埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2406|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 " L; p7 A; D3 u- D) J: g
! E. H, {, ?  W2 c! i& Y1 T
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。; e* k) E8 m7 ~6 {( Y  `+ n
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。) \% z5 L3 X1 m, T
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。4 T) R1 }# \& H- w0 `  {! k& _1 U
5 Z& \( ~- f; U, d  W6 u
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
, L" I9 f# _, @
9 @) W! Z7 b9 Q% B* V/ b致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
5 e3 ]" m. w1 `$ Y' U$ t* i0 O% \3 p9 H/ N) ]# {5 H) k
英文原信附后,大意如下:$ l! k5 O" _& Y+ x8 G2 x

3 G$ T$ l; G: S2 y# O斐尔,( m- q6 W' K2 x+ a* y
       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
' O, b& ]) c9 m, ~' H; m! aemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
  n: B1 k! T1 H       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
* P, a( S4 V$ 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; a, b/ d+ q: s( q2 _# h" @
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。6 w, |+ E; n2 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
. m- l3 Q( H9 |7 G' u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
* q# D: V& I. D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
' W+ u7 q+ ]* \5 c+ H1 y  q* F5 M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。: e7 @- p# H7 \: e9 q
       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% W/ t# f* Q& A* V, a$ w  j
,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 n. C8 N6 z% i1 \”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
* G! N; d, Z' i" h% B2 s8 d7 ]# t; Z       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" ?# F( }3 Z; D. Y6 i9 d, ]
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) c+ v* a) E* e' s9 Y
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。& }; w; [5 t. l8 a# `8 J4 M9 \, q7 L
       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
' O3 N* [, E1 e2 Q( L, q2011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
5 S! u! K* T( c* \/ x% J: q; ~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, {7 s* |. 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
8 G1 b# I' {6 k) J- t, r300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" U9 C, e; [( q( M9 R0 i
位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱
* \6 X# r- S3 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
) v. ?3 ]  n: w. i  J。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
& y5 q' @! _4 |( ]录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。( F7 x' M' x% S0 u) X& ]
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
- a. }' b! n# ~9 q1》,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1 r- J! v2 A7 N
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
' ]2 P7 n, }' W同意见的专家。2 P6 q* j: y5 F' U
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
" S3 N6 L0 i1 [, t4 R# H- Y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
. Z$ J4 S3 v7 |4 G8 _, k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% B$ Z! R$ Z) a& a
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
% H3 `. R0 \2 S6 jCallaway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)/ L" `5 S5 j1 P; j# V$ {, F+ V
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
6 Z2 w! a6 c" `" k1 [《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/ c, O! l0 y1 q7 }" O
这些被Callaway忽略。3 X' k2 h3 L7 p. }0 N' k0 N
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
- W3 x9 ~- d+ f) K: [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
2 B! H1 M/ `3 r5 c, o教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。3 e" ~* Y( ~# C* e: m
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
8 z6 M+ p' k- ~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
' U% I; _0 y! g3 ]) \; ~/ U+ G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
* d# b- @1 U2 o# `3 t0 f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。
% C& U: p  D4 a, N* m6 U  v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 Q, e3 h3 u1 p+ Y: @/ R
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
" Z3 a8 w# c' Q% L7 |" [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
9 t7 c" C$ k- \  i$ n”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
0 @9 ?% a4 H1 r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( ?0 }/ Z/ P5 h/ R
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
7 |/ b1 V% I4 P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
, l; A" U0 n8 Q$ 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
, b- d( m9 o& ?% S8 A" m6 W, K9 A/ Z+ B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
+ n8 B: C8 ^; y$ T7 Z# C而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
3 z* L$ r( x3 x6 M( E) `* c, g3 [1 S我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; T: ?! ]: w  Q* a  D! a, r* E. I( }+ ^3 G; b! i" ~4 r
& ]6 |& ~2 e$ D! ~" R
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅' V7 p' ], e) {$ d- z2 H
9 M. w+ h  \4 w8 {  R1 r
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
; t9 E% E+ m2 m* [* z' t6 E7 w附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
2 n* a& Y  o5 ~) }2 h% p! e  \附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
' c2 W  S. g7 v附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
& Y' c) O7 h" a3 d& v% H5 l0 R. y$ }3 T! F8 W' D
5 A8 B/ P0 U2 E# _  S& u) x
  ]; ?: t3 {! ^. t/ b8 `
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
, n' E4 V# ^  V% cDear Phil,
& Q" Z& C. F% l4 w  a5 g% i       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
  \3 z/ I6 K9 R  Xreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 [, G7 b  ]; h+ d- x4 {* [
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed* @% O( z4 L0 ?7 j5 ^$ o  k1 a
you.7 m$ \, R+ N! u
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have; F6 I# @: C4 T( V  t0 X
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese( N- u4 m( T$ `- r! D' p1 o
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
