j******n
发帖数: 1727 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Olympics 讨论区 】
发信人: peoplem (我爱我家), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 写给Nature主编的抗议信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 14:15:57 2012, 美东)
发信人: peoplem (我爱我家), 信区: Biology
标 题: 写给Nature主编的抗议信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 14:15:36 2012, 美东)
俺英文不行 谁能不能帮我看看修改修改？另外里面的引用有体育迷帮我看看对不对。
我尽快发出去
真是气死我了，我里面也说了，他们要是不撤稿道歉以后绝不再投任何NPG的杂志，我
个小喽啰人家肯定不care,但是要是有100个华人科学家去信抗议他们敢不敢不care?
1000个呢？xdjm们该我们有点行动的时候了！看看人家文章里面怎么说的"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.”"看到了吧，中国人你做绵羊做
顺民我们不管，你们敢出人头地那我们是不相信的 你们肯定有问题！
Philip Campbell, Ph.D. and Editor-in-Chief of Nature,
I am a neurobiologist in XXX. I (as well as many of my colleagues) found an
article that appeared in Nature yesterday, titled “Why great Olympic feats
raise suspicions”, completely groundless and extremely disturbing.
In that article, Mr. Callaway questioned China’s 16-year-old swimmer Ye
Shiwen, who won two gold medals in women’s 200-meter and 400-meter
individual medley (400 IM) in London Olympics, and said her record-breaking
performance “anomalous”. However, the evidence he used to support his
reckless statement is simply groundless.
As many have pointed out in the major media, it is not uncommon for an elite
and young swimmer to increase his/her performance in a relatively short
time window. An Australian swimmer and Olympics gold medalist, Ian Thorpe,
said that he improved his 400-meter performance by 5 seconds around same age
as Ye. UK’s Adrian Moorhouse, a Seoul Olympics gold medalist, also
testified openly that he “improved four seconds” at the age of 17. He
also called the suspicions around Ye’s performance “sour grape”.
The other point that Ewen Callaway used to support his accusation, that Ye
swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte in the last 50 meters when he won
gold in the men’s 400 IM, is unfortunately also unprovoked. First of all,
Ryan Lochte did not perform the best in the final 50 meters. He only ranked
5th in the last 50 meters, at 29’’10, which was significantly slower than
Japan’s Yuya Horihata (27”87) and three other swimmers competing in the
same event. (Ye’s performance was 28”93). It could be that Lochte was away
ahead of his competitors in the first three splits so he did not have to
strike too hard in the final 50 meters, or that he had used up all his
strength. So one cannot only look at the final 50 meters of Ye and Lochte
and conclude that Ye swam faster than a men’s champion. In fact, Ye’s
record-breaking performance in women’s 400 IM (4’28”43) was significantly
slower than Lochte’s (4’5”18). Secondly, even if one only looks at the
performance of the final 50 meters, women can certainly surpass men and Ye’
s performance shouldn’t be accused as “anomalous”. For example, in last
year’s World Championships in Shanghai, UK’s swimmer Rebecca Adlington won
a gold medal in women’s 800-meter freestyle. In that event her performance
in her final 50 meters (28”91) was faster than both Ye and Lochte in
London.
It is worth pointing out that all the facts I listed above can be easily
tracked in major media and from the Internet. With just a little effort Ewen
Callaway could have avoided raising groundless and disturbing charges
against China’s young athlete in a professional scientific journal.
Even worse, Ewen Callaway further argued that Ye’s clean drug test in
Olympics ”doesn’t rule out the possibility of doping”, implying that Ye
might dope “during training” and escape the more rigorous tests during
Olympics. Such a statement is disrespectful to Ye and all professional
athletes. Following this logic, Mr. Callaway can easily accuse any athlete
“doping” without having any evidence; and ironically, according to him,
those being accused have no way to prove themselves innocent: even if they
pass all rigorous drug test, they can still be doping at a different time,
or even be dope some unidentified drugs! I cannot help wondering if
presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty) still has people’s
belief nowadays, or it is considered outdated in Nature, or in UK?
