埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2073|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 3 Q* G# i7 B( R7 N  s0 Y

' i, Q$ x- A( r! }饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。% L: A% h) [- e1 q2 C
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。' N& d4 b6 }2 X, `* Z+ |6 |/ ~
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
8 E7 Y- [5 q) S1 {! P  `& Q9 j( X: [0 D5 m& N5 z
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html5 k6 ~2 I5 y8 u  s
' o3 k+ ^9 M& o% }
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选& a% @! K) {; M

5 z- Y* Z9 j" n英文原信附后,大意如下:, f5 E' d9 F( k/ {/ V6 V
1 R  E* D9 H' ]1 @- k
斐尔,
6 \4 T: |* q+ S& Z$ N+ v: N       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( d' T( }8 `/ k' X
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。4 }% K8 a# q& c& |5 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
: L. @1 u$ d# {8 B& g# C- 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
1 x/ x5 [: }# O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。; z# P& F2 o( V
       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
0 \% b3 j) }6 z! Z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4 z: ?, M( B& d3 c6 i& k
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
$ p7 N) [: L$ Y: o2 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。- ~  g+ f, Z2 ^+ j
       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
& B8 V. h2 Q) B8 h! W; m( u3 Z  |8 p,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1 j8 |* ?3 i. C( `
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
7 G' N8 W. l0 W/ ~4 t" y) G       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
/ z  o2 o3 }& {+ m( m8 L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! P8 S* \4 e( K2 L" I/ F
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
% g! j3 \% M# n8 V       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% R- W+ r$ R& a- |) s" N
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混. [) q% Q* N/ ^( D0 b
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& H  W3 B" H  J1 P
快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前) k/ Z( |0 k- D" s( v
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
& |% ]* n* r+ L/ U$ z7 r4 b. z1 K: A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' }2 H0 S3 }% f
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% v6 y8 x5 D/ ]5 a4 b
。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& z" s* j1 _% O' R$ C) E& Q1 v
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 @) S( }/ `  p$ ~5 \# n* M, o, X. V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4 C* i+ F( `/ A& O/ a
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
" t5 Z8 h- r8 a' \! wWikipedia。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
, f" e# i' R+ i$ p) \同意见的专家。7 [8 U* q8 i/ [4 p
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
5 h8 o6 _1 U: u4 v第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大: v) p) _5 d! Q
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
( U  _  d1 Y3 s" y4 X/ O% _《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。% A. d5 O' w% R. s
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)/ |% J/ V4 n8 Y6 B0 N$ R
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- S, z" b3 n) J9 {# R- S
《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
" i4 Q: a. f; D# u/ _3 A- w这些被Callaway忽略。
9 b( f% Z8 a3 U  J  ~! p" U+ y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
' y: y2 E- u2 F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
" \4 s$ s$ M9 _" N3 T% b* c8 @% y教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
4 f0 J% X" H; J1 Z6 D$ I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! r- J& f# z* j9 W% n2 e
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
! S$ W" p( C6 N1 B0 t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
- A' B' C/ H  m' Q2 G! r$ H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 [: L2 t3 D  K+ Z4 |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8 c4 P0 c. |2 }& 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
( K4 d( A8 Z, \! x1 U& x. A" F7 w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; c2 ?3 J4 H! i. e. M/ [1 ]6 L0 U* L
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。( Y+ w; [2 J& _, A, 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
8 h( c. j' P! E! B2 O& ?/ [! @8 P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) W$ @: ^# J+ }2 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9 V- [. ?. z, `% \
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( K* Y2 C6 r( N9 Q$ d
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* u. ?- N. i: X( g5 F. |
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。7 `2 o; f! M: ~( A& g+ `
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
* e5 B. p/ g% {9 x8 t* R" u0 l1 \, r

7 ]$ w- ?2 F9 R北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅. k( O! @4 G  u; g, @4 l6 v- J+ B

5 {2 s/ ^3 y9 t' e) q7 c附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
( q- d0 M# ^! `$ @: ~% X: j附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email$ B/ h6 s( M9 L6 c1 F
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
0 b- |# ]2 R9 T: @* u6 N附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见# j! [! {1 i% r: P6 ^$ d6 x4 S& T
$ l/ u- D& ?9 r& g- [: H