. K+ u5 P; e( e% _9 ?) N& o8 cworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
. b- n& u9 S9 F0 F$ Y+ `& n8 |# dpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
4 m2 I  J* _6 U7 K7 C  T6 r9 t$ l& sseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news, S& o  @  O2 v* L& f
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.7 y( B! b6 _- c2 q
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the' h8 _8 {5 j! Y1 Q5 u; u
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a" b( x* r6 @3 e& i
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish% k6 z( `' W5 O5 t
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway& D6 }/ R& m7 n/ Q6 `
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping7 T# ^! K& L, n5 k
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
; z  _1 b- D1 Q5 H5 b1 i# \3 fstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
* ^( q0 B+ Z8 i. l, b4 o5 Nand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone9 m* l7 V; V2 n
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news1 O6 t% L0 X8 h( N& b
reporting.4 t5 P. L# `: c. O6 \
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have2 u0 ~$ |8 _( `& B' J/ ~  P
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
1 O/ k' C) z/ Xchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
- N+ X0 o0 T7 ?& l1 @sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
. i/ c! m9 d6 r) V) T1 }0 Kpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
1 y; W( X* i. K9 S5 T       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem" S- W; q, o7 q0 N! H% s
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" w4 y: b6 T1 P, z+ E
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
3 i% p+ e+ Z! B" e& {meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
6 V0 E9 X4 Y" B4 n( E1 _& eevent for men, with the second fastest record." c( r( [" s1 @
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
# h9 E" o& `8 E+ |; V: s" o' i9 fwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16' m4 ~9 V7 ^8 }: ~0 u, a% X
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record9 U/ C6 I) \4 g: _
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
) Y# p* V( f, P+ k3 nmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
$ s6 k) `4 E. O8 Ufor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
: w/ w' j! B  {" jLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed  h1 L, Z  V2 \8 \
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the: P% R5 H: ~  t0 ], `
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 r+ S  k% q8 c
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
# N4 ?1 ^2 J! i, Bthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was5 o0 c/ {) H8 E3 C4 M
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then! Q7 W3 _. y' z& ]; p4 T+ V/ o/ E
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
  b3 J. ]" \; D: q2 m  H" w: E$ _problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other- Z2 w6 V* ^' M; {: O
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
: I) r" b3 @/ z+ w2 N7 m% Uteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the5 V% D7 O" n9 X" p, r4 l0 O2 n8 f6 s
Callaway report.
: y) w$ b4 l' z3 G& {/ n3 o9 ]There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
+ u. n0 A, U0 R7 v9 s+ B+ O4 e- a0 Cunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
7 C6 ?. g* P6 v" d3 h4 ~* R5 ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description: C2 z. p" m6 V5 T1 S
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been. K6 A4 u  c6 l+ I; ]( A9 I
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) l$ |0 c& K" F. ?5 t- N1 w! w  H
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
0 m+ B0 O+ C) k0 L0 Zpublicly voiced different opinions.
. ^- R# C. x2 ^9 q& wYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
; K  Y6 _& h; i4 ?& \from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" B/ @' u1 |/ e0 n6 O  a( dNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent; r7 ~! @  ^/ |" r0 Y
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
5 x" `$ K# @% D, `& Byou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy2 [) L6 _) Q$ O+ F/ z1 l! t
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
7 N/ f& Y. @+ |& q, \6 F; uThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
0 n  x% d- q8 j6 s# ?! zthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
* a* R& s5 Q& L& J, N7 Ehave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
% b: k" |5 p8 _) oAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that- v9 W' f# C1 h: y5 @+ M5 ^+ M
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
% F  O  {, o$ @8 P9 Ysupported by facts neglected by Callaway.2 b1 o' @. u8 @# G: v% }, Y5 w3 _
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that3 j# x& }  f) f# B9 Z7 d1 r0 `9 M
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
9 E. X/ Z* }. H+ ?& nChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June/ U4 H& o1 b" T: J" I1 R, P7 E
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she$ E3 H* }& x* [+ P. V1 h
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
# |+ f: j4 P/ TThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
0 c2 l- L8 N0 h) p9 D( C$ Gand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
$ ^% S1 _/ e) e" r; P# Q4 S/ l4 TDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
0 W# n) _1 r" z, Z3 w) W! @Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and* N) o) H' s  d( i8 u
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature7 u5 u1 M" D! q/ e& W) ^
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
, Q7 q/ R: g; E% y1 ^2 N; Erepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
2 N4 V5 H9 O) e9 c4 W0 {The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not# r( I& I- E/ ]' n9 {/ _
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 r8 ~/ U9 o! Gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
, n/ n! u# R% b% v$ [3 Lfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that8 d  V# q, G/ y8 A9 ?
