本文转自刘实的博客: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102eeu5.html (2012-08-07 10:10:04) 刚看到《自然》的“道歉”,就发现有些假抗议《自然》的人已开始真保护《自然》了。 其实,《自然》的这篇“道歉”不仅 缺乏诚意 ,而且 充满谎言 。 先还是看一下《自然》的2012年8月3日的 嘴硬 (我将关键字句套红加粗): http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109 Corrected: 03 August 2012 EDITOR’S NOTE The comments below are a sample of the outrage with which this news story was greeted. We are sorry that it has offended so many readers, but we stand by the piece . We strongly reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias or racism ; our intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy arising from the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph states that Ye has never had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of her win “has been tinged with racial and political undertones”. The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate. It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the unfortunate suspicions that the most extraordinary athletic performance raises these days, whatever the nationality of the athlete. We are no longer accepting comments on this news story , and because of the volume of comments, some early posts have disappeared . We intentionally deleted only those posts that violated our Community Guidelines . 再看今日(2012年8月6日)《自然》的的 嘴滑 : EDITORS’ NOTE (updated 6 August 2012) This article has drawn an extraordinary level of outraged response. The volume of comments has been so great that our online commenting system is unable to cope: it deletes earlier posts as new ones arrive. We much regret this ongoing problem. The disappearance of some cogent responses to the story has fuelled suspicions that Nature is deliberately censoring the strongest criticisms. This is absolutely not the case: Nature welcomes critically minded discussion of our content. (We intentionally removed only a few comments that violated our Community Guidelines by being abusive or defamatory, including several that offensively stereotyped the many Chinese readers who commented on the story.) Many of the commenters have questioned why we changed the original subtitle of the story from “‘Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats” to “‘Performance profiling’ could help dispel doubts”. The original version of the title was unfair to the swimmer Ye Shiwen and did not reflect the substance of the story. We regret that the original appeared in the first place. We also regret that the original story included an error about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012. We have corrected the error. We apologize to our readers for these errors , and for the unintended removal of comments because of technical issues with our commenting system. Below we reproduce one of the most thorough and thoughtful of the hundreds of responses we received. Beneath it, we continue with our response. EDITORS’ NOTE (continued) The news story was triggered by a debate that was already