埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 1852|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 i- {; d! E2 `, B" v0 c4 j
2 y" O$ _8 B4 `: X9 s7 c饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。3 Q2 L& W" g" C' U' K+ f
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。( D  B, v. k! ?6 ^/ ]  k
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! V, v/ h, R& S: J6 T
% e! {' D% Q4 P& V  [( c  d7 U, hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html* s8 r8 I! z% k6 y
' S: z. M' j! u) b5 `
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
$ d. t0 @6 w& n  j5 S! x, t8 P4 K
英文原信附后,大意如下:- ~: ~4 i9 y) n- D- D: ]

2 _& r" y( c5 T' Z! b5 H# q斐尔,
. S& B4 `* `* z6 c% L$ q       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+ }6 x; K3 c% Q! |0 ?  H  D
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
. C, y" ]+ p1 o2 @# O0 [3 P# n       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 D, l# x, g- C* a% r! s: S
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+ y; y' b! W. K$ K0 K/ b/ z2 ^
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。; j' j; \2 _* a, O( L  h- f
       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
# }5 R1 v1 d1 J( f* _弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意2 P. Z7 t; Y' H. f; l( ~' ]" \
见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负9 Q! M* Y% R$ P& ]0 g
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。
8 }4 K) e) _; k/ I1 L% v4 E, 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
- f$ `; ~& b( q/ _& f2 a$ p' ^7 w,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. [5 c2 Q! l% H
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。# u. |+ H9 d6 ?3 U; u$ k) f  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
" n9 T( s  n. B% y; 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
, h9 W, q  b: x: W,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。# O, f6 z9 k5 S1 U+ r) ~$ 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7 `* c8 T5 ^8 b
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
$ v6 m" H; N+ ?0 D. D+ E5 U# m$ b' S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& N- Q$ ?3 W8 s* H
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 H) L4 w5 q$ |# J
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
& y* A( ~" @# e$ b% }+ O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
! }" B# O, h+ i: M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* e" d/ 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
( M& ?7 r6 _+ j1 S, ^8 i录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
) W) Y2 ?9 d7 w9 i3 `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
" u$ v' F1 h0 ?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' U8 t5 k3 Y3 n4 _8 Z- j2 r; d- p, |1 K
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  `7 o' R' z. |: p8 u5 I- c8 G( B! m* q
同意见的专家。, F( G( C" g+ |9 n- e( E! A
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
# X0 i2 M( s8 T/ e  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
7 M, u0 k, x. d" H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" C1 ?* k& H) C7 L8 |( g9 C( _
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。! |' ]$ C/ J9 n! g& G2 P2 l0 \
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)
' H# y0 q- ?; I9 o+ 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
' @# T# W" l2 b0 `6 e《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
! [# J" r5 L. d( J这些被Callaway忽略。
1 B4 n0 Y7 V5 s. L1 A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: n& T' v& t" r; d& F; A
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
" [% i$ E9 [: a1 g! ]3 W教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
& F7 i) k" J4 f" v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% J3 p; \$ v5 u. y1 M
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; a/ g% J4 J4 m( Q9 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3 g- ~5 X# t1 |
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 ~! g8 h% Y. W- p: V2 u- F1 R0 C
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
: A: C8 f! q( }5 Y" P! T% H5 i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. w$ h- {: F; X0 x& t% I8 j
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 f0 l2 i# |$ A3 }! r”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。& T: b# S9 \% w# K0 V: p
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
( ^5 `: m# c8 J8 ~# [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 a/ x) O2 o3 a( ]9 T# u  J  ~) u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+ e1 y7 N2 z/ f' g5 r
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
6 r! F0 ?5 t( @" ^4 I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' m' C& {1 ^  X$ K; A$ X
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。6 m1 U+ @6 s0 t" |* j( d
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。3 a: l* s4 b/ P5 M

9 p# M* }( _4 S
2 P" R. ^" z5 U* I北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅  S: u% Y+ M3 X, }/ G+ s: \) C

' y% X! ~) D* p2 @0 H1 U- b附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结2 G8 C9 l  Y- m  v
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
$ R3 U" E& C% M) }4 }附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
% `2 u4 A' N  J6 V4 _0 I附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见3 t, V3 R  k/ p) d% j4 T* H3 h

