埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2295|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
, T3 y" Q5 l0 L- I& k
% e' _6 F( F) z% f' F8 z饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* |0 }7 h8 `+ z+ j1 e" B
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。/ P/ w: F& P( s: e  X& F
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。1 A8 u% S. m  O
+ R: K; P+ b5 |. G( j+ g
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html- Y/ \  \: k& d( p$ c# b5 y
; {) F! l4 m$ ]" X2 \# K
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
# B, O& @0 w0 ]5 O  L3 m: D/ ?7 \
7 R1 l2 \. i# ^& d英文原信附后,大意如下:
1 |1 V& f- x8 E6 C5 J( M9 ~; z3 f: ]
% X$ F2 K: ]1 B# U3 i+ M) x2 w6 K. Y4 q8 w& p斐尔,4 i% @  ]+ I" W& [' k8 y+ w
       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
& P' o2 u3 @$ ]) W- j7 zemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。: P5 F2 |1 x! T
       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5 g, S9 @9 o$ _4 \  o2 m# o
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 Y0 g! B: u9 H* f' `# P5 J' p% z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。9 I) ]- P7 x, c+ P
       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
% H2 w- C" ]1 _! z6 l4 p9 A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
8 q7 q* A1 Y4 p. A, s# f! z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
' S7 O" v4 B9 p' 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 S7 V$ T) A0 r3 Y3 w. v1 y' `
       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) z# |) f# n# B! d7 b& @* M: B) e
,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8 }7 `5 J9 s# ?+ G3 V8 q* j$ K8 z# K9 t
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。/ }) S1 K  I; f# b. {
       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" g, g- J- v' U4 i
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* x$ f. S" i6 R) {) Y/ p# d3 @
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
" f2 G1 A/ {1 e& _0 p* 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" @8 N8 l* P5 z% i4 T
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
# S0 K5 g0 z' Z, }! |  i- ~7 K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" d5 h8 ^, }4 H) i0 R- N- d+ N
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( Z$ {; X7 M8 X3 x  M2 {! u
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
5 p9 u$ I3 h: 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( K/ g- `# e/ z8 C8 o  f: d
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' p, u# Y# u' n, J/ t2 a* y
。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
& e; m  P" O* z; k# K$ G录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。9 A2 P# @0 Z5 I7 P
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: X1 F/ Q/ {7 h/ r/ ?& H# H* M- l1 {
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# g. f, n. j5 x- I/ E3 `' b
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 A8 F' o5 i# H9 |+ T同意见的专家。
0 F. m5 L0 Q& G5 y7 ]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+ J7 V/ n5 b5 q6 q2 t9 G
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大
  H6 A/ t4 j5 k& S2 M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
. g! }9 n8 q( k. O/ y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。/ r% b( [1 ~5 A; K4 j
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)  q; |8 A9 ]$ D& K
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
( f% t1 g/ O7 z  a3 w3 o《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
! d; ^% U/ D1 X% {/ d这些被Callaway忽略。
! E& X  L$ E6 O# r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! ?' }) g  N2 U! ]. H# [
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! V  `! c; a9 @
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% j5 G2 ]4 u$ T+ |
英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书
3 }- M+ M' M1 H& ?! y* ?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! [+ @8 Q" p9 s- L% u
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+ t0 \* f+ s9 @* I, w4 n
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。5 E2 m& J6 ?" `
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
0 S7 Y6 H3 Y' n$ `- u6 H香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年
* j( j, D  T0 V1 T2 k: i) x代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问% A8 z# T6 S4 h5 u9 E7 A
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
* N! g0 V1 _% @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1 \% R: v" J$ U6 X/ Y7 _
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
6 {' L" ^: b- k8 e% v% G( N( ~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# o6 N* Y6 {4 G  ~/ 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
9 h% P  a9 V+ ?4 L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. L( f0 s9 j+ \5 d2 M' R5 _! }
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
$ c% J# Y  R5 A* C我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; r2 ?! X2 P7 F. b! u" ?  e' m/ `/ K% \- k" A+ f" w9 P, b
# r& W+ X: Y- B& ~9 p+ j
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅& M2 N) e) N$ \$ D' M8 {  @

4 S3 ~. e$ @, \+ C! N6 |0 h附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结7 B4 N; a% g. a0 i, B( D
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
- P- j& y3 L! [# i+ f  z0 M! S附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
/ K. N: a6 |$ I& Z附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
) ~) X  P- s/ v2 R' o( V6 H0 a: k* d9 W) U, I. j, z
$ {; P; F& F4 @3 U

" E9 m- `) R7 ^$ j  F/ n" H原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
6 l+ X' P; L( @* b7 R2 {! o5 TDear Phil,
! p8 L" z: H8 X! _; c/ t  m       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s+ h5 C/ t0 M/ h8 b1 v+ E
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20* j4 P5 `. ?* W' z3 x6 I
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed: T/ z- C5 H5 z
you.