4 f2 v9 p! ]. v& i  U# `4 k
' n* G- e) V7 ]$ I/ w原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
" ]& j' S3 x( z1 P7 fDear Phil,3 g  t! L1 b$ V9 m7 \. @
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s! ^, ]) E* x- y  F, [. ~
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
4 p" E* z  x% {( C% F, bhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
, l3 M+ y: ]; D* s) Qyou.
, J8 p- q$ U6 G7 P       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have# x* H6 M( [1 k! V% O
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
5 ]7 f5 H2 E& v# g* @; b  o- rreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
2 t; S. T9 u* S( C/ Q: ~& M/ |. ?& sworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
% `. @1 ?. c/ p6 q; jpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
. e% w1 @( _6 H! m5 R  Zseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news& u- B9 e$ K$ h) ^/ v1 K% V# \
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.* C9 h5 l1 @) N0 e& Q4 d
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the  u8 v. t* }" c/ ?" g
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a  f0 P( h* T+ I5 w6 B
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
+ c( _3 y" t; e5 V2 Mthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
- \3 x, W( B3 L" B1 x) cdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# p  J9 F4 T4 K- U6 {
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal. l8 J( f8 c/ ]; [4 P+ ^+ |; R
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
5 I: W3 T1 o' s: e2 y  f9 uand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
# B- [) S' i* ~1 s7 }2 cto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news8 c1 l2 Q4 Q7 w
reporting.
2 `4 f: I7 g/ h6 R- o       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
3 |% j( N0 @( `6 \already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by" X6 b9 b8 c" {
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 S& T; D6 u! Usports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
7 V: o, C3 H' x: r$ L6 Spresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
3 V# k9 ]% q# S( d% L" ^       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
/ ]4 S/ ~1 f6 ?7 r+ S0 Hmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
' Q5 X% `9 N7 A: y& c& mfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
! E& T+ W# Y* a( ~' i7 N# z9 a; p6 lmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
. d5 Z! x! t9 \event for men, with the second fastest record.% }7 E+ t/ @1 I: M' y
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye0 y0 J! L$ [! O( ^& D* ~$ _8 y
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 163 j; R  B' n) b) m" T
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 P+ h. D  |4 N7 j
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 D4 l+ O( o7 N/ L. W! kmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
6 b1 \% z0 O* j3 h/ j/ x' L6 s. cfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
2 t( R7 a4 k1 O" }6 k! V: QLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
, _4 V( X9 M# T' u+ wbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
* k% |1 z% t. d2 g: T. z0 S) \" Zindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower3 i% N6 T6 m' g
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than$ A, T0 Z7 m( {' I3 ^5 b8 ]$ z0 I5 }# w
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was' {* d$ N4 j9 B7 N. x: k
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then' X3 {0 P1 D. z1 [1 }# h2 z2 A# l
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
% Q4 u& Q" k2 @& Yproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
0 N1 [8 V; q5 X9 S: ?& @1 m8 oswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: }. d$ W& H- a+ o" N  Jteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the% N8 y8 p2 w$ b- E  c7 u
Callaway report.
' L- K- Q" o3 W0 l2 ?There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more% t" W7 i+ k: e8 y3 ^
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details. m$ R+ E8 s2 W/ A
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description! h- m8 |$ O9 p0 Z
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been& ?3 g, _4 z. x; Q: s' U
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the. u* r& [: y2 r$ A# J
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
+ r7 ~  z  m" r  ~# S# Hpublicly voiced different opinions.1 c& R6 f' P2 E; L$ G0 U
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
* q3 L, ^0 R3 ?% A! ifrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature+ p6 A' _/ W+ H3 h
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent5 s% Y* N4 M9 T( Z1 s& X" ?
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds' d* \: G% h' J9 E( y& {
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
5 M1 i+ `& ~4 {of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
  T! X, R. E/ D  V+ W% K& e0 ]/ ^There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
' \& ^' J* A% T- l+ ythat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
+ F! g8 W" Z; f' `3 f/ @% ?have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as" `, Y7 ~3 S7 Q" _$ Y
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
0 \& g, L8 U4 l! t* F1 U$ uthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was$ b+ W, }5 p: j, z/ E& ~  {) y
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
1 B8 ^$ `* D2 NOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that2 x3 T* ]" D7 l2 m7 R( [! E/ f' I
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the0 W: b% l7 w0 s$ u; R- w
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
; _9 Z, x  f4 O9 o* |(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
; |6 Q+ \# z# [and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
0 I% L# }. [& ~" W! h3 G0 fThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science; a, |( S; {) R! S  N0 N
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
7 y) ]( @/ F2 A" }' L2 jDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.5 C/ v$ r2 x$ ?2 c: i8 ]
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and  T' z1 @/ l  J) v
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* c. B4 O, M3 o6 I& r+ T+ l, C5 c' R
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
7 ]/ s& O4 n7 a/ j, p( C! krepair the damage caused by your news reporters.! o- [' u' j5 W
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
+ |2 F- K+ v, U8 J& Z5 oshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced" P% t2 N4 X9 \3 ?0 {# ?
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather. y$ b6 o( J' f% s* z* ~, P+ [( f/ L
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that7 a- C" w; S! \  `$ J+ l4 Y. d
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
! |: P: C% T- c; A; Sabout British supremacy.  f" ?" F8 p7 z5 P4 X! s! N" y; t
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many# ~3 }% g8 \6 x: \2 @5 R) s
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more; I9 s6 H# Z$ U1 ?' l
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by6 P( R. O- P& P: Q- L" |* E7 z) h: F
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London$ r& R0 u$ _+ J- u) P7 F2 p
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases." }* }! L* p& `9 Z; G
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of" Z; F) C1 X( ]5 n1 E7 V; x9 E
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests0 T1 W7 q) k  y: x$ O& `  V1 |8 ^
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,4 y' `9 H1 J! K9 t) H2 {8 u
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly$ q6 B* q" Y1 f* ~
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
0 U) d  A" L: qNature.0 |6 X" b6 ]) f- b
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
8 u9 G9 k' m+ H. J; K; h, rthe Callaway report.
7 U& X5 d, [, M$ K( T
4 n# }$ Q6 i4 J7 qYi! e0 Y+ h" \) \7 A* B