& p7 |0 O; l" }% l1 U& P) g5 S6 l4 L# e. @9 U, o* }

+ W$ G7 |/ J4 w3 r9 {9 Z2 u" f原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送); _% L7 S  j3 o
Dear Phil,+ u0 A$ n$ l7 b  y( n
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s* b: @7 a% Q5 e0 k* g5 _" B
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20/ q) o* ]/ m* x6 I! P3 ~/ t; n
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: ^+ O  a5 n& Kyou.5 W2 ~: f% f2 n: [
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have# b& [  A- U0 q/ ~+ S2 M/ D  u9 O: c
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' o8 d$ D3 H# \6 D4 A" T) ireaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the& S8 H  q3 x3 |+ G
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
6 l& D1 r$ |$ B6 gpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
7 P: l4 a4 [- m  ?seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 a7 X) h0 X$ I4 }& Y% y
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
; W, w6 S) C$ C( z8 m1 a       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the2 A* T4 L1 l) J* v& a8 [+ f
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
* ]0 W! m& S  k. xnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish  e3 x9 n2 F" o1 D3 Q$ q( g
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
/ X. ~- A& r1 o9 p- xdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping0 i$ p* S+ E, E, E
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
% F; T, h# Y6 ?# ?& `& z. _" D0 ?* astandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
3 j4 c; E/ C# s, Land could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone5 M6 @! u3 d7 [; q. w
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
" m) l5 c5 M0 M0 p4 h; L6 Q8 Ureporting.
9 b: y- R5 C2 q  w       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
: |8 \+ W6 `3 g% N! B1 J. ~already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 a" Q% N* f2 u& d( I5 \
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in& y' Z0 P/ K" X3 J
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A' G$ C" p3 Q+ ~" E$ q8 P
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.' s" ]/ Z2 }: U2 r" T# }. t
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
1 l; w6 m$ g6 d4 h4 c* h3 jmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds2 y5 f6 L) ~& b$ ^, i2 c
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
5 l& ^' j. V1 {% q& R( `3 Qmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same  {$ b  }& `* K2 ~1 S$ Y
event for men, with the second fastest record.0 G) ]( ?, x' R( U/ L
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye- [; q$ ~% _4 f+ K; @2 ?
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 165 B  n* J5 `3 X7 |+ W& s9 V
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record  k7 C5 e* e8 Y5 J3 W3 P3 E
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400, v" g$ l* K% K3 M
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 E! x2 t+ d( Z* w2 e$ Afor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
( F+ i: c  X% w- P! a- {7 k8 YLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
0 r3 [  q/ K( ?7 ^7 R6 j. j8 Nbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
# _  b- n. N: ^individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
: f. d* p5 k2 i' T! ]# `* ythan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
) T# ^" Y% x/ ^those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
, V" v0 r- u3 D+ K6 s) oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
( R" }2 H2 P1 q  b- n0 E* d7 Bhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “) Z; [4 D/ H$ J; U' @5 F
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other1 v( M$ o9 t- i3 q4 e, W: G  `
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
6 }1 Z( v1 T8 u! Z% c0 e- Jteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the  W0 K, C  n4 _8 Y9 B$ P9 q
Callaway report.& H2 O- q  B; M% k3 n7 n5 O( K( g
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more2 x4 ^9 R- j; i! I9 M! C
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 b. O4 Y; h2 O+ O0 ?& Uhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
  i  h( `2 x" I; yof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
$ M3 |" K6 D6 U* N# rbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the; o' P7 t- c4 E9 k1 [9 U/ k
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
, x" Z6 [$ q& ]2 x4 Ipublicly voiced different opinions.
  ?/ I7 D/ |# c7 m1 b' }7 d# b; wYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
7 u/ Q0 H2 P  Lfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature, y* [- G+ C5 W$ K
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent$ N" }* o6 j* [  y) m0 W- k
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
2 m- {2 X1 i8 o% m7 pyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy6 p) h. l9 q% j* E/ s5 Y; L" ?- U4 c! D# @
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
3 [' ?5 z: o3 I' M! m6 _, aThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think6 l. N$ h9 t: ~9 p0 R
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
; g0 R/ ?- C. n: j9 j9 ?have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
4 M, a- J" f+ k' a/ wAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
# q/ m2 f" K$ B7 }the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 ^* [9 X$ F  l8 ^- x5 Y# H$ Asupported by facts neglected by Callaway.& P( Y1 N& H( m
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that. y' _" B; x9 i8 }
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ r6 @; i. r) q6 {( e* V$ ~, z2 j
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June5 j! U* I. m+ Q" K8 o$ r4 W
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she6 z; ~; x! r7 S* [, F3 S
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.# D8 m% V1 `( v8 C7 E
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
! H& {. Z9 r8 \' e) P1 Jand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
- X! J8 i: b* ?7 \2 L% cDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.) c8 J0 ?5 v/ K6 V7 V
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
0 P$ z+ {7 R6 y2 g1 U3 }objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
7 }6 j# ?: ?/ ?" ?5 Pwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
+ ~" P  S" }$ r% Prepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
( U" [* B# G# R9 B- \, AThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not; W" M( ]+ y. P, s8 T- ^
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
& B1 S, K; J+ b5 `  @6 Qus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
; X" q9 \) A- |  p6 n3 {8 l# ^0 K6 Q4 gfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
' i0 o& {7 Z2 `this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”# m; C% p* h% d) P& Q- o. `" y
about British supremacy.# ~6 i, A' L& C& Y: Z5 `% ^
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many/ o: ?! s1 Y# D. _
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more. t) M" R: h7 T
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, w; H3 x$ \/ n& X8 y2 u2 b3 B2 A6 gour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London" w! G, B2 z, d4 t3 Q3 q
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.# {+ I! N2 w/ C
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
8 o2 f+ C1 Q. X, \: f; R  ^, f6 ?professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
5 A3 M5 V5 l7 g  wbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
7 z; Y" f, r+ `2 ait is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
+ E( p% q3 e4 }7 {publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like" A' r6 k: B5 S0 v9 i
Nature.
4 k4 O9 w6 ^. M6 M) Q/ l' HI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance4 u7 {0 q( o, b! U$ V
the Callaway report.) t% |& v6 m3 [/ W8 f

