埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2345|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 o& h  Z7 z- f8 J( k. k6 t% @- A+ b' F: S0 s- u
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
/ E# B' o/ h/ Y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。
9 n* {) M3 H" T( ~总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。, ^' U( S, d, z# A0 ]% _* V5 }1 @
0 |. u4 j8 r2 V' W& }0 c; E( o1 N$ C
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
. |2 u. U% N- \9 I% V) a# N$ y: K# x; J2 |+ u% C% C
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选
' C- p; |/ }" k" Q; [, w6 l; K! v/ \
英文原信附后,大意如下:
9 x8 u( a  J9 p$ M
3 V4 t) V) r/ y斐尔,0 J% |# H% x- N: V8 a! z
       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+ Q: v5 y1 V' X! n" j/ T8 h
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。- o) B! X+ p2 _7 \7 l
       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
8 v3 R7 `7 {3 G' v* W4 V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3 z$ F2 }% p2 m7 j+ r6 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。3 Z6 b1 i2 U. G7 n) b) J
       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
: Q. p9 f$ \' _! B& s8 i# f: k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
! P8 l" w1 o/ [. R! b+ U: }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
; C1 f+ `( ?9 A! O* 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。
. S( ?0 o1 c" D# R- V       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1 X  Z8 `- F/ o
,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
) l9 L4 k* A/ [" ~" @”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
4 S  c/ S' e; I1 t" O       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% a, @* X# c4 Z6 K2 p
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
5 _* c' p' q0 I6 j8 K9 E' c+ _1 Q,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。; Y6 K- G/ f4 P) a
       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
. C. |" P9 }2 W2011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0 H2 b8 B9 ^* ^5 N: n, S3 y
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 t* V) j9 I( K1 n) h
快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前
2 y; L' Y: T. L- T300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、六8 o: ?3 G) V5 }
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
+ |: [5 M) ?5 U3 R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
2 d- r5 t7 e9 ]1 C7 a/ c# `; Y: R# ]。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
$ _# x, Z9 z# ~, q, {7 ^: ?录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。; ^. M2 o) y) ^) S  R
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
* B* Q- w8 |1 c- E: Y/ q6 p" }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
0 K0 D$ t: ^% I+ RWikipedia。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4 A  R0 X7 `" T+ ^4 o1 l# p
同意见的专家。; x* d$ w% d+ V2 }, y* ]) v5 T" F
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4 r: p( H" E/ n" Z
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
3 M0 t- H3 a8 w! u7 X! J) u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2 c. P& m* p$ i, }! d4 p
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。0 u- u/ i1 C# a" 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)
- X. _+ S* ?0 @  W& ~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
" ^- q7 q' w& p. S  V" \9 ~: J, J+ R《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5 ^4 i  H8 X* \: Q2 c
这些被Callaway忽略。
" `& ^9 h7 y. ^" _7 c! v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- X) `3 ]; ]$ B/ N
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" w; z  P5 z- L& a* v
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
0 k# U7 K2 A; |3 c( F% d) k. o! `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' w7 Z$ p6 N+ [( ~9 Z
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
% K. p% ?7 M+ o% |! d- j: c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( C) h  f9 W/ ?) T# [
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。
7 r8 s4 {" e! L; ^# 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& `: a4 a! q* O+ K3 o: V" z; q
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
& L# H/ j$ |0 W- 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
* l6 K& T0 v5 p& _6 r: c: R/ u”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
+ b4 l3 F; N0 X% x8 M9 b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, R+ x* H( d2 F: }
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$ `( U3 ?! e( r" ?8 }  |9 y* Z
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6 N6 x% g6 t$ s/ r0 Z0 y# d0 U1 c
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
8 B. l) e" Y  O) [+ p' 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$ B/ l  R+ O" K! ?# U5 Y
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。# Y4 D2 u  K6 I, Z
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
/ L) D3 D* w' V8 v2 h& w' b! z" S# g. `

# _0 E( L3 G* q北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
$ a& h* o8 j( u! j! F9 y  @5 x& D0 ~7 J- I3 M, u( m4 w
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结9 z7 b( G: P' t2 q0 l2 o( D9 [7 c
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
8 j) v: m3 h2 ]; g' p/ K0 ?0 o附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 R. o8 `- s8 l附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
; d/ J$ P8 [" P2 L7 L8 [
, Q) @$ i6 o" U4 y! @8 i2 b0 ^; D! i# z. E4 y! l: E

4 O2 h9 q6 G; K; d; d- J3 w原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
& S2 I" H) k% G+ L  I, DDear Phil,
1 |+ }/ X7 l) g% s1 a       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
3 y& r1 O/ z6 w, c8 oreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
7 p0 m0 v6 j  O0 b5 Vhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
6 ?7 ~- [3 P8 \) @: f1 myou., d% S, t0 r, |' S9 G
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
7 m! ~! q2 d: o( s/ lbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese! Q+ g1 {- B- [0 s, r1 Q: N
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the, `2 j& n9 _7 {' `( p8 r, L( l" x
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
! ]" p/ v# B0 Z( L- h/ upublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
- y6 O- |1 E" q5 M4 }seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
' R* A* b; a6 V$ }5 xpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
& T) {& F5 e0 {" d       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
% [' R2 H) Y, c: P2 w$ hworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a/ [2 l6 p" y) U  X3 u9 N
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish$ M! n3 p0 X: {+ n5 g3 @8 t0 g4 S: W! }$ N
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 S3 n  \8 s" M3 b8 I1 M8 zdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
( Y0 ?( G5 [) I% r6 g" Fexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal2 {+ h( {- y/ N7 q7 i, Q# R( `
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,+ ]; M4 N8 [  i2 b2 I# b9 [
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone2 e8 P/ p% o5 s6 r
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news3 ^, Y7 }% t7 S- m( c; w
reporting.
