维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 02:40:08

学习英文——《自然》杂志对叶诗文的报道及后续

本帖最后由 维多利亚的花园 于 2012-8-7 02:43 编辑

这届奥运会,似乎比往届热闹许多。新势力崛起后的敏感、老势力的危机感、层出不穷的事故、各个立场的解读、微博时代信息传递的速度和庞杂,使得这届奥运会对国人的震动,似乎超过北京。

在国外的华人圈里,有一件事掀起了轩然大波。之后发生的一系列事件不亚于奥运赛场上的争夺。今天事件有了新进展,所以和大家分享。同时一起来学英文。


首先介绍一下《自然》杂志:

《自然》(Nature)是世界上历史悠久的、最有名望的科学杂志之一,首版于1869年11月4日。与当今大多数科学杂志专一于一个特殊的领域不同,《自然》是少数依然发表来自很多科学领域的一手研究论文的杂志(其它类似的杂志有《科学》和《美国科学院学报》等)。在许多科学研究领域中,很多最重要、最前沿的研究结果都是以短讯的形式发表在《自然》上。   

《自然》是科学界普遍关注的、国际性、跨学科的周刊类科学杂志。2010年它的影响因子为36.101。   

《自然》每周刊载科学技术各个领域中具有独创性,重要性,以及跨学科的研究,同时也提供快速权威的、有见地的新闻,还有科学界和大众对于科技发展趋势的见解的专题。   

《自然》的主要读者是从事研究工作的科学家,但杂志前部的文章概括使得一般公众也能理解杂志内最重要的文章。杂志开始部分的社论、新闻、专题文章报道科学家一般关心的事物,包括最新消息、研究资助、商业情况、科学道德和研究突破等栏目。杂志也介绍与科学研究有关的书籍和艺术。杂志的其余部分主要是研究论文,这些论文往往非常新颖,有很高的科技价值。   

1869年约瑟夫·诺尔曼·洛克耶爵士建立了《自然》,洛克耶是一位天文学家和氦的发现者之一,他也是《自然》的第一位主编,直到1919年卸任。   

《自然》是一份在英国发表的周刊,其出版商为自然出版集团,这个集团属于麦克米伦出版有限公司,而它则属于格奥尔格·冯·霍茨布林克出版集团。《自然》在伦敦、纽约、旧金山、华盛顿哥伦比亚特区、东京、巴黎、慕尼黑和贝辛斯托克设有办公室。自然出版集团还出版其它专业杂志如《自然神经科学》、《自然生物学技术》、《自然方法》、《自然临床实践》、《自然结构和分子生物学》和《自然评论》系列等。



维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 02:43:22

八月一日,叶诗文夺得金牌被通过药检之后,《自然》杂志编辑发表文章

Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions
Performance profiling' could help to catch cheaters.

Ewen Callaway

01 August 2012

Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen broke the world record for the women's 400-metre individual medley event at the Olympic Games on 28 July.

At the Olympics, how fast is too fast? That question has dogged Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen after the 16-year-old shattered the world record in the women's 400-metre individual medley (400 IM) on Saturday. In the wake of that race, some swimming experts wondered whether Ye’s win was aided by performance-enhancing drugs. She has never tested positive for a banned substance and the International Olympic Committee on Tuesday declared that her post-race test was clean. The resulting debate has been tinged with racial and political undertones, but little science. Nature examines whether and how an athlete's performance history and the limits of human physiology could be used to catch dopers.

Was Ye’s performance anomalous?

Yes. Her time in the 400 IM was more than 7 seconds faster than her time in the same event at a major meet in July. But what really raised eyebrows was her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men’s 400 IM on Saturday, with the second-fastest time ever for that event.

Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of doping?

No, says Ross Tucker, an exercise physiologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Athletes are much more likely to dope while in training, when drug testing tends to be less rigorous. “Everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing,” Tucker says.

Out-of-competition tests are more likely to catch dopers, he says, but it is not feasible to test every elite athlete regularly year-round. Tracking an athlete over time and flagging anomalous performances would help anti-doping authorities to make better use of resources, says Yorck Olaf Schumacher, an exercise physiologist at the Medical University of Freiburg in Germany, who co-authored a 2009 paper proposing that performance profiling be used as an anti-doping tool1. “I think it’s a good way and a cheap way to narrow down a large group of athletes to suspicious ones, because after all, the result of any doping is higher performance,” Schumacher says.

The ‘biological passport’, which measures characteristics of an athlete’s blood to look for physiological evidence of doping, works in a similar way to performance profiling (see 'Racing just to keep up'). After it was introduced in 2008, cycling authorities flagged irregularities in the blood characteristics of Antonio Colom, a Spanish cyclist, and targeted drug tests turned up evidence of the banned blood-boosting hormone erythropoietin (EPO) in 2009.

