http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109 Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions 几个极具倾向性的问题： Was Ye’s performance anomalous? Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of doping? How would performance be used to nab dopers? Could an athlete then be disciplined simply for performing too well?
Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of doping? No, says Ross Tucker, an exercise physiologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Athletes are much more likely to dope while in training, when drug testing tends to be less rigorous. “Everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing,” Tucker says.
Could an athlete then be disciplined simply for performing too well? “That would be unfair,” says Tucker. “The final verdict is only ever going to be reached by testing. It has to be.” In recent years, cycling authorities have successfully prosecuted athletes for having anomalous blood profiles, even when banned substances such as EPO could not be found. But performance is too far removed from taking a banned substance and influenced by too many outside factors to convict someone of doping, Tucker says. “When we look at this young swimmer from China who breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or two.” .....
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
What a shame to see Nature publishes this in which there are so many mistakes in citing and analyzing data by the author (intentionally or not as pointed out by Lai Jiang). It is just using science's name to express their prejudice and discrimination (this UK-based journal and the author, editors). What a bunch of losers! You lose my respect from today, Nature!
Jason OBoyle后面直接和编辑干上了
Jason OBoyle said:
To Brian Owens: All the British are murders even we cannot prove it now. You know, there are always ahead of the law. We appreciate that accusing British people as murders is a sensitive one for some readers. However, I would like to point out that this story was not intended to insinuate that British are guilty of anything. As I point out in the first paragraph, many British has never failed a criminal charge and so is they are innocent. I wanted to use the controversy as a way to highlight what science can and can't tell us with respect to a persona€?s criminal record. We have done similar stories before, for example in the case of a non-British nation.
Dear Mr. Callaway, I don't blame you for your shallow knowledge of statistics, since you are just holding a master degree, and westerners are usually not good in math anyway. But I do want to blame for your narrow mind and arrogant racial discrimination. I would also remind you that you and Nature will bear all possible legal consequences for coming up with such a disgusting article.
Dear Mr. Callaway, I don't blame you for your shallow knowledge of statistics, since you are just holding a master degree, and westerners are usually not good in math anyway. But I do want to blame for your narrow mind and arrogant racial discrimination. I would also remind you that you and Nature will bear all possible legal consequences for coming up with such a disgusting article.
Was Brian Owens on drugs when he chose to publish this article, or is he a science-amateur to begin with?
We appreciate that Mr. Owens claims this story was not intended to insinuate that Ye is guilty of anything. However, knowing his intentions we can only conclude either he lacks the professional qualities required to work in Nature as an editor, or he was on dopes. Or both. The only other option, that he tried to imply and hint, was ruled out by himself. Oh wait, maybe he is liar... Whatever, in either case he should not work here anymore.
The London 2012 Summer Olympics Games is a showcase of Pride and Prejudice with its cheap and chaotic opening ceremony, poor organization, biased media reports, and bad sportsmanship. It is quite a bitter drama of a drowning old savage empire watching the rise of a once suffering nation which was half-colonized by the British and other countries. [此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:10:23编辑过]
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄： 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?￠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.
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion of the entire article that was based on facts.
From the second paragraph, all the science and logic have started to fall apart.
First, the term that Ye's record was "anomalous" was simply wrong. Numerous historical records have indicated, that similar amount of advances had been achieved by other swimmers, both by men and women, as several of my fellow commenters pointed out.
Putting forward a imprudent judgment with such a firm tone without simple literature review, is extremely unprofessional for anyone in the science community, in publishing industry, and not to say, in scientific publishing.
Researching an area before commenting, is a basic training in Scientific Writing 101. How regrettable it is, that a contributor of Nature showed a lack of such an essential education.
Second, the author twisted Dr. Tucker's comments, and put his more important general comment, which is "performance couldn't be the verdict of doping" at the very end and treated it like it was unimportanted.
This caused huge bias, to the extent that facts have been manipulated.
I don't think Dr. Tucker himself would like to be quoted this way. Twisting the interviewee's comments and spliced them in an artful way to mislead the audience, is not uncommon in paparazzi coverage and entertainment magazine.
However, this style is not so appropriate for Nature. It will discourage other scientists to be interviewed.
Scientists certainly don't desire their intention and results, being attacked for reasons outside science.
Thirdly, the entire article doesn't have any statistics to back itself up: how strongly excellent performance correlate with doping? That was very surprising, given the reader's education level.
