饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信 - Biology版

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

Biology版 - 饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信

相关主题
● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者	● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意
● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧	● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？
● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件	● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?
● 写给Nature主编的抗议信	● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。
● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了	● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏
● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了	● Nature事件该转战第二阶段了
● 要求撤稿的	● Olympics: Some facts about Ye Shiwen's swim
● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)	● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东

相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: ye话题: callaway话题: nature话题: lochte话题: than

进入Biology版参与讨论

(共1页)

i****g
发帖数: 3896

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。
毅
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

m****c
发帖数: 2416

这下好看了。。。
Science上说不定Rao大牛还能去写一篇。。。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

: 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

a*******t
发帖数: 10093

饶毅，OK！
拉下白春礼，四十条街外加两个block

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

b*****n
发帖数: 1841

饶毅的这个立场站得非常稳当，不愧是本版的精神领袖。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

m****c
发帖数: 2416

饶益退出院士竞选得时候我觉得他性格太强了点
但这件事他站了出来，我对他肃然起敬！

【在 a*******t 的大作中提到】

: 饶毅，OK！
: 拉下白春礼，四十条街外加两个block
:
: 闻。

m****c
发帖数: 2416

英文表达实在是太准确了

【在 b*****n 的大作中提到】

: 饶毅的这个立场站得非常稳当，不愧是本版的精神领袖。
:
: 闻。

a*******t
发帖数: 10093

白春礼再发个email
让那个傻逼编辑被fire掉
这口恶气也就算出了

【在 m****c 的大作中提到】

: 英文表达实在是太准确了

Y******i
发帖数: 30

Ding

w*****r
发帖数: 2061

well said

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

s******s
发帖数: 13035

靠。广大wsn能在CNS上灌纯水的机会又被rao抢走了

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了	● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意
● 要求撤稿的	● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？
● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)	● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?
进入Biology版参与讨论

l**********3
发帖数: 10970

你咋老提白xx啊？有毛的用。等两天自己看结论吧

【在 a*******t 的大作中提到】

: 白春礼再发个email
: 让那个傻逼编辑被fire掉
: 这口恶气也就算出了

X******n
发帖数: 914

ding

X******n
发帖数: 914

ding

b*****n
发帖数: 1841

我没有看到抵制（这个让年轻人牵头干），而是希望对方发表平衡意见（也许是附件
中某些人的看法）。这个属于编辑非常可能做到的。
饶毅通篇说的是声誉，先捧一下nature再暗示他该做点啥，拿捏得非常好。

【在 m****c 的大作中提到】

: 英文表达实在是太准确了

a*******t
发帖数: 10093

现在各种国际学术期刊、各种国际学术会议
打破头往中国跑
白春礼出来表个态，比wsn们发一百封email也好使
另外，nature这是代表英国的学术界来点评叶诗文
中国科学院的人，难道死光了么？

【在 l**********3 的大作中提到】

:
: 你咋老提白xx啊？有毛的用。等两天自己看结论吧

m**p
发帖数: 2471

Rao won my respect!

O******e
发帖数: 4845

这个信写得很好。支持！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

k*******r
发帖数: 16963

顶饶毅，饶毅比11公抢先立功

w*****r
发帖数: 2061

看置地，大牛啊

c**A
发帖数: 1474

same here..
是条汉子。。

【在 m****c 的大作中提到】

: 饶益退出院士竞选得时候我觉得他性格太强了点
: 但这件事他站了出来，我对他肃然起敬！

相关主题
● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。	● Olympics: Some facts about Ye Shiwen's swim
● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏	● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东
● Nature事件该转战第二阶段了	● You guys over-reacted to Callaway's allegation
进入Biology版参与讨论

b******s
发帖数: 1089

顶Rao Yi，也顶peoplem，呵呵

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

L**********y
发帖数: 2525

赞顶re

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

s*****c
发帖数: 5202

说的真好

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

b*******n
发帖数: 8420

支持饶大炮

l***s
发帖数: 841

说的非常好，有力度，切中要害。我们大伙应该持续给Nature施压，继续发email抗议
。遥相呼应，让编辑们担心杂志声誉，效果会更好。我刚写给两个编辑如下
I am very disappointed that the editorial board has decided to officially
support such a biased news report which is full of factual errors as well as
with obvious racial implications. To many readers, myself included, it is
sad to see that the once highly respectful journal has lost its neutrality,
which will have a long-lasting damaging effect to the journal's scientific
reputation.

m****e
发帖数: 705

支持一下，精神领袖

b*****n
发帖数: 1841

Re

as
,

【在 l***s 的大作中提到】

: 说的非常好，有力度，切中要害。我们大伙应该持续给Nature施压，继续发email抗议
: 。遥相呼应，让编辑们担心杂志声誉，效果会更好。我刚写给两个编辑如下
: I am very disappointed that the editorial board has decided to officially
: support such a biased news report which is full of factual errors as well as
: with obvious racial implications. To many readers, myself included, it is
: sad to see that the once highly respectful journal has lost its neutrality,
: which will have a long-lasting damaging effect to the journal's scientific
: reputation.

b****y
发帖数: 81

strongly sp!
well done

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。
你应该收到了王立明博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的
第一作者论文后，获得加州理工学院的博士，并因此获有声誉的奖学金到伯克利加州大
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。
毅
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. Liming Wang, who obtained a PhD
from Caltech after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
postdoc at Berkeley. 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 California, Berkeley, 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.
Liming Wang, PhD
Bowes Research Fellow
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
CA 94720 USA
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

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

a****e
发帖数: 186

再忙也要顶

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

l******e
发帖数: 427

顶, 顶上十大

相关主题
● 向立铭，Jiang Lai, 深海饶毅三位同学致以最崇高的敬意！	● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧
● 饶毅 - 为海内外中国学生鼓掌：西方刊物对中国运动员道歉	● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件
● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者	● 写给Nature主编的抗议信
进入Biology版参与讨论

l******e
发帖数: 427

顶, 顶上十大

p*****c
发帖数: 20445

给饶毅鼓掌！需要中国大牛的参与！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

l********k
发帖数: 14844

华人学术圈需要有自己的声音。既然nature搅奥运这个浑水，华人学者可以顺着这个机
会往上爬。

m***6
发帖数: 5772

re

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

y**s
发帖数: 6809

夯re顶赞！！！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

p*****c
发帖数: 20445

这件事可以站出来的中国国内外大牛很多，只有饶毅出面，唉

b**********D
发帖数: 145

写的不错
学习了
顶顶

P****o
发帖数: 172

Support Rao!

