埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2405|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
' @0 H7 ^* N, h0 a7 j& d+ D2 [: M5 v1 Q! a8 d
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
3 D# I! l3 e& B% W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。
5 @7 P9 y* B$ w) M. Y! y' x4 l& `总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
/ [' Q! x/ n; L
# H5 Q2 I7 [3 d+ |( S+ \http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html5 M- _* T! z/ Z, H- Z  U

4 }' r4 J- t- X. \& x, d致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选# k* P) j! y+ G3 t
! C( `$ v" f4 y1 d7 d
英文原信附后,大意如下:. m6 d5 F- K. u  b* K  |2 d
( P: w) j! \4 i9 f- c4 c
斐尔,3 d. G+ J( a! {+ S7 t
       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
8 r2 \! h0 _8 F( c% m2 Memail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
3 v, \1 Y. v% B1 O5 O       如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴
5 r6 U# A6 Q5 ?! n# q( ]2 F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9 L! a& j6 T( E# T
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。
" t+ j' X3 s- ^6 [9 ^/ ^% 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
, \0 g3 ~9 {3 |7 v4 Z5 L3 T8 K7 @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) k  a* f) m1 u' A( E' ^8 o4 y
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+ [* H4 @! U% u2 p6 A3 ^( c: G, X
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 K/ }/ B0 [( O1 [7 I. b       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" ]* e  F7 s. z  k. T/ k, ~
,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
. n2 D# h, d6 r5 K6 S, u/ z4 H7 B" f”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
6 Y) @2 l) ?& R1 {       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$ }, C1 D7 r' f: V! a1 Q- [: 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
1 G# B9 T, w7 w. b" u6 N9 n,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。  I' B- w  T6 _% }
       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 k! A5 [% M4 ^& v$ s: W3 {) q5 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
, ]% W9 O+ m: r! \6 y5 V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  X& u9 Z( n) U- ^
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: l6 _& [1 P1 [$ f
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
' U- @* u( x, _! q- J" 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8 L" P8 _2 M5 b; Z, S% `
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
, l& V+ W: ~2 v8 m2 V! t" S。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记1 n# ^' U) o0 S' d# R6 \
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。' t4 f2 e" K( x5 `* [3 Q5 ?
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- f: n9 L  Y1 E1 F1 W# G! Y
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% @% n- B1 z1 r' Z% z- x+ j
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) o& L" o9 l) }$ Y8 S7 |6 q
同意见的专家。1 w$ O6 w) j9 D0 S
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6 y7 l. Q# G# ^! U3 i: Q
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! Q3 \1 c5 u6 C6 O: K" k  I
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
& J2 b" j9 J1 O8 a《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。) o  t! U. p. n5 Y% g. E' t; G
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)
% i) K6 y' S% l+ G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
. m% E. q. O5 b2 a《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' T! H! d# Q: p
这些被Callaway忽略。; c, M  ]* A# ?$ T* P1 G$ _8 x: C# ?
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& t. X6 h' F* D# R, C1 E
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' t1 {% [" m- G' a
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。) \5 G4 S' u' e; {0 U
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' K6 K1 S- ^' b7 s# ?' g% O
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1 p" t; f6 k' d6 G% I+ h! M
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8 Y1 h! p3 _9 C! M! x# O" m1 [
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。
/ z* ?6 X$ I0 F- Q% L# N2 I5 d6 t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* W; e2 `0 P. c9 B! D: f
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* B3 f/ b. p" m  X2 f$ E
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
/ q* K8 I8 `& P! {. o! o”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
" D( G8 N5 l! u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
, y6 I" u9 X( Y. N; w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% M2 j) o. J' \! I0 l+ v' 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
5 c/ p; P/ m; y) v, t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
# }1 r% |+ b9 k' u7 j6 h0 _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; c5 A! k- b% r  W  t5 x
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。2 `$ M- H  y3 p: ?7 F
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( j5 e4 i( |. x5 N1 j: W9 @
/ v3 ^) v0 @/ }8 d; T& T$ u
. K$ I: _" k# M# v9 w, f. \
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅- K5 s* @- {- d4 {

; s& g! M" d6 R% ^: J附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结6 n3 o0 ~- _/ \  j  g, Y+ s2 }
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! u9 Z: r' d' U, F, u
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 Z8 @) `: r2 R) f附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: B0 h( O4 [7 X, ~) J7 X& {9 L% K% q