By the way, I 'd like to point out that, the links of the references at the bottom don't work. Please check and make sure. Some readers will check the original reference, since this is a prerequisite for most of us.
Finally, I'd like to point out my personal understanding of nature, if I may : survival of the fittest, and not the strongest. That's in Biology 101 class.
An female beats a male under certain circumstances, especially for stamina, is not a huge fault but an wonder, in nature's own eye. Like all the great things women can do nowadays.
Thank you very much and I hope the editors could seriously consider remove the article and post a formal apology.
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion of the entire article that was based on facts.
From the second paragraph, all the science and logic have started to fall apart.
First, the term that Ye's record was "anomalous" was simply wrong. Numerous historical records have indicated, that similar amount of advances had been achieved by other swimmers, both by men and women, as several of my fellow commenters pointed out.
Putting forward a imprudent judgment with such a firm tone without simple literature review, is extremely unprofessional for anyone in the science community, in publishing industry, and not to say, in scientific publishing.
Researching an area before commenting, is a basic training in Scientific Writing 101. How regrettable it is, that a contributor of Nature showed a lack of such an essential education.
Second, the author twisted Dr. Tucker's comments, and put his more important general comment, which is "performance couldn't be the verdict of doping" at the very end and treated it like it was unimportanted.
This caused huge bias, to the extent that facts have been manipulated.
I don't think Dr. Tucker himself would like to be quoted this way. Twisting the interviewee's comments and spliced them in an artful way to mislead the audience, is not uncommon in paparazzi coverage and entertainment magazine.
However, this style is not so appropriate for Nature. It will discourage other scientists to be interviewed.
Scientists certainly don't desire their intention and results, being attacked for reasons outside science.
Thirdly, the entire article doesn't have any statistics to back itself up: how strongly excellent performance correlate with doping? That was very surprising, given the reader's education level.
By the way, I 'd like to point out that, the links of the references at the bottom don't work. Please check and make sure. Some readers will check the original reference, since this is a prerequisite for most of us.
Finally, I'd like to point out my personal understanding of nature, if I may : survival of the fittest, and not the strongest. That's in Biology 101 class.
An female beats a male under certain circumstances, especially for stamina, is not a huge fault but an wonder, in nature's own eye. Like all the great things women can do nowadays.
Thank you very much and I hope the editors could seriously consider remove the article and post a formal apology.
I am sending emails to the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor and all other editors I can find. Very soon Nature will be changed into a gossip tabloid. At the same time, I would seriously suggest that Mr. Callaway and Mr. Owens changing their career paths. Trust me, science is not for you guys . You should send our your resumes right now before bringing more humiliation to the scientific community. Rupert Murdoch may give you higher salaries.
Laura, Ph.D, even though I have no publication on Nature, I am a real scientist and I am proud of both facts.
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄： 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?￠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 2
我的一位师兄在fb上写的一段很好，特此摘抄： The London 2012 Summer Olympics Games is a showcase of Pride and Prejudice with its cheap and chaotic opening ceremony, poor organization, biased media reports, and bad sportsmanship. It is quite a bitter drama of a drowning old savage empire watching the rise of a once suffering nation which was half-colonized by the British and other countries.
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion of the entire article that was based on facts.
What a shame to see Nature publishes this in which there are so many mistakes in citing and analyzing data by the author (intentionally or not as pointed out by Lai Jiang). It is just using science's name to express their prejudice and discrimination (this UK-based journal and the author, editors). What a bunch of losers! You lose my respect from today, Nature!
Jason OBoyle后面直接和编辑干上了
Jason OBoyle said:
To Brian Owens: All the British are murders even we cannot prove it now. You know, there are always ahead of the law. We appreciate that accusing British people as murders is a sensitive one for some readers. However, I would like to point out that this story was not intended to insinuate that British are guilty of anything. As I point out in the first paragraph, many British has never failed a criminal charge and so is they are innocent. I wanted to use the controversy as a way to highlight what science can and can't tell us with respect to a persona€?s criminal record. We have done similar stories before, for example in the case of a non-British nation.
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion of the entire article that was based on facts.
From the second paragraph, all the science and logic have started to fall apart.
First, the term that Ye's record was "anomalous" was simply wrong. Numerous historical records have indicated, that similar amount of advances had been achieved by other swimmers, both by men and women, as several of my fellow commenters pointed out.
Putting forward a imprudent judgment with such a firm tone without simple literature review, is extremely unprofessional for anyone in the science community, in publishing industry, and not to say, in scientific publishing.
