埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2393|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
" @7 k& N$ R9 I- W( D5 {/ ^$ }& H: H1 E" n
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。/ y! r' y' c8 F2 b9 K0 V
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。
# {: b, F6 K4 |; U总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
2 a0 g3 R) Y! _8 m* _$ s
; n! e* ^2 S2 @+ H1 Phttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; S' E- V' e& n9 m
+ g5 ]* C% E3 I! E致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选$ b+ L5 K& F: w, W) g
! M+ }3 z! S; {
英文原信附后,大意如下:( y6 U+ |$ A6 p# d2 r  `

9 z1 ~/ |2 {: R& X$ a! A- n* S斐尔,
+ D2 L) E0 e3 n2 s; J3 V3 r/ E$ z* k7 w       你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
9 \# {6 O, a$ e2 ]# L& n5 zemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。8 D* O" _1 _" T% R+ x
       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
1 a3 \9 t. i! r. i+ @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
7 l* W: p( s3 ~( Z5 I, K" W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。
8 z* O" L& c$ ^! G( l" _! [       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8 t7 p& `9 G- Z; N# C' I4 l' b
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
" ^* a8 D4 w  t# ]) x8 W+ C  b4 {, ^" P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
# b( x( U' |$ b- l9 z! E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。& F+ n. |0 z4 v$ ]! }' J1 t- W8 y& C
       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. x4 S2 n1 f: T; x- T9 x
,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 I8 v. o$ }$ Z”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。* l1 s7 J+ ?4 u6 J5 c  M3 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
" x2 c; D- K( Q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
0 F+ I8 o# `* N% p( Z,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。% `1 v: O) W1 o& j, p; _; 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
5 V) f6 B1 Q5 V; F/ |9 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$ e( f9 J2 v; d8 m+ E
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二4 I3 B4 H2 u+ X; e% D+ @
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1 \# [5 y3 N2 Y8 v5 ^" B* n% e% [
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
0 b. B! k+ b/ d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: }. e/ E' F$ ^) X
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! r9 ~) I/ |5 Y) x, @! X+ X
。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3 \5 }9 ?, z2 h$ i9 C) {7 u
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。$ P* _$ K8 i( C# J8 P6 D
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
% ?5 l. F% o( t* z, T' {4 G8 A1》,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
3 u+ s0 F$ @3 n# YWikipedia。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" N" [  \/ b, K1 Y) n( m- N7 G8 T
同意见的专家。
6 \. _# a1 W8 B* 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
) J# \$ y1 X" t3 H( Y0 D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
, T8 g. B; W2 u1 y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# J% m  B) C# O6 b  f# C
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。$ @* i6 Q% d9 r0 o8 V
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)
+ f2 \7 A# S) v9 I: M. \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
7 Z) p7 ?" g1 z6 z# }《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
) q/ V! y! [6 a6 v/ w% R# w( t这些被Callaway忽略。
, `# |$ x! D# h$ H  P0 ?+ S, I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
5 j$ E3 n8 l# T+ u$ ?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
9 @4 I. u: [! H- z+ z教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: R8 e0 x/ m  v. v* j4 k( u6 V. A
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
, X, A' C( w- ]! _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
! x0 w# z( p8 j" O8 ~0 O" f" i; y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- E; X2 `0 U' t% x5 s  v" F, N
今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。' e4 [+ w) t. _! Q) \
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
" h& @7 f' w+ K( a/ x6 i香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年$ ^' j: v( z- [6 k( 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
) m+ ?5 x1 `7 K' l”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。, K( q3 ~/ K3 y# q( g" 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+ w$ T0 h% n6 ~+ b2 o
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9 [/ s) D" ~8 l. ~8 a
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
  M# [7 b4 F2 X. F5 t0 F3 L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
: W( d/ ?* p' E4 f# ^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
8 k/ W0 k. E9 i) f' w/ J而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。# [; ]3 c& |7 v$ \3 W/ S
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。& {9 u! [8 M7 @6 |
: G9 b5 k7 K9 y8 u

1 Y: J  Q/ m/ I  o& E3 T8 X北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
9 N2 E( j& z. C+ ^
& h) V) y+ {* |7 n; e3 ]4 Y+ F附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
6 R& T5 i- [7 g7 f0 E1 A, k7 j附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
0 ?7 v, W7 S& K: @: m附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见! B$ X( A4 X6 M  ~" p4 |% h
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
5 L) Y  ^5 {5 K+ Y3 `
+ K) s! c$ P" _) |$ M4 C3 y: _+ H4 s+ p' W" K6 w2 n
# q4 y8 g1 M9 {4 D0 t
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)8 V* l0 I. y8 _. `1 ]3 j; ^1 l& g
Dear Phil," I, i8 B* i* L+ x/ w7 x( b# Q
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s  V  g) ^5 a" a5 F' w
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 209 W  _1 {% u7 ?+ E
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
5 }7 n* r/ i7 ~$ ~" _you.