/ O% p, |1 v+ ^: d9 X# X6 SYi# A( T  b& B) f0 |* a$ j

1 ~# o0 k2 q1 S0 f  a  j" |, OYi Rao, Ph.D./ h$ O+ B/ _- c; j" `4 L1 }
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences9 ]/ P. {% D, X
Beijing, China6 P( _: B9 z+ I6 p; J7 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 ! J0 L$ H* t: q
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
* i( H/ N* A# ^3 h5 \+ e
原文是公开信。
$ ?( W0 r! V% T& S0 T4 ?- W( q
" e7 u6 E  j1 H& s  r2 k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
: ~7 g& C7 }8 |0 U( {原文是公开信。
* y: ^1 e, C6 ^5 i& @7 v4 P) Z# w  M2 E/ l0 O% ]
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
; B6 P; F! f: E( y) }% P0 W
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
$ U. |9 @* Y, e. }如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
( |) p+ v1 L# ?! A: Y' J1 U7 h  j3 W
% B$ G; ^( i4 y- n, p% e# }http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
' R; P5 N; f% A3 |6 m2 f( ]# b# Y2 C0 c( m& s' w
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
# d4 R0 b% m( v$ C6 X9 G9 G* O8 T* s3 J9 r+ ]" |
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself# J. E6 N3 \9 V. T
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science  l% a7 k' b5 C5 `% k9 |
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this% f, p' I5 P4 f: I
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
5 l0 w0 X" w9 V1 A) M( b) fscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general6 P- ^/ @$ T) s% R
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' D) G2 Z/ b3 B! ]& I% Rshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
8 H* Q7 [, a" p+ Hwhich they blatantly failed to do.
# {  m5 ~- ~+ ?6 B5 k, t: K. R2 i5 D# ]; a- M# z8 o
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her0 |! R0 ?& P# c  `
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
2 \2 M/ s* e0 z: H! ]- D3 j, e' y2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “, `; u  ?8 q! c( N: B5 |! ]# g
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous7 B( a" h2 S* C
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an% c% P* d  X: _+ @6 H; B
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
' }% T6 p) g. ~3 K2 Ldifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
' i3 A) y" x* A1 V& Gbe treated as 7 s.! s3 A, @0 v+ c8 ^2 Y% o: n