Researching an area before commenting, is a basic training in Scientific Writing 101. How regrettable it is, that a contributor of Nature showed a lack of such an essential education.
Second, the author twisted Dr. Tucker's comments, and put his more important general comment, which is "performance couldn't be the verdict of doping" at the very end and treated it like it was unimportanted.
This caused huge bias, to the extent that facts have been manipulated.
I don't think Dr. Tucker himself would like to be quoted this way. Twisting the interviewee's comments and spliced them in an artful way to mislead the audience, is not uncommon in paparazzi coverage and entertainment magazine.
However, this style is not so appropriate for Nature. It will discourage other scientists to be interviewed.
Scientists certainly don't desire their intention and results, being attacked for reasons outside science.
Thirdly, the entire article doesn't have any statistics to back itself up: how strongly excellent performance correlate with doping? That was very surprising, given the reader's education level.
By the way, I 'd like to point out that, the links of the references at the bottom don't work. Please check and make sure. Some readers will check the original reference, since this is a prerequisite for most of us.
Finally, I'd like to point out my personal understanding of nature, if I may : survival of the fittest, and not the strongest. That's in Biology 101 class.
An female beats a male under certain circumstances, especially for stamina, is not a huge fault but an wonder, in nature's own eye. Like all the great things women can do nowadays.
Thank you very much and I hope the editors could seriously consider remove the article and post a formal apology.
I am sending emails to the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor and all other editors I can find. Very soon Nature will be changed into a gossip tabloid. At the same time, I would seriously suggest that Mr. Callaway and Mr. Owens changing their career paths. Trust me, science is not for you guys . You should send our your resumes right now before bringing more humiliation to the scientific community. Rupert Murdoch may give you higher salaries.
Laura, Ph.D, even though I have no publication on Nature, I am a real scientist and I am proud of both facts.
No, says Ross Tucker, an exercise physiologist at the
University of Cape Town in South Africa. Athletes are much more likely
to dope while in training, when drug testing tends to be less rigorous.
“Everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in
competition testing,” Tucker says.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 9:17:53编辑过]
“That would be unfair,” says Tucker. “The final verdict is
only ever going to be reached by testing. It has to be.” In recent
years, cycling authorities have successfully prosecuted athletes for
having anomalous blood profiles, even when banned substances such as EPO
could not be found. But performance is too far removed from taking a
banned substance and influenced by too many outside factors to convict
someone of doping, Tucker says. “When we look at this young swimmer from
China who breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a
question or two.”
.....
what the huaren.us.. Tucker is using another way to say Ye's test is not reliable..
显摆他英语好
通篇读的话，这个文章还算蛮客观。。起码以我的三不沾的英文水平看。。
强盗的逻辑，看上去ms逻辑严密，建议看评论里面的，有些人回复得很好！
强盗的逻辑，看上去ms逻辑严密，建议看评论里面的，有些人回复得很好！
好多人回复的太牛了，看署名是中国人，还带参考文献的
..............他们是脱了裤子放屁么？写这个文章的目的，科学研究的目的就是摆上台说废话？
不理解为什么会觉得他们不是别有用心。
好多人回复的太牛了，看署名是中国人，还带参考文献的
好多人回复的太牛了，看署名是中国人，还带参考文献的
文章的作者很恶毒，通篇看下来，一个字都没说叶真的吃药了，但是效果却达到了，通篇的强盗逻辑太他妈恶心了。作者还是microbiology硕士，肯定统计课没过。而且文章里啥数据都没有啊
开头一段有数据，还是错的。通篇都是在讲药检没用，所以结论是成绩好就是有问题，第一段摆出叶的成绩太好了，所以一定有问题。
comments里面中国人名的就不说了，几个外国人名的说得都不错啊
John Bigman said:
What a shame to see Nature publishes this in which there are so many mistakes in citing and analyzing data by the author (intentionally or not as pointed out by Lai Jiang). It is just using science's name to express their prejudice and discrimination (this UK-based journal and the author, editors). What a bunch of losers! You lose my respect from today, Nature!
Jason OBoyle后面直接和编辑干上了
Jason OBoyle said:
To Brian Owens:
All the British are murders even we cannot prove it now. You know, there are always ahead of the law.
We appreciate that accusing British people as murders is a sensitive one for some readers. However, I would like to point out that this story was not intended to insinuate that British are guilty of anything. As I point out in the first paragraph, many British has never failed a criminal charge and so is they are innocent.
