埃德蒙顿华人社区-Edmonton China

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2395|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
& E" ]3 J& d  D
: U0 G0 t1 ?' ^2 w! S饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。1 e/ P& [/ g2 _/ W
就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。( C: U, D3 G/ \" i
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
! n1 {/ X+ h! |4 U- l2 ~6 F* Y, r$ W+ B# a/ ]
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
( B2 A3 E9 H) \; L
! \, z3 ^, ]# Z% T9 [" _$ b致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道  精选# Z( B% z5 M0 ]

. |8 [% S4 M2 f8 b% l英文原信附后,大意如下:
& v$ [) D3 G- n) O
& W+ g+ D# r- f) s4 c斐尔,
# H8 X1 D( \: Q( d* f       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
# C8 K, }4 e4 z+ xemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。8 f" S4 ~* T5 Y" z2 u. 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
) _" `( g, d- v2 E* c! @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 I* F. f4 N, y" M- Z. f1 O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。
7 e4 n$ Y9 o. D" p       Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
0 X& n' A7 `. s/ T. @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' C7 h2 n. m. E6 u: a5 y1 g0 Y
见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负
1 I' W5 n( F" b+ M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。2 G' B  y7 i" o( `
       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
$ f- T0 z6 Q7 f+ c; 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
1 J% y) t: M6 B”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
3 }$ U2 q4 K/ i0 J       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 x/ H% R1 V- Q- `0 {3 A2 k" H
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
' W; q/ {& A- ~. i* d,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。" u6 C$ ]6 k: x& G, Q2 N6 S* `4 R5 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; |1 P0 P7 H( N4 @" `, ?4 ?; s
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
2 R! h. g! }# R( N" i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
$ Q1 Y2 |" T. f, B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) u. n5 @* Z9 q
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、六5 U: P9 ~( N; s+ }7 M8 X1 e' v
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
$ y9 e8 {2 X; K6 z1 y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
& u; o0 ~' F# |& J# l; 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! o/ F3 j- W* F" d+ K
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* l8 v7 S5 f. K/ C+ o! }7 Z; E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) O* |9 a  u3 p: `% l' b
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3 w1 Q5 z9 A5 r. i) v4 c
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
* q7 |4 l& o# V- E! [  S- U# L- ?) {同意见的专家。/ ~! |" S1 o2 Z8 l: L8 ~
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
) b! l# b2 H3 Z) \+ }  b3 T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* ^9 |2 H$ y  R; 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" ?' S/ e  n6 d
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。; w, A3 Q0 [1 R/ z# ^( b1 }- e
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)9 L/ P& h2 F* [: G4 ?5 e( L3 _
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
# \) q1 h" F1 S8 c( }% b《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4 Y1 d& J( h2 i# ?4 T' V, Y
这些被Callaway忽略。
& M/ X! d/ h$ L' 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! E, m" n/ d9 j  B
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
; _4 \% S9 }8 `5 k1 o& g4 I) S7 Y教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
( M2 r& g' `% X( H8 j  N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
) l- _! m6 D- _* c. e% u% p3 R) B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7 {3 v6 Y. T  R5 Y2 [; V
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
4 p4 s! p- Y% N- h. M' w% X5 v; r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。
4 B0 f7 y& N' W9 R1 A- k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
8 E( X2 g3 P, d$ |1 L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6 x. ?) R, X0 v, b) Z" A
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
! @" q4 Q5 [. s: _9 o' z5 `”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
- d3 _2 |' Y7 u4 e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4 j3 L) X' n% q  T
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8 d( L6 N5 x& M5 J0 i- G
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
2 g3 t1 J6 s9 N$ h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) W9 O) _0 y6 q! j, B5 S
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
$ H3 z' j/ {0 S) t4 A# d而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。" p" a$ i0 b/ i1 z0 a7 x: Y
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
9 h% i2 n+ B, Z5 {, L7 R3 h& q4 A+ ~% h- Z- ]5 D# g0 V% @

; Y. n1 H5 R; P# s) L/ o. s2 i北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
& A6 ^- X# y+ G. L, z  C4 [. J  Z7 h
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结/ q) `* [1 R& q2 [# l
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email" O8 a) ~8 U; A/ b2 `- L" q
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见- W9 L+ q2 ~  `" {
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见, A6 L& P0 ~% e( F0 r1 V% i+ E* B