w*****e
发帖数: 394

就一个，还不够，唉。。。

【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】

: 这件事可以站出来的中国国内外大牛很多，只有饶毅出面，唉

l*******r
发帖数: 39279

关于鸦片战争的部分我比较赞赏

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● 写给Nature主编的抗议信	● 要求撤稿的
● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了	● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)
● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了	● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意
进入Biology版参与讨论

D*******k
发帖数: 147

有一个也是好现象。希望更多大牛能站出来，不要总是靠我们苦逼的phd和颇似刀势单
力薄地鼓捣

【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】

: 这件事可以站出来的中国国内外大牛很多，只有饶毅出面，唉

P*****6
发帖数: 273

Rao, win my respect

【在 w*****e 的大作中提到】

: 就一个，还不够，唉。。。

M*P
发帖数: 6456

赞！
不过中文翻译有点差强人意。

★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb - 中文网站浏览器

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

n***c
发帖数: 7400

顶饶黑子！

t***i
发帖数: 204

饶毅的水平真是不错。抓住了重点。

I***A
发帖数: 444

饶益英文写得真好
但是俺还是选择看翻译版
俺觉得饶益在这件事上还是挺赞的

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

w***a
发帖数: 4361

国内有水平在这么短时间内写出这个英文的怕是不多吧。

【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】

: 这件事可以站出来的中国国内外大牛很多，只有饶毅出面，唉

l***g
发帖数: 859

应该不超过20人把，最近回去的这些千人有这个水平的应该还
是有一些的

【在 w***a 的大作中提到】

: 国内有水平在这么短时间内写出这个英文的怕是不多吧。

n***c
发帖数: 7400

Jiang Lai那篇那岂不是更牛，因为时间更短。

【在 w***a 的大作中提到】

: 国内有水平在这么短时间内写出这个英文的怕是不多吧。

l******f
发帖数: 130

哇！真的很赞！新闻就是时效性，他能第一时间站出来！
现在灌水的同志们以后到了饶那样的位置，也希望能有这么正啊!

相关主题
● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？	● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏
● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?	● Nature事件该转战第二阶段了
● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。	● Olympics: Some facts about Ye Shiwen's swim
进入Biology版参与讨论

p*****c
发帖数: 20445

好，委婉地，但是明确地提出了要求
Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
Callaway report.
Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to repair the damage
caused by your news reporters.
If Nature refuses to admit that this report was not balanced, it will be
difficult to “dispel doubts” about British supremacy.
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
the Callaway report.

r******n
发帖数: 2730

那么长谁会仔细看啊。。希望他和主编关系够铁。。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

w***a
发帖数: 4361

是很牛呀，好像是第一篇技术流的回帖吧。

【在 n***c 的大作中提到】

: Jiang Lai那篇那岂不是更牛，因为时间更短。

c****2
发帖数: 162

粉是不是也可以叫一丝不挂呀

w***a
发帖数: 4361

作为有title的椅子教授，，发过N篇nature，中国top2学校的院长
Nature主编不可能不知道他。
饶毅出面做这个事情，力量比wsn们还是大多了。

【在 r******n 的大作中提到】

: 那么长谁会仔细看啊。。希望他和主编关系够铁。。
:
: 闻。

z****u
发帖数: 1007

好！！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

J********3
发帖数: 3151

顶饶毅，也顶Liming Wang、 Jiang Lai、Zhenxi Zhang

T****r
发帖数: 4006

写得好，有理有据，支持！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

s******a
发帖数: 472

写得真好
顶

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

BR
发帖数: 4151

WSN 们还是多学习一下英文措辞，不要光叫好。

相关主题
● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东	● 饶毅 - 为海内外中国学生鼓掌：西方刊物对中国运动员道歉
● You guys over-reacted to Callaway's allegation	● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者
● 向立铭，Jiang Lai, 深海饶毅三位同学致以最崇高的敬意！	● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧
进入Biology版参与讨论

F*Q
发帖数: 3259

不错！中国人有理由也有力量让其他国家（种族）尊重。只是有时候，我们需要教他们
尊重。不知道他有没有联系其他几位知名人物联名发这封信。如果是联名的话，效果是
不是会更好一些？

x*******0
发帖数: 2439

顶饶毅，也顶Liming Wang、 Jiang Lai、Zhenxi Zhang

l******o
发帖数: 3764

不愧是常在高端灌水的
写的就是牛啊
pfpf~~~

l********g
发帖数: 677

这个必须顶

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

h*******k
发帖数: 660

饶毅一支笔，顶一架歼100，10个外交部，100个援非项目呀。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

s******y
发帖数: 28562

恩，重点突出，证据明确，写得非常好。

【在 b*****n 的大作中提到】

: 我没有看到抵制（这个让年轻人牵头干），而是希望对方发表平衡意见（也许是附件
: 中某些人的看法）。这个属于编辑非常可能做到的。
: 饶毅通篇说的是声誉，先捧一下nature再暗示他该做点啥，拿捏得非常好。

g****s
发帖数: 340

支持！就是应该这样！

s******y
发帖数: 28562

说的好！

as
,

【在 l***s 的大作中提到】

S***I
发帖数: 2737

关于鸦片战争那段直言真好，
难得真汉子

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

o**d
发帖数: 3080

ding!
天朝官方的表示呢？

相关主题
● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧	● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了
● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件	● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了
● 写给Nature主编的抗议信	● 要求撤稿的
进入Biology版参与讨论

l**********1
发帖数: 5204

援交外发部能有啥标示

【在 o**d 的大作中提到】

: ding!
: 天朝官方的表示呢？

p********n
发帖数: 1707

ding.