9 o( }- y5 G$ v       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have; r# T; K# J+ G$ }
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
& T1 @7 W! D% X* e+ `+ qreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
$ w/ E7 F2 Y8 X3 l: ]world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 `6 R" D3 M: |! _
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more. Z2 g" N# Y% y8 ?
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
6 t; q1 p3 m/ ]8 ypieces much more than the regular Western news media would.& D6 z+ [, t, _  B
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
& o. ^4 z% m8 W0 n3 kworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
8 K6 m0 j; c7 M$ U# u! m) ?negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
: d$ R8 u5 m5 F( p6 Tthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway' F* U1 X2 @% G( e, P
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
$ N4 x. k) ~6 Hexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
/ _* C9 a& G, Q5 l; y9 @: |5 ?standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
7 u) w) \5 N: Rand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone% ]$ o" x% s& S4 C% w1 g
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
; l( x' Q1 o% [$ B% Ureporting.& h" z/ Y& z: v4 D& C
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have7 _. Q; ~' W* B0 ]. x7 m
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by6 D( Y/ ]7 n0 b! h
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in. |' ^* T) e+ W# Q: W2 w9 t) x3 I7 Q
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A( c5 N0 W( k$ F* e4 ]* Z( [
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
! a7 c; ]" ~) q6 c       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: a* a9 o6 A- E5 F+ {8 \* A) x8 h) c
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds  p4 r3 o* J) ]9 E
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50, Q) n: Z$ E7 m# a9 @& {" ^
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same: Z7 E  \3 J) G
event for men, with the second fastest record.
# S1 l7 R2 H, ^+ f$ i       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye! N6 w2 V# \, `+ M4 ]
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
% y8 h6 `9 v$ Qyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record  F; O: O. G; j% b& Y9 ?& f
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
. @( {* e" A8 Y, \. L  N7 X% r. H# pmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
) \1 i8 u) N+ e0 gfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
/ n9 {5 L  X$ ?3 o5 yLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed2 u& Q; q% ~/ A  |8 n
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
3 H! T+ U4 `+ C6 X! W3 n6 Jindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
: t; g6 n, C7 `2 _8 z; sthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 m9 N! k" d& othose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was- N6 o* h# b8 D* K/ W' f7 S
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- C$ w$ I) ]6 \! Y: Ahe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
) u, N, B! w5 [# ]9 I% Kproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other5 T8 Q5 \1 H& x- `% ^8 h7 a5 C
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the# X! I0 L0 f+ n; q: f
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
- w  o: f* Y. _: y% KCallaway report.
" \4 d6 q" y" |  n8 RThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more) {' A9 D  T5 r8 }/ n; |
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
. i) R: Z" L9 D' w7 l+ ]! j. Xhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
3 ], h7 x5 h, d1 v. x) Kof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
* l# A8 U% w5 M" nbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the: o* e0 ]; {* r7 Z6 t
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
) G7 w5 g9 O" l* K- _publicly voiced different opinions.! J- q7 b$ O- U/ q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
5 i, D7 p8 o3 G1 [  p+ bfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
2 }9 w% H$ s% G+ a' m: RNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; L9 z, C# D& ]9 s- L% t; S7 M  Z7 upostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds) H! D6 _1 g2 ~9 q) V' O& |
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 Y4 E' _& ?4 ]& _. `; I9 `
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
7 u, Z7 \% e( Q" ^; w9 N1 PThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
: f; E6 j' D# u/ o3 H. r7 k6 Ithat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They% l' N0 x- p, n. w8 [; e
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
+ P' n$ V+ G7 g, K& eAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
  s$ p0 D1 |$ x( Pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was9 c0 l6 C& N6 a( l, b
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.3 o  s/ y9 z/ S  I4 P
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that, w/ j: R0 Y/ w. A# q5 Y
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ u( `# r3 E0 P+ |7 e
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
5 b4 ?; Y, E7 O(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
2 {! l$ A6 P+ b: M0 Band I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
  l# B- \3 ?. g& R, {% y# X/ PThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
8 e# f1 W! k9 c7 B# fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and# P& T; a  }) X- \+ f3 [1 t! N* ^
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
9 y! D0 C0 J9 D& zNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and5 J0 r4 Q! I# K* P/ I% ^; ?5 z+ y8 C
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature: C! W3 g- @: E
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to6 w6 |* H5 F& g
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
5 N  Y& ~7 C! b2 O$ F2 T. wThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
. l& ~9 N( u6 X8 sshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
, M5 K/ y$ B( \. e1 D+ bus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather4 b# J! }: l4 q
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
% |4 R' ^+ k& b; I" G5 [# Dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”9 M, s# E: A7 D, i+ m
about British supremacy." i; c3 R# x" f+ K' y: |$ a
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
) Y( W8 a. j) x3 Zunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
0 d4 b) t3 l% v1 u* {6 |) I$ CChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
% |3 E; f% o  t, N$ ~' Four public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London7 h* r- i2 g* k
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
' M8 g6 T. I5 _& q! rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
1 F7 k. o* ?9 G& e% Jprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
! v" o7 S! ~! x3 Jbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
( Y3 V* `6 R6 v* @9 Pit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly3 A; u6 ^- }# C5 |  H/ Y
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
- y9 B: a4 q6 s. Q# e: l' V( ONature.
