埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2147|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
& |/ o8 u& ?8 t* ~3 p- N* U9 W2 N; M
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
8 A* o) l; y$ @0 m. p% g8 O) X! C就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。' |+ n8 z7 p+ k8 E& F9 J7 I
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
  p1 c: ~5 Q; v0 i- \
/ i: J( Y3 F$ D$ Hhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
2 z, R2 ?! \; ~4 V: `/ N/ ?$ N# E/ S: p3 e( }7 {' Q
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选" T8 P: R4 U0 U) E) G9 d: H" g

/ l$ K) ~5 x5 M( N0 ~. C! J: i英文原信附后,大意如下:  j2 _% a& }; @$ A
- A' s) v0 {2 M- `
斐尔,, b' Y0 M6 n, T6 a7 |  X" d" ~
       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) ^3 }6 f& n. u& r
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。5 Z5 d2 N0 W5 r7 b
       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 v* P- P3 `3 y2 q* h
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* _2 A9 g! [$ J: j5 q( c% o0 p
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。1 e: I+ C+ n  h- X+ J7 f% O- ?" 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
$ T* M. N5 l" ^2 z) @+ b- 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5 _& b" E, ]- A( \' Q
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) ?8 t) P" ?3 a& p' K
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。
8 i/ y4 U7 A  L  q' s# O% V% {' T       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+ g; k6 a0 _0 L) w2 h
,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 K! Q6 a5 b9 W( \1 `- X
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
% C: |: m+ q/ q# Z& d- @. _       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9 g; B; z& U# ~* j# s
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
7 u$ I) H6 [) U5 s, n: C% B" @# E,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
% J" y% i  e2 ]0 e. H) J       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
/ w4 \) a5 p, c3 y# K* [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  e2 x/ J4 ?8 ?4 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
: C' T- x# L) N. Y3 d) X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
9 q' Z7 h8 n' N4 e& r7 ]% |" z300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、六6 x1 d' v/ M$ N  O) }8 f( |
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( T/ L6 r5 {  ~3 {, v* g1 C
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
+ O& T1 t3 m1 G。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  u# ~" J" M, _2 E* C
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
6 J: u7 ?! V. Z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
* \+ l2 g: Y. ^' J3 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
2 H& K0 a% D( |0 Y8 H1 c; TWikipedia。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1 {! q' ?! i: \! T  _
同意见的专家。9 H8 L! v( P7 h0 f& k
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
: P6 O6 U+ A/ v1 z, j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( E" R- b. D9 X* y8 b
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- o8 _1 D. P8 K! X$ a5 l5 r
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
- t# i" q+ B+ h( ^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)0 d1 x1 v- t" o$ L5 Q1 v, b1 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; d: K" N1 Z% V* \8 b( b2 p5 l+ ~" N9 u
《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
) g$ e* I5 u  [7 _( T5 n- e: O' u这些被Callaway忽略。3 x3 x7 B; d, ^/ }/ Z7 p
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, S, e* r% |3 D/ p, f
英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院. G: [5 T1 Z2 `. U& C
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。0 k" i: ~) J2 y
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! `% J5 L, m: x6 o8 T0 {  a# E
学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学
9 v/ |" P' C, e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, G3 R2 S% C" D+ h
今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。
  S+ Q0 X3 z; l) w9 V$ u# l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
+ ~4 E8 u+ {8 y. 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
0 k, m+ R& {, W/ C. g9 {+ e7 x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
' P( I3 r' O6 J5 O. ?”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。* Z7 M, d6 l. H
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
2 U2 P; i( K# w9 g6 `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2 X) P+ y  `# U3 n9 L  T4 Y/ 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
0 P+ G3 Z6 s2 @; O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$ i& A- r5 O" b- i) l8 A
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7 q2 C9 f0 `  X: {& C
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' ~! P! v( @, z% w$ Q
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 f% F/ C6 O) |: f6 z
4 ]6 R$ I( A6 D, `4 e$ N
" ~$ T; }, U+ |/ B北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅8 P2 M7 @! @9 h

  d& j7 D$ Z, K0 D% o& z" h; c附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
) C# R/ n% K% @附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ d3 ^2 g! p. }. Q( g( P附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
2 f+ {* C4 @, [- H附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
( i% \+ N0 C, k7 X* Z) I
# t; [7 h! P+ K' p# j( t) s( N1 V. [6 n- t' V# M