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”) Y; o: R/ N9 _. Y
about British supremacy.
+ g$ h; f* `9 N* Q1 G6 j( _+ k2 qThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
2 y+ a8 S4 y6 Z4 W  `unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
- f6 k3 N& v# b+ t% QChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
1 L: D. ?9 M0 ^2 \3 I* R5 zour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
/ ?* H$ }( a* k1 V: l  hOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.) A6 F( D& c* J! i& T& y. w: C
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of/ Y9 J; P( N2 r2 }! |
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests0 @/ t5 x2 M8 `% ?
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,4 X4 k( L6 c( V
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly) D, p* l3 E2 z4 u# E
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like: t  v8 s& g7 ~
Nature.
# T5 N0 j7 `7 `4 X6 m" hI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance; T/ R* @5 k, u+ ^/ |( U! z( k: k
the Callaway report.
9 t( d3 Z3 M- z' ?/ R& n9 N: _; a" b. p
Yi
; S( U$ ]; Y7 s( H6 r+ [
8 H0 ^6 U' ?7 b. NYi Rao, Ph.D.
6 _- C1 h; x- Z) MProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
* s  u9 `8 ?3 ^  @6 x. ^6 G* vBeijing, China
3 w0 x, w- W. }/ N# b
大型搬家
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。
理袁律师事务所
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 ; R1 m8 g9 S& N
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
+ G0 p+ e- W; ^5 ~% h% M
原文是公开信。
* j; V5 y- M& f& d4 h3 b
; E' ]' O: m6 R) P, D5 M$ k小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
理袁律师事务所
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
. f' \, l7 e  @% ]9 h原文是公开信。
1 h& S. Z5 ~6 r. _! M/ H  u/ e+ {6 H6 j$ E+ C1 i
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

6 ~, ~  l7 Z: I; a* ?* \5 g. U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 JIANG3 m+ F, {% e/ \7 r6 w/ @5 q' e  `. c4 X
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
, [9 ^. g# }4 Y/ G
  P1 }, g/ ^6 X) G6 i) Ihttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
( ?7 d/ K: K: S7 W5 ^5 d( M$ O6 B& _* v- Z% ^$ u% x7 u
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
1 M# S9 D0 U1 J) A1 i/ ~' v' J) v  g- h6 O2 T3 h
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself8 h" L7 E, C3 E  S
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
- d7 n( v0 j$ E! mmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this, [# W( G( E/ q3 b) q
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' U' C5 O% O2 @7 a! escrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
1 K" W3 A( w. |) O7 @# R. ^) n) upopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors9 m# |1 }9 j8 E# U, v0 |- C
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,0 Z$ u' c; B7 h8 U: P9 n$ r' {: A: D
which they blatantly failed to do.: T) p) I  @% X2 t6 b4 q5 }
$ b+ p1 e+ q+ x$ \% l; g
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
. t1 e' A$ U% ^) j8 QOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
1 t) v- _1 D( A: D, C2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “* \, \9 A+ \( `' E1 Q/ ]$ j' z
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous- \1 U2 M( w; m. E% J
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
1 M$ B( R7 h2 I- }$ Fimprovement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the' m' N: z5 ]# i% U& t6 x8 z
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% g- R' h) u7 _( g/ V8 z" k
be treated as 7 s." _1 R! D; a; N' v

% {. d2 c9 L8 S+ A  V" USecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is9 u# j0 X, z$ b% N& j' H
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
: p- V# F# t8 h! r3 d4 Fimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! K8 r% f: @8 k2 c: uAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4009 Q# W' K! `( v# k9 Y, r, d
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.- O5 M% s7 Y+ ^5 C" i. ?5 E- l) K
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an4 _. |4 R1 a/ S
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
7 `1 M  Y- O& ^% P0 c) c* t- Apersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”7 G4 p4 D; H& Q) w( Z
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.! Y6 X- N9 {3 o7 }. m5 E6 e) d* o

4 \9 L  s9 l) |+ fThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook- u/ `: [  ~# {& u
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in6 X* j! O* r5 ]2 V
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
. R% M9 u; V9 ]4 Ehe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later/ e0 d2 C/ W5 t' X
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
0 J! x6 M, n7 m- {0 V* {best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World0 r+ H, F+ `" s+ ~. q. K
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another  `9 {) J' A0 E: f& a
topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other4 M) a  C$ R/ j) c& ^. w
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle8 c, h7 F+ |3 k8 g$ @( {
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
3 }# T3 {4 D& i. D1 B9 mstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds3 D5 q+ x7 e% t# m1 a; ^( x