active, concerning the scale of Ye Shiwen’s victory. Such debates have arisen over many outstanding feats in the past , by athletes from many countries, and it is wrong to suggest, as many of the critics do, that we singled her out because of her nationality. The story’s intention as an Explainer was to examine how science can help resolve debates over extraordinary performances, not to examine those performance statistics in detail. Several analyses done by others convinced us that it was fair to characterize Ye’s performance as ‘anomalous’ — in the sense that it was statistically unusual . But we acknowledge that the combination of errors discussed above and the absence of a more detailed discussion of the statistics (which with hindsight we regret) gave the impression that we were supporting accusations against her, even though this was emphatically not our intention. For that, we apologize to our readers and to Ye Shiwen. Tim Appenzeller Chief Magazine Editor, Nature Philip Campbell Editor-in-Chief, Nature 下面我就提纲节领地说一下《自然》 “道歉”的假 和 撒谎的真 。 总的来说,《自然》只是为它所发文章的(副标)题不对文(主要内容)和文中有(个人别数据)错“道歉”,但它 断然拒绝了任何对它有种族偏见和歧视的猜想 。也就是说,那些愤怒的发评者是读错了它发表的文章,有些人还冒犯了《自然》的规定。 如果说这就是《自然》的“道歉”的话,我要说它更是一个对广大读者的侮辱。因为它 不仅错怪了广大读者的正义感情,而贬低了大多评论者的智商! 而为了使它的这篇假道歉搞得像真的一样,《自然》的主编和编辑竟 不惜编造谎言来掩盖他们的蓄意行为 。他们说由于系统的原因,在线评论系统不能接受过多的评论,而且还发生了新评冲掉旧评的事件。 真是这样的吗?一个国际顶尖的杂志难道只有这样差的一个电脑系统?看来有的读者评论说“《自然》编辑:你妈叫你回去吃饭”还是对的,因为这国际顶尖的杂志也就是饭桶一个。 但是,《自然》把自己贬成饭桶的说辞只是一个地地道道的谎言。因为(许多网友都可能留有的证据表明)那些被删的评论不是“长江后浪推前浪”般地被“拍死在沙滩上”。它们是被从众多评论中间“挑出来”而有意“隐藏”的。 俗话说,再狡猾的狐狸也逃不过猎人的眼光。狐狸的尾巴是藏不了的。 《自然》说因为系统的原因新评冲掉了旧评。但可笑的是,现在它竟能把一条已被“冲掉”的旧评给完整地“捡”回来。自然乎?不自然吧! 《自然》说它只是有意地删掉了少数几条违反“共同体规则”的评论。但如果《自然》有种的话,就请把它删掉的评论都摆出来,看是否都是犯规的言论。 时至今日,《自然》还说“ it was fair to characterize Ye’s performance as ‘anomalous’ — in the sense that it was statistically unusual . ”(把叶的表现描述成“异常”是公正的,因为统计上看它是不寻常)。这就是《自然》的“科学”?这就是《自然》的逻辑? 《自然》说叶的表现在统计上是不寻常的。它显示了统计分析的结果吗?没有分析就下结论,还称其为科学,这不就是典型的伪科吗? 《自然》:别想用一篇 伪道歉 来唬人,特别是比英国人有更久文明的中华人。如你不表示真诚的道歉(含英镑的),你那载毒的奶车就别想在有骨气的华人真科中横行! 当然,你还是会吸引一些被影响因子淫乱了大脑的汉奸伪科,但他们的好日子也不会太长! 附: Nature道歉了,大家就别抵制了呗 经过很多人的评论与写信,Nature向叶诗文和读者们道歉了!这是我最希望看到的结局。Nature这样只会给自己加分……颜宁 为海内外中国学生鼓掌:西方刊物对中国运动员道歉 饶毅 Nature道歉了,大家就别抵制了呗 :) 精选 已有 8829 次阅读 2012-8-7 00:00 |系统分类: 观点评述 |关键词:Ye Shiwen, 叶诗文, Nature 本来这是上一篇文章 《Nature真热闹》 的后续,算是对这件事情的一个完整结局,但是因为科学网博客好像有字数限制,于是另起一篇。 经过很多人的评论与写信,比如饶先生 的 《致自然杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道》 ,Nature向叶诗文和读者们道歉了! 对于Upenn 化学系的Lai Jiang童鞋的敬仰之情犹如滔滔江水啊,他的回复也被Nature放在了网站上,不用到comment里面去找了。 这是我最希望看到的结局。Nature这样只会给自己加分。 目睹跟踪了整个事件,MITBBS上一直为此努力的xdjm们好样的!真为你们骄傲! 