5 w0 b, U1 j4 {" W# n$ p8 P原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
& ~. D) g0 {# k2 \: J3 E' r+ V2 y3 JDear Phil,
. h7 u9 O& q+ B1 D8 u' ]       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
3 Q/ x  _& w- l1 Jreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20+ L) f% a( b6 R1 M% Y$ v) T/ D
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
7 I* D  P$ B7 L$ C, h5 w/ ryou.) D( M, R7 b7 \% T
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
+ E2 t$ ?/ C/ E/ A) G& j: abrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
& }1 X  ?( k7 E6 O  Kreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the9 `' h  d) \$ n) e" U; C
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- K0 F  \+ u4 \. J' U; @: Npublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more6 a  b1 c4 K9 t3 H
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
9 V* O* f* a2 rpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
+ N9 d- o. t. ]0 m1 ?       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
5 x' D" n- ]1 J. {: [# u* |worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a, O. p8 h. U, I& ?* o8 S7 O: v
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish$ i8 s! H4 G! F' z% X
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway2 G4 |1 j0 C! G; L
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping$ z1 ^! g+ a: Q5 J
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) i+ J! n3 |7 n$ \5 X& M& z* @standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,# ?' Z* v7 I( e  |+ g& T
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# T! K1 H8 c8 ]
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news  h; A+ S/ A* h0 `
reporting.
+ A! }6 F: c; F+ w4 x5 ?       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
6 G3 y0 ]  `4 R+ `9 D3 F8 p1 S( jalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
- ?0 E+ M& r" j) Cchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
) o: p0 _7 Y6 dsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A" W# s' R5 S; K; X8 R2 l1 _' Z6 d
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.* x/ I( B  m! R# m2 v" L$ K9 _0 l) c
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem4 i* f. _& j9 P$ A' y5 \
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
0 M+ C: x5 K; e, t& Cfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. q5 O6 C/ q; M& H0 A- C1 G
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
( z1 |" g1 D9 _0 n, q: K+ Tevent for men, with the second fastest record.
$ d! ]1 `5 r+ I6 l       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
# }0 J1 g1 _1 Mwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
1 K* w. J" A. B9 k) X5 F# ^, [year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
- M+ [7 d- g; ]4 S. L: J; c* |. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
& u. F, ^% u3 smeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
) Q1 x; y* T1 R+ h. bfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
/ M4 X/ Y4 V/ o4 V8 p% R2 E, WLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed6 g' z% V7 B. T$ y  F
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the9 E+ L4 L# p( R6 I& G2 [( W! A
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower$ `7 r5 }/ e" ]
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than# V  q* d3 B+ e: T  w
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
4 B( @$ K! M5 Oher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
9 n7 Q7 U- b8 C" p$ Ehe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “  T" _1 M# H+ u8 h
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
9 X8 j" z7 h9 e* N/ n$ A; }1 `swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
; R0 q9 e$ I! B: n/ G, R/ Eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the* c1 I0 {2 G1 A1 k6 R0 J
Callaway report." _' g5 S* v6 n) `+ b2 E: \
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 p- {. n8 d# D) Z+ X- z5 }understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details/ j* u% f7 y5 s, P/ D! l+ X
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
7 U% y& L( Q1 I5 Rof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been1 E# ?- [3 }* H3 Z' U
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
- D" O( x4 `& X6 X' MWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had+ m: o' _, F( \3 t  l% a
publicly voiced different opinions.7 U5 t- X6 G8 ~2 B5 u! |
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
; A' S5 w4 R" r/ k3 }3 W4 yfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature  M% R9 H& Q, c+ u5 ]
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent% }. w& n4 S8 N2 E' W
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
6 q: G5 T" M" j2 a7 }" d/ _you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy9 Q( v# d# _+ [* a9 P( {
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.( P5 H7 H$ m5 i3 U+ N' Z
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! \; i3 Y0 E; k7 K2 `2 }5 _7 C# cthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
  ?* K) Y7 _' a  J, o* J# D8 w8 R4 bhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
5 C. {0 x$ L* w) }Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
3 ?9 `5 ~2 `5 I$ T0 M& |: h0 hthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was( M; z- X( r* Q: P/ n  C
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.. A" }* z; }  G  h+ k* D
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
+ L: [; E* E! @9 ~2 o; R- vmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the" _1 R, ^/ m' i% I' W( W
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June0 p: R1 O$ K4 c$ t
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she# W4 U$ N  P. q7 l& b5 [& m
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
+ s5 ?" O2 @$ y( ?. S) r: rThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science' i) M; O4 @9 B0 U" }8 J
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and, ^4 Q  k1 b3 ~' }9 u. u
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
) ]& C/ Q$ J/ s0 s+ t% GNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
; m% V0 q, A+ O6 c- o* [' e: _: Hobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature& l3 i3 j8 t! y1 A6 S% K7 q
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to# `# K0 q: f4 j4 g9 j! m# j
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) b4 r5 b. @- d( d/ {% C5 ?The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not9 o5 c' s8 u4 O. m( I0 ]
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' {7 O. ~# q- l7 O# F' m/ lus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
* C/ ^, D5 K4 ^4 T( Ifresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that+ E! {* }, F6 }7 {4 y' Z( @
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”" ~5 ?1 @0 y0 I* @4 ^: B8 z
about British supremacy.7 q1 ^, `6 n1 q6 [. ^/ N6 e# ^
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many, o! [2 s$ o2 p" W' x) o
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, }0 j" O9 S6 V- @3 H+ ~9 h4 V  VChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
* X# M( w& N# A( l7 S8 j' D. pour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
+ d5 i$ @  F& N6 y0 a- f* p; Y# lOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
8 _8 x9 g9 |& G: S  d( ?* {Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of  o( I3 I" s& j5 V* D; r' M
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests( P8 I+ _: ^, D9 L# M/ q
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. D% H& T" N3 z# z* T4 K/ vit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
8 P  z" o9 d$ b% M( f+ Q7 c# ?, Cpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like3 `6 R# l3 A- `5 {4 f0 u  l
Nature.5 E/ z  _# p7 x5 g
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 J& o. J4 e" D5 B7 F7 Gthe Callaway report.) C: F) z! D+ K: t2 B) e# M