s********6
发帖数: 44

支持下
希望更多的牛人给nature发信，无论nature怎么回复

B*****s
发帖数: 381

re

【在 m****c 的大作中提到】

: 饶益退出院士竞选得时候我觉得他性格太强了点
: 但这件事他站了出来，我对他肃然起敬！

s****h
发帖数: 184

赞+顶！

C*******I
发帖数: 151

以前对饶毅的行为偶尔不以为然。这次真佩服得五体投地。鸦片战争部分可以看出饶毅
真实的爱国心。以前只欣赏王晓东一个人，学问好干实事又低调。现在真的开始敬佩饶
毅了。
peoplem邀饶毅出山的战法很高明。原来对peoplem的信中不再投稿部分有不妥的感觉。
估计饶毅也有些觉得不妥。写信后再附上peoplem的信，点到为止，妙极了！另外，
Bowes Research Fellow 大概是 UCB 仿照 UCSF Keck Fellow 的新program吧？这样的
话饶毅的信里说independent postdoc就不十分准确了。Keck Fellow是有start-up的PI
位置。应该是做好了可以成tenure-track。当年我误以为Keck Fellow是个independent
postdoc位置，在别人建议申请的时候挺不以为然的。后来有些后悔错失机会了。如果
想上market找faculty位置，但觉得手中现有结果又不够很快能拿下funding。可以考虑
这种位置。
不知道这个Jiang Lai是谁，反应及时专业，有理有据，起了巨大作用。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

f******r
发帖数: 437

写的不错

m*******n
发帖数: 387

顶，有理有据有节！

m*******n
发帖数: 387

“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。”
这个是真是假？！

S***I
发帖数: 2737

昨天半夜jiang lai 在奥运版发了一篇模仿Nature editor 文章评论自行车赛的帖子，
那篇更牛。

【在 C*******I 的大作中提到】

: 以前对饶毅的行为偶尔不以为然。这次真佩服得五体投地。鸦片战争部分可以看出饶毅
: 真实的爱国心。以前只欣赏王晓东一个人，学问好干实事又低调。现在真的开始敬佩饶
: 毅了。
: peoplem邀饶毅出山的战法很高明。原来对peoplem的信中不再投稿部分有不妥的感觉。
: 估计饶毅也有些觉得不妥。写信后再附上peoplem的信，点到为止，妙极了！另外，
: Bowes Research Fellow 大概是 UCB 仿照 UCSF Keck Fellow 的新program吧？这样的
: 话饶毅的信里说independent postdoc就不十分准确了。Keck Fellow是有start-up的PI
: 位置。应该是做好了可以成tenure-track。当年我误以为Keck Fellow是个independent
: postdoc位置，在别人建议申请的时候挺不以为然的。后来有些后悔错失机会了。如果
: 想上market找faculty位置，但觉得手中现有结果又不够很快能拿下funding。可以考虑

相关主题
● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)	● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?
● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意	● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。
● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？	● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏
进入Biology版参与讨论

m*******n
发帖数: 387

的确是技术流，水平也高
但不是第一篇
版上其他人和nature online的回复也很好，而且少引用nature也有可行之处
共同努力

【在 w***a 的大作中提到】

: 是很牛呀，好像是第一篇技术流的回帖吧。

o****y
发帖数: 169

饶毅，这回顶你！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

D******9
发帖数: 2665

suppot, good job

y******8
发帖数: 1764

写得很好。

l*******n
发帖数: 2718

向饶教授致敬！

f****n
发帖数: 148

顶顶顶！我们一旦强大起来，西方那些狭隘的嘴脸就暴露无遗了。

c*****i
发帖数: 1392

good!

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

B*****s
发帖数: 381

完全是真的。跟十来个英国scholar交换过对英帝国崛起的意见，只有一个人表示他明
白鸦片战争给中国人带来的痛苦。其它人都是一种自我陶醉的状态。

【在 m*******n 的大作中提到】

: “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。”
: 这个是真是假？！

B*******u
发帖数: 3789

支持，恰到好处，非常过瘾。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

m*******n
发帖数: 387

那美国人和其他欧洲国家的人也是这种常识吗？
其他亚洲国家的人呢？
以前完全没聊过这个话题，要是也这样，以后要纠正下来

【在 B*****s 的大作中提到】

: 完全是真的。跟十来个英国scholar交换过对英帝国崛起的意见，只有一个人表示他明
: 白鸦片战争给中国人带来的痛苦。其它人都是一种自我陶醉的状态。

相关主题
● Nature事件该转战第二阶段了	● You guys over-reacted to Callaway's allegation
● Olympics: Some facts about Ye Shiwen's swim	● 向立铭，Jiang Lai, 深海饶毅三位同学致以最崇高的敬意！
● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东	● 饶毅 - 为海内外中国学生鼓掌：西方刊物对中国运动员道歉
进入Biology版参与讨论

a***9
发帖数: 1884

有骨气的学者！

n********k
发帖数: 2818

co-Zan

【在 l*******r 的大作中提到】

: 关于鸦片战争的部分我比较赞赏
:
: 闻。

B*****s
发帖数: 381

美国人不知道，总觉得他们更喜欢关心自己家门口的事情吧。欧洲人普遍属于清高类型
，尤其德国人和英国人最甚。法国人北欧和意大利人，虽然也清高，英语不好历史也很
一般，除了会揶揄中国人几句西藏，不会去跟你谈历史概貌。
英国人自然是很骄傲他们的大英崛起，而且人家还有更厉害的招数，跟我说，不光崛起
很厉害，连fall的都很gracefully！！！！！！说这是和其它empire的不同----不得不
赞叹英国人的民族认同感啊。。。
德国人特别爱挑衅中国人，但从来不会有德国人愿意
跟你谈鸦片战争这一段，甚至是历史上任何一段中国被践踏和侵略的历史。我后来的理
解是：二战后德国人被罚的够呛，二战之后长大的一代嘴上不敢说，但心理有点憋屈，
会反问别人为什么前一代
做的事情到现在还没完没了滴？！

【在 m*******n 的大作中提到】

: 那美国人和其他欧洲国家的人也是这种常识吗？
: 其他亚洲国家的人呢？
: 以前完全没聊过这个话题，要是也这样，以后要纠正下来

p*****m
发帖数: 7030

饶毅的原意应该不是这个意思他是用鸦片战争做例子说明一个民族image的重要性然
后指出我们现在需要还给我们正确和清白的Image（在Ye的事情上，甚至在鸦片战争的
事情上）；而且也请你们珍惜自己的image.
说道纠正观念，我是觉得其实无所。我们不允许你们无端抹黑我们的image,但是我们也
不需要太care你们如何评价我们的image(我们做正确的事情就行)。

【在 m*******n 的大作中提到】

: 那美国人和其他欧洲国家的人也是这种常识吗？
: 其他亚洲国家的人呢？
: 以前完全没聊过这个话题，要是也这样，以后要纠正下来

B*******u
发帖数: 3789

是这个意思，告诫其不要一而再，再而三地无端生有的歪典中国人的形象.

