埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2392|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 6 G: `+ B: s! ?9 \3 j

4 t$ @  H: K! k饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。* M! d) B% g7 X" \; F6 g
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。
% o7 P* l/ L9 S1 h总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。: P3 d' x, o, l# i1 {
- Y& P9 O7 R" @" C' h9 G% Y0 C: Z5 T
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html" J+ T4 D0 a6 `8 `  R% C5 X9 i: G- M

% {5 S$ \! r* g6 _. t9 z; h致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选. F; b: {% m% m- b; q- d% z& }

, o# h# e; L( r6 W0 b英文原信附后,大意如下:9 }- w6 n4 t) k' h  E7 S: X
& D6 T( N" @/ N/ I4 W9 S/ q. a' }0 U
斐尔,# d, G/ Q  O- a6 f9 T6 @
       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
; u: T0 T2 c% n' Jemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
5 r5 [, [$ R8 o5 Q9 h2 j6 W       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
0 N) c+ q6 @! h5 ?( n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, W1 t0 p6 D$ {, _, M
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( H& T3 m4 ~, B7 v       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
  `& X" M; {# x+ Q6 p9 s1 d) D8 w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- C$ q3 H9 s, H8 q- {- V! v
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: ]: j. M3 _% D
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 K& W) S) i) H
       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
, ]" z2 V1 D" a% d,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* q1 X: X7 B9 @  P4 [: Z5 ?
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
4 O, S/ R! j; `6 w2 M4 G$ g% 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% H9 S# d# ]. o4 x$ H# h, D
比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快
) V# n  w7 R# {9 U* Y8 O: },而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
6 w7 ^8 }- T* J+ k( Q/ [+ f       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: L5 i$ B/ e4 s1 e0 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% R. R! K3 O& [  \  g
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
/ H1 [9 R0 B0 W; m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. l2 q- m' G$ u/ g' ^% K
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- e- L5 F2 a& {0 H
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
9 u6 M4 X8 x6 b/ r; Z; `( 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, N: I2 e( {& K, d/ K: b
。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; b4 p2 w! d$ k+ q, E
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。' ]6 l% K8 \5 \) t) U
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
$ z* q  |5 _3 A) z1》,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7 d5 g& k- E. N6 l. E# u
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
6 `: t: h0 `. C  N同意见的专家。
7 }5 f4 d: k5 B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  ^- U3 x3 Q8 M+ 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
5 v) A) z+ s2 B" @9 s+ k学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为/ g: F- |* z( e8 k4 q8 m% O& q
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。! y9 v, ^) ?9 n, h) u- Z
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)' D/ \* H( I# q3 O+ d
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
8 D" q1 m% F! I, L' x$ v3 k8 q《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2 \# C! Z: _3 @+ y5 U
这些被Callaway忽略。1 X5 P$ I) Z' A4 y0 j5 _8 r: b3 a
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9 K6 j, x9 b/ W0 `; o) A
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1 t  R1 C; H2 T
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。1 B0 n+ A1 c$ _
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  d; w7 R/ ?  k0 D# C; C
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! D) ?* y, b) x( {+ V! c" ?7 ?* }) N& s
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 A8 g* c! K/ K, f0 q$ e/ {3 ~
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。
1 N. i4 l+ |( s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
) x: B8 ^) d( U3 l8 @- P; ]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; `- W! M% b* B6 L( c( _1 g
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! T" Q. `- n1 d( _* i. j0 t1 H! H”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. `. Y! `& l6 A! _. n, |/ a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
( Y3 G( M7 `/ _" Y  x( j+ |6 h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
4 N2 @' M7 Z6 \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 J$ q( \, Z
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
$ l6 g9 D- |& z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) Z6 C8 D8 `: B, y
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。1 z4 c/ r/ }* {# L# F  }) X( j
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。; T# p2 j0 T( c; [
2 X- V* i: y+ c" M
1 u# b( x5 D2 w" H
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
8 V! P7 Y% \+ y0 D% X, }( S3 b8 u* G$ z3 ~' y9 k, l8 y( q
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结. R1 [4 a. W& b: v+ V& _
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
/ [4 U) X: I/ x附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
$ s% {7 s. i9 E- ^# ~6 A# \附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见( A- C* }& q( U; f8 u/ f( u
* z- B' X! k) x0 u) H