* Z' U( l2 P& B% u8 {% I
+ }7 [6 S2 Y! d. a. ?原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
' h7 G) f) q! U$ jDear Phil,$ F% E& |: Q) W/ ~, N8 h, O
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
4 ]- x. J  V. b3 C2 Vreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 205 J  q+ T( O8 X+ \8 r
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed% q7 Q( X, L2 S3 G" `8 i
you.
1 Y6 A; ?7 ~8 T9 l0 N       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
* J$ @+ o  o. s% \brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' Z# w4 T: j* e4 lreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the- [/ \/ ~: @2 m& R
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
8 N7 `. K6 U" R/ Q, qpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
( I" s( L3 _1 T* `seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 m: `4 g' ?% Y4 q3 b9 L
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.: B5 X. D8 Q% j& q7 M' N# m8 g
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the; h# ~3 g: h, t! U$ F' v
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a: _1 {& w5 U2 p; j5 l: V
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
% @4 q5 R) ]+ V* m  c1 L, Wthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway- x% H, \( f# y# Y' \
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
# c8 B+ A! B0 jexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal& `+ }' Q& a; U
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; [5 j1 u; G' t( O1 i
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
7 ^5 d3 ]. F9 ^3 `9 n! k& ]to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news+ j& J) I7 K; ?; r$ [" L; Q; R6 P
reporting.& E5 z9 Q$ e5 `6 P' f
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
# Q: M6 g+ S) b* K; T' Dalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
$ h! U+ ^1 e- U7 vchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in  s: h3 [2 L) I2 w
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A: W! \3 j: H7 I6 ]' S- R' S
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
) ^' r4 l" g9 F1 E3 r0 _       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
( g% T2 @5 W  J4 j4 T8 B8 @( c# ~more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
) Z* Y1 B+ W% y+ B# s/ ufaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
9 c3 E" H$ w; O$ W% T# ?meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
  N: v3 }/ b3 {* mevent for men, with the second fastest record.
  k# C7 F+ T. r" H9 b: C8 V9 ]       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye0 Z7 W  `; `- S+ T8 U$ m% U( W
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ u  y! g6 i4 f- E
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
) Y; T. p0 V1 B2 \9 p, w. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 @1 c% H: s& G, Q! j2 I( y/ {
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,6 m9 g  A, c6 B
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than6 ~1 x$ h+ \% I' R% [! }
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed4 ~5 P' b  E5 |5 o" e2 X6 r
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the1 H) z, M  W% u$ u9 Z6 D
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
/ I$ }; [  D7 F/ z  ^3 \than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
5 W3 E- y0 N8 i; {% athose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
+ e$ m# X5 j) M) F, j: o9 ]her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
* S1 t/ d' v. @& {. P- Whe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “/ [9 Z+ P3 H0 g% V% X/ k* `
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other5 Q7 V% }* D2 d
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
- H* F; P) ^8 g- yteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
1 s/ a( I' h1 ^* c# D3 fCallaway report.5 _, a$ ]* Z6 ]
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
- E( g8 ?4 a4 n! Funderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details. `! a5 Z/ H7 u# U( i$ J2 _
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' w0 K, d; P( ^  M
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been3 Y5 N& C; p" I6 q
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the+ T# ~& C" {8 r$ p+ w2 S. d7 e! m
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
/ ^1 B% K( O  r7 E9 K- W5 tpublicly voiced different opinions.1 P- e6 [+ v: s- _+ S2 p
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD6 H9 E8 p' \5 @  c- l
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
5 y: v2 ~/ ^" W  N6 |- vNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
- n; A9 {# Z8 _5 g+ c. _postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds$ a) e8 e8 M  e) ?! Z
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy# b9 n. X) n' Z# ]2 a3 J( X! ?
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
7 X. s* u: L) K8 c0 Y; W  K. G/ ?There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) N0 @- `# o& I2 H2 L& V8 d$ u  b
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They8 B- x" R+ M, @9 j  g% D* f
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
5 C" t, {; F+ N( y, SAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
* w& G/ T1 ~6 J* G& t  }the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
. E9 L1 M3 s  p8 c, ?supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
) F: }6 a4 ~) {5 w" k1 h6 fOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that/ c7 x% d' t1 s7 G4 W/ \4 \" P
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the" O- x, \* N+ y1 z. ~
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
( k2 j0 w; [; `2 g% y' c" x(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she7 y9 R" W8 L, R, }& @& h
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
) m5 l, |0 i! ^5 C5 {The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
- w. R5 W7 M: U5 V' W& Sand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and2 O$ L5 i- p9 }6 u+ X
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
0 q& T7 @+ o4 G) U8 P, HNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
" b" w# A# U4 C7 qobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature- }4 I4 D  w) V6 U- x5 B
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to% D/ w. \" j  Z6 d$ V  F
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.% }' m0 y3 Q& o  I
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
- [  {2 h, g) i; `6 ushow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
+ @: a) q- Q4 M0 B+ T" U& sus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
' O# v' q2 C, v% ]fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
' b# s" ]6 T2 U6 L) I& dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”; h/ Q2 v5 A2 S
about British supremacy.
' M7 q8 ?7 x2 `! u9 T. cThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
  b& e! V6 e4 a" \1 H5 ^( |unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
4 ~' C8 s$ A$ f3 p; e$ z* m; `Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by! P3 q- a* r- M6 a% j, p$ \
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 @. i9 u  D, p7 J: {Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.5 m4 D; m  w2 Y, D: z+ p: j
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
7 O8 ^" f# ~- u2 D& C  n* ?. K- y2 A& Gprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests3 o" D) u3 Z" d
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
3 e. q' A+ u! Z* e, j, s8 ?& bit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
) M1 r" G1 ]. K1 {6 qpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
$ M* _: C$ S+ \7 B  i9 A' YNature.5 r" `8 G( G/ ]+ S( @, i5 c
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance: _# F) ^7 s  D6 L; l
the Callaway report.
, X" x3 B# l/ L3 \
2 A; \# [  W  o" N! W% m. LYi6 {2 ~0 L/ t. @, h5 j

