由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
GreatPit版 - 『伦敦奥运会』Nature质疑叶诗文事件
相关主题
『热点』2011 IF火热讨论中刘翔手术医生的简历
『关于nature那篇文章』,给总编发信吧英国毕业直接找美国金融会计相关工作
Nature希望与Lai Jiang联系 (转载)热烈祝贺Nature就叶诗文事件道歉!! (转载)
Nature这事很严重,必须有点行动 (转载)Nature News + Comments 存档
Nature这事很严重,必须有点行动 (转载)Nature 被迫道歉
关于CNS的cover letter的写法?热烈祝贺Nature就叶诗文事件道歉!!
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信Nature把最初的Editor Note's给删了
居然还是小刘 一共稳拿Nature的整个事件以及现在的情况应当尽快反映给国内媒体
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: university话题: editor话题: london话题: nature话题: areas
进入GreatPit版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
1
2012年的伦敦奥运会,波折重重。游泳女将叶诗文一举夺魁,国人正在欢呼中时,一个
个质疑其使用禁药的声音响起,虽有检验结果证明没有此事,但质疑之声依旧不绝。
美东时间8月2日,有网友发现Nature上刊登的文章“高端黑”叶诗文,便将新闻链接转
载到mitbbs各大版面,引起众人愤慨,纷纷评论留言。其中,以Lai Jiang的评论最为
给力,得到广泛支持,但遭Nature删除,而后Nature甚至关闭了该新闻的评论。除了评
论回复外,以peoplem为代表的网友们也纷纷去信主编,但收效甚微。
随后,在生物版的网友们多方联系努力下,著名中国科学家饶毅连夜写信致Nature主篇
,终于Nature迫于压力由主编出面道歉。
在这一事件中,我们看到了mitbbs网友们的努力,因为你们,才会有Nature的致歉;因
为你们,我们看到了华人的团结与力量。
一夫写不出激动人心的话语,只能将网友们的帖子记录下来,作为见证。
2楼 事件截图事件整理
3楼 Nature原文及中文翻译版
4楼 网友对事件的评论和去信回应
5楼 Nature的回应
6楼 网友支招抗议
7楼 对此事件的其他观点
8楼 饶毅信件及博文
9楼 网友对饶毅信件的反应
10楼Nature致歉及网友反应
11楼Nature事件小结
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
2
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
============================Nature事件截图===========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: dakedo (大蝌蚪), 信区: Olympics
标 题: nature的截屏
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 19:23:48 2012, 美东)
刚开始还没多久的时候截的
传不了大附件也不能传压缩文件就压得比较厉害
发邮件的时候可以附上
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友事件整理============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: duqo (duqo), 信区: Olympics
标 题: Nature叶诗文门总结
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:50:16 2012, 美东)
写了一简短的草稿,我文笔不好,请大家补充吧,结稿可将此事在人人微博上广为传播.
有些证据我没保留下来,还请有存档的人补充.
如Nature原文,原Editor's Notes
---------------------------------------
事起Nature的编辑Ewen Callaway在8月1号发了一篇有偏见的news article,Why great
Olympic feats raise suspicions--'Performance profiling' could help to catch
cheaters[附1],暗示叶诗文服禁药.
此文被Mitbbs上的Biology版的WSN们首先发现,引起众怒,纷纷上去评论反对此文观点,
其中不乏用科学的方法从头到尾反驳此报道,特别是Lai Jiang的评论获得广泛支持[附2
].刚开始Nature的Editor们还嘴硬,并且Senior Editor, Noah Gray在twitter上嘲笑发
表评论的人[附3].
于此同时,WSN们纷纷致信Editor in Chief, Philip Campbell.可是此人休假不在,另外
一个叫Roseann Campbell(此人在editor列表中找不到,链接)回复了个editor's notes[
附4],只是修改了几个低级加减错误,丝毫没有道歉的意思.并掩耳盗铃将副标题改为'
Performance profiling' could help to dispel doubts.
WSN们于是联系了老在Nature上灌水的著名中国科学家,饶毅反应很快连夜写了一篇抗议
信给主篇,致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道,和另一篇博客解释了他的
动机, 奥运与我何相干.
Nature终于顶不住压力由主编出面道歉[附5],删除原来无诚意的Editor's Notes并更新
道歉的Editor's Notes并将Lai Jiang的评论直接附在原文后.
PS, Lai Jiang是一个帅哥.
-----------------------------------
附1 Nature原文
附2 Lai Jiang 回复
附3 Noah Gray twitter截屏
附4 原Editor's Notes
附5 更新的Edito's Notes
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================原文作者的反应==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: wep (黑丝), 信区: Biology
标 题: 来自nature赤裸裸的挑战 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 19:38:27 2012, 美东)
【 以下文字转载自 Olympics 讨论区 】
发信人: ydzhang (包子铺老板), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 来自nature赤裸裸的挑战
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 19:32:19 2012, 美东)
让我们保存好截屏
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
3
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================Nature文章=============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
合集:http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=31776273
发信人: jianglai (Veni, Vidi, Vici.), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 02:54:30 2012, 美东)
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspic
英帝堕落到什么地步了。。。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================Nature文章=============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: aprilmom (April Mom), 信区: Olympics
标 题: Nature News + Comments 存档
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 18:44:00 2012, 美东)
听说这篇Nature News很多早期的comments被删除了。
我随手保存了今天中午8/2/12的网页pdf,64页,Comments的编号
从47437开始,里面有包括JiangLai等几位的长篇comments。
我不知道怎么贴附件,如果有哪位需要的话,请联系我。
UPDATE:
对比了中午的存档和当前的nature网页,发现nature网站
设置的是显示299个最新的comments,只要有新的进来,
老的就看不到了。后来有很多人把Jiang Lai的长篇又贴了上去。
================
UPDATE: 08/03/12,
网页的文章有改动:
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspic
Corrected: 03 August 2012
修正了小叶MM对比成绩的时间,加了editor's note,
但是不承认文中观点的偏见和结论的误导,更没有道歉的意思。
宣称不再接收comments,并且承认了选择性的删帖。
BTW,现在的网页存档有303个comments,而不是我们曾经认为
的300个评论的上限。
================
UPDATE: 08/06/12
早上一来就看到了Nature道歉的消息,感谢为这个胜利付出努力的mitbbs网友。
想建网页来记录这个事件的朋友,如果需要这几份不同时间的存档,请跟我站内联系。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================Nature文章=============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: goldfishli (goldfish), 信区: Olympics
标 题: Nature 文章的的中文翻译
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 22:23:05 2012, 美东)
新版本,加入了goldfishlet和dakedo的修改。
-----------------------------------------------------------------
加入了原先的两个版本的副标题。不是很清楚哪个是最早的版本。哪位大虾给指点一下
吧。副标题1和2都很煽动。
-----------------------------------------------------------------
俺豁出去了,花了些时间翻译这篇没有任何统计分析和严格对照的文章。尽管该文看似
中立,实则影射叶mm服用兴奋剂。杀人不见血啊。俺中文和英文都不灵,希望各位不吝
赐教。但愿能让国内更多的人看到洋人的丑陋。
奥运壮举缘何引来猜忌?
副标题1(《科学美国人》援引,最早版本?):成绩分析法可能有助于找出使用了违
禁兴奋剂的运动员
副标题2:成绩分析法可能有助于找出体育比赛中的骗子
副标题3(现版本):成绩分析法可能有助于澄清疑问
在奥运赛场上,多快算太快?当年仅16岁的中国游泳选手叶诗文在周六的女子400米混
合泳比赛中打破世界纪录后,这个问题接踵而至。赛后,一些游泳专家好奇叶诗文是否
服用了药物以提高成绩。然而她从未被检出服用违禁药物,并且国际奥委会在周二声名
她在赛后的药检显示她是清白的。问题的争论已经带有了一些种族和政治色彩,而非科
学的分析。在此,《自然》将探讨是否可能以及如何通过对一个运动员的历史成绩以及
人类生理学极限的分析来检出兴奋剂服用者。
叶诗文的成绩反常吗?
当然。她在400米混合泳比赛中的成绩比她在7月份的某重大赛事的相同项目上提高了7
秒多。但是更加惊人的是她在最后50米的表现。她甚至比美国的游泳选手罗切特在周六
夺得男子400米混合泳金牌的比赛中的最后50米还要快。罗切特的成绩在该项运动有史
以来的成绩中排第二。
竞技比赛中的药检阴性难道不能排除服用兴奋剂的可能性吗?
“不能”,南非开普汤大学的运动生理学家罗斯 塔克如是说。因为运动员很可能在平
时,也就是药检不是很严格的时候使用兴奋剂。“每个人都会在奥运会过关。几乎没有
人会在赛前或赛后的药检中被检出。”,塔克说。
塔克表示,平时的药检更有可能检测出服用兴奋剂,但是不可能对每一个优秀的运动员
一年到头进行常规的检测。德国Freiburg医科大学的运动生理学家尤克.欧拉夫.斯谷马
赫说,长期跟踪一个运动员并且注意其反常的成绩将会帮助反兴奋剂人士更好地利用资
源。斯谷马赫曾经于2009年发表文章提议将运动员的成绩分析作为反兴奋剂一个手段。
“我认为将跟踪范围缩小到少数可疑的运动员将是一个经济的好方法,因为任何服用兴
奋剂的最后结果都将会是更好的成绩”,斯谷马赫说。
通过检测运动员血液的一些指标来找到服用兴奋剂的生理学证据,也就是所谓的生物通
行证,和分析运动员的成绩有异曲同工之效(参见“Racing just to keep up”)。该
方法自2008年被引入后,自行车权威机构注意到了西班牙自行车选手安东尼.克罗姆血
液检测结果呈现不规则变化,并最终于2009证实该选手使用了红细胞生成素(EPO)。
如何利用成绩分析法找到兴奋剂服用者?
斯谷马赫表示,反兴奋剂的权威人士需要一个更好的方法发现不正常的成绩或者发现一
系列成绩呈现不正常的变化趋势。为达到这个目的,运动学家们应该建立一个数据库,
根据运动种类和比赛项目记录运动员的运动成绩是如何随着年龄的增长而提高的。通过
建立统计学模型并结合运动员的过往成绩以及人类生理学的运动极限,分析运动员们的
纵向成绩来确定他们是否跑得或者游得太快。
冬奥会现代两项是一个结合越野滑雪和射击的运动项目。该项目已经开始尝试使用成绩
分析法。在一项前沿的研究中,来自奥地利萨尔茨堡的国际冬季现代两项联合组织以及
意大利的费拉拉大学的科学家们研发出了一个软件程序。该程序通过分析180名冬季两
项运动员在过去6年中的血检结果和比赛成绩找出最可能服用兴奋剂的运动员。现代冬
季两项联盟现在使用该软件锁定运动员进行进一步的药物检测。
难道不能简单地归结为运动员的超水平发挥吗?