【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】

: 饶毅的原意应该不是这个意思他是用鸦片战争做例子说明一个民族image的重要性然
: 后指出我们现在需要还给我们正确和清白的Image（在Ye的事情上，甚至在鸦片战争的
: 事情上）；而且也请你们珍惜自己的image.
: 说道纠正观念，我是觉得其实无所。我们不允许你们无端抹黑我们的image,但是我们也
: 不需要太care你们如何评价我们的image(我们做正确的事情就行)。

X******n
发帖数: 914

透彻！

【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】

s**********e
发帖数: 2888

re,
niu,
pei fu

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

b******k
发帖数: 1874

大赞这位饶教授! 只有抗争才会有别人对我们的尊重.不过饶一个人不一定够,有更多的
在Nature发文的牛人站出来估计会增加打赢这一站的砝码.因为饶并没有增加Lai Jiang
等人已经列出的反驳论据,除了鸦片战争.鸦片战争可能会让nature明白我们为什么会对
这个事件这么敏感,但也有可能把这个问题搞复杂了,Nature主编买不买帐很难说.
ps1,饶教授前面用xxx,后面附件又很清楚的把email的发信人显示了,这是为什么啊? 不
过这个无关紧要了.....
ps2,关于羽毛球事件加个挂号(有争议的),那这个弃子战术就用得很完美了.

【在 F*Q 的大作中提到】

: 不错！中国人有理由也有力量让其他国家（种族）尊重。只是有时候，我们需要教他们
: 尊重。不知道他有没有联系其他几位知名人物联名发这封信。如果是联名的话，效果是
: 不是会更好一些？

t**********n
发帖数: 283

RE...

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

G*******9
发帖数: 4371

100

狂赞饶毅。
这种场合就需要饶毅这样高水平的驳斥。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者	● 写给Nature主编的抗议信
● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧	● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了
● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件	● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了
进入Biology版参与讨论

p******g
发帖数: 498

101

饶毅好样的
从nature news一出来就期望有分量的老中出来振臂一呼。看来还是饶毅够爷们

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

a*******e
发帖数: 245

102

向饶毅致敬！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

g******o
发帖数: 4042

103

顶版上牛人！！

【在 J********3 的大作中提到】

: 顶饶毅，也顶Liming Wang、 Jiang Lai、Zhenxi Zhang

Q*****n
发帖数: 4546

104

写得太好了，敬佩饶毅！

q*******1
发帖数: 2831

105

狂赞饶毅！！！

w*****c
发帖数: 7276

106

ding

g*******3
发帖数: 2520

107

狂顶，有这样的中国人和科学领袖，幸甚。
这文章拿捏的真到位，佩服这写作水平。

z***l
发帖数: 256

108

有理有据有节，赞！

M****u
发帖数: 4504

109

幕名来赞一下pepolem,jiang lai,和内个哥们，纯爷们儿，饶毅不错，是抗大旗的料。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

u*****g
发帖数: 1632

110

给饶毅鼓掌
期待其他大牛出场

相关主题
● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了	● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意
● 要求撤稿的	● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？
● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)	● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?
进入Biology版参与讨论

h*******k
发帖数: 660

111

饶毅的信让我想起了辜鸿铭和刘邦的大风歌。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

B******r
发帖数: 1932

112

这个又没有公开发表，也不是发在nature news上的。
泵balance什么呢？

【在 m****c 的大作中提到】

: 这下好看了。。。
: Science上说不定Rao大牛还能去写一篇。。。
:
: 闻。

B******r
发帖数: 1932

113

why? it is easy to recall Gu hongming, but why Liubang?

【在 h*******k 的大作中提到】

: 饶毅的信让我想起了辜鸿铭和刘邦的大风歌。
:
: 闻。

s****a
发帖数: 159

114

赞！！！！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

a********r
发帖数: 387

115

这个要很赞一下的。

d******d
发帖数: 1

116

赞

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

h****n
发帖数: 2552

117

饶毅纯爷们啊，爱国帝施一公太让人失望了

y***y
发帖数: 709

118

支持饶领袖
狂赞英语水平
英语是咱的硬伤，就不掺和抗议了，回家闭门修英语去。
这句话的中文翻译我忍不住想改一下：
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the worst:
Callaway的报道说好听点是草率，说难听点是种族偏见。
原文翻译‘Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见”有点不知所云。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

h******7
发帖数: 17

119

excellent English and very convincing argument!

s*******m
发帖数: 2572

120

你翻译的很好！！

worst:

【在 y***y 的大作中提到】

: 支持饶领袖
: 狂赞英语水平
: 英语是咱的硬伤，就不掺和抗议了，回家闭门修英语去。
: 这句话的中文翻译我忍不住想改一下：
: The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the worst:
: Callaway的报道说好听点是草率，说难听点是种族偏见。
: 原文翻译‘Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见”有点不知所云。
:
: 闻。

相关主题
● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。	● Olympics: Some facts about Ye Shiwen's swim
● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏	● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东
● Nature事件该转战第二阶段了	● You guys over-reacted to Callaway's allegation
进入Biology版参与讨论

x****u
发帖数: 865

121

Ding

A****e
发帖数: 184

122

顶饶教授凭着科学的态度反驳的有礼有节，大赞！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

b********o
发帖数: 1157

123

【在 A****e 的大作中提到】

: 顶饶教授凭着科学的态度反驳的有礼有节，大赞！
:
: 闻。

c**********e
发帖数: 230

124

旗帜鲜明，顶!!

m*********7
发帖数: 5207

125

嗯，胡萝卜加大棒。什么时候该捧，什么时候该批，拿捏得非常到位。
这里大多数scientists写信很难这么diplomatic.