# j+ L6 Y& }3 h# g7 A) b+ K% y$ L       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
" X! l* A: u+ _6 h5 \already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by2 |3 G( n  G& k$ K6 c: G
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
5 O5 p& e7 ]) D  h9 qsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
% O0 x  D8 d( k8 T; P7 b& Lpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.; j/ t5 O; Z& A
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
  K3 K1 R& {4 Z  z( g* X3 xmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds. G9 Y  S! k/ e, f
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
% a1 r* z/ M& Rmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ h) ?  ^% X2 s) D2 V! W
event for men, with the second fastest record.
; Z% p7 M+ l2 W       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye8 }) R5 X/ W# B  b
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16- K: B9 g" B  ~3 u' H3 \# ]
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record( o8 [1 d, b1 Z. v- \0 [
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4001 ]% b. b3 E5 x( W' r- w0 X/ q  C
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,* @1 O$ R) ~2 `5 W
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
. a3 V0 u' }+ O' l& E$ xLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed* M& M% f* r. b
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
5 Q7 s$ x7 n/ s5 [individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
1 a! I2 j& W8 N  W' N1 I" Ethan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
8 ~4 v6 k- W+ }+ Hthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was! A; Z+ r" c9 a! C. h2 B
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then. v7 f4 S; b: n- V) Q
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
' y+ I; m9 R) s# I! _problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other4 v# r% y' t( V) m/ ?' D+ y5 @
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the  a6 f; ~% T) l
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
) U$ R) g% C7 Q% N1 B% tCallaway report.: Y4 o- u% |- B9 w
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more+ c) B) P% ]* i4 I( ]0 |
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details$ T6 _- S* w) w4 o7 ^
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# O! }9 j5 F+ v' L0 \. U- Iof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been: s" f% c2 W/ H* Q( o' W
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the/ a. F! |2 g  g  _% c7 {8 Z
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
1 m' Z+ L) b) t9 G( }8 Ypublicly voiced different opinions.8 U  ~+ \4 V4 p2 {. x- j6 e
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
6 B  _! I3 W% z* G; A! f( Afrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature- j2 O3 S% t3 o
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
2 K/ a2 S1 G7 N+ o' \' ], _( B0 Ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds$ M9 f2 t  ?- |$ c  d
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
2 c# _, J0 P* u; [of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
8 l8 O  [5 n) @There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think+ r; i7 _6 j3 w" v6 G5 n; o
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They; }" B6 D( I$ u
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
+ z5 X" l% J0 V+ L6 [; UAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that6 a4 l! x, J! G" Z  k
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was2 K& |3 d& O! c! N* z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.: M8 o9 k) N! Q
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that$ j( G% @0 Q# z  }8 i) a
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the8 d* r  W2 `0 p) A! b: I
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
) Q; E3 v3 q5 L4 \(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she6 L( \4 c  ?8 T
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
  L7 |: U/ l! F8 V  K+ d# z1 q/ t0 vThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science. I  ]6 m8 L0 L# p! E# c2 U* O0 I
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and) W: h6 N( y# ?/ {) U- Q' E. M
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.9 S) S/ {1 e, ^4 h
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and5 e. O& l, R$ o& c+ b3 q
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature/ @/ ]  G! M( U: P2 [% d