5 ?; n0 z# X+ s) F* CYi
: E- @: }4 f- O3 g3 X2 k) |% A' }( ?1 n. R# c: g
Yi Rao, Ph.D.1 K0 a: D- J0 e( H; I" H1 @  n. d
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
4 t+ `  z6 |+ Q6 aBeijing, China
0 X- E$ V3 }, w6 m
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。
大型搬家
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
' Z8 x' V% u5 p原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

/ V5 N8 a" _" J5 i% V% q原文是公开信。( ]: [6 }' B% m  e

. r. A  k7 O) F1 m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
3 c& ~) ^' @# O& [9 m原文是公开信。% M8 e; w8 `% D+ Q9 |1 [
9 k# ?5 l- |$ g+ E
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml
" @8 V# I  d4 n' 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
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& K1 U# k) W% W" E8 F5 c
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。( t; k9 M' \  Q  N: f

' s* E/ n7 H, \& r' dhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
7 \: D3 Y9 |) N# P; a6 |! P! z4 X! J5 X
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
5 V5 L5 E# ]2 i$ w8 A  b  T
5 Y2 t) R* N! Z& k' ^5 ZIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself) F. }; N- R1 Q( ^, ]
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science) E9 p( `2 ]4 B2 {
magazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this. x. S9 J; ^8 g* A: p' {
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the' v/ p+ `7 g) ^" d0 y% [
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
! U5 W( s6 Q  ~# r7 Q4 Cpopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
, D# v- b! C! j0 ?' M7 O+ Rshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
4 i8 [1 B* S& `" ?which they blatantly failed to do.
3 n. o, R8 j+ G6 _9 }  e: f% N2 |* I0 h4 }) b4 Z( n- A8 M
First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her! H+ {0 s  b4 M  v; _" g; z
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
* N5 V, y& g9 x2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “
* G- q/ t: w$ c& |1 l$ tanomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous8 H6 [, \- w$ ~4 T
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an! R' N* O; f6 F( o) h
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
$ t. A: E, c7 z" O5 @" rdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to1 ]% Z+ q! I& M
be treated as 7 s., @! O3 L  g9 C0 }6 O- b/ B- B