“那将是不公平的”,塔克说,“最终的裁决只能依赖于检测结果,必须这样”。近些
年,自行车运动专家们已经成功地起诉了一些运动员。尽管像EPO这样的违禁药物并没
有能够被检测到,但这些运动员的一系列血检结果呈现出反常的变化趋势。然而,运动
员的成绩同时受到外界多种因素的影响,从而很难以此为依据而起诉某个人使用了兴奋
剂, 塔克如是说。“当我们看到这位来自中国的年轻游泳运动员打破了世界纪录,这
不能直接证明什么,(但是)值得引发怀疑。”
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
4
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
============================网友回复及去信===========================
发信人: sanyanghu (忍者无敌之不去股票版), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 大家继续评论nature上的那个文章,保持热度(附我的评论)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:03:47 2012, 美东)
大家继续跟进!!
(my recent comments):
I am happy to see that Nature started to do the right thing by adding
Laijiang's comments which was intentionally deleted before for some reasons.
Nature also apologized for this at a hardly noticeable place.
However, Ewen Callaway's article has caused very very bad impact on Chinese
community. His work led to false accusation to Ye as well as the whole
Chinese community. Therefore, we look forward to see more actions from
nature.
We hope to see an official apology from Nature on this issue which will be
highlighted in this journal. We also hope to see Ewen Callaway leaves his
position to avoid some "great work" from him in the future.
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
============================网友回复及去信===========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: codit (codit), 信区: Olympics
标 题: Lai Jiang在nature的文章写得真给力
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:56:46 2012, 美东)
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspic
Lai Jiang写得真全面真给力,我唯一能想到的可能可以加上的是(我英语不好):
Seventh and most importantly, Olympic games is the foremost sports
competition, billions of people enjoy watching the games and being excited
and inspired, true talents like Ye Shiwen and Missy Franklin etc. and even
more so, Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt etc. greatly added to the merit of
games. It is a shame if the general public have to be misled to always think
"he/she must be doping" whenever there is a true amazing performance.
Moreover, although Ewen Callaway targets at Ye Shiwen from China, general
public who were misled had to doubt talents from developed countries even
more, because it is logical to assume those countries are more advanced and
ahead of the curve in term of doping. So, Ewen Callaway's article fails
miserably in this aspects, let's give this article what it deserves, leave
all the anti-doping mindset to the real experts in World Anti-Doping agency,
and truly enjoy the games.
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
============================网友回复及去信===========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
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
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
============================网友回复及去信===========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: cashback (bing), 信区: Biology
标 题: 俺给nature文的评价:没发出来,帐号也被封了(好几年的老帐号 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 16:15:28 2012, 美东)
【 以下文字转载自 Olympics 讨论区 】
发信人: xiache (hello), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 俺给nature文的评价:没发出来,帐号也被封了(好几年的老帐号)。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 16:07:28 2012, 美东)
**
Even with the correction, the author could not make his point supported. The
author did not mention that Ye has a long history of participation in the
400m individual medley. Here is a quick list of her past results not
mentioned by the author:
2010 Asian Games...............................4'33''79
2011 7th China Cities Games................4'33''66
Obviously the author did "cherry picking" his data, a 4’35’’xx one, might
be in an attempt to get a more "dramatic" difference for supporting his
conclusion.
Ye participates another game, 200m individual medley. The author may also
want to compare Ye's record on her 200m individual medley:
2010 Chinese Nationals..........................2'10''32
2010 China Water Games.......................2'10''87
2010 Asian Games ................................2'09''37
2011 Chinese Nationals..........................2'10''01
2011 World Aquatics Championships.......2'08''90
Quite contrary, the results seem to be quite consistent. Abrupt increase?
Unlikely. Is it possible that the "doping" specifically act in 400m but not
200m? Quite surprising to me and I hope there are experts could examine this
possibility.
Why Ye’s 400m got improved this much? I spend a few minutes reading past
reports on Ye's career. What I learned is Ye was previously mostly focusing
on her 200m individual medley and she recently put much effort on her 400m.
This could be a sound explanation. Had the author spent this few minutes? I
guess not.
Finally, I am surprised when reading this description:
“Nature examines whether and how an athlete's performance history and the
limits of human physiology could be used to catch dopers.”
Obviously this article represents NATURE’s opinion. As it appears in NATURE
, I suppose it should be SCIENTIFIC. However, that seems be something
missing. I thus would strongly suggest that NATURE consider adding a little
SCIENCE gradient into it.
**
Here is what I got back:
"This account is banned
• This account has been banned from commenting due to posting of
comments classified as inappropriate or other violations of our Terms of
Service."
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
5
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature回应==============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: gotterdammer (N/A), 信区: Biology
标 题: Nature的回信 (肯定是群发,连个Title都没有)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 09:04:48 2012, 美东)
I am sorry that our news article has offended so many readers. We stand by
the piece and reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias; our
intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy arising from
the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph emphasizes that Ye has never
had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of her win “
has been tinged with racial and political undertones”. The last paragraph
quotes an expert saying “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.”
The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate.
It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the
unfortunate suspicions that, these days, the most extraordinary athletic
performance raise, whatever the nationality of the athlete.
Sincerely,
Tim Appenzeller
Tim Appenzeller
Chief Magazine Editor
Nature
4 Crinan St.
London N1 9XW UK
ph. (0)20 7843 4547
mobile (0)77 0933 1431
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature回应==============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: overcoming (overcoming), 信区: Biology
标 题: 有没有人注意到 nature 出了个更正 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Aug 5 01:23:57 2012, 美东)
【 以下文字转载自 Olympics 讨论区 】
发信人: overcoming (overcoming), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 有没有人注意到 nature 出了个更正
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Aug 5 01:23:26 2012, 美东)
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.
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspic
如此而已
还有 editor note:
EDITOR’S NOTE
The comments below are a sample of the outrage with which this news story
was greeted. We are sorry that it has offended so many readers, but we stand
by the piece. We strongly reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias
or racism; our intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy
arising from the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph states that Ye
has never had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of
her win “has been tinged with racial and political undertones”.
The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate.
It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the
unfortunate suspicions that the most extraordinary athletic performance
raises these days, whatever the nationality of the athlete.
We are no longer accepting comments on this news story, and because of the
volume of comments, some early posts have disappeared. We intentionally
deleted only those posts that violated our Community Guidelines.
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature回应==============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: peoplem (我爱我家), 信区: Biology
标 题: 给Nature主编的回信 UPDATE
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 13:24:38 2012, 美东)
抗议公开信发出后得到主编来信,告诉我他们的update(editor's note, Jiang Lai的
文章)
我回信如下,应该还算合理吧
Dear Tim and Philip,
Yes I am aware of the recent update from Nature.com (and I have just copied
it to all the co-signers of our open protest). We highly appreciate the self
-correction from Nature. Meanwhile, besides the factual and logic issues you
have already acknowledged, we urge you not to overlook the implicit (yet
obvious) cultural and even racial bias in that article (e.g. the link
between Ye, a swimmer "from China" and the image of "cheaters"), and make
sure similar incident will never happen again.
Best,
XXX
--------------------
UPDATE 1:
他们回信了,看来今天他们要加班了 lol
Dear XXX—thank you for your note, and for alerting your co-signers to it
. I want to assure you that whatever the flaws in the article, it was not
motivated by bias.
Best regards,
Tim
-----------------------
UPDATE 2:
我又一次回信了,因为从联署者的反应来看大部分人已经满意了 我无权代表大家继续
发声,但是我个人对他们的行动还有进一步的期待。
Dear Tim and Philip,
Thanks for the explanation.
Given that this article basically failed to convey the information to the
readers as it intended to, and has created a controversial and biased image
of Ye Shiwen, I think retracting the article from your website is the right
way to show that you are indeed concerning the perception of readers, and
that you are making every effort to minimize the negative influence it
brought up.
Best,
XXX
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
6
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: zfwang (爱国老将), 信区: Biology
标 题: 对Nature 文章的反驳,作为千老,看不下去了。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 10:24:23 2012, 美东)
原文是发在 Olympics 班 对给编辑写信的回复。但现在觉得这还是该生物班的责任。
作为一个科学家,一个中国人,有这么个争议性大的热门课题,放过可惜了。90% 的工
作量是收集数据,但人多力量大,如果后来的收集数据多了,可以裁开发,力度更大。
------------------------------
兄弟,你这么搞没用。人家直接就扔到spam 里了。
正经想做些事的话,收集些 data, 写片correspondence 去投稿。 题目就叫“
performance profiling does not serve as reliable anti-doping measurement”
什么的。图1a 把所有游泳队员在14-17 岁的成绩比较一下,就说明叶的表现不是
outliner , 很多人也在这段长身体时间有大提高,包括 Phelps, missy franklin, 澳
洲的几个新手。 图1 b 把所有近两年被查出吃药的 游泳队员 和没查出吃药的混在一
起,做performance profiling, 看是否在统计学上吃药的和不吃的在performance 有
显著不同。 写的职业一些,不要直接为中国或某个其他国家或队员开脱。最后可以加
上些讨论暗示 performance profiling 其实是掩盖 racial profiling。
我是没时间,不过板上其他兄弟能收集data 的话,我可以帮忙看下。 在Nature 上和
老中叫板,纯粹不想混了。如果nature 不收,我们还可以投到别的杂志去恶心他。明
显这次是editor脑残,我们不能这么放他们。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: erpao (paopao), 信区: Biology
标 题: 抵制nature的手段
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 16:30:36 2012, 美东)
Y就是一个商业杂志,目的是挣钱,搞些东些吸引大众眼球。对scientist审稿是不给钱
的,发表是很贵的。现在一门心思兼并更多的杂志。多挣钱。
抵制手段有多种: 对所有子刊和收购的杂志。威胁他Y的。刚才有位兄弟写信,要不威
胁Y的,不道歉的话: 大家
1,不投稿 2, 不引用 3,不订杂志 4,不在上面打广告 5,拒绝免费作审稿人
请补充
最狠的还是这个:
教育部,科技部,中科院评教授,项目验收 nature和所有子刊不算
看Y的还敢不敢乱喷
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: sunnyday (胖头鱼。按斤卖就赚了), 信区: Biology
标 题: 修理Nature 的最好方法就是尽量避免引用他们的文章
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 11:39:59 2012, 美东)
作为一个带有商业性质的出版集团,Nature 最在意的就是它的引用率,
尤其是和Science, Cell 之间的比较。
其他同学建议的不投稿什么的我不赞成,因为这个属于自伤招数,而且对于
对方而言几乎没有什么损失。因为Nature 的稿源太广,而我们整个版上的
所有人中也就最多有那么100来人有在上面发文章的实力。每年平均也就是
发那么20篇。即使全部都不给他送,对于他们也就是一个很小的损失。
但是引用就不一样了。 Nature 每年大概总共发500~600篇文章,引用因子是
30左右。而上这个版的人保守估计有两千多人,如果都压缩对Nature的引用,
对他造成一个两个点的损失是可能的。而如果同时增加对Science, Cell 这种
杂志的引用的话,弄不好就能把Nature 拉下第一位的位置。
当然,对于一些实在是没有办法避开的文章尤其是原始文献,大家还是要实事
求是的去引用的,但是对于一些比较水的跟进性的文章(比方说干细胞),
特别还是review,大家能引其他杂志的就引其他杂志的。在我的印象中其实
Nature 的很多文章的题材是和其他杂志几乎同时发的,所以要不引还是可以
做到的。很多人写稿的时候并不是特别注意引谁的,尤其是写background 的
时候一般都是随手引一篇Nature 上的review 。大家注意以后不要这么做,
最好是直接引原始文献。
再另外,打击的时候注意对象,我不建议广泛打击Nature 集团的所有杂志,
因为这样就把力气给分散了,显不出效果来。另外,很多子刊的编辑和总部
的编辑不是一回事,和他们也未必是一伙的。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: Carwash (for+free), 信区: Biology
标 题: 反击Nature的最佳策略!