I wanted to use the controversy as a way to highlight what science can and can't tell us with respect to a persona€?s criminal record. We have done similar stories before, for example in the case of a non-British nation.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 9:59:11编辑过]
现在这文章相当于说ye有嫌疑，超越常规 etc，感觉还是客观的。
但是这一点对于phleps这类也是一样，他也是超越常规。当然他是白人，所以全世界都认为他是天才，而不是怀疑。
中国人取得成绩后让白人羡慕，嫉妒，恨了~~~
那个羽毛球才tmd冤枉，这个摆明了整的就是黄种人。只能怪这世界还是白人的世界啊~~~
以下是引用人头猪脑在8/2/2012 9:27:00 AM的发言：
这么通篇的说，虽然没证据说你杀了人，但是因为也没有证据表示你没杀人，所以祝贺你现在被释放了。
..............他们是脱了裤子放屁么？写这个文章的目的，科学研究的目的就是摆上台说废话？
不理解为什么会觉得他们不是别有用心。
他们梦里的世界吧
屁，如果他们以同样的文章质疑phelps，我没有任何意见，可惜他们不会
太明显的偏见了，毫无客观可言，偏偏还想披着客观的皮。。。
尼玛，人家就是因为你是asian才怀疑你 ，脑残到不行
刚从fb上逛了一圈回来，看到不少老外朋友还是相信小叶子清白的，可还是看到一个越南女银说她绝对不相信，而且还强调她是asian
尼玛，人家就是因为你是asian才怀疑你 ，脑残到不行
哈哈哈 求围观地址
他们梦里的世界吧
恩，现在都日落了，正是黑夜做梦时呢。。。
我只是对nature审稿人同意发这篇文章表示惊讶
他们对不起自己是scientist这个称号
披着science的外衣进行种族歧视
Report this comment | #47574
Yi Wang said:
Dear Mr. Callaway, I don't blame you for your shallow knowledge of statistics, since you are just holding a master degree, and westerners are usually not good in math anyway. But I do want to blame for your narrow mind and arrogant racial discrimination. I would also remind you that you and Nature will bear all possible legal consequences for coming up with such a disgusting article.
笑死我了
有些回复太棒了
特别是innocent until proven guilty那里
2012-08-02 10:06 AM
Report this comment | #47574
Yi Wang said:
Dear Mr. Callaway, I don't blame you for your shallow knowledge of statistics, since you are just holding a master degree, and westerners are usually not good in math anyway. But I do want to blame for your narrow mind and arrogant racial discrimination. I would also remind you that you and Nature will bear all possible legal consequences for coming up with such a disgusting article.
笑死我了
那个帖子下面好多人反驳的都很好了
我只是对nature审稿人同意发这篇文章表示惊讶
他们对不起自己是scientist这个称号
披着science的外衣进行种族歧视
怎么他们能不要脸到这个地步，我很惊讶，以前一直以为科学很崇高的
以下是引用200lbs在8/2/2012 9:53:00 AM的发言：
开头一段有数据，还是错的。通篇都是在讲药检没用，所以结论是成绩好就是有问题，第一段摆出叶的成绩太好了，所以一定有问题。
We appreciate that Mr. Owens claims this story was not intended to insinuate that Ye is guilty of anything. However, knowing his intentions we can only conclude either he lacks the professional qualities required to work in Nature as an editor, or he was on dopes. Or both. The only other option, that he tried to imply and hint, was ruled out by himself. Oh wait, maybe he is liar... Whatever, in either case he should not work here anymore.
这个回复也超搞 哈哈。
我觉得没必要大国风范，他们都智力无下线了，我们也没必要对他们的数学水平进行高估。既然这都变成了一场闹剧，那么大家就轻松的一笑而过好了
以下是引用200lbs在8/2/2012 10:30:00 AM的发言：
特别是innocent until proven guilty那里
tnnd
以下是引用人头猪脑在8/2/2012 10:05:00 AM的发言：
哈哈哈 求围观地址
每次你想跟他们解释任何事情之前，建议你回想一下用锤子解救大巴人质的SWAT们吧，你就毫无想说的欲望了。你说了他们也不能明白不能理解。
以下是引用无情de大奶在8/2/2012 10:03:00 AM的发言：
刚从fb上逛了一圈回来，看到不少老外朋友还是相信小叶子清白的，可还是看到一个越南女银说她绝对不相信，而且还强调她是asian
尼玛，人家就是因为你是asian才怀疑你 ，脑残到不行
汗， 我只想说这个native speaker和2nd language还是很明显的。
他们要是能用中文把文章再写一遍，那我是不会介意他们的第二语言有多糟糕的。 如果他们的智力允许的话
好多人回复的太牛了，看署名是中国人，还带参考文献的
太佩服这些回复者的英文了，有理有据，说得非常好
The London 2012 Summer Olympics Games is a showcase of Pride and Prejudice with its cheap and chaotic opening ceremony, poor organization, biased media reports, and bad sportsmanship. It is quite a bitter drama of a drowning old savage empire watching the rise of a once suffering nation which was half-colonized by the British and other countries.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:10:23编辑过]
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?￠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
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:09:56编辑过]
Dear Editor:
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of
this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which
potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific
publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye
was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion
of the entire article that was based on facts.