2 }# S  m) I9 i/ r4 _       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
1 F8 _) _9 ]9 o& n+ @5 P% Obrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese3 X0 F4 |/ i- c5 y0 x& W
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the" l& ?2 ]( W2 `& K: P
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature: r% t+ j$ b7 Q) ^, h
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more/ G0 h1 z) v6 d9 Y. n, z
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
, n5 c8 {3 M5 Jpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. L. v/ s6 s+ F, Y; G, ]
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
' W$ B/ s* [* {: ^1 T/ ?& jworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
; d/ {$ ]' L1 k2 lnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
- E# b+ ^6 \' u0 N+ zthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway8 I: h5 K& Q) R+ J' j, {
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping- t( u' P7 X& t- o
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
5 z, s! z: d2 I1 J1 Q7 L- Kstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,3 x$ Y( C4 _, E( g* J4 S
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone. u( ~8 Q7 j; P' o7 w* I) Y4 j9 t
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
$ b% [7 k) `* Ereporting.
: Z9 G- N2 j! f$ r       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
0 Q/ l7 @. P; H2 Xalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by. \: P9 R4 y2 g6 |2 t* F4 r3 H* b
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
' O$ w# `$ y- O; J, i# t. Ssports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A  S, I5 h; q: k3 C4 z( j
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
: K* r2 ?- h( [( w5 }" `       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
6 _  @- [0 U, M4 N* Z9 k4 q3 }- Imore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
6 [$ V; ]. }, b7 Z( Vfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50# {1 J. [4 c, D' U# T  y
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
7 c% J  B5 l$ y. Qevent for men, with the second fastest record.+ [# T" P3 v# o
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye' k- t5 O5 u2 b9 Q! u
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( H4 V( N& }& P" k
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
' n/ `/ C9 @1 [. j: i7 S. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
" h# q% ~9 d9 gmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,* N$ n: N+ b0 i" Y$ `  ^7 ^* r
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
. U7 S  r# m1 U2 |; y& w7 QLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed5 @8 c  X9 H  V  s
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the( ]# i  ^2 Z. |# {7 u. ]
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
3 p) M8 I$ }$ S" O9 m& Ythan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than/ E' H7 g( [" u& ?6 E0 d! j
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( l: n; t) i/ }% [0 w3 W2 v& ]her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then8 [, H/ t/ s4 _: I, \, r6 i: f% I
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “1 g9 x9 |. [7 z
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other! r4 `0 _5 p: \
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
1 Y9 E6 Z, w1 s2 a& K* E7 steens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the& m7 e) G$ ]) h3 S9 ~) Q6 R2 }% [2 M
Callaway report.
; p, c1 h9 n8 x; D3 y, L! W9 X& x; RThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 m, R. I4 a' H& j4 p& L; J; xunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details6 ?$ C- E) V7 }# [; e: P0 `6 c
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
- P+ h' M5 n& U* b0 T6 Gof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been: x- t2 M1 a) [  q5 O- e9 c; j
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
2 e5 @- f$ Y9 pWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( v, t6 a0 h7 X# C
publicly voiced different opinions.+ v6 d$ r* w+ [: z# b, F5 v
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD/ d+ U) n4 z+ q) \2 J! [- Q1 h
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
$ R3 G' _3 j2 A: h- k7 _+ ~9 XNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
  c  j  p1 A1 g" ^postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds0 a  W/ ^; G* ^5 y: R* P6 O( y; n
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy0 S* S  F1 B0 F- o7 V2 q2 J! _
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
' o/ r! ~0 e% H* g' \4 eThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think4 F! [* P) y' a3 v
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
% l- Q0 L+ d! s* fhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
; D" f' E  q% X$ F  EAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
: O9 z4 P3 y2 Kthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
! @4 d' t7 f1 T7 fsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.: I, c1 y, p/ D+ N/ w# [
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that1 P5 C, b) m  ]/ j5 a/ J+ n* U
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
- P4 N( ?4 {, j/ d+ S' JChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 y0 t( c4 V( J* |3 c' ]4 S
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she9 @. p# `: |7 u4 i! U
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.. a+ G0 q2 ?( u+ m  C: ?. P( o* v
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science& H5 L; S) m9 W+ A& x3 D
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, @5 h( v' i6 `8 y; `0 J. T
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.9 v9 o; p( u9 `1 a& M2 H* Y8 F
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
" ~% k8 A$ D  e% _objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* J  [' O6 H: N" z5 ^' r$ ~
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
* A& z7 v- c# U( G6 D5 H! Prepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
! {0 s) b2 K! r  V3 }% OThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' A  ^: m4 M. t+ e( e) J3 Q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced9 B+ u3 S% p& f) e7 }# a) V( t
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather( ]2 R9 n& b2 o, s
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
" ~; ~; j0 l: m( dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”* l7 W. ^0 Y* T1 z. n  N
about British supremacy.