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 15:46:08 2012, 美东)
我写了一篇文章,使用了这个作者的“performance profiling”方法,将所有国际上
有名的现役游泳运动员的比赛成绩,进行profiling分析,发现最高分排名(也就是最
“anomalous”的排名)是:
1. Elizabeth Beisel
2. Michael Phelps
3. Rebecca Adlington
4. Ian Thorpe
5. Stephanie Rice
6. Allison Schmitt
7. Ye Shiwen
结论:
这个“performance profiling”方法,检测的灵敏度很低,实际上还不如现在的drug
tests有效。而且,false positive rate太高,容易导致错误判断,冤枉优秀的运动员。
所以,“performance profiling”不适用于运动员的药物检测。
我准备把这篇文章,发到Nature上去,不知道会不会被接受。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: pacific (hh), 信区: Biology
标 题: 现在大家要做的就是向Nature主编投诉Noah Gray
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 20:14:33 2012, 美东)
他的推特内容还在吗?把链接发给主编,并摘要其中一些言论,或者把那些screenshot
发给主编
主编不一定完全同意我们,因为立场和种族不同,感受肯定不同,但是如果里面如果真
有一些挑衅性的言论,主编肯定会质疑这个人的专业性
作为Nature的资深编辑,我想Nature对他的专业性要求还是有的,和普通读者和民众对
着干,怎么说也很有问题
Nature也许不会马上fire他,但是造成对他的负面影响和评价就是好的开始。。。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: mystic (魔界守护神), 信区: Biology
标 题: 在影响因子上抵制nature其实很简单的
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 16:20:58 2012, 美东)
就是2012要发的paper里面少饮用2010和2011年发的nature系列
2013年要发的paper里面少饮用2011和2012年发的nature
2014就是2012和2013年的
因为就2年算影响因子
当然最好也不要饮用跟自己同年发的nature
比如2012年要发paper别饮用2012年已经发表的nature
这个东西虽然对影响因子没什么干扰,但是可以减少nature的曝光率,别人也就不用跟
着引了
至于2年之前的paper,也还是可以引的,反正不算入影响因子里面
所以对自己draft的写作并不会造成什么影响
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
发信人: poqi (poqi), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 抵制Nature,不投稿,除非其总编亲自道歉
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 00:30:19 2012, 美东)
本人决定坚决不向Nature和其子刊投稿,除非总编亲自道歉,栏目编辑收到处罚。虽然
本人文章的最好的IF仅仅在9.XX。其黑叶mm的文章用错误数据数据并且充满主管臆测,
并且其收入多篇大骗子Fujin的文章,不愿与之为伍。另外最近Science&Nature积极向
我邀稿,看来这篇杂志大有取代Nature之势,哈哈。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: weiqing (weiqing), 信区: Biology
标 题: 想整死Nature的那个人吗?公开信又来了。。。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Aug 5 11:57:53 2012, 美东)
对不起,用了“整死”这么民俗的字眼来吸引眼球。但是,接着看吧。
原文已经发在我的微博http://www.weibo.com/u/1217396230和四月上,文字版在http:
//blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_488ffe06010181m1.html。由于需要一定的传播来达到影响
力,寻找到最终可以执行的人,所以,如果你赞同我的话,转吧!
一、大家对Nature的报道的反击很多都打在了错误的地方。
1、到底是5秒还是7秒,提高的速度到底合不合逻辑,都不重要。因为这是辩不清的。人
家都打破世界记录了,是世界第一人了,你怎么都不能拿所有其它运动员的数据来证明
正常与否了。退一万步,就算叶诗文是吃药了,只要还没有检查出来,你就不能单独把
她拿出来说事。所以说,这并不是问题的关键。
2、问题关键在误导。但大家还是不能简单的说误导,因为这也是无法说清的。作者可以
举很多读者的例说没有误导。
3、作者是否是种族主义者。这很显然,但需要能合理的推论和证明。作者说了,我这就
是一篇跟验禁药有关的文章,只是举例子而已。
二、如何造成影响力
1、饶毅老师写的东西很实在,但也没有在以上三个问题上有所突破。即使他意识到了这
个问题,也不大可能会再写一封信去承认自己前一封信的无力。而国内学术界在饶写了
信之后也不大可能会有人跳出来再做补充。
2、Nature对饶的信以及其它所有的email或comments,都可以无视。无数的拳打在棉花
上,中国人会更郁闷。为什么呢?是因为中国人在英语世界没有影响力。
3、所以,要用其它的办法。长期的影响力是需要所有懂英语的华人共同建立的,这个暂
时没有很好的办法,除非中国开始把英语列为官方语言之一。但短期的影响力是可以靠
钱砸出来的。比如在泰吾士报/卫报/每日电讯报等英国大报上做整版广告,文章的内容
,可以是下面这封公开信。谁来做?很
简单,国内的企业可以做。这基本是一个双赢(影响力和企事业品牌推广)的局面。
4、我已经和国内的某传媒接触,他们很感兴趣,也与国内某些企业有合作基础,但我相
信在具体实施上肯定会有很多问题。如果有人有这个能力,可以一同去做。
5、另一个可能的途径是致信于在这次置疑中为中国和叶诗文说话的比较有影响力的英语
媒体人。但效果如何,目前还无法预料。
三、以下是我写的信,努力针对上面的几个方面有所突破。写正式外交式书信,我的英
语水平还不够,也希望有能人可以站出来帮助翻译一下。
==========
致《自然》杂志总编的公开信:
作为《自然》杂志的读者,从《Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions》一文中
,我们置疑其Ewen Callaway作为一个记者的基本素质,以及有理由相信Ewen Callaway
是一名种族主义者。请总编先生仔细阅读此信并做出回应以及其它必要的举措,以维护
《自然》杂志一直以来的科学形象。
1、 Ewen Callaway并不是一名合格的新闻人员。
在法庭的交叉询问环节中,控诉方律师经常通过对犯罪嫌疑人提出"引导性问题"而引导
陪审团做出有罪的判断。也就是说,引导性问题的提出,是为了让人的思想向提出者设
定的方向前进。这个方向,可以是与事实相反的方向。
但这样的问题并不应该出现在媒体中。媒体的基本要求是对事件的全面或至少真实的报
道。一名优秀记者的基本素质之一,是避免提出"引导性问题",否则他所描述的事件内
容必定会被记者所主观修改甚至恶意引申。正在今年的三月,BBC记者Dan Roan就因在采
访中使用不怀好意的引导性问题而被曼城俱乐部禁止采访。
那么,回到《Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions》一文,Ewen Callaway以以
下两个副标题及其回答展开了正式的内容:
Was Ye's performance anomalous?
叶诗文的成绩是不是很反常?
Yes.

Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of dop
ing?
药检如果没问题是不是可以证明没有服药?
No
不是。
以科学和正义的名义,我们绝不能否认这两个问题就是"引导性问题"。这两个问题直接
带领(mislead)没有任何抵抗基础的读者得出这样的结论:叶诗文服用了兴奋剂,但不能
被现有技术查出来。
很显然,Ewen Callaway在有意识的引导读者,或者至少,他自己在主观上已经认为叶诗
文服药,但在文章中不自觉的体现了出来。
我们难以想象拥有悠久历史和科学传统的《自然》杂志会雇用这样的记者,并在审核中
允许这样的文章进入《自然》。
2、 Ewen Callaway是一名种族主义者
我们已经确认了,Ewen Callaway至少在主观上认为叶诗文服药,并不自觉的体现在文章
中,如果他没有更恶劣到有意识的制造舆论去抹黑叶诗文的话。
那么,如果Ewen Callaway并不是只观看过一场游泳比赛,或者只了解叶诗文一名运动员
的话,为什么他会忽略了过去以往所有各项目比赛(不限于奥运会,甚至不限于世界级
比赛)中大幅提高成绩的现象,以及忽略了历史上兴奋剂丑闻最多的几个国家,却单单
在来自中国的叶诗文身上展开关于反兴奋剂的话题?
我们本着科学的态度,做了以下的调查:
A、 叶诗文个人与Ewen Callaway没有任何的恩怨;
B、 Ewen Callaway之前并没有任何与兴奋剂相关的研究和采访。
基于以上事实,我们无法相信,却不得不遗憾的得出这样的结论:Ewen Callaway是一名
种族主义者,他对中国或中国人有不为我们所知的排斥。科学界有一种证明方法是举证
排除法,即没有足够证据证明它有问题,就应该判断它没问题。我们使用了这个方法去
论证我们的结论,证实了其真实性。
当然,唯一可能推翻以上论断的可能是,Ewen Callaway是在某种压力下完成此文章,但
那已经进入到《自然》杂志内部职员甚至可能法律的层面,我们就不得而知了。
这篇文章在世界范围内对中国及叶诗文的形象带来了不真实的误导,也引起了中国亿万
读者和全世界华人及反种族主义人士的愤怒,我们真诚的希望《自然》杂志以科学的态
度正视以上问题,做出及时与适当的回应。否则,我们深表遗憾,同时可以预见在今后
较长时间内,全世界的华人以及反种族主义人士将开展不断的对《自然》杂志的声讨和
抵制。这是喜爱《自然》杂志,以及反对仇恨的我们绝不希望看到的。
谢谢!
海外华人 weiqing
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: chemrobin (chemrobin), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 原创:模仿西媒的语气报道Nature事件 (改了下投到 ChinaDailyU
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 14:00:31 2012, 美东)
Facebook Link (Sharing is welcomed and appreciated):
http://www.facebook.com/notes/hao-sun/worlds-acdemic-publishing
World's Acdemic Publishing Giant "No Longer Accepting" Comments and
Scientific Analysis on its Disturbing News Report
Aug. 3rd, 2012, 12:46pm EST|By chemrobin
Akron, OH(WSN)-"It is shame on Nature to publish such low quality article.
It only shows Nature is no longer one of top Journals." Andy Wu, one of the
numerous readers of a news report on the website of Nature, the world's
leading acdemic publishing group, posted her sad feeling online.
Ye Shiwen, a 16-year-old Chinese swimming anthelete, won the women's 400
meter IM last Saturday, breaking the world record. She broke her own Olympic
record to take the 200 IM title on the following Tuesday.
Instead of celebrating this new achievement of all human being who chesrich
the holy spirit of Olympics, Clare Balding, the sports commentator from the
state-run BBC, commented right after the game that "How many questions will
there be", implying doping was highly probable.
The International Olympic Committee(ICO), quickly responded and stated Ye "
passed all the drug tests" and was "clean". While western media continued to
show their enthusiasm on this "controversy", most athletes and coaches said
they have no evidence to question Ye's performance.