* B$ ]; c7 _8 l, d! b# x0 c' V7 `3 FYi Rao, Ph.D.0 v; v' A, V: @# x* K, A# Z
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences3 w7 @+ u2 R# ^% i8 x" W$ \) X4 @
Beijing, China
0 q! b. S, {4 Z9 Y
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
$ m, O* y( F7 x# ^8 u' \原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

9 P  \2 b. _: J4 Q6 Y1 X原文是公开信。1 d' e& {1 H: {  t/ ~) M  k
% B8 ~8 g5 U: d8 a4 ~, C/ 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
' ^9 c" I9 o$ d' _原文是公开信。0 a  \; j$ {/ s
( ~( ~! O6 {0 U+ B/ K. \1 ]& Z
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

  \7 C$ ]0 X4 d: C" }3 C* ^0 \; @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. l% n& F9 F; m% Z" {; y& E- M
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。" v8 @5 r8 q; C# K4 P) g

- O* \+ g8 r1 Bhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html  s- {0 q0 I& t/ o

  K& x3 C$ J8 E/ ]  v6 l3 X. w+ EFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania7 O' A  L# j/ w" j6 p" V: K0 N

2 q7 {  N+ M# y" q' UIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
4 X. r3 a+ Q6 y9 }, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science/ i& C& s( Q* t, H6 O, b/ b
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
9 \8 }* @& L7 G! [+ tis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the+ {# B+ D" y5 `4 i8 {
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general" w# |( Y) ?' I4 U) C; v8 I4 }2 u
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 v5 ~, L# s/ t6 F5 o) f& I2 jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ J4 f3 W* r5 awhich they blatantly failed to do.7 ?" R9 ]1 }- Z& U- g& D6 Q( z; P/ I

- m7 i" g+ U' t6 Q7 pFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
6 h! t0 R8 i$ tOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in8 X1 }; s# z' H' @5 n, E
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
6 ^+ x8 {& N, H# U& |9 V0 @anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous! P! J1 K% W0 G' J
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
( \0 T2 ?8 _/ H. m, Z* N0 Uimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the/ S/ z# M" P1 ?  g1 W/ Y7 a
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
# s  [7 G: J- K5 Fbe treated as 7 s.$ H8 J# a# J- s) j) @