7 R& f4 [2 m5 F$ W6 D+ E1 J' E' X4 F$ G& P1 @! b7 l

; o) H2 @5 u2 Y6 \" d& ~' K原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
# `& r& r0 e! P1 H' x) d: W- l3 i; wDear Phil,* F6 ~* c' m9 v0 X- T  H7 M
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
  @! y: i5 n9 E" C3 yreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20* e# \7 e* X, e. L0 d5 a
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed$ T9 p0 b+ E' U6 I" L
you.
. ^. v! r7 B* J7 C( X( o/ _  D       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
; i% h. w( r- E& Q. A3 L6 A: G% Abrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
: K  x2 ^3 W3 {% N/ o; Qreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ S9 I& `! }, f; W, E
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 g9 I: Y; d& ~$ O8 E
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more6 ]& l& _( m3 M$ c( ]- O
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
! t0 t6 \, r( upieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
$ w% n- F0 p3 N# i       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
6 K, q3 `6 @5 j+ g/ dworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
" v$ F$ N8 m" {. I. d4 u9 V6 |9 Wnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
) R2 A9 P/ q3 x9 e9 Ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 ~" U' G! g" z; c' h- i6 T" x
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
2 ~+ L7 `6 f0 n% oexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal9 D( H$ |7 W" ^$ d" N
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,; j& G5 u6 {; j2 x9 a3 {
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone0 c2 `5 z4 ^( [+ n2 W+ B
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news* \' @( ^' S6 ], i0 C, s( U
reporting.
8 t5 W3 a' Z" ]3 i( \8 `       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have/ Z7 Z; \! ?) g" C/ @, v
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by$ @+ J. K: r6 v' ^( {% z9 L
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
# {7 X# h$ R$ Bsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A8 p: r+ F' v% ]4 s
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.3 r" Z/ u  q) @) }# D
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem2 \. g# u: x0 {4 u$ T; K3 \
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds2 \9 U  O* D; L/ T3 y
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50" w4 H- K( w5 t0 B% {& D/ m# h
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
; f9 ?# l3 @# |( Yevent for men, with the second fastest record.! r. L6 H8 y& n% M1 o" k
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye# g% r9 F1 s2 M6 W2 r8 w3 F
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16( E- j) a8 N; N& t/ U& r
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
7 h/ P0 s, S6 |0 ~* n3 \. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400) _1 R) }! d& L: u" c
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,+ |" _: `# g/ s5 _
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
& s- @. p  h: Y3 [Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
, ]5 T8 M5 d2 ~. X/ ubehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 a% d9 \, S- V2 R$ V
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
# |: [# v3 M# V! {9 Mthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
1 j" ?/ k  {; D# zthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was& p- m5 @5 U% @( B: f% {! n
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then4 d4 w' w9 b7 `& _+ @6 g
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “3 ]$ o. F& ]( a8 X- Y  ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other1 u. }3 I7 Y, B' T) P+ w
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the" D2 L" [* E7 @# e3 D+ B0 ?  a
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: s7 V* G# I5 Z3 ?Callaway report.3 T& c. l0 U; f  ]' J
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more5 G. `' b4 F% T
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details- e" d2 n* I; t1 S
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description8 v$ _  E+ S. e' u1 s
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been, A6 V) b& k9 U$ Z9 P) k7 k' T
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the2 E( x- {+ X8 n1 f8 A& u
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had' s! O1 s  h( [, x! c# f* J, r! J
publicly voiced different opinions.
+ K/ J* O6 |/ }( pYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
2 E0 D; z) M' w" H. G0 p0 Yfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature+ T8 }2 ?4 m6 E# W2 u
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
. l$ s9 R4 t( l  o$ M1 a8 xpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds. r+ s  q- o9 r) ~
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy" k7 D5 S, p7 z8 J6 _
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
" m- w; I( v  Z5 vThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) }; D: U9 T( l( J  v
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
: C: x2 i. g% T0 t) m3 Yhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as3 |7 Z) S% `9 k
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
; J* ?& @9 ?( \" p: v; Qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
9 |2 s5 Q" Y, Q; R! l. H5 J: xsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.8 d/ u0 _/ T1 v$ ?' z0 V
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that; x* q7 R4 z, |7 \& M9 g% R
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
* \, s; c* B# K! K* Y; FChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
1 f# ]8 t5 J4 g9 h- i" {(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she! W* _" F4 L- |
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
, `6 W! r9 g( D$ d* \% Z: oThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
' r9 X" t7 ~  c1 j4 I8 Iand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
3 J; |/ {" k% z' r/ Z' CDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
5 x! _9 C! a* o' E7 `( yNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
+ A# T" [/ y& Q" u2 r8 Sobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature5 E0 T9 W+ z4 y$ x
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to$ `2 R2 j# y" I) s
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
. f, S+ X8 H" o1 u& o$ J2 AThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
2 t' b$ j6 @; p& [! N- ?. _show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
5 c3 T! b# ?( _8 i9 Gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 L' p4 @# P4 r1 ^/ I) E2 c! h
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that5 ^2 W2 A" s! w/ Q9 t% J: J* o
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
  J/ ]6 r" a: ~* n- aabout British supremacy.
, M1 C% B5 f! j9 }" t. oThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many6 X8 Y$ a5 a1 j9 ^, m; r- \" d/ G4 b
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more: t# O6 o- V$ H$ ]+ u* M
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
; v; }+ `$ Q, l7 L) p$ l* n0 @our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London# {2 F  ]0 P9 ^
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
. r- m. R: v  x  O: v+ \Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of& G* p6 m  x# O$ s  c' @: F9 j
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests$ A( s5 V4 u# F& j
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,# z6 `/ {; h! V) q
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly( P. M8 j' \! C! y, m: p8 \; e* N
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
- Z! L: p0 ~# u0 }4 F( H- S  _Nature., U0 B' T/ J! ]  r. k
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
" l: C+ T+ |( t+ C; Vthe Callaway report.
1 n) R" n6 X7 Y" p& H6 U. f6 t' h# @6 a# i
Yi
: w- N# V1 O1 c2 K, P9 w  f0 t: S' n9 r, [
Yi Rao, Ph.D.9 B4 u8 g0 S, d
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences& v' ~# k2 Z( {5 w
Beijing, China
/ l0 @$ t. G4 G4 k4 u( |6 Y0 B
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 9 H8 O, s9 R0 ]) ^3 [
原文发表在哪里, Nature News?