"The resulting debate has been tinged with racial and political undertones,
but little science." On Aug. 1st, an aritcle appeared on the website of the
Nature publishing group, which is considered as the world's most prestigious
academic publisher. The article, titiled "Why great Olympic feats raise
suspicions-'Performance profiling' could help to catch cheater", used Ye's
case to demonstrate that drug test is not enough to catch cheaters and a
proposed "performance profiling" might be helpful.
Being a website affiliated with Nature, the readers of this ariticle, mostly
people in the scientific community, quickly realized that the data and
logics in this article, and therefore the conclusion of it, are with flaws.
Mr. Lai Jiang, currently a Ph.D. candidate of the University of Pennsylvania
, pointed out in a comment that "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." Jiang explained carefully
in his comment why the article is problematic and how to analyze the data in
a more professional manner.
Jiang, having been familiar with both experimental and theoretical aspects
of lab research for several years, just published his new research "Rigorous
Definition of Oxidation States of Ions in Solids" on Physical Review Letter
earlier this year. Shiwei Qumu, another reader of the article, agreed that
Jiang's analysis is a "well-grounded, quite prudent argument".
Here comes the magics. Jiang's comment "disappeared" on the website from an
unknown time. "Where is the comment by Dr. Lai Jiang?" Question raised. But
no one knows. "I understand that you removed Lai Jiang's article, because he
is proofing in a sound way and hurted your fame and feeling." Huang Bo, a
reader who is confused why the comment from Mr. Jiang, as well as that from
his own, were missing, requested an offcial and formal explanation: "Excuse
me, can you send me the review details of my comment? It was removed last
night. "
While solid analysis disappeared, Nature's official response finally came to
the scientific community and the general public. "We strongly reject
suggestions that it (--the original article) was motivated by bias or racism
", an "Editor's Note" stated online in the morning of Aug. 3rd, "We are no
longer accepting comments on this news story".
But still, where is Jiang's comment? Does it say anything related to "racism
"? Readers are curious, but not the Nature editors. "We intentionally
deleted only those posts that violated our Community Guidelines", said the
Editor's note. Yanbo Jia, a scientist who could't believe Nature's
unprofessional manner, did not understand "on what basis do you think Lai
Jiang's comment violated the Community Guidelines", and hoped the editor
could "explain this, or you are just too afraid of being scientifically and
logically rebutted".
"Because of the volume of comments, some early posts have disappeared". This
is the only answer from Nature. Fortunatelly, Jiang's comment, as well as
other solid analysis, were backed up by other readers. "Lai jiang's comment
(#47487) has been 'anomalously' deleted by online editor. I re-post it here"
, Jianbo Wang, a careful and smart reader who happened to save Jiang's
comment, could feel proud of himself.
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: allstonpower (大头皮鞋), 信区: Biology
标 题: Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 22:33:50 2012, 美东)
Nature上的大作大家都看了, 也去声嘶力竭的喊过了. 结果呢. 人家不尿咱这等屁民屌
丝. 反驳? 删了你. 义愤? 噎死你. 生物WSN们, 没看到下面那个所谓faculty的
argument吗? 你中国生物WSN都一堆造假的, 你们这民族就这德行, 所以怀疑你们造假
就是有根据. 哈, 什么时候政治不正确的种族歧视的言论堂而皇之的上Nature了; 有理
有据的反驳反倒被删. 好吧, WSN造假咱以后再说, 咱是做学问的, 咱focus. 诸位都是
搞科学的, 得面对现实接受实验结果吧. 现实是实验结果表明人Nature不屑于跟咱们屁
民对话. 换句行话, paper为什么被拒了? 因为咱没有大牛老板. 怎么办? 找大牛老板
做corresponding author. 别忘了, 咱有饶毅道德帝, 咱有施一公爱国帝, 咱有王小东
指点江山帝. 这都是大牛啊, 都是被NATURE邀请指点过江山的. 这几位要真是像自己一
贯表白的那样, 还能不给咱当corresponding author, 给chief editor打电话argue,
complain? 如果这几位肯仗义执言, 那不用表白, 不用痛心疾首,个人形象马上在WSN心
中光芒万丈.
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================网友支招抗议============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Military&gid=38143183
发信人: sanyanghu (忍者无敌之不去股票版), 信区: Military
标 题: 『关于nature那篇文章』,给总编发信吧
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 10:45:15 2012, 美东)
下面是所有editor的信息,但是没有email地址。 应该能查出来。
大家给这些editor发信吧,comments的作用不是很大。
ABOUT THE EDITORS
Editor-in-Chief
Philip Campbell
London
Education: BSc, aeronautical engineering, University of Bristol; MSc,
astrophysics, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London; PhD
and postdoctoral fellowship, upper atmospheric physics, University of
Leicester. Areas of responsibility include: Co-Editor of Editorials,
editorial content and management of Nature, long-term quality of all Nature
Publications.
Executive Editor
Nick Campbell
London
Education: BSc (Hons.), genetics and zoology, University of Adelaide; PhD,
evolutionary and population genetics, Southern Cross University;
postdoctoral research and Grad. Cert. Journalism, University of Queensland.
Areas of responsibility include: publishing management and development of
Nature.
Executive Editor and Head of Researcher Services, NPG
Véronique Kiermer
New York
Education: BS, MS, and PhD, chemistry and molecular biology, Université
Libre de Bruxelles; postdoctoral fellowship, molecular virology, Gladstone
Institute, University of California San Francisco.
Areas of responsibility include: editorial policies, editorial quality
assurance, research community outreach, Authors & Referees services
programme, researcher services development.
Publishing Executive Editor
Maxine Clarke
London
Education: BA and MA, physiology and psychology, University of Oxford; DPhil
biophysics, University of Oxford; postdoctoral fellowship, biophysics of
muscle crossbridges, King's College, London.
Areas of responsibility include: author and referee services, editorial
project management, editing various sections of the journal and subediting (
copy editing) management.
Chief Magazine Editor
Tim Appenzeller
London
Education: BA, English and American literature, Harvard University
Areas of responsibility include: oversee non-peer-reviewed sections of
Nature both in print and online, including: News, News Features, Opinion,
News and Views and Careers.
Biological sciences
Ritu Dhand
Chief Biological Sciences Editor, London
Education: BSc, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London; MSc.
University College, London; PhD, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and
University College London; postdoctoral fellowship, Samuel Lunenfeld
Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.
Areas of responsibility include: overseeing editorial content and management
of biological science.
Francesca Cesari
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc, University La Sapienza, Rome; PhD, University of Tübingen;
postdoctoral work, The Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research Gurdon Institute,
Cambridge.
Areas of responsibility include: stem cells and development.
I-han Chou
Senior Editor, Biology, Tokyo
Education: BA, Harvard University; PhD, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; postdoctoral work, University of California, San Francisco.
Areas of responsibility include: neuroscience (including sensory and motor
systems, decision making, executive function, psychiatric disease).
Tanguy Chouard
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc, Ecole Polytechnique, France; PhD, Pasteur Institute; post-
doctoral work, Howard Hughes Medical Institute at University of California,
Los Angeles.
Areas of responsibility include: systems biology, neurobiology, protein
science.
Alex Eccleston
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc,s University of Durham; PhD, Imperial Cancer Research Fund;
postdoctoral fellowship, Onyx Pharmaceuticals.
Areas of responsibility include: transcription, chromatin, epigenetics,
signal transduction and proteomics.
Angela K. Eggleston
Senior Editor, Biology, Boston
Education: BS and MS, University of Notre Dame; PhD, Northwestern University
; post-doctoral fellowships, Imperial Cancer Research Fund (Clare Hall
Laboratories) and Children's Hospital Boston.
Areas of responsibility include: DNA structure and metabolism (replication,
repair, recombination and transposition), RNA structure and metabolism (
translation, processing, splicing, transport, degradation and RNAi).
Joshua Finkelstein
Senior Editor, Biology and Physical sciences, Boston
(See Physical sciences section)
Henry Gee
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc, University of Leeds; PhD, University of Cambridge.
Areas of responsibility include: integrative and comparative biology (
including palaeontology, evolutionary developmental biology, taxonomy and
systematics), archaeology and biomechanics.
Patrick Goymer
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BA, genetics, University of Cambridge; DPhil, experimental
evolution, University of Oxford; postdoctoral fellowship, evolutionary and
molecular genetics, University College London.
Areas of responsibility include: evolutionary biology, ecology.
Noah Gray
Senior Editor, Biology, New York
Education: BSc, University of Notre Dame; PhD, Mayo Clinic and Graduate
School; postdoctoral work, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Janelia Farm
Research Campus.
Areas of responsibility include: neurodevelopment, neural circuits and
plasticity, learning and memory, language and social neuroscience.
Marie-Thèrése Heemels
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc and MSc, Free University Amsterdam; PhD, Netherlands Cancer
Institute and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Areas of responsibility include: cell death, neurodegeneration, ageing,
diabetes and obesity, physiology.
Claudia Lupp
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: Dipl. Ing. biotechnology, Institute; PhD, cell and molecular
biology, University of Hawaii, USA; postdoctoral work, University of British
Columbia.
Areas of responsibility include: microbiology, parasitology, mycology and
biological oceanography.
Barbara Marte
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: Diploma in Human Biology,University Marburg; PhD, University
Basel; postdoctoral fellowship, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, London.
Areas of responsibility include: cell cycle, cancer and angiogenesis.
Deepa Nath
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc, University of Delhi; DPhil, University of Oxford;
postdoctral work, University of Oxford.
Areas of responsibility include: cell biology and plant sciences.
Magdalena Skipper
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc Hons Genetics, University of Nottingham, UK; PhD, MRC LMB,
University of Cambridge, UK; postdoctoral fellowship, Imperial Cancer
Research Fund, London.
Areas of responsibility include: genetics, genomics, gene therapy,
biotechnology, molecular evolution.
Clare Thomas
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc, University of Sheffield; PhD, University of Leeds;
postdoctoral work, University of Manchester and Stanford.
Areas of responsibility include: virology, cardiovascular biology and
general translational medicine.
Ursula Weiss
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: PhD, Baylor College of Medicine; postdoctoral work, genetics,
Cologne university.
Areas of responsibility: Immunology, virology.
Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences
Karl Ziemelis
Chief Physical Sciences Editor, London
Education: BA, natural sciences, University of Cambridge.
Areas of responsibility: overseeing physical sciences editorial content and
management.
Rosamund Daw
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, London
Education: BEng, materials science and engineering, University of Sheffield;
PhD, materials science, University of Sheffield; postdoctoral fellowship,
bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle.
Areas of responsibility include: materials science.
Magdalena Helmer
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, London
Education: Vordiplom, chemistry, University of Tübingen; MS, marine and
atmospheric chemistry, University of Florida; PhD, environmental sciences,
University of East Anglia.
Areas of responsibility include: chemistry.
Karen Howell
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, London
Education: BA, physics, University of Oxford; MSc, astronomy, University of
Sussex; DPhil, astrophysics, University of Oxford
Areas of responsibility include: pure and applied physics.
Andrew Mitchinson
Senior Editor, London
Education: BSc, chemistry, University of Durham; PhD, chemistry, University
of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Areas of responsibility include: chemistry.
Juliane Mössinger
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, London
Education: BSc chemistry and environmental chemistry, University of Wales;
MPhil and PhD, atmospheric chemistry, University of Cambridge; research
fellowship, University of Cambridge.
