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 u" t2 ~& n) m5 {8 q- \
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam1 \' X8 i- Z$ r
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
. J8 G1 ~2 ~% K. e# Z8 Waside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 z( Z6 y) n* A# k) }
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
% ]+ d% n" ^7 w! P; O" h! R( g1 Z+ u
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
4 Z; r" U" u1 W% pfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93" S  i' X0 w/ y! Q
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s" \8 i  \* U$ W5 G7 R% x, v' L
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns. |7 s- @, _) P+ h) E7 q3 I+ a
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,' O1 c$ @$ v9 Z  |
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
) D! e. h1 O- G( C: W% W  [- }; f  ?of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
4 f* J- a1 o( M, clogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 h$ W2 m, a9 |% J6 B
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
+ D" w$ A6 V! n7 Nworks.
" ^7 @! P0 ^5 j2 J  k! a5 b) J) d- {0 @
6 B3 h$ v& s) d: N4 HFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and5 j  z# b% e) [$ j6 ^
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% s3 n" g( U/ P1 A1 C" v/ T- wkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that+ K6 `- E3 f' R) _2 M0 W. k' \
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific2 k4 k9 ^# I; T0 T
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and3 E+ j" G! v' m6 Y9 v
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) n% f6 \. Z7 @+ M+ N1 @2 \8 K5 x2 Ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to* e5 ^- P. Q$ u$ G
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works5 E6 I# s- p2 y4 }) Z
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& h/ p; x7 d6 I
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is* u( U( U# W* t1 Q- U. N4 \
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he4 ?/ T0 x0 t/ _
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly/ r1 K6 Y4 O" F. c
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: \* F1 [5 H; Gpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not2 n9 b! w  s' G/ ]7 A
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation0 i9 \; }+ G* a$ v! ~  n4 D1 \4 w
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are& O, s, o: G( c4 b+ Y
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may6 ]+ P( @* g: M0 X
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
; w. b/ p4 B1 ~+ \hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
" j' E, ~2 I- X. o; k1 U' i/ ]has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a. N3 b% X+ ?6 v7 H3 z
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:& A4 U2 @1 J6 X6 \# h1 ~
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect+ Q2 c* ~1 i  k9 G" e; t4 X; J; h
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is. i( [0 I( J9 J9 r
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an; y7 i9 X' q0 a% m, L
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight% D; k' d' [5 v1 z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
* c) X% v) a% z/ uLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping* v$ p$ z; ~2 h6 G/ A9 S
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
6 d5 l2 O/ A) U. ?$ d$ Peight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
1 S8 K8 n  L& b3 o/ }+ HInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
2 y: A/ Y! f- _2 \# [1 q  h# p# F  F2 L3 n& t9 @
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
2 T4 Y2 _' y0 ~, Q2 ^6 ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
4 ^- N' O1 U. L9 X+ Z2 T: K" r! t1 Q. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for) y- v8 R' ]) v4 y
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
. f9 b- x( t$ D$ h% O6 kOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& Z2 n9 p0 ^& z) `doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
9 `- x1 ?( F' A  I  b; W8 d) lgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope+ p% s) u+ L" g! N; [$ l
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 H- a2 _9 V9 ?% v" G2 {player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. G* R0 c( ^# S) A( C  F  I  t- q6 Ipossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.8 _6 j. t+ J, B' b' Y# g
7 u2 ?; F) Y  ]. {  i* b9 R2 B
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
( ]' t+ p( D' \' C" O  ~: w: Q2 pintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too- G3 H1 p8 b2 k% C# U* V( k/ k
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
7 {5 K, t8 y. P# F- d6 H# m, Q7 G! wsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide  V6 s+ T* E- c0 N) D5 u" h$ c3 T
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your; ~3 i1 O& k$ h  k
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,/ N! r+ G, G% E; D
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
! P+ o# H+ O5 k! F7 m  I: \' [5 Fargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal2 Z& {7 J$ E7 K0 f* U
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
) c8 E6 M9 P9 a6 l" D- Kreporting 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, 2026-3-11 09:30 , Processed in 0.112528 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