4 m$ P( A) _( \2 m原文是公开信。' p" }! ~' ?( N  i

/ j( W- A- x- V1 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   Z" J5 f& t7 }$ G% e. P  M
原文是公开信。( n7 l6 V/ d! p0 Q
/ j; b9 k4 y+ k% R, b8 n
小胜  http://2012.sina.com.cn/cn/aq/2012-08-07/054745942.shtml

2 C/ u1 j4 A, H: O' R- ~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
% T0 f) q3 m( F* p. V( k如果是中国长大的,英语能到这种程度真是很不简单。
) Z6 o5 Q3 F+ V+ K* ?, l+ W$ i, C' d$ t
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/rappegroup/htdocs/People/LJ.html
3 p. }# \) q+ [. Y& N6 k- ?& Q; N# O
FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania
" X0 R/ a. u, V) Q3 x' I0 h  y2 ~. |% j
It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself3 F5 M7 z- m7 g* B# V) j
, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science
7 x+ M! s: ]; F6 kmagazines — publish a thinly veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
+ q& Z5 c3 V, ]; @4 xis not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
( N& t! f7 ^$ t; [6 ~scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general, D* i' ]% }8 r8 M
populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors" E1 `! w! ~$ E, w# e
should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context,
# W- G" `. [* _' g1 `* G; bwhich they blatantly failed to do.
3 ]2 \6 z. z& C6 S! Z
; ~; Y. ^& b# V) H* b' z0 I# E7 b' g) hFirst, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her6 u( T, y9 D9 W2 a+ R
Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in4 a1 N8 p" _* z1 F( ]
2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “1 N6 x7 _, N. m
anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous
: @' x$ V9 i. U# h# [+ qpersonal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an
: a; h( \+ T5 S+ e! C1 G) \improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the
% _) |% T2 ?+ ?& K" Wdifference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to5 s; q* V6 `) W: F; y9 v
be treated as 7 s.2 L- @, l! k$ ~) T1 o: u