【在 b*****n 的大作中提到】

s***a
发帖数: 7433

126

x***7
发帖数: 431

127

Ding

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

a*****h
发帖数: 4068

128

well said.
support!

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

h****y
发帖数: 68

129

不要把什么东西都政治化，本来一个很平常的观点争论之事，就被某些所谓的“爱国精
神”无限放大，现在还不知这其中是否有推手在这中推波助澜，我们中了某党圈套，这
只能让其他国家人对我们更看不起，大家赶快清醒清醒吧。

s**********e
发帖数: 601

130

写得好啊。俺是小兵一个，水平不够，只有支持加崇拜。摇旗呐喊上阵打仗俺跟着。

相关主题
● 向立铭，Jiang Lai, 深海饶毅三位同学致以最崇高的敬意！	● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧
● 饶毅 - 为海内外中国学生鼓掌：西方刊物对中国运动员道歉	● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件
● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者	● 写给Nature主编的抗议信
进入Biology版参与讨论

b*****n
发帖数: 1841

131

老将你好！
老将，这种有理有利有节的反击是赢得尊重的最重要的方式。
我作为中将，对不太现实的反击有所保留，对饶毅这样的反击非常支持。

【在 h****y 的大作中提到】

: 不要把什么东西都政治化，本来一个很平常的观点争论之事，就被某些所谓的“爱国精
: 神”无限放大，现在还不知这其中是否有推手在这中推波助澜，我们中了某党圈套，这
: 只能让其他国家人对我们更看不起，大家赶快清醒清醒吧。

o****y
发帖数: 138

132

要在国外混，英语真得是非常重要的

t********0
发帖数: 539

133

赞一个! 很有水平!

T***S
发帖数: 764

134

大牛出马了，nb！顶！

A******t
发帖数: 9

135

Nothing will be more effective than boycotting Nature. Let's
1. Unsubscribe from its emails
2. Stop subscription to the journal
3. Dont send manuscripts to the journal
4. Dont review manuscripts for the journal
5. Dont advertise in the journal

n****0
发帖数: 696

136

这才是言之有据的科学家说的话

b*****f
发帖数: 851

137

顶，饶毅教授是我最佩服的科学家之一，这篇邮件写的有理有据。

H*****1
发帖数: 41

138

从今天开始明白饶毅为什么能做得与众不同，为什么被称为大牛了。

Y*******i
发帖数: 345

139

佩服！

c*******l
发帖数: 823

140

Support. Rao is great!

相关主题
● 写给Nature主编的抗议信	● 要求撤稿的
● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了	● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)
● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了	● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意
进入Biology版参与讨论

g*****o
发帖数: 26

141

不是刘邦本人，是刘邦的大风歌 - 安得猛士兮守四方。。。
“难得有RaoYi这样的大牛出面讨伐Nature”，所以想到了大风歌？

【在 B******r 的大作中提到】

: why? it is easy to recall Gu hongming, but why Liubang?

j******l
发帖数: 10445

142

真正的勇士,不论何时何地都敢于说真话.

【在 m****c 的大作中提到】

: 饶益退出院士竞选得时候我觉得他性格太强了点
: 但这件事他站了出来，我对他肃然起敬！

g*******6
发帖数: 1034

143

His English is so good. Still a long way to go
We can always stand up on issues, but it really takes some real strength to
make your point heard. Yao has this capacity.

L***H
发帖数: 199

144

赞

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

w***y
发帖数: 150

145

Well done, Dr. Rao!

f*******n
发帖数: 18

146

饶教授，好样的！

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

j***w
发帖数: 5379

147

一百五十年前的战争，难道不应该忘了吗？英美战争，第一，第二次世界大战，大部分
人都已经忘了。没有忘记的犹太人，今天对巴勒斯坦人的压迫，也不是什么好事情。从
兴奋剂的讨论，能联系到鸦片战争，思维是挺活跃的。一点儿也不奇怪，饶益就是饶益
，一如既往的浅薄。

【在 B*****s 的大作中提到】

d******3
发帖数: 232

148

顶
Yi Rao got my respect!

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

d******3
发帖数: 232

149

下次回帖，请你用英文
谢谢。

【在 j***w 的大作中提到】

: 一百五十年前的战争，难道不应该忘了吗？英美战争，第一，第二次世界大战，大部分
: 人都已经忘了。没有忘记的犹太人，今天对巴勒斯坦人的压迫，也不是什么好事情。从
: 兴奋剂的讨论，能联系到鸦片战争，思维是挺活跃的。一点儿也不奇怪，饶益就是饶益
: ，一如既往的浅薄。

j***w
发帖数: 5379

150

恕我直言，你的回复有点儿无聊。当然我回你也很无聊。呵呵。

【在 d******3 的大作中提到】

: 下次回帖，请你用英文
: 谢谢。

相关主题
● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？	● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏
● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?	● Nature事件该转战第二阶段了
● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。	● Olympics: Some facts about Ye Shiwen's swim
进入Biology版参与讨论

d******3
发帖数: 232

151

解释一下我的跳跃性思维吧
请你用英文回复是不想看到有这么麻木的中国人。
很难看到mitbbs上国人这么团结过。

【在 j***w 的大作中提到】

: 恕我直言，你的回复有点儿无聊。当然我回你也很无聊。呵呵。

j***w
发帖数: 5379

152

好吧，今晚没什么事，就再回一次吧。首先，我说的是饶益的跳跃性思维，从单纯讨论
兴奋剂的问题，跳跃到中国人对鸦片战争的记忆犹新，我觉得很跳跃。如果是科学杂志
的话，会不会提到八国联军？不过，难道你是饶益？还自己respect了自己一帖？
其次，别人不同的意见不想看到可以理解，但是不好意思，除非你是一个很成功的独裁
者，否则，that's part of life and it is in fact healthy to see some opposite
comments.
最后，过分地追求一致的看法，不见得是对的。团结和盲从有时界限很小。