Areas of responsibility include: biogeochemical cycles, geomorphology,
atmospheric chemistry and environmental science.
Leslie Sage
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, Washington DC
Education: PhD, astronomy, Stony Brook University; postdoctoral fellowships
at New Mexico Tech and the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy;
assistant professorship University of Nevada at Las Vegas; research
associate position, University of Maryland.
Areas of responsibility include: astronomy, planetary science and physics.
John VanDecar
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, London
Education: BSc, geophysics, Texas A&M University; PhD, geophysics,
University of Washington; postdoctoral fellowships at Utrecht University,
and Carnegie Institution of Washington DC.
Areas of responsibility include: geology, geophysics, and geochemistry of
the solid Earth and terrestrial planets.
Liesbeth Venema
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, London
Education: MS, applied physics, University of Groningen; PhD, applied
physics, Delft University of Technology.
Areas of responsibility include: pure and applied physics.
Michael White
Senior Editor, Physical Sciences, San Francisco
Education: BA, environmental science, University of Virginia; MS, forestry,
University of Montana; PhD, remote sensing and ecological modeling;
postdoctoral fellowship, University of Montana.
Areas of responsibility include: climate sciences.
Joshua Finkelstein
Senior Editor, Physical sciences and Biology, Boston
Education: BSc, McGill University; MPH, Johns Hopkins University; PhD,
Harvard University.
Areas of responsibility include organic, inorganic, and biological chemistry
, chemical biology, single-molecule biophysics, metabolic engineering,
protein engineering and design, and membrane transport (including ion
channels and transporters).
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
7
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================其他声音===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: lummy (河马•云何), 信区: Biology
标 题: 对 Nature 还是专业些吧
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Aug 4 12:53:30 2012, 美东)
版上有些同学呼吁的所谓不引用 Nature 文章的反制手段,太不专业了吧。如果因为科
学以外的事件而在自己的文章中故意 bias 地评价和引用同行的工作,我觉得是有悖学
术道德的。这本身就是对在 Nature 上发文章的同行的不公平。
对 Nature 这次的问题,该抗议就抗议,必须的。以此为契机,动用华人在学术界的影
响力,组织起来,影响 Nature News 的基调,使其对中国友好,是很现实也很有力的
回击。
但是,最有力的打击肯定不是最激进的那种。过犹不及么,以学术的不道德来对抗新闻
的不道德,岂不是帮 Nature 赢得同情和支持,使得一件很正义的事情变得很狗血?
前些年也参与过一些抗议示威啥的,切身体会是,最怕那种情绪化起来不择手段的队友
了,成事不足,败事有余,而且还劝不得,只要跟他意见相左,就挥舞爱国的大棒。所
谓爱国贼是也。
尊重自己从事的工作吧。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================其他声音===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: harway (:)), 信区: Biology
标 题: nature的文章我们也许反应过度了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 2 18:16:44 2012, 美东)
也许我不该进入这个话题,肯定要被喷死的。
一开始在军版看到,不过鉴于军版全是五毛和愤青,看到那些回复,也不奇怪,但是看
到生物版也讨论这个话题而且回复和军版类似着实让我吃了一惊。生物版应该很多是
phd,做研究的看问题要客观一些吧,如果看问题比较客观的话应该发现这不过是一个
评论,说了一些对于出现体育成绩争议的时候有哪些科学手段可以帮助解决,提不到种
族和政治的高度。
文中说了五点,第一,现在有一个争议,很多人认为ye是靠药物取得好成绩,这个算是
阐述事实。
第二,ye的表现是不是anomalous,编者认为是,这个算是对于ye的一个结论,这个结
论的合适与否可以说是本文适当或是有歧视的关键,但这个判断需要专业知识,文中提
到两点,一是ye比她7月时候的成绩快出了7秒,二是在最后50米中她的速度比男子400
米冠军速度还快,而那个男子冠军速度是有史以来的第二快。只有对400米游泳非常了
解的人才能判断这两点是否是anomalous,我并不确定一个人一个月后比一个月前在400
米游泳上快7秒是多少见,也不了解女子游泳速度要超过男子速度是多么罕见的事情,
相信大多数版上的人也不了解,不过从众多评论(主要是体育界评论)来看,这是非常
罕见的,成为anomalous并不算过分,anomalous并不本身表明就一定表明是吃了药的,
可以理解为异常罕见。可以查看anomalous的定义及例句以对这个词有更直接的理解。
如果ye的成绩已经好到让多数人都无法相信,称为anomalous我认为是合适的,也许我
仍然理解不对,希望能有人指出。
第三,是否通过了检测就一定表明没有用药了,当然不是,这个也是事实阐述。
第四,如何根据运动表现来检测是否用药,这个算是对于未来新检测方式的一个探讨,
主要是根据一个人过去的表现建立一个模型,预测未来成绩变化多大程度上属于“合理
”的变化。
第五,是否一个运动可以因为表现太好而被禁赛?这也主要是一个探讨,结论是这样不
公平,虽然很多药仍然检测不出来,具体到ye,引述的话认为ye破记录不证明什么,不
过提出一两个问题而已,具体什么问题没说,但我想就是文中讨论的问题吧,及表现太
好的时候应该如何对待,另外如何提高药检手段。
因此,除了第二点算是质疑了ye的成绩外其他几点都算是讨论,语气也还算中性。其探
讨的背景是ye的成绩已经被广泛怀疑并称为一个话题。不光nature很多重要的报刊也发
表评论,nature只比关注于检测有关的手段而已,如果我们把自己假设成是一个中立的
人,然后再来看这篇文章,会觉得它有那么偏颇吗?我是不觉得算,如果这个都算很偏
颇,那很多评论都该消失了,而很多事情也变成不能讨论了。
从ye的表现来看,确实非常罕见的好,让人怀疑有药物的帮助是正常不过的一个反应,
不过基本上人家也都坚持没有药检出阳性结果也就不能下结论认为她是用了药,没有任
何人说她应该被取消金牌。当出现一个引人注目的结果的时候(依赖于有多引人注目)
出现各种评论是很正常的,ye不需要辩解,也不需要在意这些评论,作为爱国的中国人
也不需要在意这些评论,ye会因为她的名声受到额外的药检关注,如果几年后她仍然没
有被检测出用药的迹象,也仍然保持甚至成绩更好,至少不会落下太多,那么质疑的声
音就会大幅度降低。这个不是靠辩解可以解决的。
凭心而论,以中国的举国体制办体育而且在为夺牌上不择手段,我也怀疑她可能用药,
如果最终以后查出她用了药物,我一点也不奇怪,中国体育界大范围用药早不是秘密,
难道在坐的有哪位会大吃一惊如果将来某一天ye被查处是用了药?
那些觉得很受伤的可以想象一下如果ye是日本的,或者韩国的,亦或是德国美国的,你
们会觉得这个评论很不公平吗?我想你们不会那么激动吧?实际上如果是韩国的,我估
计一大片人都会用非常肯定的态度说一定是吃药的。
那些呼吁抵制nature,不投稿,不引用nature就不只是无法客观的看待这个事情了,只
能说是幼稚,非常。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================其他声音===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: ffkiller (一叶知秋), 信区: Biology
标 题: To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 00:37:20 2012, 美东)
请你认真读读这个,我觉得这回复 comments的作者水平很高,
很遗憾的是nature 偷偷的把这个回复给删了, 留下很多中国人名字的谩骂贴。
我非常支持这个回帖作者的观点, 应该用事实和科学的方法回击nature,
nature 作为一个科学界的顶级杂志,发表这种文章, 必须要付出代价.
Lai jiang's comment (#47487) has been "anomalously" deleted by online editor
. I re-post it here:
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
ââa€šÂ¬Ã¢a€ž
¢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 presidentââa€šÂ&
#172;&
#195;¢a€žÂ¢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 ââa€šÂ¬
Ã
…a€œeveryone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails
in
competition testingââa€šÂ¬&#
195;&#
8218;? 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
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================其他声音===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: Dua (Dua), 信区: Biology
标 题: 反击Nature不宜过度渲染“无罪推定”的概念
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Aug 5 12:54:13 2012, 美东)
在媒体报道中并没有这个概念的存在,这个概念只存在于法庭中,而且是刑事法庭中,
是对法官和陪审团的要求,并非对普通大众和媒体的要求。
相反,媒体是可以挑选事实和偏向性报道的,保持客观并非对媒体从业人员的要求。不
管媒体是否宣扬自己的客观性,在现实中媒体已经因为商业化和抢热点的需要,客观性
大大降低。
大家如果看律政类的美剧,常见情节是辩方律师和被告无可奈何的看着当地新闻名嘴“
He is guity, he killed his wife, there is no doubt”blablabla滚动播放。而现
实中,在某地轰动一时的刑事案件通常换其他城市审理,就是因为当地媒体报道的偏向
性影响了陪审团成员。陪审团会被影响,很明显是由于报道并未遵循“无罪推定”原则。
再一个例子是党派选举期间,媒体上哪篇报道是客观报道双方候选人的?