4 N% D) ^8 J( vYi Rao, Ph.D.
. q0 Z' t4 c0 {7 J4 r/ R2 ]' [0 vProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences7 V4 ^) {3 \) q. u* X
Beijing, China+ \( P9 ?' H  c( u. U
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
# g. w2 b* Y! ]: h$ v# m5 E原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

9 Y$ s5 W5 A& T- y+ Z原文是公开信。  o3 \- q6 p: S8 K: K4 x
# }. D+ v5 Y, H- K- Q
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 2 o  F; I! j) ]2 |; \4 n# @( q! E
原文是公开信。  Y, p6 d! m  L

8 {! f7 r  v. p% t; k# o; m小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
4 N  u7 M( P7 j/ K4 Z- \
谢谢。好像那个什么杂志已经道歉了。
理袁律师事务所
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 JIANG8 Z0 Q8 F- u+ O0 ?
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
! N8 f5 f- O4 D" j0 \, f: P( \  C$ `. r: h7 B0 e
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
4 l) T& T. Z. ~& S
; _9 H4 b- h# }4 \* N2 dFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania! w/ |+ p: `  E) f( f

; A- k9 Q- J* }" \# uIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
, d4 N$ s5 _5 l9 j* b* O/ ^, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. w0 ]. i8 M1 G4 b* d" y% G
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
  x! z/ ?) l: W2 n" T; Yis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the9 }! h0 K6 E$ |/ a
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
; X6 E( ^# L" z: Opopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
8 B( [" p( d* f# A) qshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
+ L5 G9 i$ g  s2 ywhich they blatantly failed to do.& Z& U1 _; i3 X: M' g5 b. C

2 L8 R* |$ O3 s. ^  R9 [First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
' v# g4 o" I$ kOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in1 @6 H9 p! x8 @7 h/ L' E
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
- _7 p% m# L$ h) Janomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous2 H% O! c. U+ E! _9 L5 p
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an# b. \8 ~% ~6 P% N7 Q  B1 ?
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
2 z  m- I0 o, J) C( |4 s) Adifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
  I/ m8 c2 N' P/ V+ k: F" _* Ube treated as 7 s.5 G2 A, C1 P- |" N3 t0 A$ N

6 S! N9 m  f2 u& Y2 J, oSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is$ I- N& p  l- j" y9 L. a
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
) h3 Q4 {! x' g5 }( `! k; |% ?" |impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
! ^  @, y4 e- w& C$ u/ @  t7 jAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4000 g; H7 A, R5 ^/ ]
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; N& b- ~; B+ E" l: c. p* x
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an) X) M) _3 E- T0 ]9 U2 N  r
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
' o4 i3 `- J; Z# Epersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”, j. a! ^' a+ F
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.7 J2 c" \; ]7 D/ ^

