f*l
2 楼
在美国上学的时候，我经常会去一家餐厅打零工，锻炼自己的独立能力。我去的那家餐
厅是欧式风格的，特别浪漫，经常有情侣出双如对，甜蜜的样子让人羡慕。
然后我就想，如果再这样的异域风情下，邂逅一场爱情，应该是一件很不错的事情。就
在那个时候，我认识了Chkio，他是一个胖胖的男孩，皮肤白白的，金发碧眼，看上去
十分可爱。
他是为数不多的经常自己出入这家餐厅的人，每次他临走时都要和我聊几句，说是聊天
，不如说他在教我学英文，那时候我的口语实在太差，他总是帮我纠正错误。
时间一长，我们就比较熟悉了，他经常过来的时候会送我一个小礼物或者是一包小零食
，我也就欣然接受。
说实话，我是比较喜欢他的，他真的很可爱，也很善良。有一次他拿着手机过来，给我
拍照，我没有拒绝。拍完照片之后，他嘴里不停地说着“Good！”就离开了。
晚上，他给我打电话，好像是喝醉酒的样子，他只说了一句话“Judy,I love you！”
，说完这句话之后，他就挂电话了。或许是他有一些腼腆吧，说完“I love you”之后
再也说不出别的，到了周末，我们又在那家餐厅见面了，他附在我耳边轻声说：“Judy
,I love you！”我没有及时给他回答，只说了一句“Oh,yes,I know。”
有一天晚上他约我去看电影，我没有拒绝，在路上他轻轻牵起了我的手，又说了一些动
情的话。那一天，我们正式在一起了，我喜欢捏他的胖胖的身体，喜欢他抱着我的感觉
，他的吻也令我着迷……
后来因为回国，我们还是分手了，但是那份异域风情的恋爱是我一生的美好回忆。
厅是欧式风格的，特别浪漫，经常有情侣出双如对，甜蜜的样子让人羡慕。
然后我就想，如果再这样的异域风情下，邂逅一场爱情，应该是一件很不错的事情。就
在那个时候，我认识了Chkio，他是一个胖胖的男孩，皮肤白白的，金发碧眼，看上去
十分可爱。
他是为数不多的经常自己出入这家餐厅的人，每次他临走时都要和我聊几句，说是聊天
，不如说他在教我学英文，那时候我的口语实在太差，他总是帮我纠正错误。
时间一长，我们就比较熟悉了，他经常过来的时候会送我一个小礼物或者是一包小零食
，我也就欣然接受。
说实话，我是比较喜欢他的，他真的很可爱，也很善良。有一次他拿着手机过来，给我
拍照，我没有拒绝。拍完照片之后，他嘴里不停地说着“Good！”就离开了。
晚上，他给我打电话，好像是喝醉酒的样子，他只说了一句话“Judy,I love you！”
，说完这句话之后，他就挂电话了。或许是他有一些腼腆吧，说完“I love you”之后
再也说不出别的，到了周末，我们又在那家餐厅见面了，他附在我耳边轻声说：“Judy
,I love you！”我没有及时给他回答，只说了一句“Oh,yes,I know。”
有一天晚上他约我去看电影，我没有拒绝，在路上他轻轻牵起了我的手，又说了一些动
情的话。那一天，我们正式在一起了，我喜欢捏他的胖胖的身体，喜欢他抱着我的感觉
，他的吻也令我着迷……
后来因为回国，我们还是分手了，但是那份异域风情的恋爱是我一生的美好回忆。
c*g
3 楼
能和一代mini通用吗？
b*D
4 楼
我们需要做个专门的网站记录这次事件，然后在网站上号召大家尽量不引用nature的文
章，至少是三年内的文章，直到Noah Gray道歉位置。
大家把觉得对做这个网站有用的材料贴过来吧，先集中下材料，然后看看谁有精力去做。
注意版权，自己原创并且允许网站使用的请说明
章，至少是三年内的文章，直到Noah Gray道歉位置。
大家把觉得对做这个网站有用的材料贴过来吧，先集中下材料，然后看看谁有精力去做。
注意版权，自己原创并且允许网站使用的请说明
f*h
5 楼
you must be careful...
Otherwise we will miss you for a few days. You never know how powerful BM is
until ...
Otherwise we will miss you for a few days. You never know how powerful BM is
until ...
m*s
6 楼
厚一点，挤挤，就进去了。
【在 c********g 的大作中提到】
: 能和一代mini通用吗？
【在 c********g 的大作中提到】
: 能和一代mini通用吗？
b*D
7 楼
Nature的回信
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Biology/31709045.html
I am sorry that our news article has offended so many readers. We stand by
the piece and reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias; our
intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy arising from
the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph emphasizes that Ye has never
had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of her win “
has been tinged with racial and political undertones”. The last paragraph
quotes an expert saying “When we look at this young swimmer from China who
breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or
two.”
The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate.
It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the
unfortunate suspicions that, these days, the most extraordinary athletic
performance raise, whatever the nationality of the athlete.
Sincerely,
Tim Appenzeller
Tim Appenzeller
Chief Magazine Editor
Nature
4 Crinan St.
London N1 9XW UK
ph. (0)20 7843 4547
mobile (0)77 0933 1431
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Biology/31709045.html
I am sorry that our news article has offended so many readers. We stand by
the piece and reject suggestions that it was motivated by bias; our
intention was to investigate the science behind a controversy arising from
the current Olympic Games. The first paragraph emphasizes that Ye has never
had a positive drug test and notes that much of the discussion of her win “
has been tinged with racial and political undertones”. The last paragraph
quotes an expert saying “When we look at this young swimmer from China who
breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or
two.”