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
+ Q) z4 y$ T# trepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
6 k$ P' T5 r* h9 o- p! m; O; }The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not- x2 L' O* O  H5 }+ ^; w
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
4 Z9 `1 n/ u, n: l. Lus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather* C' g+ Z' y$ q2 [5 f( C
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
. k; H* L) s! G- h" {* F: jthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”4 i# g/ P: e+ ^$ k! g4 f9 W
about British supremacy.$ D$ p: h6 r8 o9 |: h2 b4 i
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many) u/ ]* W* L7 ~$ ]& d2 m( E
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more( Y2 w  u% z6 V; ?5 y6 S  O
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
4 d, v" `% i' S1 e2 xour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
4 g3 Y! V0 {# M7 o$ uOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ M, Z: z6 W8 {. O$ ?9 ~' a* W  f# g
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of0 H  {8 `# w' Z8 K0 T/ A
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 x( P) K: h1 k  `3 i" T6 O: M: t* Hbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
, Y$ g& e; t# j% dit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
: }1 ]  ^) r: Z6 W! G% x" ?publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
) c( B) b; e& M7 R8 F: m" Q  Z3 bNature.0 I9 \) a+ w' s: U3 {; K% s
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
4 y, Y4 ?) \7 `( I4 |3 jthe Callaway report.4 S% _! x# B) K7 X2 D
( w' Q1 ~* M' w. E0 J3 T+ ?
Yi
  W" X  q# ~9 i. ~7 m& i2 k: F6 E/ b2 v5 ~) t3 c3 b: j1 e
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
+ x2 H% ]7 w+ d% R  m3 B. TProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
( j1 I) m7 l) C' ]7 KBeijing, China, E8 M7 U) `' h) t4 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
1 M. x) B! L" h+ }6 |* |原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
5 Y7 k' i3 B  ^7 D
原文是公开信。$ S+ e, j0 K- e1 \5 a

3 Q( i' A; {" V1 R1 c$ y* F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
, C* Q( N5 w5 _( R- h" D2 J原文是公开信。
+ H* h! g9 s' F- v$ L5 ?9 j
; b  C9 |9 i2 D. T  O; C2 |小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
4 N2 Z! i- i- [- [
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
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 JIANG( ]* P  {9 q5 h% h$ X0 I
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
; p& ~' c8 f0 p, s+ c, K
1 a( f: o0 P, \! X- R, |) N) Ehttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
5 r2 o9 e1 V' k
4 z  N. `7 t$ IFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania+ `+ \6 f- ?" u! I. N+ H

  i" i" h4 s) v+ f2 I& c( b9 yIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself
) P0 Q& ~1 N2 P, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science. y; n1 @( l& a6 L. s  k
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this. ?# \8 r5 F9 ]- [' {
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
' d0 D. B/ g  m: tscrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general# w2 ^* H8 c. q" h! t- z6 c9 t
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors1 u" z6 J; G/ f9 ?. O
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,; [* `4 ?2 P" D" m% e5 E' s; D
which they blatantly failed to do.
& @' ?" p' ~$ c& W4 t7 A& ]$ L% L7 f8 ~4 v0 v
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her
& |7 }# h, g0 X. rOlympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in$ U0 n6 ^6 z( w9 Q. @  Q
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “9 B% I+ }* u% Y$ C& y* I) {# ~
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
7 e8 @/ n; E7 o4 v$ bpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an# f2 N  z7 g+ C9 B8 j8 z
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the) j; f5 t, @* O+ Y0 X1 Z! @
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to% b$ q$ s& g, Z0 @( U% Q  D" t
be treated as 7 s.
" z5 ~( V) {' d  o; n
) q( P) i% T5 FSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
6 _8 c* S$ _3 G' w3 @' Wstill developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem3 @* W' H& e. n2 H8 E3 P
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.) @7 u/ O1 c4 Z" G( K0 k9 W1 Q6 ^
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 4006 x. ^9 x6 e& F7 G) S! N; h3 R
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.