因此,如果太多使用“无罪推定”这一概念,反而成为了别人的话柄,使人联想到西方
因为证据不足当事人只能无罪释放的著名的刑事案例,并不能建立中国人在别人心目中
的正面形象。
我以为反驳Nature,应该做的是立足于Nature是一本受尊敬的科学期刊,因此与普通媒
体不同,报道应该建立在客观性基础之上,而不仅仅是追热点。虽然说Nature科普部分
并不是科学家写作,但恰恰是这部分担负起了向非科学界大众传播科学思想的重任,因
此并不能因为它的作者不是科学家而放松要求,Nature应该比其他媒体的文章要求更严
格,正因为如此,严谨,讲求证据,不选择数据的科学精神应该贯穿于整本杂志的文章
之中,而不仅仅是在articles和letters这一部分才对。
缺乏科学精神是这篇报道违反的最重要的一点,而不是“无罪推定”。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================其他声音===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: bentian (朴素的本田), 信区: Biology
标 题: 对nature,我的态度
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 17:33:50 2012, 美东)
抵制nature,和抵制日货,抵制CNN是差不多的道理,这个属于施压的手段,但是就单
篇这样的文章所引起的关注和激愤,是不足以达到这个目的的。
类似于Lai Jiang的回复,包括本版某些人要profiling后看谁的成绩变化最大,包括
xiache摆事实证明虽然ye的400米成绩突进,200米的成绩一直比较稳定;这才是做科研
的人最有力的回击。
而在头脑冲昏的情况下,号召抵制nature,不仅目的达不到,还有可能伤及自身。我确
信板上没有人能够长时间甚至一辈子抵制nature;就像我也曾参加反日游行,但是还买
日货一样,自己说的话后来又吞回去,搞得自己跟自己做斗争。另外过激反应的另一面
是,我们对中国游泳队现在敢不敢用药还没有到100%的信心,这存在一种可能性,就是
多年后自己打自己嘴巴。
生物版是专业版,不要跟军事版的人一样,杀呀,冲呀,干死你丫的,这个就是我发这
些帖子在本版而不是军事版的用意。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================其他声音===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: pacific (hh), 信区: Biology
标 题: Nature这件事阶段性总结一下
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 3 19:12:34 2012, 美东)
我觉得这件事可预见最好结果也就是Nature及其它学术期刊在发表类似东西时肯定会谨
慎多了,因为:
1.这次在美国的中国学生学者的反应还是很激烈的,我想这也是出乎Nature预料的,中
国学生学者的影响力还是展示了一下;
2.Nature毕竟不是大众媒体,所以我相信它不会enjoy这种争议不时出现;
3.NPG还是很看着中国市场的,我想作为营利性商业机构,它不会故意再冒险来激怒中
国人。
至于撤稿、道歉,我觉得不太可能,因为:
1.这只是篇网站上的News,对数据的严谨性肯定不如对article和letter高,所以引起
科学界共鸣来支持的机会比较小;
2.即使再有错误,也算是学术领域的争议,这个不好扩大化。
Nature在事情发生后改标题,主编回信,发editor's note说明他们还是意识到了问题
并做出了努力(尽管是象征性的、没有实质性的)。
这件事情最让人不爽的是Noah Gray的狂妄,我很惊讶作为Nature的资深编辑竟然毫无
顾忌地、情绪性地来进行个人行动来挑衅中国人。我想下一步的工作重点应该是赶走这
个人,让Nature认识到这个人给他们赚钱和声誉带来了麻烦,fire掉他。
至于不引用nature文章来惩罚它,我前面帖子里面说过,这个可行性是有的,关键是更
多人参与支持。现在看来不同意见很多。
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
8
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================饶毅致信===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: ipdang (ip), 信区: Biology
标 题: 饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Aug 4 00:18:14 2012, 美东)
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
英文原信附后,大意如下:
斐尔,
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
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
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
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
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。
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
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
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
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。
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
,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
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
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
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
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
。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
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
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
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
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
同意见的专家。
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
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
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
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
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)
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
《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
这些被Callaway忽略。
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
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
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
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
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
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
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。
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
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
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
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
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
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
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
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
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
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。

北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
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
Attachment 1 Wikipedia summary of the Ye Shiwen performance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Shiwen
2012 Summer Olympics
At the 2012 Summer Olympics, in the third heat of the Women's 400m
Individual Medley she swam 4:31.73, an improvement of 2 seconds over her
2010 Asian Games time. In the final she won the gold medal and broke the
world record (held by Stephanie Rice since the 2008 Summer Olympics) with a
time of 4:28.43, an improvement of a further 3 seconds, swimming the last
50m in 28.93 seconds.[7][8]
Ye's time over the final 50m was compared to that of Ryan Lochte, the winner
of the corresponding men's event, who swam it just under a fifth of a
second slower in 29.10. However, commentators pointed out that these two
times were misleading outside of their proper contexts. Lochte's overall
time was 23.25 seconds faster, 4:05.18, than Ye's, as were the times of
three other competitors in the men's 400m IM. Equally, as Chinese team
officials also pointed out, Ye's race was a very different one to Lochte's.
Lochte, when he had hit the freestyle leg of the race, had a comfortable
lead over his opponents, whereas Ye was still a body length behind U.S.
swimmer Elizabeth Beisel at that point in her race.[6][9] Phil Lutton,
sports editor of the Brisbane Times, observed that Ye, in that position, "
had to hit the burners to motor past Beisel".[6] Freelance sports journalist
Jens Weinreich described it as Ye having "lit the Turbo" at that point in
the race.[8] Australia's Rice, a fellow competitor in the race, described Ye
's performance as "insanely fast", and commented on Ye's past racing form: "
I was next to her at worlds in the 200m IM last year and she came home over
the top of me in that freestyle leg and I'm not exactly a bad freestyler. So
she's a gun freestyler."[10][11][12]
Phil Lutton pointed out that Ye had grown from 160cm at the time of the 2010
Games to 172cm at the 2012 Olympics, and that "[t]hat sort of difference in
height, length of stroke and size of hand leads to warp-speed improvement".
[6] In support of the same point Ian Thorpe pointed out that he improved his
own personal best in the 400m freestyle by several seconds between the ages
of 15 and 16.[13] Adrian Moorhouse similarly observed that he made a
personal best improvement of four seconds at age 17 as the result of a
growth spurt.[13]
In the 200m IM, three days later, Ye again was behind, in third place, at
the start of the final leg of the race, having been in fourth place at the
end of the first leg.[14][15] But she again overtook her competitors in the
freestyle leg, finishing with the time 2:07.57.[14][15] In preliminary heats
she had swum 2:08.90, the same time that she achieved in the 2011 World
Championships and her tenth best time of all time, with splits of 28.16, 1:
00.54, and 1:38.17.[16]
Attachment 2 Email by Dr. Liming Wang, UC Berkeley
From: Liming Wang
Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Subject: Protest to a Nature article "Why great Olympic feats raise
suspicions"
To: e**[email protected]
Philip Campbell, Ph.D. and Editor-in-Chief of Nature,
I am a neurobiologist in University of xxx, USA. 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
xxx
Attachment 3 Post by Lai Jiang following the Callaway report
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.
1. 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
?¢a??a?¢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?¢a??a?¢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 ?¢a???“everyone will pass at the
Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?¢a????? 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
Attachment 4 Post by Zhenxi Zhang following the Callaway report
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 a
本文引用地址:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
==============================饶毅致信===============================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: bacteriaABCD (bacteria), 信区: Biology
标 题: 奥运与我何相干 --饶毅
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Aug 4 02:04:28 2012, 美东)
如果有人要说题目这句话,我肯定是其中之一。
我不爱好体育,做学生的时候体育常常翘课(还有一门政治无法翘课,只能开
小差看其他的书);不好运动,可以坐上几天不动,逼自己运动时选最偷懒的偶尔旱冰
,等到勘察北大哪里有地并请求学校解决生物发展的必需空间后,旱冰也减少到只在小
区里转;还有落后愚昧的偏见,当儿子小时候立志要做奥林匹克击剑运动员的时候,我
没多吭气,等他不要做的时候,我暗自松了一口气;不看体育比赛,出国前看一点电视
上的足球,在美国统共看过一次美式足球(斯坦福大学对加州伯克利)、一次棒球(忘
记了谁对谁,只记得一位买冷饮的特别有趣的吆喝声);对奥运也兴趣不大,在国外的
时候都没收看,某年华人批美国播音员歧视中国,我毫不知情了,回国后的两次奥运,
我看了开幕式。
虽然对运动无兴趣,不过,体育运动所相关的一个问题:群体互动,却与我近
年的科学研究相关。我们迄今主要研究动物的社会关系,对人的研究不多,不过需有所
了解。
以国家、地区的代表队参加奥运,彰显了人类社会性的一个方面:组群性(这
是我对parochialism的粗糙翻译)。人是群居动物,但分成不同组,组可能很小到两个
人的小组,也可能很大到国家、肤色的“种族”。心理学多次研究观察到,多数人对待
组内的人优于对待组外的人。甚至将同一群人临时随机分组,都会出现对内好、对外差
,假以时日,可以愈演愈烈,在某大学做这样的实验曾出事故、尴尬收场。可见,组群
性在进化上有好处,也有坏处。种族偏见和种族冲突,就是其坏处的体现。
世界锦标赛和奥运的一个希望是各国人民平等竞赛,加强理解与合作。不过,
国家和地区代表队,自然也在某种程度体现组群间竞争。现实的世界,不同国家和“种
族”之间的关系虽有很大和解趋势,并非毫无问题。在个人层面,是否属于组群,不完
全由自己定,也与现实有关。有过一些人想做世界公民,与世界语一样,都难以实现。
奥运并不只影响运动员,也与我这种体育盲有关,虽然我们无需提倡和追赶有些组群对
体育和国家过度密切的联系,比如英国足球迷们。
我国的外交低于我们的国力,中国人的国际形象也低于我们的实际。当然,我
们确有问题要不断改进,但我们也常受不公平对待。与主办今年奥运的英国相比,我们
这两个缺点尤为突出。
外交上,九十年代任英国外相Douglas Hurd曾用拳击比喻英国外交,认为英国
是打高于自己重量级的拳,也就是二流实力的国家参与一流国际外交事物。可能中国现
在是反其道行之,外交能力和做法低于自己国力。容易想到三个简单例子:1)一些小
国和地区的护照都很容易旅行欧美,而外交部迄今无法让中国护照旅行欧美容易些;2
)既然我国不承认鸦片战争后签署的不平等条约,不仅收回租期99年的九龙、而且收回
割让的港岛,那么香港回归就不应该有英国人参加仪式,这是我国外交官的失策;3)
对美关系中,既然我们认为台湾问题是中国内政,我国外交部就应该停止说中美关系的
核心是台湾问题,是我国外交部门愚钝才把内政作为外交。我国如何处理台湾是内部事
情,与美国无关。历史早已远离美国人调停国共合作时代,可外交部好像似乎以为现在
更接近1947年。连常人都能想到的事情,外交部都不能做到,有时疑问外交部是否翻译
出身者太多,不在做外交,还在做翻译。
形象上,我以前有时故意问外国人,鸦片战争是谁卖鸦片给谁,大多数不知道,要告诉
他们是发生在中国和英国之间,他们常猜是中国卖鸦片给英国,因为英国人在世界上是
绅士形象,怎么可能卖鸦片给形象不佳的中国人。等他们知道英国当年通过炮舰把鸦片
卖到中国,平衡与中国的茶叶和丝绸贸易,都很惊讶。这个故事我已疲劳,不过今年暑
假在香港又不经意地遇到。有个MIT的女教授对中国人很好,且曾多次访华(包括香港
)。会议休息时我在望海小亭读有关鸦片的历史书,她正好走过,看到我的书后说,啊
对了,以前你们香港种鸦片卖给英国哦,她还问香港的天气是否比较适合种鸦片。我不
禁失声笑了起来,给她和另外一个白人不厌其烦讲历史概要。
偏见不仅是外国人,也在于现代华人,有不少自动认为中国人如果和英国人或美国人争
论,问题在于中国人,而不分清事实。2005年,我曾在美国批评科学界对华人和亚裔的
歧视,因为我提供了数据,很快得到杂志、学会的报道和重视。凡是白人对此都有点不
好意思,表示支持的多,反对的少。几个学会的理事会立即改正,有几个杂志也立即、
或逐渐改进。很好玩的是,多数华人联系我的时候都是表示反对意见。有些人害怕,有
些人不能区分感谢美国给华人提供机会与实际还有的歧视是两回事情。有些人到美国多
年以为学习了“美国精神”,却不敢像其他族群一样提合理的意见。还有华人认为我是
急于“做官”。我既然敢带头公开提意见,我就知道得益的不可能是我。实际上,我批
评白人是我已经知道自己要离开美国以前,特意给其他留在美国的华人朋友一个礼物。
我很高兴不仅一些学会和杂志有明显改善,而且有些朋友在过了几年后得到较好待遇,
还来信感谢我,虽然是否源于几年前的后效应并非很清楚。以后得靠留在美国的华人,
不能等到个案受不了的时候,发起第二次、第三次争取正当权益,而不偃旗息鼓。
奥运会羽毛球比赛是挺难看,不过首先该罚是修改规则的国际羽联,其次是我
国羽联和球队,最后才是运动员。如果北大生科院宣布谁在Nature上发表论文就可以奖
一百万,那么,给了奖以后,如果发现论文造假,首先应该挨罚的应该是宣布这一规则
的院长,因为他没有说清楚,而以论文发表在Nature为唯一标准。(这不是纯粹假设的
笑话,这个事情实际发生过,原北大生科院院长在农大当校长时宣布,而且农大落实此
悬赏奖了两篇论文的作者,一篇Nature、一篇Cell,现在同行基本都不信这篇Nature,
作者没挨罚,校长升了官)。
游泳健将叶诗文一事,经好些学生和同事多次email后看了相关信息。有些华人
说我国运动员确实以前舞弊过。是,但美国运动员也舞弊过,且相当严重。不能因此对
我国运动员就都持怀疑态度,特别是检验多次没查出问题的运动员。如果说黑人也有过
舞弊的运动员,现在只要黑人出成绩就打问号,肯定被说成种族歧视。
我支持学生们提抗议,但不支持抵制,Nature不同部门管科学论文和新闻两部分,其科
学部门水平较高,而新闻部门水平较低、且非核心。Nature的新闻在世界上极少人重视
,一般西方媒体不在乎Nature的新闻。有些学生提出今后不引用Nature发表的科学论文
,我认为这不对。Nature的论文是全世界科学家的研究工作,在同一领域的论文,其他
作者写论文的时候需要引用,否则是惩罚无关于不公平对待叶诗文的科学家。
我给Nature总编的email发信后,得知美国15岁女选手Katie Ledecky的进步比
叶诗文快,几周内自我刷新5秒,而叶诗文用了一年刷新5秒。美国人和西方媒体赞叹
Ledecky之余,不像前几天大谈叶诗文奇怪。要说西方媒体没有偏见,恐怕说不过去。
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
9
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
===========================网友回应饶毅信件==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: harway (:)), 信区: Biology
标 题: 由饶毅email再谈nature事件反应过度
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Aug 5 00:02:47 2012, 美东)
饶毅是我尊敬的人,他回国后首次公开发表博客讨论以前只在少数圈内人士才熟悉的游
戏规则,以他的智商当然知道在中国只有闷声才能发财,不闷声,嘿嘿,小则发不了财
,大则身败名裂。不过他坚持把事情公开说,积极推动一些变革,包括选举院士的事情
,把事情公开化有助于暴露问题,促进改革。有人说他是因为没选上而抱怨,还有人说
赶紧给他个院士吧,不然他没完没了阿。这些人只反应了自己的心境,并以自己的心境
去推测别人的动机。
不过这次他对nature的反应,有些出乎我意料。nature的一个news,虽然质疑了ye,但
主要讨论的还是有什么手段可以帮助对付竞技体育中的兴奋剂问题。要说他质疑的两个
理由不准确,那么去指出这个不准确是可以理解的,完全合理。要上纲上线的提到种族
歧视,并呼吁抵制nature,以及把这个事情和英国的历史联系起来,则是反应过度。反
应过度的背后是对于批评的过于敏感,但还有另一个更隐蔽的原因,对于西方媒体的过
于严厉要求和知道抗议不会对自己有什么伤害,要是是中文媒体,比这个严重的多的事
情也不会抗议,明显的歧视也不会觉得有什么,觉得有什么也不敢抗议(抗议找死阿)
。不过只要是西方媒体,尤其是重要媒体,对他们的言辞,只要涉及中国,必然是逐字
逐句的异常严格,我说异常严格意思是严格过了一般本土公民对这些媒体会严格到的程
度。
举几个最近的新闻例子做对比以显示这件事情是否反应过度,以下事件均比nature上的
质疑要严重的多(要是你觉得比nature事件小多了,那恳请你略过我帖子):
1,俄罗斯开枪打死了进入他们海域捕鱼的中国渔民。因为回帖者会说这些人进入人家
海域偷鱼被人家打死也是该死,那我反问一下如果是日本或者韩国打死了中国进入其海
域偷渔的人会是什么反应也会有很多人这么说么?
2,外交部说此事是孤立事件,中国政府说孤立事件那意味就不尽尽是孤立事件,还是
要求大家不要提这个了。可以联想的一个事情是前两年俄罗斯军舰追一艘中国商船到公
海海域,重机关枪把船打成了蜂窝桶最后沉没。
3,北京大雨通报死亡开始是39后来是69(数字可能不准确没去确认,多包涵),谁都
不相信这个数字,不过不许媒体讨论死亡人数,也不让报道相关线索,民间有人想去统
计死亡人数,和汶川地震一样,那是找死。
这个几个事件没有一个事件在mitbbs上占据过哪怕像nature事件的热度。尤其是俄罗斯
开枪事件,后面就没声音了。要仅讨论新闻媒体的公正性和准确性,外交部的发言和北
京市政府的通报该偏离新闻报道原则更远吧?没见有人要抗议哦,没见有人拉人一起写
抗议的东西哦,有的只是几个新闻性帖子和几句骂娘的跟贴。
当然,这个对比主要用来说明网友反应的选择性,并不直接证明nature事件就不那重要
或者反应过度。
回到饶毅的反应来,饶毅email的前半部分,主要指出他质疑理由的不准确,以及删除
评论和更改标题,就当他兴趣广泛并愿意为此事发表一点看法,这半部分并没有太多不
合适,至少语言上还没有粗鲁和冲动的词语,只感觉有一点拖沓,包括提到几个人的名
字。后半部分提鸦片战争则是完全没必要,鸦片战争与此事何干?(闭着眼睛回帖的不
要说我为鸦片战争辩护,我没对鸦片战争发表看法,只说与此事不相干)把鸦片战争提
进来削弱了主题(任何时候提不相干事情都削弱原文主题力度),但更让人感觉这个
email反应了情绪化的民族主义,不professional,尤其是考虑到写email的是一个成熟
的科研工作者。插入一点,一大堆人把鸦片战争和nature事件联系起来并把它作为英国
的标签,这些人可知道tg当年在敌后根据地大量种植鸦片并以军队做保护把鸦片卖到全
国各地?主子自己重鸦片卖给自己人,应该比外国人输入鸦片严重吧?
好在饶毅还没有呼吁抵制nature,要说这个那可真是贻笑大方了。
不过饶毅写这个email有一个好处,就是让那些当年因为他和施一公在nature(还是
science?记不清了,莫严格要求)批评中国科研经费分配问题而对他大骂“卖国贼,
挟洋自重”的人有了一个重新认识的机会,那些人和今天对于nature事情做出过度反应
的人是否有重叠不得而知,不过我猜是不少,他们看了饶毅的这封信应该不,或者少一
些认为那两人当年在国外科研杂志上批评中国科研经费分配问题是舔洋人py或者是以洋
人媒体来抬高自己吧?如果有这个效果,那倒算是一个很好的by product。
但,这个事情并不丝毫影响我对于饶毅的尊敬和支持,一件事和另一件事不应该轻易联
系起来,尤其是在看人的时候,何况他的email也至少不是不好的事情。
稍微总结一下,nature 在news部分做出质疑中国一个运动员(没说所有中国运动员)
可能使用了药物帮助获得更好的成绩,不是一个big deal,认为他质疑基础不准确的,
指出其不准确就可以了,上纲上线则是过度反应,反映的是一颗敏感又脆弱的心。看看
那片文章后面的评论,几乎全是中国人的评论,说的话如果和其他事件的评论比较的话
你就会发现这些评论非常agressive,用词过于assertive,客观和中性词语很少,咄咄
逼人,让人感觉像是某人在北朝鲜说了不够尊敬金日成的话获得民众反映一样。mitbbs
上则更是清晰,在很多跟贴里面已经是如下流程:nature质疑ye ——》nature学术水
平很差,由于是英国人主办 ———》英国人一向傲慢和偏见,仍然和鸦片战争时候一
样 ———》不但要抵制nature,还要反抗英国人和他们的女王,最好是革了他们的命
———》西方都一样,看不得中国进步,抵制整个西方。
认识不到,或者说忽略了的则是质疑是正常的,质疑正是我们反思的机会,反思一下要
这么个举国体制为金牌不择手段有什么意义?花无数的钱(具体多少钱,据说根据直接
拨款,每个金牌7亿,不过直接拨款通常在中国不反应实际花销,更别提地方投入,伦
敦最近的巨额餐费可以给你想象那些钱是浪费多么惊人),浪费无数人的青春,最后在
挑出个拔尖的参赛,那些中间参与的因为误了学习后面如何生活没人在意。成功的只有
一个,就是金牌得主,银牌也被人忽略。得了金牌也不见得就很一帆风顺,除非是热门
体育或者是脸蛋身材出众可以代言,其他冷门金牌得主也就是拿金牌的一瞬间风光,后
面该搓澡的去搓澡,该开出租的去开出租,没人再理你,你的所有伤痛和使用兴奋剂的
后遗症只是提醒你曾经的地狱般的训练。金牌带来了什么?金牌带来独裁国家用以宣扬
自己国家拜托东亚病夫的成就以及被东亚病夫称号绑架的p民强磊自豪感。不过吃有毒
食品喝污染的水呼吸刺鼻空气而仍然有个稍微正常的大脑的人知道他和东亚病夫并无一
毛钱关系。
附两张训练图,看了无数次,偶然遇到还是揪心。
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
10
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: aylayl (我脚疼), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 热烈祝贺Nature就叶诗文事件道歉!!
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 11:51:35 2012, 美东)
这是一个重大的胜利。在我眼里,不亚于一块金牌。
总结:
1)感谢所有在网上留言还击的同胞,特别是那些用英文且能注意技巧的人。感谢饶毅
老师和他所引用的那几位华人的努力。他们的做法是榜样。他们告诉我们,还击不是为
了宣泄,而是为了在道义上打败对方,并争取在舆论上打败对方(这点目前很难,因为
我们没有话语权)
2)思考:为什么nature能出来反省?WSJ,CNN等就没这个压力呢?
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspic
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质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: Closingbell (CB), 信区: Olympics
标 题: [bssd]发30个包子祝贺买买提创造历史迫使Nature道歉
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:14:25 2012, 美东)
总编和主编署名啊,说明还是挺重视
估计没见过老中这种人民战争的阵仗,一下被震住了,凌乱了。
不过道歉就好,错了就承认,从这点上看,基本的科学素养还是可以。
科学杂志不同于媒体,科学的探索在于求真留实, 求真就是一种严谨的态度,不是似是
而非。而且科学传播必须考虑到科学家和读者的互动关系,不是利用花边娱乐噱头来博
眼球。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: touji (touji), 信区: Olympics
标 题: Nature的道歉,从scientific角度来讲,已经可以了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 15:48:10 2012, 美东)
原文和Editor‘s note放在一起,大多数Nature的读者都会有自己的判断的。毕竟不是
大众媒体,读者水平有那么参差不齐。对于原文作者,我觉得也不必再深究了,我同样
相信大多数Nature的读者会对他的水平有判断。
值得深究的是那个editor, Noah Grey。他在Twitter上的表现非常的不professional
,这是Nature读者所不了解的,也应该是Nature想极力避免曝光的。作为一个
professional杂志,Nature应该还是很在意它的Editor的reputation的,我们如果能够
把Noah Grey的相关twitter公之于众,不讲是否scientific,不讲是否bias,只强调
Nature的editor是否应该这样对待读者评论,是否符合Nature这样一个杂志对其editor
的professionalism的要求。对这样的要求,Nature是没法打马虎眼的。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: cheerday (cheerday), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 热烈祝贺新闻联播详细报道Nature向叶诗文道歉事件!