$ x) S& x8 |" x$ x- b& |I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance5 j; E1 s+ M) v5 `6 c
the Callaway report.
) q0 K/ }1 V  p, l' m8 [
( W+ G+ l* V. i$ ~# |9 pYi6 W/ p; c3 F! Y" b# s5 U" s* n

0 B( ]& r- A! C, E5 E  v  R" @1 eYi Rao, Ph.D.7 w$ H3 n/ w8 m% j5 ]: q5 L
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences( W8 p1 l- r! R) v
Beijing, China: h6 ?) D# h0 Y" Q/ {( {7 L
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
# n  ?7 n3 R2 `% U原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

  i9 g0 `/ b. ]0 W4 X8 q5 w6 d原文是公开信。) @' S2 x3 O$ s: M% i0 q3 E
# `3 h9 t" n) b
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
; S! i$ U  ^+ T  U' g$ Q; {- K原文是公开信。
; z0 P) h+ t" f9 F& w+ @! O6 W" a: N% R+ {2 o  Q1 h/ `3 }. z
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

0 X" e4 y+ V# R+ F1 U8 H谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
大型搬家
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 JIANG2 k3 u+ D  w4 O! X! I3 X
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。! x; ?2 |8 w) P( c
/ u0 w+ W4 o8 {+ M& q  W3 g( F; m
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html( i" t, j  H2 n! \
3 I0 m& v. m) ?" S
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania" G/ k% Q( Y* a6 e, L* M4 x& F
/ Q& D8 {2 Y0 Q( B
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
$ M5 [' h: s  u3 \, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
8 G* m) u9 H% D6 b$ I9 T, n% X3 Kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this$ H; V$ N/ s4 \* D' L8 {# l
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
0 V9 y$ J; r) {/ g* S' \scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
: j9 S1 L: s0 i. `populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
' G6 H: o4 d/ L1 jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,! m/ y* P0 w, p' _; i( a$ V/ P: I3 d
which they blatantly failed to do.
/ J, L! \7 z* J/ f& h/ j" E+ a3 m; {% t. E; @0 d
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& W8 L8 V  E6 g/ c9 N  rOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in! M' ^* [  p& v" r3 e- G
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
$ r* O3 E; ~  L) i5 Kanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
1 Q9 R! h& V% j# upersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
# p7 I' l5 R" M& Oimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
. ?) a2 x- C2 c% F, I0 Qdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
; W4 X( |$ P0 S6 @2 Tbe treated as 7 s.