【在 d******3 的大作中提到】

: 解释一下我的跳跃性思维吧
: 请你用英文回复是不想看到有这么麻木的中国人。
: 很难看到mitbbs上国人这么团结过。

o*****n
发帖数: 445

153

ding

p*z
发帖数: 731

154

写的好，支持饶大牛

f****i
发帖数: 20252

155

你深沉怎么还在混BBS

【在 j***w 的大作中提到】

l**********1
发帖数: 5204

156

要在白兔内上https google 签名会翻墙是非常重要的
抗议《自然》杂志对叶诗文的偏见征集海内外签名精选
已有 9xxx 2012-8-4
//blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-45-599056.html
[59]zhdqing 2012-8-5 09:25
http://goo.gl/W67lX，网上不让点击了！
more pls reer
[65]钟云飞 2012-8-5 09:49
点不开
[49]bzxu63 2012-8-5 08:32
我想签名，但连接不上了，不知何故
[42]王正全 2012-8-5 07:33
哈哈哈，链接打不开

【在 o****y 的大作中提到】

: 要在国外混，英语真得是非常重要的

t******3
发帖数: 4

157

Quesitoning everything is healthy and without it Science could have neither
sprouted nor prospered
Last few days we are witnessing a circus show with much dismay. With so
much consternation and a lot of fusses, almost everyone is
condemning a Nature's article about the possibility of doping in an
out of norm performance of a female athlete. How dare it question an
outlier? Among them are some well known Chinese scientists trained in
the West. These scientists seem have forgotten that Science started
with Socrates who questioned everything and searched downwards for
answers through a never-ending question-answer-question
process. Surely Socrates become a gadfly to the once powerful Athens
and was murdered because he asked too many questions. However, with
Socrates being silenced in such a manner came the decay of Athens
empire. Some Chinese used to like to ask questions. However, after
the warring period, the people who ask questions have been silenced or
brutally murdered. Furthermore, almost everything has been done behind
the door in order to deny a few bold questioners any chances to even
ask a question. Consequently, Science could NOT have started in China.
Notknowing how to do Science (discovery) and how to invent and innovation in
technology, Chinabecomes no more powerful and Chinese become second class
citizens of this planet and many small countries could conquer and enslaved
her with much easy since then. Sadly that this circus show tells us once
again that This lesson seems have never been learned and Science still has a
treacherous road to travel in China because the lack of a fertile soil for
it to grow.

a********h
发帖数: 245

158

支持饶毅。

A*******s
发帖数: 9638

159

看到这么个报道，不知道朝鲜科学家怎么反应？
US-DPRK soccer game（women）on Tuesday：
"Some evil-minded foreign media asserted that the DPRK would take only one
silver medal, but our sportspersons refuted such assertion with good results
," said Kim Chon Sok, a department director at the Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunications.
"The hostile forces had better try hard to get a correct understanding of
the DPRK," said Kim, according to KCNA.

m**s
发帖数: 520

160

SB,这不是正宗与虎谋皮么？

相关主题
● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东	● 饶毅 - 为海内外中国学生鼓掌：西方刊物对中国运动员道歉
● You guys over-reacted to Callaway's allegation	● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者
● 向立铭，Jiang Lai, 深海饶毅三位同学致以最崇高的敬意！	● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧
进入Biology版参与讨论

j**h
发帖数: 93

161

support

h*******k
发帖数: 660

162

有的人或善于拾西人牙慧，或把桌上蚂蚁的品评一番以显示自己的雕虫和深刻，此
等誇辩之徒弟，坐言立谈，无人能及；及至国家大事、国计民生，则鼠首两端，实无一
策，百无一能，百无一用，诚为天下耻笑也！
饶毅此次的出手，最漂亮之处在于那鸦片战争直接和英毛子叫板，此等风骨和胆略
，不惧内不媚外，300年来，从各位天子、皇子皇孙到王公贵卿、贩夫走卒，能有第二
人吗？一枝笔不仅把西方的虚伪划了个稀巴烂，而且袒露的凛然铁骨，使人不得不肃然
起敬，也让那些家贼和外盗胆寒！。什么是外交？这就是外交！难道这一枝笔抵不上1
架歼20，10个外交部，100个援非项目吗？什么是国士，这就是，敢于为民担待，敢于
为炎黄子孙舍身呐喊！
饶大炮不但身手了得，而且嫉恶如仇，爱打抱不平，快人快语快手，这位兄弟煞是可爱！
你是匠人之眼，而且只能看到碗里的三粒米，一辈子也看不懂饶大炮的器局和胸襟的。
这是你个人的悲哀。

【在 j***w 的大作中提到】

w******6
发帖数: 725

163

顶

s**s
发帖数: 122

164

跟踪此事，直到读到此文，对饶大炮，深感敬佩。
在此事上故作高深，批评饶大炮的人，不代表本人的利益。

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

a*i
发帖数: 1652

165

赞同！我也觉得顺笔提到鸦片战争很妙，其实这个意义远大于质疑本身。
发信人: happymonk (下山和尚), 信区: Biology
标题: Re: 饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sun Aug 5 11:30:28 2012, 美东)
有的人或善于拾西人牙慧，或把桌上蚂蚁的品评一番以显示自己的雕虫和深刻，此
等誇辩之徒弟，坐言立谈，无人能及；及至国家大事、国计民生，则鼠首两端，实无一
策，百无一能，百无一用，诚为天下耻笑也！
饶毅此次的出手，最漂亮之处在于那鸦片战争直接和英毛子叫板，此等风骨和胆略
，不惧内不媚外，300年来，从各位天子、皇子皇孙到王公贵卿、贩夫走卒，能有第二
人吗？一枝笔不仅把西方的虚伪划了个稀巴烂，而且袒露的凛然铁骨，使人不得不肃然
起敬，也让那些家贼和外盗胆寒！。什么是外交？这就是外交！难道这一枝笔抵不上1
架歼20，10个外交部，100个援非项目吗？什么是国士，这就是，敢于为民担待，敢于
为炎黄子孙舍身呐喊！
饶大炮不但身手了得，而且嫉恶如仇，爱打抱不平，快人快语快手，这位兄弟煞是可爱！
你是匠人之眼，而且只能看到碗里的三粒米，一辈子也看不懂饶大炮的器局和胸襟的。
这是你个人的悲哀。