From the second paragraph, all the science and logic have started to fall
apart.
First, the term that Ye's record was "anomalous" was simply wrong. Numerous
historical records have indicated, that similar amount of advances had been
achieved by other swimmers, both by men and women, as several of my fellow
commenters pointed out.
Putting forward a imprudent judgment with such a firm tone without simple
literature review, is extremely unprofessional for anyone in the science
community, in publishing industry, and not to say, in scientific publishing.
Researching an area before commenting, is a basic training in Scientific
Writing 101. How regrettable it is, that a contributor of Nature showed a
lack of such an essential education.
Second, the author twisted Dr. Tucker's comments, and put his more important
general comment, which is "performance couldn't be the verdict of doping"
at the very end and treated it like it was unimportanted.
This caused huge bias, to the extent that facts have been manipulated.
I don't think Dr. Tucker himself would like to be quoted this way. Twisting
the interviewee's comments and spliced them in an artful way to mislead the
audience, is not uncommon in paparazzi coverage and entertainment magazine.
However, this style is not so appropriate for Nature. It will discourage
other scientists to be interviewed.
Scientists certainly don't desire their intention and results, being
attacked for reasons outside science.
Thirdly, the entire article doesn't have any statistics to back itself up:
how strongly excellent performance correlate with doping? That was
very surprising, given the reader's education level.
By the way, I 'd like to point out that, the links of the references at the
bottom don't work. Please check and make sure. Some readers will check the
original reference, since this is a prerequisite for most of us.
Finally, I'd like to point out my personal understanding of nature, if I may
: survival of the fittest, and not the strongest. That's in Biology 101
class.
An female beats a male under certain circumstances, especially for stamina,
is not a huge fault but an wonder, in nature's own eye. Like all the great
things women can do nowadays.
Thank you very much and I hope the editors could seriously consider remove
the article and post a formal apology.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:19:42编辑过]
以下是引用Gilda在8/2/2012 11:17:00 AM的发言：
我回了，全文如下
Dear Editor:
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of
this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which
potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific
publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye
was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion
of the entire article that was based on facts.
From the second paragraph, all the science and logic have started to fall
apart.
First, the term that Ye's record was "anomalous" was simply wrong. Numerous
historical records have indicated, that similar amount of advances had been
achieved by other swimmers, both by men and women, as several of my fellow
commenters pointed out.
Putting forward a imprudent judgment with such a firm tone without simple
literature review, is extremely unprofessional for anyone in the science
community, in publishing industry, and not to say, in scientific publishing.
Researching an area before commenting, is a basic training in Scientific
Writing 101. How regrettable it is, that a contributor of Nature showed a
lack of such an essential education.
Second, the author twisted Dr. Tucker's comments, and put his more important
general comment, which is "performance couldn't be the verdict of doping"
at the very end and treated it like it was unimportanted.
This caused huge bias, to the extent that facts have been manipulated.
I don't think Dr. Tucker himself would like to be quoted this way. Twisting
the interviewee's comments and spliced them in an artful way to mislead the
audience, is not uncommon in paparazzi coverage and entertainment magazine.
However, this style is not so appropriate for Nature. It will discourage
other scientists to be interviewed.
Scientists certainly don't desire their intention and results, being
attacked for reasons outside science.
Thirdly, the entire article doesn't have any statistics to back itself up:
how strongly excellent performance correlate with doping? That was
very surprising, given the reader's education level.
By the way, I 'd like to point out that, the links of the references at the
bottom don't work. Please check and make sure. Some readers will check the
original reference, since this is a prerequisite for most of us.
Finally, I'd like to point out my personal understanding of nature, if I may
: survival of the fittest, and not the strongest. That's in Biology 101
class.