0 ~$ A3 k& u# h! T' I: J, u% i: b2 B- Y  r2 Z& x( @9 p
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
1 ^0 B  F5 h( w+ Hstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
4 h* J$ N5 G; x" g9 E% T/ Wimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.( W! W" _% C, V
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400# M, `- E# o6 ]+ t1 h
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.8 h0 A) X" I0 s
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
) e3 z( A$ V( a% R/ relite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
1 C) m, d- r% c/ t- ?: h1 p1 @persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
& m  ~) N' L6 O2 xbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
5 n4 F, K1 m+ T1 {
- P! P) d! k; p9 JThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook6 G1 f& W7 q+ B+ V5 \4 L) @
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
' l. a( M  w. O" N8 q) q6 Jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. P# Z+ R) q0 u  b9 ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% `) r3 i5 V% @: j4 {$ j- E' N
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
" |" e; I# z% h- E' Bbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 u" }# `* X* w: m4 WFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
8 @5 Z  B# v8 V5 G% Z( Rtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
6 C* ]5 K- A5 q* k3 ^hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle) M# }3 M6 P# F6 ?3 O
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
& J; F3 K- I: C' A. Cstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds3 ?' o2 ~  Y! P) _$ e4 ^; e, ^$ @$ B: m
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
* f+ v7 D8 P# ]2 D9 ?faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
1 `3 `% r! \' waside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
% a' h& a2 r' f5 Z$ F: ~implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.; C  {- v5 x0 ?3 T2 X
- b4 O, j# M8 L! i3 C
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, R7 Z$ V; [1 j* o& i
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
  M4 q% Q' R' i# E- l0 U' X% Ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& `- ^1 j8 K6 E5 v& d
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns7 ^" R1 o* O' D% k
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,& g+ b( ^# @8 t* _' _/ `- ^4 W
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
$ _0 p' `! [) G5 O" tof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
1 V( ^9 g5 o3 ^, l, rlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in* k  s: f* G# i" x8 @& I5 S. D. E
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
# G, E5 ?5 `8 T( Gworks.+ {* m7 ^7 z% u# K& I: L  C4 p8 r- j

9 w% }  x& K2 G% i3 c5 g/ y1 LFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and! H- C4 a! u7 S! y) L# Z
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
+ e2 c' t" @+ Y% o3 G* A  Akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that# K0 ^0 B. e' O; L0 R+ I7 w
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific. I4 w5 P1 p. x! ^$ i- C
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and8 }# ^$ [9 l  l+ \! ?
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One2 u; F) S3 o  G+ \+ G
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
; _5 i1 z6 ~+ s+ l# Y, @; Z3 D/ a5 mdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
& k# L  c% v! ^% B" Z4 Mto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
; D# m# }2 l/ c$ E7 n) r6 Xis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is+ Z" E; B6 h. [4 n
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
8 J. T% F! f" ]" {wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
1 O' t4 a" x$ o. q7 o% o7 k7 hadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
8 x+ u' T' I2 r- Vpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
! w  y8 l/ L! Y3 u0 J+ Zuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
+ e' l% I8 E5 t. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are2 u8 x" Y& q! L  }/ Z5 u: H
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may& j) Q6 y4 M0 l- G# ]- M/ ]
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
; G$ h( n! S; N1 B3 e, l5 o9 vhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
: L) R; e  V' c4 S0 u+ j4 k" s; m( Mhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
" g% o% ], }3 r  U% Adrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
$ |  |+ }2 R* bother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect: P" {% B# j* n% W6 e/ D
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is. }3 |( f3 u' q. X
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
* c: i- X9 X8 ]4 p9 Bathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight, {0 ~; @0 m- e2 y) b
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
, D$ t& ~* X% ~4 P/ GLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
0 e2 G+ M* G1 v5 \# f; fagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
: W& y# @; n4 P* U9 q* m( Ueight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
) L( |( U2 G9 o$ ^: CInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 C3 `; V, o+ B& T1 V1 d$ y
4 i; }: O! x9 g' z8 h! _% |; p
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-. n, N( ~1 G9 ~
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
" ~1 i+ p0 V0 H3 o7 u7 Z& M  h1 I. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 k! u3 h3 t4 G% HOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
2 w1 ?7 W4 b$ J- m( S& ROlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
; R, c1 L' U& udoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
, c' @, R$ t2 ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
) r5 N; g0 m8 n+ r7 j. D" Uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
, J3 `* t# w. O( V2 S% lplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
. W. x+ G! O/ Lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.9 A8 J$ n4 P, P/ J$ h7 d
* ?1 f' @1 V3 ^3 ^1 u
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 c" M$ D7 w# A, gintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too* V4 B8 a+ U& p( R; v; r9 F
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
9 J5 K. f* O+ w3 J) \* Lsuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
+ y  Z6 {/ g$ i& T. ]all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
- q0 O' X6 o4 `+ I8 ninterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,4 _: m# D8 N# n- C" x, q1 c) d, L
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
% C1 p& ~# D( rargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal2 k6 g1 j/ y$ p( j
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
% Y( m* ~9 h) t8 K; {6 Ureporting 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, 2026-5-4 02:48 , Processed in 0.265594 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