! S* V: b6 D, e4 B6 ~- S" A2 D6 w; y5 `. {# g4 J) g9 ]* |$ C
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)- s* n# ^3 {# l0 B+ v# y
Dear Phil,6 r4 M4 x! h( o
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
+ E! C4 I5 C# f! f+ V/ H( Sreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
  [9 G7 V" D( g& thours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: Y; X7 n0 i- ~% Pyou.9 [8 x4 V0 N: j7 I: F
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
% `5 |9 G2 Q& Qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese: y% X' ^. A  w( _# E0 h  N
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the/ J$ r( X, l+ `+ ?0 J
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
- g: L& ?' X$ Q5 @) hpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more% |9 H# p8 h2 i( }: A( M
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
$ p8 R9 H( r  h/ G) cpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 S9 e( e9 G3 f+ A       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the" I4 X; e8 i+ A' v% C+ u( o* J
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
0 W! ]! [  Q+ dnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish2 q5 v7 A, T, p; r: D
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway0 }' p- x& r7 T  Y& m
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
* Z# r  M' a! @8 M& lexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
: D& N4 A( V6 V" Fstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
4 }# s; c6 t' ]0 [0 \and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone/ ?$ A$ D: I1 x% g% T
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news; i8 N0 Q4 b1 T* T$ Y0 p0 e1 ]. d
reporting.
# f: M5 L* a3 I  \8 U       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
# C/ D. M8 n& g. t8 a+ K( oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by( {. |& O& i+ C0 P7 N
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in& [- Y/ V6 u! O" K
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 Y' X" z9 g, R9 H$ V+ h% Kpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.2 ?! K4 Q) F$ B+ I
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem& |5 }+ Q% Q# K. R2 n, C6 O, o
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds8 |0 x2 S1 B- o9 o/ E. e9 O
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
$ b. Z3 D  u  m/ _meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same% y; Q) v2 _9 v2 Q& X
event for men, with the second fastest record.7 D8 n- I$ ^8 y! F( v
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye1 L- ^- U' G0 s
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 m2 k: Y4 y8 s; q8 Z3 n. _: `year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
1 K" `$ R! A$ i- z2 j2 b, d5 J# A. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
7 r& V; W5 @1 B: o" vmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
+ C8 q9 o! L2 a# w4 Yfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than) Y& [3 ]3 O9 O1 b% `6 I8 \
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed  S# h; x+ @+ I; h4 z2 u
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
' \  ~! Y; h" n* b! Kindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower8 c6 q5 T, o) C% T. l' X8 S$ r7 O
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than, P: A; |3 {- X0 w: j: G4 E' v
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
. d( {! C6 L1 ?8 B8 }3 Q- i9 [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
- t6 h! u/ z+ i; @he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “. Y7 g; y% l& g$ L$ w8 u4 ]0 m
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
1 \  j& q* N+ ?( N1 ?+ Iswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
8 _5 h# G* I* v! M7 ^- fteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) E/ ]. P* o9 d* z  S1 N. V
Callaway report.$ F- c" G+ r, D
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more2 T9 e( [. U  T  ~, I
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
4 W8 f: a% G  {$ @# [2 there. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description+ Z, K+ ]5 @1 T
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been6 L; F5 ]0 p& K; E; x
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the0 J" Y' E6 m+ H
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had8 [6 J% f  e# K) o# ^4 }8 ~
publicly voiced different opinions.
7 d' V& G* M1 q- q  q: SYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD4 v7 V  U# ~+ O! J( r1 s
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature7 ?/ A$ R* o4 a
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent' F) r. d& t! `
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds! ?$ d% _0 p9 ^! h9 d- q& y
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
2 |7 G& C. C% x9 t3 O) N! Dof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
$ d3 x2 p) [+ r; D1 pThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
1 u* ^* w% y% }. C+ t$ Z; Vthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
7 i2 \; B. S- ?  Whave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as+ j  S( ~4 {" {/ I. _. g
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
! P6 V, a% q" i2 A$ X3 hthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 l/ a. i: ~7 E. e) m+ Qsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.; a9 ~5 D8 I1 `- ^
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
: z& O  w( m8 }2 q* ]& ~many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
; b8 C* D( y/ DChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
" \/ P+ |5 u7 Y% L(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
) z! `, M, ~0 t" o) Y( l8 D8 Hand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.7 ^5 A" }5 Z7 n* E
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
3 z9 u+ U6 z6 B  n& Iand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and! W* V& k5 u0 c* s8 ^$ w
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.' u. G$ H: F& M+ x& V
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
' U( Q' R1 `4 A  \3 j" bobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( u, x5 U1 l+ A) ~$ a
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
: _* U4 {& ~+ yrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
' ?( W9 p9 O3 DThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not6 K& W6 g! p8 b, j
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced* b! t% c. T* ~( B6 i/ R1 S% m
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
0 H/ ?! o. @- M" K$ Bfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that1 l0 m, ^& e/ q7 g
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”7 @2 l8 i1 D  f, s2 \: [$ ]
about British supremacy.
" m1 r3 ~  T# r9 k( BThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
$ s; m3 Q% G, s. Y5 l* o8 Qunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
: w2 W+ G' J% v( gChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by2 c# d* U4 r3 E% Z$ ]8 a) ?
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London  D# c+ j, c3 i  _
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
* z2 x/ S  M: ~% ~) U) H) ~1 DYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of2 ~& P! H5 S3 {  @9 g. r9 R
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests% U' R4 [/ I6 D/ G& h2 F
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ d: D# ~+ w& y, ]* l
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ D& D1 [- @& d6 Q
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
7 G4 _* M- s. ANature./ X& x% W  N$ I7 w& Y5 {+ C+ |/ y
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
# U7 o6 F5 H7 z8 J8 O: a( A, ^6 fthe Callaway report.4 u- \* G5 Q; H: q& o6 H