0 W! n0 O; G( t3 f6 ?Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is$ L7 z  o: t$ P6 B5 z; f
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem/ l3 @( |- V- g8 n# Z3 q
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.- Y- Q- m7 f* w( g
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! {  Z  d/ J+ H: K2 g* x( ]( y-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.$ M( K, X6 y+ I) O9 Z5 v
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; i1 ]1 v# F7 q" ?& M* V8 r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and) q* h% P$ O$ e. v4 [0 K1 T. S
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”2 `" g; B9 |" p+ M' A! c
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
% [4 m7 g' r8 H9 D3 ]+ n$ T5 o- N0 w8 W' g& M& ~! N2 A8 s3 S1 H8 m6 Y
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* _8 s! i4 c7 p1 w. p" ?  l  H
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
9 r7 f4 {& z& `( i" Othe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so6 X1 T0 O+ \9 R9 b6 L5 ]
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ m/ I7 N$ ~& ?) g! E4 |4 e+ V
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s+ F: M0 m  z# W5 N6 ]2 [- S
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World/ N+ v. q1 z+ u$ v5 e
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
5 o, g$ P' ~4 Y. j8 n3 W- z5 c8 htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other# `+ x5 X/ _6 w  Z1 `
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
1 G5 G- w, J9 j3 `8 Y* z8 s) p, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this7 O) K" z" o# i! D: B, O
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
, {7 m5 E  @  Q3 A. j8 lfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam0 j4 l+ D- t1 a! u
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
$ G$ t) S4 v1 j1 h8 Q4 ^6 R* K  ^aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
- {# h6 Z+ u1 nimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
4 u2 Y) q! o, F1 O' @4 j2 E9 Q+ k; _3 E3 W6 s
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are+ a0 o* C& J' C2 `& k% J0 |% ^
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93$ m, ?+ u& k. Z) a: J" G0 O
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s% q* f" A5 ?4 m4 D2 ^, B
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
5 @, q. g1 Q! C6 H1 \out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
% b* ?* L# C# z3 ?+ j/ n; c8 L  ILochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind) Y4 r5 g1 B! n. e& o: Z8 q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it, c6 U* b- n( X3 n: o
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
3 E/ @, O( X. _% n# i& C3 Severy split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science, I$ p/ _+ B1 ^
works.
) u% t' u* u$ D( i* b5 d, A+ {- l4 x, C6 G  K  H" m3 {- s
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
1 J4 b# l, c. s2 Q: k/ [* J/ Fimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this1 X3 H' a4 x6 x
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 \3 P& f- V; V9 m3 A3 K; Q2 zstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific; {. O0 p4 Y4 L1 u7 H
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
7 i) u6 G: J0 Treviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
+ W# G" ^' C0 V& y+ k$ u  scannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ A4 o; K) n/ I7 T' ^  x9 Jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works  L3 Y: E9 N. [& u# o
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
3 W1 J$ ]; e! w0 }! n7 p- P5 p* @is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is  J2 G# k1 D3 D! i
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& ^( ^  C4 C' W, b5 Zwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly5 [( g; y. G5 E" o0 U6 g9 I2 v
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the( g' E0 ^2 M2 |2 p% B6 a( n
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not% N) F! G* N4 r! l. g8 u  q
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
* x, C$ q1 ^# ?' q) R% G- E! W. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are  `9 Q$ j- Y$ ~" e
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may* t3 c* R: v. A# P4 Z
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
# b% M" h1 P/ Phearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye  s3 E" u( X  K  o
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 e! h1 J9 K6 edrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
+ v' \, n" t% G1 bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
. p% x& a4 u7 J/ C" j7 H4 ]! V, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is. _( s  Z" F( P! y
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an, f5 G& @! v& L# n
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
8 b7 k3 {$ F( O6 f2 bchance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& p$ ?6 M1 Z' K2 A! D$ [! U2 SLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 i" R- d( x% ~9 o6 f0 T
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for+ v, {- p; j$ m& `2 Q
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
, E- I3 f9 s0 B0 D; [( H$ ?$ PInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
3 ?5 }' c9 o1 n' G  e% a3 `( r$ W' P( _: F0 h8 |
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
: ^- s: Y' s2 S- {9 n5 Z2 m7 }3 r# H5 ecompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
6 y, o& L7 L6 U2 z% D. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
( J9 F/ k- X4 V: E' _7 ]* ~Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
' j5 u/ s/ y/ `* ~, l. rOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
' n8 H' J) `) X7 Vdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic7 h0 h, C1 u+ |* Z- {: S+ r, y
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
3 z! ?4 k  N" h% q! Zhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
/ ~$ S. F9 E' m" X0 lplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
* ~8 @: s; W0 `3 ]3 r' y/ t' ?2 opossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
. U& ^) w% F# v& Q! ?. X2 N
/ [& ~+ u+ [/ _2 p5 T  l- v5 t; _Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
/ w7 ?' n& q: N4 j5 R8 r* Iintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too+ ?0 j+ Y$ |6 n
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a% [- K) E* m! j$ Z. y- e
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
2 a, y* J- {8 }0 j6 T- ]all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your! D* o" h1 z- q# r2 F3 y6 H
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
* E  n: |$ X2 @+ j$ pexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your8 Z. V) O; q' L5 D
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal' |; k: e" _) U! b
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or3 p4 u# Y" u* I1 T# s7 f6 ?
reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2025-11-28 23:31 , Processed in 0.151855 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