【在 j***w 的大作中提到】

k*******n
发帖数: 8891

166

狂赞！

r****e
发帖数: 3109

167

are they questioning everything? are they? are they? everything? are they?
everything? is this how you define everything? open your blind eyes.

neither

【在 t******3 的大作中提到】

: Quesitoning everything is healthy and without it Science could have neither
: sprouted nor prospered
: Last few days we are witnessing a circus show with much dismay. With so
: much consternation and a lot of fusses, almost everyone is
: condemning a Nature's article about the possibility of doping in an
: out of norm performance of a female athlete. How dare it question an
: outlier? Among them are some well known Chinese scientists trained in
: the West. These scientists seem have forgotten that Science started
: with Socrates who questioned everything and searched downwards for
: answers through a never-ending question-answer-question

s***y
发帖数: 12419

168

ding

F*****p
发帖数: 206

169

你这说的，中国游泳队被查出用兴奋剂也不是第一次。
这版上接触兴奋剂的比用大麻的少得多。如今国外sports lab也不是吃素的，防止兴
奋剂检查方法多了去了，比如赛前换换血。但是关键是随时抽查，我要是体委绝对不
可能让奥委会随时抽查，最多定时检查。那作弊方法多了。
大家爱国没得说，不过要是个人成绩突然提高5秒，真是让人怀疑。
说来说去，你要是个中国或美国职业或半职业的运动员，你保证知道这一切都是个肮脏
的business. 一句话，中美都用兴奋剂，所以不用五十步笑百步。

p*****m
发帖数: 7030

170

我就说两个错误，别的问题别人喷你就是了
1 飞行药检不是国家和个人能选择的，时间地点不事先通知（运动员要随时报告自己的
行程给IOC，随时等待检查），如果缺席就直接认定没过
2 个人成绩提高5秒的人多了自己google

【在 F*****p 的大作中提到】

: 你这说的，中国游泳队被查出用兴奋剂也不是第一次。
: 这版上接触兴奋剂的比用大麻的少得多。如今国外sports lab也不是吃素的，防止兴
: 奋剂检查方法多了去了，比如赛前换换血。但是关键是随时抽查，我要是体委绝对不
: 可能让奥委会随时抽查，最多定时检查。那作弊方法多了。
: 大家爱国没得说，不过要是个人成绩突然提高5秒，真是让人怀疑。
: 说来说去，你要是个中国或美国职业或半职业的运动员，你保证知道这一切都是个肮脏
: 的business. 一句话，中美都用兴奋剂，所以不用五十步笑百步。

相关主题
● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧	● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了
● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件	● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了
● 写给Nature主编的抗议信	● 要求撤稿的
进入Biology版参与讨论

F*****p
发帖数: 206

171

药检就是个JOKE，每天兴奋剂都在更新换代，兴奋剂是个大工业，药检哪来funding?
人家LAB几个小时就把兴奋剂洗干净了，飞行药检有个屁用。这是自欺欺人。
你找一个200米游泳，历次国际比赛都比奥运会少5秒的？这是天方夜谭。

【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】

: 我就说两个错误，别的问题别人喷你就是了
: 1 飞行药检不是国家和个人能选择的，时间地点不事先通知（运动员要随时报告自己的
: 行程给IOC，随时等待检查），如果缺席就直接认定没过
: 2 个人成绩提高5秒的人多了自己google

w***a
发帖数: 4361

172

扯淡，兴奋剂在更新换代，药检也在更新。
尿样血样都要保存好几年的。你们这种狗屁说法，过几年自然灰飞烟灭。
不过你到时候可以扯，中国队搞到天顶星技术，地球人几万年也赶不上。

?

【在 F*****p 的大作中提到】

: 药检就是个JOKE，每天兴奋剂都在更新换代，兴奋剂是个大工业，药检哪来funding?
: 人家LAB几个小时就把兴奋剂洗干净了，飞行药检有个屁用。这是自欺欺人。
: 你找一个200米游泳，历次国际比赛都比奥运会少5秒的？这是天方夜谭。

e*******c
发帖数: 1479

173

都是闲的xx, 这种事情最好的处理就是根本不理睬

F*****p
发帖数: 206

174

避药检就像考GRE，避开要查的，你就成功了。
你要是找个避酒测得方子，一点都不难，问题是违法。
尿样血样都要保存好几年的没错，留着是用于研究。
照你的说法，我们要等3年，才知道小叶是不是冠军？

【在 w***a 的大作中提到】

: 扯淡，兴奋剂在更新换代，药检也在更新。
: 尿样血样都要保存好几年的。你们这种狗屁说法，过几年自然灰飞烟灭。
: 不过你到时候可以扯，中国队搞到天顶星技术，地球人几万年也赶不上。
:
: ?

F*****p
发帖数: 206

175

饶毅的意思是，小叶和美国队Performance一样，所以如果小叶用兴奋剂，美国队一定
也跑不掉。
饶毅应该加上，美国打海湾战争，不也让士兵用兴奋剂。到了奥运会，关系国家利益，
当然不会在兴奋剂上怠慢。

b*******e
发帖数: 6482

176

这是生物版吧，一个运动员16岁时比她15岁时游得快，你怀疑个鬼啊

【在 F*****p 的大作中提到】

j***w
发帖数: 5379

177

海龟和海外华人总是落后一拍，http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2012/08/05/1907030.html

d******g
发帖数: 346

178

Very happy to know somebody finally stand up!
There should be a debate about the tennis match too. So that our athletes
and coaches will know what to do next time in a flexible manner.
Personally, I think the athletes are the victims. It is really hard for them
to make the right choice and I feel sympathy toward them instead of
shameful for them.
The coaches should have intervened in time to tell the athletes that they
couldn't fake this time and have to win the match given the circumstances.