最后,我终于不用提心吊胆地害怕发Nature被扔臭鸡蛋了 EDITORS’ NOTE (updated 6 August 2012) This article has drawn an extraordinary level of outraged response. The volume of comments has been so great that our online commenting system is unable to cope: it deletes earlier posts as new ones arrive. We much regret this ongoing problem. The disappearance of some cogent responses to the story has fuelled suspicions that Nature is deliberately censoring the strongest criticisms. This is absolutely not the case: Nature welcomes critically minded discussion of our content. (We intentionally removed only a few comments that violated our Community Guidelines by being abusive or defamatory, including several that offensively stereotyped the many Chinese readers who commented on the story.) Many of the commenters have questioned why we changed the original subtitle of the story from “‘Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats” to “‘Performance profiling’ could help dispel doubts”. The original version of the title was unfair to the swimmer Ye Shiwen and did not reflect the substance of the story. We regret that the original appeared in the first place. We also regret that the original story included an error about the improvement in Ye’s time for the 400-metre individual medley: she improved by 7 seconds since July 2011, not July 2012. We have corrected the error. We apologize to our readers for these errors, and for the unintended removal of comments because of technical issues with our commenting system. Below we reproduce one of the most thorough and thoughtful of the hundreds of responses we received. Beneath it, we continue with our response. 中间这里是 FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania 的强文,因为太长,就不再贴一遍了。 EDITORS’ NOTE (continued) The news story was triggered by a debate that was already active, concerning the scale of Ye Shiwen’s victory. Such debates have arisen over many outstanding feats in the past, by athletes from many countries, and it is wrong to suggest, as many of the critics do, that we singled her out because of her nationality. The story’s intention as an Explainer was to examine how science can help resolve debates over extraordinary performances, not to examine those performance statistics in detail. Several analyses done by others convinced us that it was fair to characterize Ye’s performance as ‘anomalous’ — in the sense that it was statistically unusual. But we acknowledge that the combination of errors discussed above and the absence of a more detailed discussion of the statistics (which with hindsight we regret) gave the impression that we were supporting accusations against her, even though this was emphatically not our intention. For that, we apologize to our readers and to Ye Shiwen. Tim Appenzeller Chief Magazine Editor, Nature Philip Campbell Editor-in-Chief, Nature 本文引用地址: http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-65865-599700.html 为海内外中国学生鼓掌:西方刊物对中国运动员道歉 精选 已有 793 次阅读 2012-8-7 09:30 |系统分类: 观点评述 |关键词:叶诗文自然 国际顶尖科学刊物《自然》对中国游泳运动员叶诗文的道歉,完全是海内外中国学生以理服人的结果。 2012年8月初《自然》新闻部分发表其记者Callaway报道的问题,被国外和国内一大批学生指出其中事实的错误,以及选择性省略事实后的歪曲误导。其中,Lai Jiang(宾州大学化学系)、Zhenxi Zhang很快提供了详实资料和论理,王立铭(伯克利加州大学)和他联系的一群国外和国内学生(包括我认识的北大学生,姑且隐去姓名)积极主动,收集了更多资料、并在讨论的基础上形成抗议的信,征集了上千人的签名。 一百多年来,中国学生到西方、日本学习,在国内也很多直接和间接学习西方很多人类知识财富。在这个必需的过程中,西方在很多方面,特别是自然科学与技术方面,是中国的老师,中国人在西方人面前自觉不自觉地养成了学生心态。 西方对中国崛起还不习惯。从西方人总体也好、其知识界也好,对中国历史和文化的了解有限,不如中国人、中国知识界更了解西方。