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ K9 @4 N3 x! _7 g/ ]* mfaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting1 t7 H, D+ V9 S
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
" B. y. [+ P$ Rimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.  C9 B& ~, L) o; n. K3 T3 O& Y! P
( j' \1 |8 l# f
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are$ v% Y0 h0 Y7 N# n% y( U# q& t
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
4 C8 }& U& p" W& R2 ]1 D  K: z4 |# Ps) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s$ l  u' B$ L5 W1 A* s
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
+ Q: ^/ z( W! l5 r3 c" aout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
* V$ a$ N$ b+ m5 e8 bLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind( n# E, u$ D, _5 h- K6 {* {: [
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
' N7 l9 P/ D) o: glogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in/ P& P: F5 g. u+ b4 f
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
1 j/ \( J& F9 lworks.
- \- J% R0 z" A8 U: l' X. D6 a$ ^* {* v( }$ |. I- m
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
! d# ]9 y2 h+ P1 q# Himplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
2 [6 s3 D% w: k) H0 rkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that0 w$ E7 Z' m/ g
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific& d, X# j/ A" ]& R+ X& x% J7 s
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
& e5 h# @2 {( f. G% c: a6 B7 P! Z6 areviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
) H& K9 L. }3 n# `" bcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
+ F- h! _" {- s' L6 W; H5 \demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
/ |( o6 R8 g$ e5 xto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
6 p7 W- ~, d7 A& Ais found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is. T% r+ h: p8 ]5 v" y
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
4 v9 v. T: O& o0 R( {# J: uwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly1 T' T1 v7 i$ r0 x* X$ O
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
: p$ C# R$ N1 X1 U9 upast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
1 p' D8 n9 q, L6 Fuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
, d* ?1 E0 a3 M. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are- o# {% x* L5 [. t
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
1 K5 J, r/ ~1 kbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
: R. Z' ]* k: `0 H9 Hhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye" b/ L1 M5 @7 m0 t
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
8 ~% ]* u  A4 b0 ?8 D& x  @( Cdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:" f: T" S+ v. Q) ?2 L8 n* T$ c
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect2 S# X  [5 U: m
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
8 v0 b" Q- r3 Aprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
& ^" Z9 d! ^" kathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight6 Z) r$ C- B$ b0 |* M, R0 w
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
; u; P: {. T# H) y- p- D+ _Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping5 n) M5 G  d: U; Q- p: l
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for7 P6 F' m) o5 T% W4 }6 R2 F
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
$ V8 s8 e" m3 H' |Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?7 B! [$ K0 B& K. P% s6 G
* ~) ^. C; r% ?& T, l, O; ~  Y
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
6 k" m1 p& s4 t) s* r* F& w' ~8 Ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention  N" m0 e2 l9 q4 c
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for7 c) e( v" \/ x
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
0 ?! p6 z" y- q* v* JOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
+ \4 X3 l# N0 b8 xdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic" f8 T$ R$ W" A8 Q
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
% s% P2 Q  Q9 B3 S" R1 I$ A0 Vhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a0 P# T, `* ^0 y0 f1 k3 [
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this, h9 b# D. l% Q/ _/ a  l: o$ y
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.# z2 U9 r1 ]0 y0 I. V0 K
" A9 ~% A$ d3 [7 R! y
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
2 A7 @# G1 W9 Q5 [intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too( }2 d$ `9 x  E* Y$ K& ~2 f
suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a7 q, v* C( {7 h. o  F+ j8 g! s
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide# F- x  Z2 H' H  F5 Y2 t, N
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
+ q( f" L  V( D" l5 J( F& L( H' iinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,5 i- Y4 C& g1 {
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
6 e, c: ]5 H) t9 Q) Uargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
/ i4 N9 o) N+ U& O$ n4 J2 |/ gsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ `! ^- W$ ^4 s
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, 2026-8-29 15:39 , Processed in 0.185290 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