3 S4 \3 g# [. `: i3 F3 pThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
$ U( f+ U$ H1 I- {! `* t- H4 U6 C+ Runsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more1 Y7 D! I; g9 b1 d0 D
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
0 I: r( a0 p  @& ]) pour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London) V- x) g8 r- j! D4 h
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.2 i' C4 o* S1 _& @' r# N* q) O
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of/ H8 y6 T7 o& e8 H
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests7 F$ w$ ?' B# i; H
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,! j1 q' j! k1 M9 i
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly# d8 @' t5 H5 e7 }
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like  k5 A* x' U: J5 L
Nature./ r$ }, f) ^& `& e9 y
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
: F& ^7 T) C$ p! L6 e, Pthe Callaway report.* b; L8 \" A" A: ]  ?( c- _8 @
0 g- l& b7 I9 Y5 C. G# h
Yi
6 [9 h  D/ T7 M$ P
7 M7 O2 a! ?  l; XYi Rao, Ph.D.
# |8 ~2 U+ d1 ]* H7 u* H; t2 _1 i, ~Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences4 T, O0 C$ v( C- T5 H' P& W- {5 i
Beijing, China
( U3 l6 Z3 K8 ?* s& E% K! 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!!!
理袁律师事务所
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 ' f: r8 b( b0 a9 @* y
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

  A* _1 n# G. b: N8 f( x: u原文是公开信。
. v3 I, V/ z; i  _! g8 q% F
' \5 G/ W6 v4 A/ T6 N& `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 5 z1 h, ^* w9 c' W  ?% o* ~
原文是公开信。
* _9 t5 Z7 w( N" G7 a9 ^7 E$ Z: F" k* @6 E8 I  \% m  y6 d
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
. R1 r3 G; m. S0 t. C# N
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 JIANG0 U2 u, G4 L; X; P3 U2 }
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。6 z1 e; ?) C( [; t- E1 r
. t7 h) `( _& M$ M( u4 m% d
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
. @3 C7 e; {9 ^/ d0 G" v1 ^
% Z& {- Z1 B- gFROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania) u; ?- \! D. q

  P* V  Z  O# n& `9 v9 B$ @5 U8 AIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself+ g1 b% C8 I) I' M+ P* Y# z7 D
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
7 a8 u5 G9 }, t& W0 pmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this! D! X/ y' q: R. m2 d2 D
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
) i1 I# b; k" n3 Q. n" ascrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general' l* p2 Z7 l! W; y# n% V
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
2 |8 L  ?$ D5 c' L8 tshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,+ U2 s0 I6 l) b& W/ M( X
which they blatantly failed to do.
/ D9 T& w6 Z0 h( l: ~+ Q) S' u. E: J) a3 a# b! N3 g3 x
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her! W4 u6 r7 H8 [& B/ l! y% V$ w* d; z
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
9 Y/ M9 X3 S& ^2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
, W, u1 T- h+ d! Tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous$ U8 o; u2 b8 f5 K* V8 b
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! C5 F( B- j- f: ^2 I: a
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
7 ?) C" b! {& u- o  b; E! [, jdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to' W! r/ M: o, T6 \" W% I; X
be treated as 7 s.# B+ J2 j" `$ o9 \" g4 ?. S& e

' _' f  ^/ O) R5 ?  i  H+ ySecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is- h9 J2 e; o7 F! t! ~5 u
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
8 w8 [& U% ~- b' |6 d" rimpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.& b& h2 F1 ~3 u; b: Z% F( o* N) ]( z
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
! |5 w* d1 o  r5 q. [1 {2 @" ]-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.; k% {1 i% S" `. W
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an; o: d# O! F! m3 [# x
elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and
: D& s' n+ y/ T" Xpersistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”7 s$ `  M) {5 _2 Z$ R
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
+ g0 V6 G- i1 v" {& o0 [2 L9 J- z% ^$ e5 z) v+ f3 Z3 Z
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook, w5 _9 m' e8 i3 I/ ^' J
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in4 ?& _3 H( h8 }3 d( O0 n
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so3 d- ]/ @& e4 o1 T4 k8 X. B) W0 J
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later- X8 N+ |" A, \  r; s
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s. S& O. M8 e+ ]) \* ~1 R# Q1 D
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World) D; n! f6 |8 _; Z% }
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
; B. Y$ B  i* f0 ?: H$ utopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other' U: P$ r# |. t9 I
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
" |; M" C5 b6 }5 _- f, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this* B  Q1 v# M  H4 [: |) r# Y3 n
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds0 ^: w! [. N# u$ d2 A: x
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam# x3 c) ]( `8 S" [9 ^. V8 F/ S
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting$ Q% p' M3 z$ ~, D  B
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
7 e' u& s7 c1 }' f3 x$ B/ ]implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
% p& \6 {+ j/ n! w) b9 @- v% U1 X4 Q  t
Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are4 h* a$ g- Q2 M: z
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93& L+ f. N5 o$ Z) F( E
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s
$ P0 w5 f8 S7 G( H9 K8 m), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
9 C7 x  e, S4 D$ u, jout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
9 x$ L8 }& N. i4 \0 O0 YLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
8 }' M* W$ Z* X. T# Qof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it( y. C1 f/ h& `