关键字: nature,叶诗文,道歉
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Aug 7 07:30:44 2012, 美东)
在国际新闻时段,报道时间算是相对比较长了,一分多钟,事件叙述的比较清楚,对错
误的论点进行了批驳。但是只提到“读者大部分是科研人员,引起读者愤慨”,没提饶
毅,有Lai Jiang的comment的画面, 也没提买提的wsn们。
http://video.sina.com.cn/v/b/83065458-1047453724.html
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: weiqing (weiqing), 信区: Biology
标 题: 这实在不是一个有诚意的道歉,大家高兴什么?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 13:27:43 2012, 美东)
所谓“道歉”全文里只有这段话是跟道歉有关的,But we acknowledge that the comb
ination of errors discussed above and the absence of a more detailed discuss
ion of the statistics (which with hindsight we regret) gave the impression t
hat we were supporting accusations against her, even though this was emphati
cally not our intention. For that, we apologize to our readers and to Ye Shi
wen.这段话说的是,这个文章误导读者了,所以我们道歉。
允许我中间插一句,再放一个马后炮,虽然我马前炮早就在http://www.mitbbs.com/ar
ticle_t0/Biology/31711661.html放过了,你们一直在谈细节一直分析如何的不anomal
ous,但那真的不是问题的关键所在。误导,而且是有意识的误导才是最致命的指控。谈
是否anomalous他们根本不怕,因为这是主观打分项目;谈种族主义才会让他们敏感,因
为这是对规则的违反。
好了,继续说,既然承认错误了,就应该做至少两件事。
一是修正错误,至少要删稿,不要再误导更多人(在原稿下面加个note,跟当众骂了街
之后小声说句对不起,或者大广告牌正面写你是猪背面写着对方证明了自己不是猪所以
我们道歉一样);
二是在全站相对显著的地方发布道歉声明,通知被误导过的人说之前错了。
但这两年事他们都没有做。
所以这个充满应付态度的所谓道歉,我真不知道各位高兴什么。当然,金牌是在好多场
比赛之后才获得的,Nature只是在赢得了一两场小组赛之后“消极比赛”了一次。我们
离最终的胜利,还远着呢。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: poqi (poqi), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 坚决不同意Nature撤稿
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 14:37:17 2012, 美东)
有的人强烈要求nature撤掉那篇黑叶的稿子。就我个人来看,不能认同这点。整个
nature事件反映出的是海内外的中国人作为一个整体,对nature这篇抹黑文章的有理有
据的反驳。这篇抹黑文章是真个时间的起因,也是今后的一个反面教材,应当让它永远
挂着,供我们批判。更进一步,要让国内唯CNS论有所收敛,发CNS是research survive
的手段,不是目的,更不是golden standard。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: aylayl (我脚疼), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 我旗帜鲜明反对nature撤稿,反对销毁证据
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 14:31:56 2012, 美东)
你做错事情了,那是证据,就留着。你认错了,检讨书也留着。最好,请在原文标题后
面显著地提醒读者后面编注的存在。
要不将来人家问起,我想引用这个史实,上哪儿找去?
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=========================Nature致歉及网友反应========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: flykiss (飞吻), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 想把这个comment发给Nature大家帮忙看看
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 18:05:56 2012, 美东)
Nature虽然道歉了,但在我们看来,道歉非常不诚恳。想发个comment,但Nature现在
关闭了对ye shiwen文章的评论。
While we applaud Nature’s courage and promptness to apologize for its “
combination of errors” for this article, it is extremely disappointing to
see that Nature still stands by its main conclusion - an anomalous
performance by Ye (which implies that all the suspicions are justified).
Many readers pointed out how cherry-picked data blinded Nature and led to an
invalid comparison between Ye Shiwen and Ryan Lochte. And many readers
cited recent examples that the performance of Thorpe and Phelps improved
similarly at a similar age as Ye, showing a ~6-second improvement in one
year is not rare among the elite swimmers.
Now we would like to add some historical data to further substantiate this
argument: a 5-10 second in a year by a top teenaged swimmer may be the norm,
rather than the anomaly.
In the following table, we list the name, nationality, age, world record
time, and improvement of women 400m individual medley – the very game that
Ye Shiwen played in the 2012 London Olympic Games. All data are obtained
from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_400_metres_individual_medley#Women. The swimmers we list meet several criteria: 1) she broke world records at least twice in about a year; 2) she was younger than 18 when she last broke the world record.
Sylvia Ruuska (USA): improved 6.4s from age of 16 to 17
16 27-Jun-58 05:46.6
17 17-Jul-59 05:40.2 6.4
Donna de Varona (USA): improved 9.8s from age of 14 to 15, then increase 9.
8s from age of 15 to 17.
14 11-Aug-61 05:34.5
15 26-Jul-62 05:24.7
17 30-Aug-64 05:14.9
Claudia Kolb (USA): improved 7s from age of 17 to 18
17 09-Jul-67 05:11.7
18 24-Aug-68 05:04.7
Ulrike Tauber (EAST GERMANY): improved 9.6s from age of 17 to 18
17 07-Jun-75 04:52.2
18 24-Jul-76 04:42.8
We agree that extraordinary performance warrants more scrutiny. However,
Nature should realize that its analysis is incomplete at best, and simply
wrong at worst.
We demand Nature clarify what data and statistical analysis, as another
reader, Tao Shi, asked, were used to draw the conclusion.
m*********k
发帖数: 10521
11
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature事件小结==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
发信人: TTAKS (TTAKS), 信区: Biology
标 题: 这次NATURE事件是一次标志性事件。
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 13:43:03 2012, 美东)
这次NATURE事件是一次标志性事件。
中国人开始懂得团结,也敢于”惹事“了。
我们不能只看到眼前,还要从长远考虑,想想我们中国人受人欺负的原因。我们GDP够
大了,别人还是不把我们放在眼里,多想想深层的原因,找清楚原因,然后韬光养晦。
我们中华民族总会站起来的。
团结是必须的。
实际国内风起很多还是不好,期待着从MITBBS开始一场”21世纪中国新文化运动“,再
次改变国人的一些根深蒂固的陈旧封建思想。这是中华民族复兴必须经历的阶段,从年
轻人发起!
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature事件小结==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: goldenratio (脚丫), 信区: Olympics
标 题: 同胞们,Nature战役初胜,然后呢?
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:34:43 2012, 美东)
Nature事件,仅仅是一个小胜,中国人整体形象提升之路,还老长着呢
这个世界的媒体,包括美国整个国家,基本上控制在犹太人手里
最近根据一些帖子研究了一下他们这个奥运会的标识和吉祥物
怪异的设计和独眼吉祥物确实反映了Zion锡安长老会(共济会)的主题
犹太人教义盗墨经里就有这么一句话:
The best of goyim(非犹太人)should all be killed.
也许他们的类似口交的zion标示、独眼吉祥物,
是想告诫新一代的犹太人,对所有优秀的非犹太人要赶尽杀绝。
那么善良的中国人,
面对欺负我们骑在我们头上拉屎的犹太和黄蜂,由该如何呢?
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature事件小结==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: didunan (didunan), 信区: Olympics
标 题: nature战役初胜,应该让国内也知道
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:45:37 2012, 美东)
至少证明海外除了极少部分汉奸轮子外,绝大部分的国人都是心系祖国的,那怕就是少
部分人对执政党有意见,但为了中华民族的共同利益却总能站在一起,海外华人联合起
来的力量是不能小看,更重要是让国内的人也明白,米欧没想象中的那么想,各种对中
国人的歧视是客观存在的,只有敢于站出来有理有据地抗争没有别的选择。
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature事件小结==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: poqi (poqi), 信区: Olympics
标 题: Nature的整个事件以及现在的情况应当尽快反映给国内媒体
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:33:17 2012, 美东)
Nature的整个事件以及现在的情况应当尽快反映给国内媒体。以彰显我们海外的WSN/
WSNV维护祖国名誉所做的贡献,虽然我们其中的人已经有了绿卡,甚至加入了外籍,但
是大多数人还是站在一个中国人的立场上对此事件做出了积极,正确的回复。在此向所
有为此事操心的中国人致敬,并且由衷钦佩给Nature发email和留言的人们,你们所做的
这些远比在Nature发表一篇IF 三十几的文章更有深远的意义和影响。
不才草拟了一个题目:《“千人计划”见成效,北美WSN立奇功》
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature事件小结==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: xssn (下室琐男), 信区: Olympics
标 题: mitbbs买买提这个媒体需要尽快转型了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 12:48:04 2012, 美东)
从nature事件,以及之前的羽毛球事件可以看出,现在的国内媒体被汉奸买办势力渗透
太过严重,需要一个真正了解西方媒体的读者群才能辨别真伪,不应该现在仅仅满足于
WSNV打嘴炮的程度,应该发展成全套媒体,和被渗透收买的公知势力做斗争
希望看到4年后里约热内卢的记者发布会上,有操着纯正chinglish口音的WSN记者,穿
着MITBBS的马甲,对着老美的飞儿普湿们自信满满的问题出“what kind of drugs did
you use to increase your performance?"
=====================================================================
=========================Nature质疑叶诗文事件========================
=============================Nature事件小结==========================
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Olympics&gid=3
发信人: Shuttleduck (梭甲鸟), 信区: Olympics
标 题: [提议]在en.Wikipedia.org 全面document Nature Ye Shiwen事件
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Aug 6 13:46:46 2012, 美东)
一定要在一个全世界范围内有影响力的媒介立此存照,扩大战果。
要杀鸡儆猴,让西方媒体知道恶意抹黑中国的后果。
现在
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Shiwen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)
页面都被锁 (semi locked) 不能编辑。原因不详。
一可以等它解锁后,再添加 Nature Yeshiwen 事件的内容,
缺点是时效就过了,不能取得最大的影响力和宣传效果。
二可以新开页面(题目名大家商量?可以叫"Ye Shiwen incident"
然后把 Nature 作为主要 section, 另外提及别的媒体)
编辑 Wikipedia 需要注册并email确认。
1 (共1页)
进入GreatPit版参与讨论
相关主题
Nature的整个事件以及现在的情况应当尽快反映给国内媒体Nature这事很严重,必须有点行动 (转载)
[提议]在en.Wikipedia.org 全面document Nature Ye Shiwen事件关于CNS的cover letter的写法?
热烈祝贺Nature就叶诗文事件道歉!! (转载)饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信
二三流的杂志Editor如何判断一流科学家的稿件质量?居然还是小刘 一共稳拿
『热点』2011 IF火热讨论中刘翔手术医生的简历
『关于nature那篇文章』,给总编发信吧英国毕业直接找美国金融会计相关工作
Nature希望与Lai Jiang联系 (转载)热烈祝贺Nature就叶诗文事件道歉!! (转载)
Nature这事很严重,必须有点行动 (转载)Nature News + Comments 存档
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: university话题: editor话题: london话题: nature话题: areas