6 e1 |( K; C7 E9 LThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
& D( M" U! g+ o) `. {9 S: M9 Aexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
, `+ i. U1 R% |$ o1 Jthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
6 r3 a, i. U5 S" b4 r1 S1 K& uhe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
" K4 m7 F( Q# p- m2 ~) X+ y; nevents (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: ^0 [' p; b1 o1 H( q5 M" Fbest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World6 p3 Z! ^/ s' `/ ^/ e" T$ u/ U
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
7 k# o7 Z4 o/ e7 [topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
4 x# ?8 O8 F1 m! T! M. l" |& lhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle' I6 ~+ G; u8 {; }4 l6 x4 r2 n) R: ~, B6 m
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this- F+ x6 x( _) Q2 e1 B1 S- b
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds$ n3 t$ k; ~7 w- i5 u- I* d2 u: W: O1 Z
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
+ s) V8 \8 }2 S: p" Ofaster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting  d/ J5 @/ P4 D- b; c( o  K
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that9 h4 l6 P( q% F& j
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on./ e! F% ~1 D, s7 U5 i1 I
6 B6 c  s+ E( s0 g5 P) ^" l( }$ G% `- G
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are: j( k" n, s) J' K% P4 h$ s
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
1 `4 q/ S% t7 e# X* C9 W; n. {, rs) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s& _) U: Z9 n$ @$ Q: a4 ^
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns* f# Y+ f# {2 n9 q6 H; q
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
4 |. a$ _0 n' z" n, y4 eLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind- S0 b- k8 d2 g+ f, g* V
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it" F! ~, b, O9 _& z3 q
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
! Z2 J; R+ k3 [# L1 v$ [every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science1 M+ s, w" r. O" q
works.
, x5 a$ T9 h6 x# w9 A. q- f* o
$ Y' u+ {& r  z3 n' g6 k- mFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and  y: N4 B& _% Q; e7 M" F& P0 [. K4 n
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
5 Y, j, \7 Z# akind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
/ `4 _6 H! c0 |5 Istandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
; P9 h% |' V4 u' S4 Q2 j( |2 Jpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and7 T$ s8 @1 K4 e
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
- T) M- y. p  S* S  xcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
8 F4 V; ~, \9 x4 O) p0 V9 jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works) H* g6 ]6 x+ f, u" E
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample  y: [+ f# F* L$ ~  k
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is/ @! ~( B! j. |) D+ l
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
* `+ a- T, p4 D: k+ ]; zwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
2 U3 c! D  |9 ?, Q. l1 i7 o. Gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the  @, n) S- y; T1 e% @
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 ^- r# [+ v1 }+ y8 G. v
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation; A$ Z. _  u; A  V$ [4 m3 [
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
: L$ J& H! E) N) p  v, Fdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
7 ~6 [/ K* w1 h% S) A, q% gbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a! e: }3 e" s+ Y! ?
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
  K+ q: P8 \# \3 ]3 a3 r  s" D' L) Rhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
! E) k' E3 J* b' I3 L0 |drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:7 D2 G. x% K/ l( m$ j$ q- ]0 i* P: s
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect% A# u' t" @# k0 l7 e1 B
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
4 [7 y5 x: f7 c. }) E! uprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an2 t& M) w- D4 v* }! M9 |( Y
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight8 h, {* a. [  ]8 S
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
8 @3 h- z, N$ \1 f* zLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping3 w% x; X0 Q- I4 A) o# ]
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
. D9 \8 ^* N# P, q* |eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.7 s7 C: y% z* F" G) E6 s, W/ L& R# ]$ L
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
/ M+ M/ F4 ]! p  e4 `0 H- M
$ f% B: N' w. s* y+ DSixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
7 u8 ^) K; e: h% g! _0 L1 Tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
! r9 V9 t, J2 C. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for% A* B. s. z5 r4 p/ b: L! N3 O
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
, |  c9 o- C- MOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for% G- }% Z; X6 z7 q5 M% \
doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic5 J) Y1 j9 a8 U& V% o1 U
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope" Q1 W, |% j1 K! r" q
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a+ `  Y6 b" y8 w, B( r1 k
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this# U0 ]5 w8 p5 ^& q& w: s# ^% k, @
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
! Y6 \. x) \0 w
8 D5 T: j9 J- LOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (5 Q2 z% ^+ D/ T
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
6 b9 d3 l% v7 r, J0 osuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a. _: ^+ P4 v  g, {9 K1 S
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide5 [6 B3 i  L. W  [3 k/ g
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your% o+ @8 Q8 \& R4 N) }
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,. r+ g# m0 G+ j
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your. G0 m/ {2 b: w6 g$ b: h1 w: h
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal0 v+ ?' |$ t% \2 G) A+ u
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or/ ]- J  z, M$ k. F* a* j9 y- L1 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, 2026-8-29 15:01 , Processed in 0.365397 second(s), 23 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