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in
) _2 ^1 ]7 r9 s) Z% ]every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
7 E" C& a3 n8 Y# |! _9 C, Hworks.
3 E  w$ }2 b& t5 `5 C8 N% q  d* [5 L1 a, ^; M
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and4 ?7 X* ?$ K3 L' l, R8 p
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
# Z( ?; H# T  S2 ykind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that& s5 I5 ~7 ?, `0 [/ A4 _  D. G. B) P
standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
  w3 H% w* Z; k% Ppapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and% X% r9 X9 T" M* Y8 l
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
  G9 G* M3 N# m7 W4 v9 i2 ^& Dcannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to' I. A$ R4 y# j' m0 H: q' a9 @) _; f
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
- z0 F2 l; v$ ]. oto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample) t5 Q! k' z2 `0 ~8 }4 q
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is) o4 K! `) {. @5 L9 h: |
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
+ \+ K! s1 ?4 q' ~wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly3 v4 Y$ p, ]  Y) \4 B) p4 h3 N+ {1 `
advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
/ E' C* n' h5 B2 G7 upast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not! e% V1 n$ w; J! H& z  S1 P
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation8 ?* @2 {3 g$ I
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
+ ~  v+ Y8 C" L+ x! [( T8 Bdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
( s) e/ R* g+ R" b  B1 X: jbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 e/ H) \# a# a/ ]hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
9 Z, y0 G/ C% Y# T- m1 qhas doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
& x, d9 A/ A# _+ G+ A+ Hdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:! N3 J! d* ?) A3 U
other than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
/ ^& ^% t$ t" a7 w4 G; |; G, O, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
9 ~( P9 O( ?; @- O0 R, d+ Z! Iprobabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
) |: J( b  {3 B/ p* wathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
! @4 l  C! k. Q, D% v6 ~3 {chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?1 c5 d: @; ^4 a$ s! U. b1 i
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
! m+ m- a( f& _& pagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
% \* x" e* B1 T1 Y  v& H9 z3 veight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.4 V! s* b8 n3 \0 I* v( x4 g7 [0 z
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?! w- @0 u$ U) C8 X
' u. n7 o; ]7 s/ `0 }
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
4 z. J8 \4 ~! g$ m6 ?7 L5 Ycompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
" N8 G5 K/ B- a8 K. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for( i  c4 Y/ ]: k: ], P
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London+ m5 A" d4 c8 ?) l4 t/ _9 a
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
% i* P5 ?1 j# o: K* \8 |2 Mdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
$ V$ N; u# h; C# jgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope
: f9 p4 T4 o% E5 R- u1 B9 s1 ~" Uhave already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a* M$ ?' p& `$ X" {7 q* q/ q
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this, B# a% q" V6 j& Z' _" A2 x7 a
possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
4 d% v" y7 B1 B
( i) Z; V  }" d) P: [$ l4 J. F0 X- jOver all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
# h& y0 F4 q$ a0 V, D0 h! @intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ m& k/ O( m# Q. p" U5 Gsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a/ L; U! E& r" Y3 y% `5 k
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
" x+ }/ W* n4 t& d6 }1 uall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your5 F# T* S& B( g5 R
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
9 g3 `6 w) H& U7 j  s# r, }* @8 Hexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
9 _% Z" R9 y7 b5 p5 X) \argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal+ C, d; W( S5 V" ^( _
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or$ U3 t1 M2 J( S0 ?3 ]- @' M
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, 2026-8-2 02:09 , Processed in 0.121288 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