, u0 v$ t9 U6 e& w' jSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
3 G5 y: E  ~' E* J! I3 zstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
+ {2 z9 |( a6 Z& e2 R# L# `impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
+ U' p1 y, w$ \1 RAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400, L5 ^8 @+ I- d
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.7 Q, M% n8 l; N% r( y
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
+ |. }9 s$ y  B+ F, P! [/ @9 p( [) Yelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and' K( m" L; _  `) h
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
$ Z6 }4 @, t/ t/ h5 Z) Dbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.7 u" S  O/ y. g; X' k7 P, v
' q# Q8 T5 C+ n& g! w- H
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook8 k  O& V" G: W% t0 X+ \9 r
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
# @: Q' e+ K( [+ z# ^the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so& n- V) C- M* p% Y4 }
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later. z7 R! w" l, z3 P# D1 }
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s. W9 {3 _4 R5 |/ o1 C0 i
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World9 g% e' g" R$ L! v6 q- O# q
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 b8 \% o: [' g; A# {( w8 }' jtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other7 Q, W: I0 Y- @. {  c+ z/ ?
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' W/ s0 C/ f# I- n1 k, ~
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this6 y6 r8 J( d9 ?- L/ g9 F7 }& D3 q9 F
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds2 H: w( d! Z" _2 z9 F: o, c
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
# V& W6 @$ z( I8 t& Rfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
3 M$ W: U. R! W, {5 D! ~( laside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that- q' c) o0 o6 r) |
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
1 P2 C8 m+ ^/ m% y, s& j" W* U
# g4 E) R, Q/ S/ q% Y( R; l7 ?2 KFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are, n0 o, |: L8 S. u% i1 [: t7 S
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
0 V& R4 ^0 `  w0 [# f! C9 z7 ss) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
/ X1 l  p. H7 C( o5 ^1 ?8 z), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns" Q! ^3 R" |* U+ p
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,9 Z3 v3 d# l* M# L5 f, F6 M/ A- g/ Z
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
; t  y4 s, N; F6 q9 lof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
6 s1 \7 g5 }9 Ological that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in9 f1 |& s6 B" ]5 w# V' J0 M# v
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
5 L: h7 T, ?1 O) {- j* qworks.' ?: q  r, d+ j' R0 u
8 a% |4 A$ R( ?6 ?' R; m
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
* N6 ^, {8 w. T% ?6 W  M1 H( Rimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this2 l- U" E- Z, w3 o! }2 O% v, D1 t
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that1 s) F  k1 Q8 s! @! ^- I
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific+ Z- z3 C' i) Y! t' J  }
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
/ M1 ^0 o) |- M; k4 m5 zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One4 v8 ]  a4 e! {4 C
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
' X- w* Q! n7 A) k, \demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
# r% L6 _' z( ^/ i0 L2 z! Gto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
- E+ v* V8 S. Fis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is: d. l# ?$ s; D4 P  d& d, r
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
& Q4 K, g6 _9 ]  Y# }wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
5 i3 N* `/ `7 I! A7 S8 oadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the/ c& y; h: f+ [; k3 I
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not+ ^+ C' `: E4 r+ K- k$ n( L
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, R8 O2 w+ v& s- r& Y! m. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
* V1 f$ A3 N9 vdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may' b4 A0 L- A4 i( G1 B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
8 w1 A9 P. ]8 s# X/ m; }: Ihearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye' q; G3 O1 v1 a
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
% C$ ]# D" c* {8 U4 Z; |$ L4 }drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
' T, r# E/ h! G) {7 b1 r1 Uother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect' @& N" Y, Y  g
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
, }. W' g5 O) V1 r4 Q" a9 J8 F* Y! cprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an9 ?. D% x& w# x
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
* Y( c8 c) a9 e3 K6 Q/ I# Ychance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; U- ~" K- H' m8 i* }9 [8 l, J6 |Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
; u' y0 }7 d/ C' S# Oagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
% v9 Z: d$ X4 |& Aeight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
  E# K1 y/ m7 d3 C7 a" ~Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?* z' r/ [9 ^% K8 D  C2 t8 ~
  r. ~# e8 t6 m1 E4 {! b* e
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-' }& }4 K. E: D7 `1 l& v
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention$ C8 {  Q; O1 n5 x# U$ Z/ ^
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for+ c2 U, q) h! d
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
% u. Y" Z; U- [4 lOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
* X7 T  L( I" j* B4 s1 u% jdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
3 o1 M+ I0 R$ w  T4 Ugames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope5 Y$ Q& g7 {  o! Z( Q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
6 J( j6 R  M( v$ W* Dplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
0 K/ `% E& s' a$ Y* i1 r9 Epossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
8 O2 }) I& l, T. ]: C4 U+ Y: I1 [2 T7 k/ V  a
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
% t2 s! p; J) D2 w8 q- C/ Eintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too) y6 H! j( H# d" q2 X. l7 U7 ^4 g, f
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a3 x- n/ m3 O" T: K" m# w
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
8 ^2 I; m1 o0 H* [all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
3 `9 R6 k0 ?5 R$ Dinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 i: Z* Z' \; ]- ?' L& i1 f
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your& y. P' ^( V  K) K
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal- T( o; u0 j" b3 C' u& P* j% @9 T
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
& ^$ T& f  ^$ A* V; ]. L' `( _& V" ~reporting should be done.
鲜花(79) 鸡蛋(0)
发表于 2012-8-14 08:37 | 显示全部楼层
老杨团队,追求完美;客户至上,服务到位!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

联系我们|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|埃德蒙顿中文网

GMT-7, 2026-2-26 15:23 , Processed in 0.183129 second(s), 21 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