How would performance be used to nab dopers?

Anti-doping authorities need a better way of flagging anomalous performances or patterns of results, says Schumacher. To do this, sports scientists need to create databases that — sport by sport and event by event — record how athletes improve with age and experience. Longitudinal records of athletes’ performances would then be fed into statistical models to determine the likelihood that they ran or swam too fast, given their past results and the limits of human physiology.

The Olympic biathlon, a winter sport that combines cross-country skiing and target shooting, has dabbled in performance profiling. In a pilot project, scientists at the International Biathlon Union in Salzburg, Austria, and the University of Ferrara in Italy, developed a software program that retroactively analysed blood and performance data from 180 biathletes over six years to identify those most likely to have doped2. The biathlon federation now uses the software to target its athletes for drug testing.
Could an athlete then be disciplined simply for performing too well?

“That would be unfair,” says Tucker. “The final verdict is only ever going to be reached by testing. It has to be.” In recent years, cycling authorities have successfully prosecuted athletes for having anomalous blood profiles, even when banned substances such as EPO could not be found. But performance is too far removed from taking a banned substance and influenced by too many outside factors to convict someone of doping, Tucker says. “When we look at this young swimmer from China who breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or two.”

    Nature
    doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11109


维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 02:51:12

本帖最后由 维多利亚的花园 于 2012-8-7 02:55 编辑

《自然》杂志影响力巨大,在外留学、工作的很多中国人是它的读者和投稿人。很快,这篇文章就进入了在美华人的眼界。网站评论开放,于是许多人参与讨论。

摘取两个最初的高水平回复:

Zhenxi Zhang said:

      I just want to add this: Phelps improved 4+ seconds in his 200 fly between 14-15 years old. Ian Thorpe also had a similar performance improvement. Ye is now 16. She was 160 cm in height and now 170 cm. Human biology also play a role – she gets stronger and bigger naturally. Yes she can make up 5 seconds (NOT 7 seconds in the article) in a 400 IM that has more room for improvement, with good training she got in Australia.

      In both the 400 IM and 200 IM finals, Ye were behind until freestyle. Well I guess there is "drug" that just enhances freestyle, but not the backstroke, breast, and fly. Does that make sense? Also, it is not professional to only mention that 'her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men‘s 400 IM'. The whole fact is that Ye is more than 23 second slower than Lochte in 400 IM. Plus, Freestyle isn't Lochte's best leg, but it is Shiwen's best leg. Lochte had a huge lead on the field, and almost coasted to the finish. He wasn't pressured by the field to go all out that last few meters.

      And before we get into the fact there's no way a woman should be able to come close to man's time for a final leg of 50m. May I present the following: Kate Ziegler set a WR in the 1500m freestyle. In the last 50m of her race she had a split of 29.27, which is ONLY 0.17s slower than Lochte final 50m. This was after she swam for 1100m longer than Lochte!

      I feel the author would probably not write such a piece if Ye is an American or British. Neither country is clean from athletes caught by doping (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games). Let's try not to use double standards on the great performance from countries other than US and European countries.

    2012-08-01 08:10 AM




维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 02:52:34

这是第二个,之后被无数人引用,非常棒的英文:


Lai Jiang said:

      It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.

      First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.

      Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not imagine it is real" is hardly sound.

      Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one's best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.

      Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.

      Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let’s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?

      Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to mention. Per WADA president’s press release5, drug testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing”? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.

      Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.

      1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
      2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
      3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
      4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
      5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference

    2012-08-02 04:01 AM

维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:07:22

到八月二号,潮水般的批评让《自然》杂志的在线编辑坐不住了,于是有了下面的最初答复:

Brian Owens said:

      We appreciate that the case of Ye Shiwen is a sensitive one for some readers. However, I would like to point out that this story was not intended to insinuate that Ye is guilty of anything. As we point out in the first paragraph, she has never failed a drug test and so is the rightful Olympic champion.

      We wanted to use the controversy as a way to highlight what science can and can't tell us with respect to athletes' performance. We have done similar stories before, for example in the case of South African runner Caster Semenya

      Congratulations to Ye Shiwen on her incredible win!

      Brian Owens
      Online news editor

    2012-08-02 06:19 AM

而且在这时,将文章的副标题从更具暗示性的Performance profiling' could help to catch cheaters改为了更加中性的Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.

然而,这个举动不但没有平息争议,却使得事态进一步升级。

并且不久之后,网站最初的评论开始消失,包括我上面贴的两篇有理有据的反驳文章。充斥版面的更多是大量情绪化的发泄和咒骂。

这时海外的华人们也开始互相提醒,克制情绪化发言,转入策略性斗争,争取联系其他科学杂志和业界知名人士出面,与《自然》交涉。






维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:11:36

八月四号,神经科学家、北京大学生命科学院院长饶毅致《自然》杂志主编的公开信:


Dear Phil,
       You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
you.
       If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
       The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
reporting.
       I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
       The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
event for men, with the second fastest record.
       The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
Callaway report.
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
publicly voiced different opinions.
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
about British supremacy.
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
Nature.
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
the Callaway report.