2 C6 Y0 ~2 s; g% [' jSecond, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is8 O+ L, p1 G; e3 k0 D
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem, K) Z! J* d3 j4 m. U7 ]+ G5 Y5 _
impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters.( o+ ~" D: w& y# z  \
An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400
6 A9 M! G: B  h5 y% z6 W: O! q-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16.4 i, f, G) A4 n  x; U- M
For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an
$ T- @( O- B$ t2 [elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and  v0 N- r  e: l9 k- v
persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous”
; b9 [* j% A7 mbased on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.
- s3 n. E6 y; i! Y" Z
  H" K! ~4 t6 ?0 F) L: yThird, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook' z' ^3 c0 v4 B$ g1 @
example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in2 g  L" X$ h! p9 N1 w
the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so
& }, I7 z- Q3 D+ l& O% Ohe chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later% z) \6 f" k: L# c4 M: Z
events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s' p2 S3 T' j$ e/ o5 J0 j
best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World
1 N6 W" m+ x7 }% EFederation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another
" J7 G" P/ \2 m8 K5 z/ [( q$ mtopic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other
5 j; V0 o! |9 \5 jhand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle* s# o% W+ _4 l3 H& q: z: a
, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this1 F) r/ q. X+ F* B3 x
strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds
% j" F" c7 {. R' Ofaster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam# X* X1 T( q  Y$ _0 ^  ]0 D+ ?
faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting0 `4 E/ }* Y$ U1 L
aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that
8 N2 f0 P/ N6 E% x: Limplies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.
* M& u4 A) r5 u; u9 l+ h! g
% P) A( V. |1 B% F# e8 Y% h1 \Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are
7 T' ]' w0 x/ ~, tfour male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.931 N, n. {2 h- F: y. B: s4 z( l
s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s0 }9 |# b! x& ?+ i) m
), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns
9 {1 x+ m* R3 U8 z+ C: ?4 eout, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM,
& v( g1 k( w& M( ?: C' s- c4 Q  {Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind, C" O# T+ O6 r* r
of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it; ?7 H2 G6 F' \# S* P' o
logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in) }3 A0 v0 l2 a, Z- M
every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science8 E9 z3 A, b* o- k! z2 b- t
works.
5 S7 E, c& |2 }
( P4 B3 d4 ~& V9 a7 OFifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and9 k& J5 V  m3 [. v/ V9 N: Y( Y* I
implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
6 W2 W8 j) e+ e$ U- a4 \" ikind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that
0 y, J" y& R$ Cstandard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
1 s: }7 O% c) Wpapers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and' o8 d0 @- _5 r. e1 w. v
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One+ C( b& ]$ z  a$ l- @( V  V& i' U2 h* `
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and to) w: }* _9 V, d" H0 q3 Z# Q
demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works
4 I6 W. }; P' u' Q& p0 Nto a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample
( B' ?( H* i5 }3 v( y+ }is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is7 V3 Y9 s" c0 @0 M  ]
crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he3 I, l- W% o6 c% R; p
wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly
! S! `+ G' |. |! kadvanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the
* S0 v; G1 L& qpast 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not
/ G- \9 g$ [( {. Y* ]; Vuse it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation1 U# X: W' M) W5 [0 b( o
. This article, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
" ~/ O# `5 K8 ldoping and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may$ t" s' S% U! o9 ^( k+ B
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a
" L6 b, n0 ]7 E: `. ihearing by the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye. E" K. R' R6 S, J& d+ l
has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a
, B0 ]' |6 H3 B9 }9 P9 q: sdrug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible:
7 s, ^+ {% H/ M" }5 T  K$ ^$ aother than the athlete taking a drug that the test is not designed to detect
4 p, @- J4 @, g' Y, anyone who has taken quantum 101 will tell you that everything is1 ^, o/ S% e* q
probabilistic in nature, and so there is a probability that the drug in an
" X* l9 O0 ~/ r* M, K/ tathlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight# W4 b, ?/ e" V
chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it?
& B5 i* N& ^- S7 Q( U4 Y! X; L- \Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping
: d* {- B: f) _2 y: Jagency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for5 E# }& @: b2 v* N) K
eight years after the contest for future testing as technology advances.
% J5 y/ j3 i5 g, x, ?7 Q( }Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?- r2 p/ e1 O2 E. I) n# }
. ]. ]1 ]& g/ b% K9 x% x
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-
! p9 {6 ~. J, d) Q3 icompetition drug test is already in effect, which Callaway failed to mention
% X. ^: u" a2 b2 `* v- ]. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for
6 G2 {: p4 z7 B. `' V/ }! [( mOlympians began at least six months before the opening of the London9 K8 H' Q% M( w4 C4 D9 Y, N) d
Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for
9 k* l( h: P# J2 Q  h; odoping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic
! j- ?! e3 H. Y2 q6 {, bgames. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope  y/ E0 n+ V9 F$ _) L5 I
have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a
* G) B3 M5 _! Oplayer could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this
' z% O& r# R$ V" d, \) L8 V, j. Spossibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.
9 j4 q& r& x$ n& l$ Q. r( e. z9 [
Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (
0 G. T' t7 v5 ~. V& Z$ hintentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too
2 t8 ~- k* y7 u+ ]: ^suggestive to be fair and unbiased. If you want to cover a story of a6 O) Z$ T# ~' n" s, C" m
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide0 N6 ]/ c5 E7 Q! q8 [. _+ E
all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your
4 L( p" p6 j: g+ }9 _7 y3 G- B4 Jinterpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece,
: [6 W, Y( K- n* P. R* C4 Xexplicitly or otherwise, but showing only evidence that favours your
' g9 R- \& J. fargument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal( Y, l. H* c  P" v* C: s; ]) s
such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or
+ {" i, V( g. o1 N& Greporting 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 06:09 , Processed in 0.184460 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