! F0 l4 B8 i' I/ v5 oYi
' a9 i6 b, w! o6 D- z% }' l3 w# R
! S. r: e+ R/ J$ r; x2 a7 g3 ^% XYi Rao, Ph.D.
2 Y! Z. w( p' b! P( z0 uProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences( t' [& l% r: w* c5 ^3 o, n5 B
Beijing, China) c  O( m6 v! ]
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·········
大型搬家
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
2 h8 a! P% c; g3 Z原文发表在哪里, Nature News?
3 e& K( Q' f- ]3 {: Q/ u4 v- D: ~
原文是公开信。& y! [2 O; O# G0 ~$ \" h  m+ G0 ]

, `; R; t# h, v; M6 F- V3 H" 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 : y" [+ x9 L* p! A" Q
原文是公开信。( i0 U0 G7 U) x1 k* d$ v6 C# N
- d9 o6 R+ w2 c2 R% p
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

; a1 Y" M2 I( Y6 j6 G9 |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 JIANG+ B, d, W  U/ ^+ i' r
如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。1 b8 X( ~4 J  t7 U, u

/ c9 H: k# N! \$ _+ [% b$ qhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
5 C1 E) H2 O, M- k* A6 N, A* G- P; |$ u& E( @
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
6 ]8 O2 z+ V" @) o
6 L( j3 v: z* J. g( F6 zIt is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself# f: J3 t, t2 \# p( I0 e& e
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
3 @  D$ W' l7 e7 C$ Xmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
" R# n' I: }3 Z' N9 ^# r$ L: Q% Ris not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the! I. w( J  s4 w" f7 F: s
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
. @+ _1 x. C9 V/ p' D+ Ypopulace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors
4 ?. S% S0 P! j4 {2 Jshould at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,' @( G- g, y- u3 |
which they blatantly failed to do.* q7 |3 h" T5 I, G