Last but not least, although Mr. Callaway claimed that he was attempting to
discuss science, instead of “racial and political undertones”. Readers can
easily smell the hidden (yet clearly implied) racism and discrimination.
Yes, we may all agree that better methodology for drug test (such as “
biological passport”) is needed for the anti-doping effort. But why the
stunning performance from this 16-year-old gifted swimmer can lead to such a
proposal? Was Mr. Callaway suggesting that Ye was found drug-clean simply
because the drug detection method was not advanced enough? At the end of the
article, Mr. Callaway even quoted “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.” So athletes from China, despite their talent and training
, are supposed to perform bad and never break world records, otherwise they
deserve to be questioned, suspected, and accused? Backed up by technological
progress and better training/supporting systems, athletes worldwide are
maximizing their potentials. World records are being refreshed every year.
USA’s Michael Phelps just won a record 19th medals in Olympics and he has
broken numerous swimming world records. Shall we also “ask a question or
two” about his “anomalous” performance?
Nature is considered one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the
world; many scientists, including myself, chose Nature to publish their best
work (I myself have co-authored three papers published in Nature and Nature
sister journals). However, Mr. Callaway’s article, which is not only
misleading, but also full of racial and political bias, has tainted Nature’
s reputation in the scientific community, and among the general audience.
Unless Nature takes further actions (e.g. publicly retract this article and
apologize to Ye and all athletes), I hereby decide not to send my work to
Nature any more-and believe me I will not be the last one to protest.
XXX，PhD | j******n
发帖数: 1727 | 2 我发了这个抗议信。作为scientist真的很鄙视nature这种歧视行为。希望大家积极响
应，给主编发信抗议！
【在 j******n 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Olympics 讨论区 】
: 发信人: peoplem (我爱我家), 信区: Olympics
: 标 题: 写给Nature主编的抗议信
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 14:15:57 2012, 美东)
: 发信人: peoplem (我爱我家), 信区: Biology
: 标 题: 写给Nature主编的抗议信
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 14:15:36 2012, 美东)
: 俺英文不行 谁能不能帮我看看修改修改？另外里面的引用有体育迷帮我看看对不对。
: 我尽快发出去
: 真是气死我了，我里面也说了，他们要是不撤稿道歉以后绝不再投任何NPG的杂志，我
| a***r
发帖数: 981 | 3 well written. //admire
【在 j******n 的大作中提到】
: 我发了这个抗议信。作为scientist真的很鄙视nature这种歧视行为。希望大家积极响
: 应，给主编发信抗议！
| d***a
发帖数: 13752 | 4 说实话，没有必要。那篇文章写得很垃圾，搞研究的人一眼就看得出来。
那人本来就是要摆烂的，你正经去和他争，反而没意思。还不如让方舟
子去折腾呢。 | j******n
发帖数: 1727 | 5 你这种思想要不得。中国人，特别是海外中国人要团结，要抗争，这样才能让跳梁小丑
们闭嘴。当鸵鸟是软蛋行为！ | z*h
发帖数: 773 | 6 Support it.
As an individual, we can stop citing papers published in Nature and its
series journals. | d***a
发帖数: 13752 | 7 仔细看了一下，写得不错。中间技术细节可以写简洁一点。
另外也可提到gender discrimination，支持面更广一些。
下面这个你也看看，也许有用。
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-08-02/austr
【在 j******n 的大作中提到】
: 你这种思想要不得。中国人，特别是海外中国人要团结，要抗争，这样才能让跳梁小丑
: 们闭嘴。当鸵鸟是软蛋行为！
| L***H
发帖数: 199 | 8 搞研究的人毕竟是少数，大部分是不可能‘一眼就看得出来’。所以‘折腾’是必要的。
【在 d***a 的大作中提到】
: 说实话，没有必要。那篇文章写得很垃圾，搞研究的人一眼就看得出来。
: 那人本来就是要摆烂的，你正经去和他争，反而没意思。还不如让方舟
: 子去折腾呢。
| p********y
发帖数: 181 | 9 需要有人用那个抗议联署签名的网站把这封信广为传播 | w******t
发帖数: 1422 | 10 what is email address of Nature主编
so that we can send the letter to him |
|