The article is a fair-minded look at a controversy that we did not initiate.
It asks whether new developments in performance monitoring could dispel the
unfortunate suspicions that, these days, the most extraordinary athletic
performance raise, whatever the nationality of the athlete.
Sincerely,
Tim Appenzeller
Tim Appenzeller
Chief Magazine Editor
Nature
4 Crinan St.
London N1 9XW UK
ph. (0)20 7843 4547
mobile (0)77 0933 1431
d*1
8 楼
？
M*t
9 楼
一个麦克风会被堵住
b*D
10 楼
nature 原文和后面评论截屏
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Olympics/31626761.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Olympics/31626761.html
A*r
11 楼
I saw that one too.
Saw one girl crying for her lost relationship last week. She just kept
crying. It is kinda hopeless. She said something about it was her first time
to go out with a girl.
【在 T*****E 的大作中提到】
: 人生若只如初见， 瞄了一样居然是同女之舞发的，晕死。
Saw one girl crying for her lost relationship last week. She just kept
crying. It is kinda hopeless. She said something about it was her first time
to go out with a girl.
【在 T*****E 的大作中提到】
: 人生若只如初见， 瞄了一样居然是同女之舞发的，晕死。
c*g
12 楼
多谢这些信息。看来还是买个新的吧。
z*y
13 楼
支持
搞死nature
搞死nature
m*s
14 楼
针。
缝衣服的针。
【在 M********t 的大作中提到】
: 一个麦克风会被堵住
缝衣服的针。
【在 M********t 的大作中提到】
: 一个麦克风会被堵住
b*D
15 楼
Jianglai 的回复
It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself,
regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science
magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and
editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context
, which they failed to do blatantly.
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m
IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.
43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an
"anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal
best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In
a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and
silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem
impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian
Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec
between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it
may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she
matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a
conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not
imagine it is real" is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of
what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the
last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first
300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for
latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one'
s best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked
to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing,
probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind
after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win
the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact
that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the
illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which
sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a
leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four
male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93
sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and
Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the
last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I
were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying
to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we
should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach
the public how science works.
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and
implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By
that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate
that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree,
and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I
could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to
scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a
real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly
advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4
years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use
it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation.
This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever
a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if
it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question
to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed
to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an
athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let
ÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ¬Ã￠a€ž
Â￠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 presidentÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ&
#172;&
#195;￠a€žÂ￠s press release5, drug testing for olympians
began at
least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore
there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That
maybe the reason that ÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ¬
Ã
…a€œeveryone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails
in
competition testingÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ¬
195;
8218;? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free
to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at
the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (
intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair
and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected
doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the
facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of
the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise
, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good
science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an
appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.
1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference
It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself,
regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science
magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this
is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the
scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general
populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and
editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context
, which they failed to do blatantly.
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used Ye's 400m
IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.
43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an
"anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she's previous personal
best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In
a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and
silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is
still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem
impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian
Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec
between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people including the author it
may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she
matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a
conclusion that it is "anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not
imagine it is real" is hardly sound.
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example of
what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the
last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first
300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for
latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the "use one'
s best efforts to win a match" requirement that the BWF has recently invoked
to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing,
probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind
after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win
the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact
that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the
illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which
sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a
leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four
male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93
sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and
Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the
last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have been the example to use if I
were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying
to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we
should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach
the public how science works.
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and
implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this
kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By
that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific
papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and
reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One
cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate
that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree,
and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I
could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to
scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a
real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly
advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4
years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use
it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation.
This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are
doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may
be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever
a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if
it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question
to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed
to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is
probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an
athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight
change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let
ÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ¬Ã￠a€ž
Â￠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 presidentÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ&
#172;&
#195;￠a€žÂ￠s press release5, drug testing for olympians
began at
least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore
there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That
maybe the reason that ÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ¬
Ã
…a€œeveryone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails
in
competition testingÃÂ￠Ã￠a€šÂ¬
195;
8218;? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free
to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at
the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (
intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair
and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected
doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the
facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of
the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise
, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good
science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an
appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.
1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference
b*D
16 楼
俺给nature文的评价：没发出来，帐号也被封了（好几年的老帐号
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
http://www.mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Biology&gid=31
b*D
18 楼
youtube上真实记录这一事件的视频
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Biology/31710045.html
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Biology/31710045.html
相关阅读
Teaching experience重要吗请教一个非常规实验（大载体连接）手段是否可行关于 membrane receptor 是monomer，dimer,还是multimer求教对CLUSTALW output做edit的方法做RNAi 的时候，能不能把三个shRNA的lentivirus同时感染？有谁了解Tufts的Stuart Levy吗？奇怪的PCR结果硕士的文章再次请教，关于15kb的大plasmid曾凡一教授能不能出任上海交大医学院院长一职?Making the acid resistant Bt protein"Cancer results from an unsuccessful experiment for human evolution",不知道该怎么办，我该不该换实验室出售。。。崭新教科书 (转载)请问版上有做LIC的吗？羡慕嫉妒恨阿，2年phd毕业。。。上海交通大学医学院院长这事儿有啥好argue的？浙江AF大学招聘这篇cell 为什么撤稿，真实的原因是什么邓洪奎做的怎么样，是不是很牛