西方媒体、西方知识界对黑人、西班牙裔都已不敢显示偏见。不敢以某个文化、某个宗教、某个国家的统计规律、或者历史成见,来指责共享同一文化、宗教、或国家的个人。个人不是统计数字,去除种族主义和偏见的基本要求,是对个人的评价一定要依据其个体行为。例如,美国和西方其他国家,并未因为统计上用飞机炸美国的恐怖分子都是穆斯林、都来自几个特定国家,而要求只安全检查这些国家和宗教的人,也未因为中国从无人对美国用飞机进行恐怖活动就在飞机场免检中国人。同理,在体育竞赛上,西方媒体也没因为美国曾经创造世界游泳竞赛历史上最难堪的多个用禁药历史,而质疑每个美国奥运游泳金牌;西方媒体此次没因为美国女选手Katie Ledecky几周内刷新自己速度5秒多、半年刷新15秒、两年刷新39秒,而公开怀疑她;没因为Katie Ledecky今年第一次参加重大国际比赛就打破维持了23年的美国游泳记录就说要问问她是否用药。所以,有充分的事实作为基础,认为西方媒体只质疑叶诗文是有偏见的表现。 《自然》在全世界科学界享有崇高声誉。其逾百年的科学声誉来源于英国在现代科学上的举足轻重。今天《自然》发表的科学论文,虽然不是每篇都好,但总体仍代表人类科学进步的步伐。中国在《自然》发表论文的比重仍然很低,不能左右其发表论文的量,且不能左右其发表论文的质,海外华人发表的量要多于国内,但也不到中国人口在全世界的比例。对于自然科学,特别是生命科学来说,《自然》科学论文的重要性,在短期内不可能变化很大。《自然》杂志的新闻部分质量亟需提高。 在学生教导和要求下,在一些老师的敦促下,我致信《自然》总编Philip Campbell,并抄送《自然》的两位记者及《自然》的法律代表。我与其交流大概有8、9年,有过相近意见、有过相反意见,有合作态度、有激烈反对态度。《自然》也关注中国消息,其中国雇员代为收集信息,包括《科学网》。所以,我的回信除了给《自然》以外,也加上中文版给了《科学网》,以便《自然》的中国代理帮他们观察是否只是我一人的意见、还是很多人的反应。 有很多学生和老师单独致信《自然》,CBIS(华人生物学家协会)几位负责人代表协会给《自然》总编写了信,也有很多人在《自然》网站留言,多个网站的反应,都汇集成洪流。 海内外学生发起的工作,其他老师和关心此事的人相应,对《自然》都有影响的。如果没有大家的反应,出了事情的刊物(不仅《自然》而且其他媒体)都希望躲过去。此次,我给《自然》的要求比较简单,建议发表与原新闻相反的意见以求公平(《自然》现在用了Lai Jiang的详实分析)。学生们的抗议要求道歉、并对叶诗文道歉,《自然》虽解释不是故意有偏见,但明确对叶诗文道歉。 对于学习自然科学(特别此次的主力生物学)学生来说,这是事情发展到科学媒体而忍无可忍,批评学术刊物刊登的新闻,影响学界舆论。对于中国和华人来说,此事的源头当然不是《自然》,而是西方媒体。英国的BBC、《卫报》,美国的CNN、《纽约时报》都有偏见性报道,特别是对叶诗文与Ledecky完全不同的对待。大家都知道,问题的本质不在于某个运动员是否用药,而是要求对中国人、对华人的公平,不能对白人和其他国家的人就优待,对华人就怀疑。 在更广泛的媒体和舆论中,如何得到对华人的公平、改善华人的形象,并非很容易,但如果有人像理科学生这次一样,做很好的协调和努力,也一定可以做到。目前中国官方没人敢出面,出面了可能也说的不好,效果不如不说。中国的媒体也不知道怎么影响世界,只敢在国内、最多华文媒体说说。此次理科学生发起的声势浩大的成功的抗议,连华文媒体都极少报道。 如果其他有专长的华人,包括文科方面的学生老师,以自己的专业能力,一鼓作气继续针对西方媒体区别报道叶诗文和Ledecky所表现的明显偏见,力争让始作蛹者(BBC的Clare Balding和美国的John Leonard)道歉,让CNN和《纽约时报》更正,可以改善华人的形象和地位,有利于全体华人,也促进迄今白人主导的媒体世界更公平。 附 堪萨斯大学浣军和罗勃的分析 链接: http://www.ittc.ku.edu/huanlab/swimData/
Nature根本就没道歉的意思,完全是进一步狡辩。 不想细说,只摘录一些网友的留言: 这是一个非常傲慢的、不那么真诚的道歉,发表的时机,使用的数据一点都不严肃认真。不要自欺欺人!(pkuer8102 ) 很难认为是道歉,Ye只是在最后的50米的自由泳比Lochte快,这个最容易误导读者的地方并没有明确指出来,甚至没有修过。(金涛) 大家仔细看看自然究竟对什么道歉了,别高兴得太早了。(文克玲) 自然杂志写得拐弯抹角,不是真诚的道歉,继续抵制!(马陶武) 还是坚持anomalous算什么道歉 人家道歉的是文章数字有小错误和删除评论(王淳) 颜老师,你真的认为Nature道歉了?(wetland118) 读了Nature原文,根本就没有看到有道歉的意思,楼主不要哄自己,拜托。(wetland118) 我这个人比较弱智,我还是有些搞不懂,如果人家坚持说“ Several analyses done by others convinced us that it was fair to characterize Ye’s performance as ‘anomalous’ — in the sense that it was statistically unusual." 只是引起了我的误解,我为这象你表示道歉,这话还是很绕的。也就是说,我老人家太弱智,或太敏感,给予人道主义原则...(潘学峰) "最后,我终于不用提心吊胆地害怕发Nature被扔臭鸡蛋了"这句话跟nature道歉的态度毫无二致,一股冷傲的自负跃然纸上。文章没有落脚在nature是否真正道歉,也绝不是对二位勇士表示您的所谓的赞赏,而是孤芳自赏,好美,好美!(王博) 这不叫道歉,而是忽悠.(好象) 不接受!这不算道歉,还在遮掩关键错误 Was Ye’s performance anomalous? Yes. Doesn't a clean drug test during competition rule out the possibility of doping? No. 这两个小标题的隐意太明显了。 这篇新闻稿明显 bias 严重,必须撤掉 不想撤就得大改 1. 在首段介绍中加入大段除叶之外的其他运动员,讲清楚哪些是作弊的,哪些是没作弊的 2. 把以上两个标题换掉,去掉叶的名字,改成陈述句,去掉yes no 判断,如果坚持认为是anomalous,那也加入其它未作弊运动员的anomalous,叶只是其中一例证 3. 把超过 Lochet 50m 的例证去掉 如果真的是针对科学的文章,拿叶的争议作为引子可以,但通篇仅举叶为例证显然是不合适的(雍泽辉 ) 不知道为什么有些人自我感觉良好,觉得人家是道歉了。 延伸阅读 Nature真的道歉了吗?http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-218980-599815.html