An female beats a male under certain circumstances, especially for stamina,
is not a huge fault but an wonder, in nature's own eye. Like all the great
things women can do nowadays.
Thank you very much and I hope the editors could seriously consider remove
the article and post a formal apology.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:19:42编辑过]
我不喜欢这个回复，希望大家不要动不动就把所有西方人都包括进去，这样容易让人反感
re
写的好挖～～
这个白人女科学家写得也亮了。。。
Laura Kleiman said:
I am sending emails to the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor and all
other editors I can find. Very soon Nature will be changed into a gossip
tabloid. At the same time, I would seriously suggest that Mr. Callaway and
Mr. Owens changing their career paths. Trust me, science is not for you guys
. You should send our your resumes right now before bringing more
humiliation to the scientific community. Rupert Murdoch may give you higher
salaries.
Laura, Ph.D, even though I have no publication on Nature, I am a real
scientist and I am proud of both facts.
以下是引用ostrakon在8/2/2012 11:08:00 AM的发言：
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄：
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?￠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
2
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
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:09:56编辑过]
我的一位师兄在fb上写的一段很好，特此摘抄：
The London 2012 Summer Olympics Games is a showcase of Pride and Prejudice with its cheap and chaotic opening ceremony, poor organization, biased media reports, and bad sportsmanship. It is quite a bitter drama of a drowning old savage empire watching the rise of a once suffering nation which was half-colonized by the British and other countries.
good. copied
那个帖子下面好多人反驳的都很好了
我只是对nature审稿人同意发这篇文章表示惊讶
他们对不起自己是scientist这个称号
披着science的外衣进行种族歧视
我回了，全文如下
Dear Editor:
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of
this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which
potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific
publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye
was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion
of the entire article that was based on facts.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:19:42编辑过]
没看全，但是第一段数据是有问题的，误导性严重，参见其他回复，说based on facts不好吧。
发这种断章取义明显带了偏见的文章出来搏眼球
相比之下，nature journal research文章的editor有的是tenured professor来做的
跟这些个搞online news的完全不是一个级别
没看全，但是第一段数据是有问题的，误导性严重，参见其他回复，说based on facts不好吧。
谢谢mm建议，这段是这么回事情。
是针对Brian Owen（他们的online editor）的回应，原文大概是＂actually the first paragrash has laid out the fact that she was tested clean"
他的意思是说，我们这点在第一段就说了，我是回他的comment说，只有第一段这一句话是事实。
后来Brian Owen太监了，把自己的回应给删了。
现在整个nature都太监了，都不许回复了。
所以买卖提那边都是往邮箱里投。
nature 是UK based? 我以为是美国的
Nature is UK based, while Science is US based.
I also thinkth at is a really 恶毒 article.
谢谢mm建议，这段是这么回事情。
是针对Brian Owen（他们的online editor）的回应，原文大概是＂actually the first paragrash has laid out the fact that she was tested clean"
他的意思是说，我们这点在第一段就说了，我是回他的comment说，只有第一段这一句话是事实。
后来Brian Owen太监了，把自己的回应给删了。
现在整个nature都太监了，都不许回复了。
所以买卖提那边都是往邮箱里投。
做贼心虚？
nature 是UK based? 我以为是美国的
comments里面中国人名的就不说了，几个外国人名的说得都不错啊
John Bigman said:
What a shame to see Nature publishes this in which there are so many mistakes in citing and analyzing data by the author (intentionally or not as pointed out by Lai Jiang). It is just using science's name to express their prejudice and discrimination (this UK-based journal and the author, editors). What a bunch of losers! You lose my respect from today, Nature!
Jason OBoyle后面直接和编辑干上了
Jason OBoyle said:
To Brian Owens:
All the British are murders even we cannot prove it now. You know, there are always ahead of the law.
We appreciate that accusing British people as murders is a sensitive one for some readers. However, I would like to point out that this story was not intended to insinuate that British are guilty of anything. As I point out in the first paragraph, many British has never failed a criminal charge and so is they are innocent.
I wanted to use the controversy as a way to highlight what science can and can't tell us with respect to a persona€?s criminal record. We have done similar stories before, for example in the case of a non-British nation.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 9:59:11编辑过]
牛！真是以其人之道还施其身...