Yi

Yi Rao, Ph.D.
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
Beijing, China





维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:14:52

八月六号,《自然》杂志主编出面在网站道歉并修改文章中的错误:


EDITORS’ NOTE (updated 6 August 2012)

This article has drawn an extraordinary level of outraged response. The volume of comments has been so great that our online commenting system is unable to cope: it deletes earlier posts as new ones arrive. We much regret this ongoing problem. The disappearance of some cogent responses to the story has fuelled suspicions that Nature is deliberately censoring the strongest criticisms. This is absolutely not the case: Nature welcomes critically minded discussion of our content. (We intentionally removed only a few comments that violated our Community Guidelines by being abusive or defamatory, including several that offensively stereotyped the many Chinese readers who commented on the story.)

Many of the commenters have questioned why we changed the original subtitle of the story from “‘Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats” to “‘Performance profiling’ could help dispel doubts”. The original version of the title was unfair to the swimmer Ye Shiwen and did not reflect the substance of the story. We regret that the original appeared in the first place. We also regret that the original story included an error about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012. We have corrected the error.

We apologize to our readers for these errors, and for the unintended removal of comments because of technical issues with our commenting system. Below we reproduce one of the most thorough and thoughtful of the hundreds of responses we received. Beneath it, we continue with our response.

维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:16:24

EDITORS’ NOTE (continued)

The news story was triggered by a debate that was already active, concerning the scale of Ye Shiwen’s victory. Such debates have arisen over many outstanding feats in the past, by athletes from many countries, and it is wrong to suggest, as many of the critics do, that we singled her out because of her nationality.

The story’s intention as an Explainer was to examine how science can help resolve debates over extraordinary performances, not to examine those performance statistics in detail. Several analyses done by others convinced us that it was fair to characterize Ye’s performance as ‘anomalous’ — in the sense that it was statistically unusual. But we acknowledge that the combination of errors discussed above and the absence of a more detailed discussion of the statistics (which with hindsight we regret) gave the impression that we were supporting accusations against her, even though this was emphatically not our intention. For that, we apologize to our readers and to Ye Shiwen.
Tim Appenzeller Chief Magazine Editor, Nature
Philip Campbell Editor-in-Chief, Nature

    Nature
    doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11109

Corrections

Corrected:

    This article originally said that Ye’s time in the 400 IM was more than 7 seconds faster than in July 2012. It should have said July 2011. This has now been corrected.

并与我上面所贴第二个评论的作者 Lai Jiang联系,全文刊登了他的文章。

维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:23:15

有人把Lai Jiang人肉出来了。北大过去的,目前在宾夕法尼亚大学,可能已经是faculty了。常青藤中的一个,创建人富兰克林。看到一张他坐在富兰克林铜像边的照片。非常精神的小伙子。

可是后来我找不到那个帖子了,没存照片,可惜呀。


维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:27:33


这是《自然》文章的网址,http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109#

倦版有兴趣可以过去,舌战群儒。你好辩,且能辩。我等是望尘莫及。象Lai Jiang这样,网上灌水,还顺道弄了篇《自然》,简直是一石头想多少鸟就有多少鸟呀。


倦客 发表于 2012-8-7 08:59:23

维多利亚的花园 发表于 2012-8-7 03:27 static/image/common/back.gif
这是《自然》文章的网址,http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.1110 ...

小样儿,埋汰我是吧?
我都想好了,你们这帮会英语的反革命分子要是把我气死了,我的灵牌位上一定写上:凡倦氏子孙不谙西语者一律逐出宗祠,永不录入倦氏族谱!
不过,嘿嘿,哥们儿心理不但阴暗,而且强大,你们就这么挖苦我吧,哥们儿不生气!

倦客 发表于 2012-8-7 09:00:42

不过麻烦楼主,能翻译一下他们的观点吗?泪谢!{:xiexiea:}

小黄 发表于 2012-8-7 11:01:40

倦客 发表于 2012-8-7 09:00 static/image/common/back.gif
不过麻烦楼主,能翻译一下他们的观点吗?泪谢!

这事你应该找寒山老师~我觉得寒山老师更愿意也更靠谱~{:heihei:}

小黄 发表于 2012-8-7 11:11:12

倦客 发表于 2012-8-7 09:00 static/image/common/back.gif
不过麻烦楼主,能翻译一下他们的观点吗?泪谢!