! |- \7 X% ~" \First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her6 X, P9 g2 N* e' |
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in
$ q+ m0 e+ w2 Z3 u2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “+ J" k1 J: B4 F6 N
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous) a) s4 h: o, {% N: u1 }# L
personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an" w' q4 d9 d/ e4 O
improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the# ], T' o# g: r* D: s( |7 d
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to
# v5 f2 k) {5 U8 mbe treated as 7 s.# O0 Y  A4 E3 v( p
" P1 S% Q' c4 `7 b
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is* x2 H0 i& c& g4 M; `
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem6 \* e$ ]; C) a, l) k6 E) ~
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.
) [, B* d7 [2 z8 K1 M" mAn interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400$ V2 F9 Y* E  ], ^' t
-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.# Q, p" k+ W; h$ _
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
9 e- y% _1 g5 Y8 [& ^' c, G( Qelite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and9 ^, I& O* k$ `8 w
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”+ P  \8 T- d; _4 r1 P
based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
0 p0 I9 ?2 T$ e1 d* C  c. W# `7 @
+ s- T* j" C3 x$ M7 r' kThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook
' h$ h2 ^  `( o3 w8 p; C8 q+ ^' nexample of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in6 }6 a4 u/ y( E6 Q; F- D
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so) c. D( [9 Y! w! c
he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later5 `& |2 s' r4 r
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s
3 v2 u% s  r4 J: }best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
+ Y2 _5 n7 W% b& ~0 iFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
9 O3 V; }8 I: Q) htopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other3 e' `5 }; @: @0 V9 M5 i
hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle
, m4 b; s. e0 B& z' ?$ D! d, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this* l! |! q* v& [
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds7 C7 K0 ^+ K1 t- d
faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam) {7 j% w- d% G! f* H5 E# [* S  ]" A
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting
7 B5 x$ Y+ W$ Y7 Caside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that/ G3 W8 e! G( N
implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
' p" |; ?+ c4 P6 R
& x8 M3 f, L5 B4 y1 {: S: ?Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are0 L0 w5 j2 b6 w. c7 T' b6 \
four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93
# _) U6 V7 W1 w' W; i) q! H$ Ns) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s+ c" x2 ?0 o  l4 N! e6 L) w
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns% f8 J8 P0 \5 v, t' p
out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
: g8 |" K& ]2 y/ j0 kLochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind
/ ^, t6 ]7 K, F  }( X2 Lof scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it6 H# k. n; t7 `& O, a  `* R% X8 @* \
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in5 k: c0 p$ ^$ H$ N+ w: d
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
9 H$ [* r( s$ ]& @3 @! z2 P5 ?works.
" U/ B6 y# S6 `" I; q' Q/ p- z% A5 @  A
Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and; {. A4 Z( w8 C# h2 h0 M1 V. a7 w
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
  Q4 l7 [! E* v$ qkind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
. V; C$ n  A- z  T; W. V) x$ I. dstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific$ m: ?9 ]6 m. `- N" v. b$ f
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and* K8 E+ t/ L! l8 l% N
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One" S/ b# ]7 K9 S( x4 I) _+ u6 {
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to
( O) [% |) D4 }9 Pdemonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works+ j# s# b! V7 A: U
to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample& E8 t) l0 J* N4 V. H# o
is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is
7 d* A- H0 b/ [" v. K4 i: I0 gcrucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he
6 F8 o2 J/ z/ f  A% ^7 rwrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
) h6 P) X7 Y" u7 r* `3 P7 l# gadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
1 l+ M3 v* S" p/ {  S4 ~past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
) e' j6 q6 w: s  I, duse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation
" _4 Z) U. {8 O& d- }. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
3 I) R; E) ?2 B/ `& N% w; mdoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ V- n4 b. [- ?
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a( L. h6 h' u5 V7 L5 ]' J4 E
hearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye+ B" F% ?' Q7 L2 \6 s) H
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a% {/ S8 [& Z* ~' n
drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
2 _5 J. E  d" I( Wother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
% {1 z8 b- }4 l, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
0 \& ]5 m/ q" @6 ]probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an: [5 `7 H, }) n7 |* \& J1 A
athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
6 o9 Q8 k: z( o6 J0 f# ~/ G  y/ Schance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?- L  [0 _: j7 U% ]
Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
: k& P0 `& U! h" |6 p  f; P3 h6 `agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for" r1 O* c1 F+ O+ F$ I3 k" o! w4 W  @
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
# g2 X( {( ^4 h5 b# F  {+ f& sInnocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?' L1 B$ ]7 M. r
+ U$ |2 B0 y9 ?. A* w
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
% Y- ?/ U8 e- J0 T+ Y/ tcompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
/ P3 ?, c' B6 R( @4 t! P. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for  P6 g3 V5 N4 s# I$ Y$ S& A# B
Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London) [" K4 V9 v0 }: j0 z
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
& f1 @+ @" k1 G& vdoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic) K: d. W- }1 N0 h. C5 L
games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope. e) u( T' n" s( q/ L4 `
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a) v# }' f  Q; O5 P
player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
6 ^) b* O1 R4 T& lpossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.8 O/ O" @- z0 h/ I: [$ i6 Y
0 Z$ i$ \5 S6 O. v$ j2 F0 v4 m
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (1 V" R6 I; D6 D- F; X
intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
4 ^5 Y, o2 \: {suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a
1 @6 H% q+ o5 |) ]3 ~$ w- U( R' |suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide
9 S4 n1 V0 f- w, p0 W  Yall the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your; g3 U$ T: Q4 }) M8 [7 ?$ N! H/ S
interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,2 S0 j0 I. U. Y/ k' Z. p
explicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your- c0 ~6 N& ^$ U3 T
argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal
3 W( w' C( s0 p6 F$ Z$ R- z) O0 nsuch as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or( y& a& A$ c; E6 Q. O9 n
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 02:06 , Processed in 0.098772 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