刚从fb上逛了一圈回来，看到不少老外朋友还是相信小叶子清白的，可还是看到一个越南女银说她绝对不相信，而且还强调她是asian
尼玛，人家就是因为你是asian才怀疑你 ，脑残到不行
那个最长的评论好像是mit的人写得。
Lai Jiang那个么？penn的。
Jason OBoyle 很有才
mitbbs上号召大家写信去抗议~~~光围观不能给作者和editor一点教训~~~这样的人怎么能继续留在学术界~~~
我对买买提忽然产生了敬意！！！
而且很多人不过是平常不愿意自降身份出来跟神经病计较争执罢了~~~
以下是引用bloominglovely在8/2/2012 1:07:00 PM的发言：
我对买买提忽然产生了敬意！！！
好多人回复的太牛了，看署名是中国人，还带参考文献的
说真的，中国人就是太谦卑了。老外都是aggravation的要死。又爱装B，虚伪的要命
mitbbs上号召大家写信去抗议~~~光围观不能给作者和editor一点教训~~~这样的人怎么能继续留在学术界~~~
re
我不喜欢这个回复，希望大家不要动不动就把所有西方人都包括进去，这样容易让人反感
人家歧视你是分成某一部分中国人，还是全部中国人呢？有人care你的感受么？
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 13:26:33编辑过]
太有才聊~~个个引经据典~~让我相当高考写作文~~佩服佩服~~语言功底强大呀各位~~
说实在的，很多老外学生的写作水平实在是不敢恭维
我对买买提忽然产生了敬意！！！
mit gg们v5
怎么他们能不要脸到这个地步，我很惊讶，以前一直以为科学很崇高的
我觉得西方人都是宗教主义者，甚至就是觉得科学是为了证实上帝的存在而存在的
这个结论放其它运动员身上也成立。单单挑叶当靶子，太别有用心了。
就是啊，既然这样的文章可以发表在专业学术作品里，那么我们网友就可以随意改个名字，按在那个人的头上都讲得通啊，是不是
真是烙在脸上的耻辱，洗都洗不掉，大家可以收藏这一期的杂志，存念
他们要是能用中文把文章再写一遍，那我是不会介意他们的第二语言有多糟糕的。 如果他们的智力允许的话
哈哈哈
我吃惊的这么漏洞百出的文章，Nature竟然发了它。 那可是Nature啊。 这个编辑该给开了吧。
我回了，全文如下
Dear Editor:
I don't think people react to this merely because of the sensitive nature of
this article, as you pointed out in your reply of this whole issue.
It's in fact largely due to many fatal flaws of this article, which
potentially could ruin the reputation of Nature, as a prestigious scientific
publishing enterprise.
Yes, as you pointed out, the first paragraph did lay out the fact that Ye
was tested clean. However, to be honest, I'm afraid that's the only portion
of the entire article that was based on facts.
From the second paragraph, all the science and logic have started to fall
apart.
First, the term that Ye's record was "anomalous" was simply wrong. Numerous
historical records have indicated, that similar amount of advances had been
achieved by other swimmers, both by men and women, as several of my fellow
commenters pointed out.
Putting forward a imprudent judgment with such a firm tone without simple
literature review, is extremely unprofessional for anyone in the science
community, in publishing industry, and not to say, in scientific publishing.
Researching an area before commenting, is a basic training in Scientific
Writing 101. How regrettable it is, that a contributor of Nature showed a
lack of such an essential education.
Second, the author twisted Dr. Tucker's comments, and put his more important
general comment, which is "performance couldn't be the verdict of doping"
at the very end and treated it like it was unimportanted.
This caused huge bias, to the extent that facts have been manipulated.
I don't think Dr. Tucker himself would like to be quoted this way. Twisting
the interviewee's comments and spliced them in an artful way to mislead the
audience, is not uncommon in paparazzi coverage and entertainment magazine.
However, this style is not so appropriate for Nature. It will discourage
other scientists to be interviewed.
Scientists certainly don't desire their intention and results, being
attacked for reasons outside science.
Thirdly, the entire article doesn't have any statistics to back itself up:
how strongly excellent performance correlate with doping? That was
very surprising, given the reader's education level.
By the way, I 'd like to point out that, the links of the references at the
bottom don't work. Please check and make sure. Some readers will check the
original reference, since this is a prerequisite for most of us.
Finally, I'd like to point out my personal understanding of nature, if I may
: survival of the fittest, and not the strongest. That's in Biology 101
class.
An female beats a male under certain circumstances, especially for stamina,
is not a huge fault but an wonder, in nature's own eye. Like all the great
things women can do nowadays.