不知道这个对倦版有没有帮助~{:1_1:}
凤凰网体育讯 叶诗文的伦敦奥运会赛程已经结束,但是关于叶诗文讨论还远没有结束。北京时间8月7日,英国权威杂志《自然》刊文对之前有意“抹黑”叶诗文的文章向读者和叶诗文本人进行公开道歉,从另一方面也证实了叶诗文的“清白”。在2012年8月3日,享有很高国际声望的科学刊物《自然》发表记者Ewen Callaway的新闻报道,称叶诗文成绩异常,而目前药检并不能查出所有可能的用药。此文引起海内外大批学生、学者的愤慨。很多人致信《自然》,指出Callaway搞错事实、歪曲真相。《自然》经过调查后,承认Ewen Callaway的报道有失公允,发表公开道歉书,向读者和叶诗文本人进行道歉。道歉书的落款者是《自然》杂志的杂志总编阿彭泽勒和总主编坎贝尔。道歉书中称,他们本来想用科学帮助解决关于叶诗文的争议,但他们没有很好地解读那些数据,在没有科学依据的情况下,将叶诗文的成绩描述为‘反常’,这在一定程度上误导了读者,也给叶诗文造成了不良影响,他们因此向读者和叶诗文本人道歉。此外,《自然》还主动张贴了一封来自宾夕法尼亚大学学生睐江质疑Ewen Callaway报道的信件,该质信件从六个方面有理有据、条理清晰地论证了Ewen Callaway的谬误。睐江在信件中称他本来非常相信《自然》杂志,但是读了《自然》杂志对叶诗文的报道后,他对“最有名望、最有影响力”的自然科学杂志扭曲事情真相的行为感到很失望,他还对《自然》杂志记者Ewen Callaway的报道提出了六点质疑。编译如下:第一、Callaway报道中说叶诗文在伦敦奥运会的成绩比2011年上海世锦赛的成绩快了7秒,认为这样的进步让人“无法相信”。但是,叶诗文的个人最好成绩是2010年亚运会游出的4分33秒79,比伦敦奥运会上的成绩快了5秒38,而不是Callaway宣称的7秒,这就从一方面证实了Callaway论证的不科学、不严谨。第二、叶诗文本身现在只有16岁,对于一个快速成长的少年来说,成绩在两年内大幅度提高不是不可能,而Callaway仅凭主观臆测就认定这样的提高是“异常”的,这样的结论是毫无根据的,也是一种不科学。第三、Callaway将罗切特和叶诗文最后50米的速度进行比较的方法本来就不科学。罗切特在最后50米确实比叶诗文慢,但他前300多米一直处于领先位置,已经耗用了很多的体力,而叶诗文在前300多米一直落后,最后的100米的自由泳又是她的强项,难道叶诗文的最强项就没法就一定比男选手非强项差吗?从这样的角度来说,叶诗文最后50米比罗切特快不是没有可能,因为双方当时的具体情况本来就不一样。Callaway不考虑实际情况,直接从“女人怎么可能跑得比男人快”的角度切入,用先入为主的形式向读者暗示这是完全不可能发生的事,这本身就是一种不科学。第四、再从另外一个角度论证将罗切特与叶诗文进行比较本身就不合理。事实上,在男子400米混合泳比赛的最后50米,有4个男游泳运动员游得比罗切特(29.10秒)和叶诗文(28.93秒)要快,他们分别是:日本的萩野公介(28.52秒)、美国的菲尔普斯(28.44秒)、日本的堀畑裕也(27.87秒)和澳大利亚的福尔摩斯(28.35秒)。罗切特随是冠军,但这不能证明他任何时候的速度都是最快的,Callaway的论证方法完全没有科学严谨性,这是一种悲哀。第五、Callaway直接引用了罗斯塔克的话,暗示读者药检通过也不能排除服用兴奋剂的可能,这种行为本身据很可笑。《自然》难道是想通过这样的方式告诉我们药检的不可信吗?如果是这样的话,我想在《自然》上刊登的学术论文有很多都应该撤回。看完Callaway写的文章,我们可以理解成他认为所有的运动员都可能服用兴奋剂,Callaway从始至终都没有拿出叶诗文服用兴奋剂的证据,他凭什么质疑叶诗文呢?六、Callaway为了达到抹黑叶诗文的目的,一直都在强调药检不可靠,称“几乎没有人未通过奥运会药检”。而世界反兴奋剂机构已经证实,本届参加奥运会的运动员早在开幕式前六个月就已经进行药检,其中共107名运动员被查出使用兴奋剂。这难道就是Callaway所说的“几乎没有人未通过奥运会药检”吗?Callaway的论证未免也太不合理了。

牧女羊 发表于 2012-8-7 11:19:20

小鼠标从英文部分潇洒的滑过以示敬意!~
页: [1] 2 3
查看完整版本: 学习英文——《自然》杂志对叶诗文的报道及后续