. B: S- q/ {0 `8 c) g9 HSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is( @+ j+ K) c7 E, |5 |% L( @
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem
& h8 Z& w4 {5 S" Q8 K7 limpossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.$ d( W6 L7 [) u. {$ d
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400- Y$ I  m( ^8 k
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16./ t& Y& G, [: S! [- `9 b
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
) r/ L+ |" u2 Q" @  Z1 }. V2 oelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and/ {1 M1 |$ |$ c( t$ S- z% H  J. h
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”- H" H* Z: P! G) m9 i! o; Z" g) c
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
3 C; D- P8 |6 O9 d
. u) a# i2 ^" Y' a) R4 y7 iThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
0 n' g: s9 o4 z! t9 @0 B6 `example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in
7 k4 ]: V) b; |' uthe last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so, R0 v: p. `" \
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later: W; c3 v  q/ R
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
: F) U4 n' W" U1 ]1 F0 Ybest efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World3 C* q& V2 L% X4 V
Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
0 b. a2 h  W5 }- Gtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other* r/ G) C0 x6 j9 C
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle3 \+ o9 B2 i; w) u) V
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this
6 K' g! p# i" h% Q- Nstrategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
/ `$ K' J7 W& I$ a) tfaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam
3 j1 T: B8 f9 d+ p: @faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting' R2 @6 J3 P; c0 e5 u0 H7 l
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that4 U8 Q$ T: P0 H# l4 i: B
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.5 S# C7 C' k" i0 `' t

% G! b/ b, d; CFourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
, Z! r! v) C% d- H: a8 ]four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.932 }1 N0 t% `- n+ b6 j, V
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s! L  H# K( l, }$ R
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns5 _. D- Z# M# R4 ?: Q
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
0 ?8 |" A' w1 qLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind4 e4 N' B) j% d/ p# S
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it
0 N# F; K& ~; d2 hlogical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in- I5 S4 M. d2 N  S" T3 Q
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science4 C  ^  z: M8 j$ t
works." k/ @0 p7 }9 }4 l; E( j3 ^

6 n' h2 p2 T) i, g# cFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and6 @. W% R1 r5 y& }& k4 l
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
" o- @5 \, E6 z( ekind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
7 n. H1 h$ v  q' G% z! a/ Lstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
$ X' d" }$ V2 D+ F* i# h) |$ ]papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
' Z2 Q8 W8 ?' U* Zreviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One  R* j2 W6 V9 }/ {+ m8 b
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
1 E$ M  U- L; M: [/ T$ n2 Jdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works4 f: |* W6 @6 X% Z2 R# k8 S& B
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
8 T# \+ T- n' k, Z" ?! kis found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is$ g& Y: \$ h7 o/ R+ A+ m
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
7 y, d3 @  a! i$ A/ s0 c% |3 gwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
& r" K. M4 D' Z7 a9 Kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the, }9 u; t' |) _3 U. ]# g! |
past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not4 N, g0 i6 b" t& o2 A) m
use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
. W: U# g1 U* M* C$ g. }+ J. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
& P/ E2 H$ M1 {) }doping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
# p" ?$ e& x- b* l" Pbe true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
3 f) X4 l. W# Fhearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye
8 e+ h; f* W$ Z0 ~has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
2 l. r& i: R4 w1 D! H. y0 zdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
2 I6 R+ M4 K- R8 F, h- X% \+ sother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
7 Y5 ]6 F  k+ L# y9 r, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is, W& x$ X9 a2 ~' I! G! W: Z
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an  L4 P. a3 H) M
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight/ x0 V6 o/ e+ z& ?1 z
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
+ p! h  M- z7 q+ h# iLet’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping7 u- V2 T9 q2 ]7 [$ i; l
agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for
& r) d4 K! D" K  C: deight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.. V$ L0 E4 A) k1 B& [  T
Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?
3 e8 G0 o8 x' d( k# `2 K
# j5 `5 q3 [, V  T( D* n. }Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
5 R3 `) z* ?+ qcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention1 |  ~' r8 K8 H; [
. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for, X# R9 [* J8 d8 \' W
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London
3 [; B# q/ z# AOlympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
! E% ~, \0 t8 {3 n  o- |- gdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
' e6 s4 @! e7 }0 t8 G6 ~7 ygames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope1 ^0 y. C& j4 [/ l3 c! i7 w2 f, z
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a7 f  P' I0 N9 g
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
% h& p/ W+ G2 V" ]5 Q. Spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.: U; y1 v1 J3 w: y3 F$ d

  c8 z4 \+ W: c: K, O5 b& O" F* h+ ~Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did ($ i8 Y  g# g3 C+ I8 K
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
$ f1 J: l/ t+ |7 A! q  vsuggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a' B$ H% }, m7 R* V0 N8 F7 [: r7 {
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 y( w7 E8 }6 t  J' s. M" T. F: yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your4 v/ _& {# z, w
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
& [, T9 I3 p" V2 E" xexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your9 D7 U/ h9 o0 y7 X
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
4 l* p$ ]) P" z5 f+ vsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or  D7 P5 f1 n- j3 ^$ r3 ]( G4 H! w
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, 2026-3-23 05:50 , Processed in 0.104480 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