Thank you very much and I hope the editors could seriously consider remove
the article and post a formal apology.
太棒了
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:19:42编辑过]
有人写出这种文章我不吃惊。
我吃惊的这么漏洞百出的文章，Nature竟然发了它。 那可是Nature啊。 这个编辑该给开了吧。
这能证明歧视无处不在！！！你感受不到，只是因为对方藏的好而已！
有人写出这种文章我不吃惊。
我吃惊的这么漏洞百出的文章，Nature竟然发了它。 那可是Nature啊。 这个编辑该给开了吧。
这个文章还算蛮客观
论点就是一个无语的论点，怎么能叫客观？看看其中一个人的回复：没有证据表明全英国人都是杀人犯，但不能说明英国人就不是杀人犯。这样的论点和逻辑客观？？？
这个文章还算蛮客观
没有学过统计101吧。。。。
mitbbs上号召大家写信去抗议~~~光围观不能给作者和editor一点教训~~~这样的人怎么能继续留在学术界~~~
re
Nature怎么也开始走娱乐路线了？通篇都是Partial facts，这让普通人都没法接受吧，更别说这样的scientific journal了。
哗众取宠啊，真丢人。虽然只是online news，整个journal的level都被拉低了。
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 14:08:21编辑过]
琢磨着，虽然我英文不那么溜，要不要也发一分光，攒篇信发给Nature，抗议一下。
以下是引用ostrakon在8/2/2012 11:08:00 AM的发言：
nature上面一位叫Lai Jiang的同志回复得非常好，逻辑严密，义正词严，特此摘抄：
Lai Jiang said: [此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/2 11:09:56编辑过]
但还是要狠狠地鄙视nature~~~
以下是引用smaragdos在8/2/2012 1:37:00 PM的发言：
有人写出这种文章我不吃惊。
我吃惊的这么漏洞百出的文章，Nature竟然发了它。 那可是Nature啊。 这个编辑该给开了吧。
歧视只不过是一个工具，需要的时候拿过来用，歧视还是不歧视，depends on自己的利益在哪一方~~~
以下是引用cjlmxbt在8/2/2012 1:46:00 PM的发言：
这能证明歧视无处不在！！！你感受不到，只是因为对方藏的好而已！
以下是引用dodoapple在8/2/2012 2:07:00 PM的发言：
好多回复真是太棒了~~~
琢磨着，虽然我英文不那么溜，要不要也发一分光，攒篇信发给Nature，抗议一下。
没有学过统计101吧。。。。
还是觉得那篇有理有据的长评，Lai Jiang的最好。这才是科学家的态度，咱不跟你废话，既然是科学家，就以科学家的专业水平来对决。
admire.
有人在组织写信给主编呢。 这个文章的编辑绝对应该fire 掉， 先不说racial discrimination.但从学术上讲， 这种质量的文章就不该通过发表， 这个编辑从业务水平上也是不合格的。 更不要说利用nature这种科学权威平台， 传播自己的政治和racial discrimination观点。没有一点职业操守。
其实很多人说得都很好了~~~咱们发信也不用长篇大论一一驳斥，收信人收到那么多估计也没时间看~~~简短点，观点明确就行了~~~
re..
去mit逛了一圈。
有人在组织写信给主编呢。 这个文章的编辑绝对应该fire 掉， 先不说racial discrimination.但从学术上讲， 这种质量的文章就不该通过发表， 这个编辑从业务水平上也是不合格的。 更不要说利用nature这种科学权威平台， 传播自己的政治和racial discrimination观点。没有一点职业操守。
伸手党求链接。。。一进买买提的排版就头晕。
还是觉得那篇有理有据的长评，Lai Jiang的最好。这才是科学家的态度，咱不跟你废话，既然是科学家，就以科学家的专业水平来对决。
恩。 他看上去就象是做research的， 分析专业，行文有理有据 赞！
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t1/Olympics/31609891_0_1.html
这个白人女科学家写得也亮了。。。
Laura Kleiman said:
I am sending emails to the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor and all
other editors I can find. Very soon Nature will be changed into a gossip
tabloid. At the same time, I would seriously suggest that Mr. Callaway and
Mr. Owens changing their career paths. Trust me, science is not for you guys
. You should send our your resumes right now before bringing more
humiliation to the scientific community. Rupert Murdoch may give you higher
salaries.
Laura, Ph.D, even though I have no publication on Nature, I am a real
scientist and I am proud of both facts.
rereerererereerererererererere