F*****p
发帖数: 206

179

16 比15 快5 秒，没长一岁就快5秒
那25岁岂不是不用游就到了。

【在 b*******e 的大作中提到】

: 这是生物版吧，一个运动员16岁时比她15岁时游得快，你怀疑个鬼啊

y***i
发帖数: 11639

180

Nice!

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)	● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?
● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意	● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。
● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？	● 谁有Noah Gray的twitter截屏
进入Biology版参与讨论

d******g
发帖数: 346

181

有理!有利!有节!
Yao, and several others, did a great job!

m*********t
发帖数: 527

182

暴露出无知的本质了吧。是不是你的身高体重都是线性随年龄增长的？
我要告诉你那个美国妞一个月就提高了 5 秒你是不是想跳的更欢？

【在 F*****p 的大作中提到】

: 16 比15 快5 秒，没长一岁就快5秒
: 那25岁岂不是不用游就到了。

u**********e
发帖数: 26

183

这贴直接暴露了你的智商，对你表示同情。

【在 F*****p 的大作中提到】

: 16 比15 快5 秒，没长一岁就快5秒
: 那25岁岂不是不用游就到了。

m****c
发帖数: 244

184

支持饶毅！
那个中文翻译好象是从google来的。读着拗口。我给润色了一下。欢迎大家进一步改进。
===================================================
斐尔,
你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸。在过去二十小时，我也收到了
小部分给你发email的读者的来信。如果你奇怪为何《自然》非精华部分的一篇报道带
来如此大的反应，那么你应该高兴中国读者比世界其他地方的读者更看重你们的新闻报
道。与科学相关的（即使关系很小）报导对中国读者来说《自然》可能比《纽约时报》
更有分量。中文媒体引用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体。

对Callaway报道的最好评价是草率、最差评价是种族偏见：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的异常表现，而两件“事实”都是错的;
3) Callaway没有咨询持不同意见的专家，从而导致报道不平衡。而公正平衡应该是新
闻报导的最低标准。所以，Callaway至少不负责任，轻易的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”更改为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问”。舞弊
被改为疑问。
Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比事实上“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”错的，第二个是误导。1) 叶比自己的记录只快5
秒，而此前她的记录创于2011年，不是2012年。这位16岁的运动员用了一年而不是少于
4周刷新自己的最好成绩。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的整个400米是世界第二快的记录，而叶的整个400米成绩和Lochte
相差甚远（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、六位同时比赛的男选手。叶最后
五十米自由泳也慢于那些男选手。所以，叶是在其的强项快于Lochte的弱项。如果
Callaway多做一些功课，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最好成绩。这些事实
更正后，Callaway的报道就没有依据了。
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简洁而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优
于Wikipedia。但是比较Callaway报道与Wikipedia的条目显示了作者根本没有采访已经
公开提出不同意见的专家。你应该收到了"XXX"博士的一封email。在发表过多篇《自然
》和《自然神经科学》的第一作者论文后，他获得"XX"学院的博士学位。随后他获取极
具声望的奖学金到"XX"大学做独立的博士后［注：此处作者隐去当事人细节］。他
email我邀请我关注此事。以防他给你的email淹没在你成百上千邮件中，我将其附录为
《附件2》。Callaway在线报道下面有很多跟帖讨论。有些学生认为有些很有道理（且
有实质内容）的讨论被删了。他们寄给了我，在此我选Lai Jiang的跟贴为《附件3》，
Zhenxi Zhang的为《附件4》。从中你可以看到学生和《自然》资深读者的愤怒是有事
实依据的。而这些事实却被Callaway忽略。
英国人常常忘记，而现代华人不会忘记的一点，是世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人
卖鸦片给英国人。我自己今年（2012年）6月份在香港开会时就亲身经历一次这样的误
解：我的一位老朋友，身为麻省理工学院教授，就是这么认为的。
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
学牛顿和达尔文时，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，才使得《自然
》有今天的声誉。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，记忆是崭新的，而不是1840年的
残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平，可能很难“驱散”读者对英国至上的“疑
问”。[注：此处借用《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。但我们对缺乏依据、有偏见的批评还依然敏感。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。她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次兴
奋剂测试。而很多媒体再毫无证据地对她横加指责，负面舆论多于正面，那就非常不公
平了。特别是《自然》这样的科学刊物参与进来。
我希望你们能对事实予以澄清，并发表其它观点从而平衡Callaway的报道。
毅
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

D*a
发帖数: 6830

185

你再算算她长到几岁就超光速了？

【在 F*****p 的大作中提到】

: 16 比15 快5 秒，没长一岁就快5秒
: 那25岁岂不是不用游就到了。

C*4
发帖数: 10

186

ding!

闻。

【在 i****g 的大作中提到】

(共1页)

进入Biology版参与讨论

相关主题
● Nature, 叶诗文, 造假, 饶毅, 施一公, 王小东	● nature的文章我们也许反应过度了
● You guys over-reacted to Callaway's allegation	● 『为什么科学网存在如此多的匪夷所思？！』饶毅引火烧身了
● 向立铭，Jiang Lai, 深海饶毅三位同学致以最崇高的敬意！	● 要求撤稿的
● 饶毅 - 为海内外中国学生鼓掌：西方刊物对中国运动员道歉	● 连nature也来高端黑叶诗文。。。 (转载)
● To: 觉得"nature的文章我们也许反应过度了"的作者	● Nature那篇烂文作者收到抗议还很得意
● 简单update下我们的抗议活动吧	● 哪位用成绩分析法分析一下欧美泳员，投稿Nature？
● 我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件	● How will NATURE handle Ewen Callaway's ethical violation?
● 写给Nature主编的抗议信	● 想整死Nature的那个人吗？公开信又来了。。。

相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: ye话题: callaway话题: nature话题: lochte话题: than

#	版面	帖数(主题数)
-	全站	4871 (796)
1	Military	3777 (569)
2	Stock	341 (51)
3	Joke	117 (17)
4	History	116 (3)
5	Automobile	100 (9)
6	USANews	55 (9)
7	Midlife	45 (1)
8	Headline	41 (41)
9	Dreamer	33 (13)
10	FleaMarket	32 (20)
11	Living	30 (7)

boards

未名新帖统计// 7月16日

历史上的今天