7 U+ ]! M; X7 c& K& M" K% @For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
! k$ w8 S9 U/ Pelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and0 e9 u. W. u+ c) i( i1 m; ~# j
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”. Y; W9 Z; z% V/ o/ ?8 c% ], _
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.1 z+ y: \( T0 f' v# p
$ q( e8 y4 @# a$ x4 B
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook* Q" i- T2 H; Q, y9 H9 ]0 j2 A5 `  o
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in: Z( q7 i" _) `2 Q5 f. t
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so$ ~3 u) n* ^+ h" K! F
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later
! n2 o, U1 J% R) o2 ~/ b7 r1 |events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s/ w2 q8 Y4 c4 B% ~
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World2 C' Q8 K* F! n
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
3 s3 Y- q1 ]7 L' ]topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other( U0 t+ R6 W1 a+ G
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
7 T% G5 j' G0 h# C( d. P7 q, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
1 V, ]; o- f" i/ }3 \: y1 p: vstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
" l+ ~$ O! ?7 Z& }/ g7 ]- Afaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam6 b; a* D# Q: R( V& D, r- v1 A
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting: `& O9 g7 A$ H3 V  q% r" h
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
  d+ f: s7 v4 S* S. Z& o$ ]! c2 Y* bimplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
2 a6 Z4 A, H& S( U" K+ [
! q% J9 A: g' U, U1 E% nFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are1 l% Z# w3 y, g$ C! }) k
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
! C0 T! p- d% v0 p: V2 @2 Os) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
; |5 L6 R# p$ G- \, j), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
/ P# x4 c: V0 @# A6 G, Vout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,) r6 I4 i; l+ E8 n) e1 Y  {& [
Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind3 G( U8 J' {  Q
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it9 I" c8 ^7 V& F  X" W
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in* ~& ~+ y, t; a! Z6 t" B8 R7 F
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
- f% z2 q; c4 j/ S9 B  Bworks.( B. P/ U4 Y+ V, S0 L% d  K

4 k* [( w9 `, D2 T" LFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and
/ c$ `1 n- H: Q6 X) Bimplies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
% s5 k' ?$ U/ fkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
) N8 X3 k8 \# e- g& H* g& Mstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
) H( ^- ]1 a( @# P% e- Opapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
0 z4 a3 Z; W+ ]$ B4 U: X' ireviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
8 _$ A+ E$ e1 J; e; Ecannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
. D. d# ]4 D* `6 S0 [demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
; x0 ^) s+ G/ u! O& i/ Hto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample1 ]' `1 e; x6 p' ]. z: m
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
4 C+ f; O7 b+ c% W; W4 Scrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
# u% c3 R; g% D& t( W! W2 vwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly* s  ?! Q% L& R3 Q
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
! w" k5 E" D. m9 J9 O7 r# s7 |past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not- q- ?$ U' S8 }7 a* o* P) Q
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation) K. ]3 ?3 I4 H  x2 C
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are0 e2 [  K# ]- g. }3 S" \* o
doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
* r' y" z$ b  }0 z. C$ u! X( ]be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
* C, U) Y5 s. `4 bhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
# R' h5 ~# h9 L) q! L5 ~has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a0 g  M1 e, x% p( J1 R" O9 c6 f
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
7 y6 j* t5 g" c6 Q8 p- \7 x) yother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect" Q3 ^5 y" U% e, ~/ p' M; K
, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is/ L5 ]) I. L  m
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an& y" A6 P. b4 q8 g
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight. l( Q$ `" u4 a
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?8 D% o5 K8 D+ A1 S. e& L  A- {
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
$ R' A3 A9 v! r/ Q% gagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for0 }7 B0 {. s8 W# u- E( V. [7 J
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.* n9 I; H8 M( M1 o% t) {
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?2 h( k1 c9 b9 \! F7 F# B
; q* Y5 b, ~# k( v
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-$ P! `# Q0 P1 w: ~- @; ~
competition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
0 o! D" }' J4 y8 F* h1 h. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
8 A+ ]6 T2 W; V) yOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London$ h, L, N3 W4 \9 p3 _& X
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
: K1 v( k1 V! \$ ddoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
% ]* ]8 M! R- V) L) C* agames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
2 _" b3 g( D) l6 h: Qhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
0 S0 I$ G# t$ }: b- @. Yplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this2 \; n" U6 K; J& y- C
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.1 \& X: q& P4 F0 C; W
+ g/ A; d7 U8 n9 E* l
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (0 a" I4 u, N  u! o
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
1 H# j' Y* C0 b$ T, D" G% Wsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
. w/ s, X! x5 Esuspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
( _: u, {, ~$ b/ R" [* T4 K, qall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
8 |* {( D1 `% ninterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
( f& G$ S( \! ]; {5 X) Q& oexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
" J6 c' ~4 q! o0 U* x& U# r" Margument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal3 e8 l8 f- d" N' g
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
5 P' {7 v' c- \& 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, 2026-6-15 11:14 , Processed in 0.122750 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