要求撤稿的# Biology - 生物学
d*k
1 楼
那些牌子稍微大点儿的，tomtom,garmin之类的，有没有一种GPS整合了GPS 和一个摄像
头的？就是说既可以做gps，又可以做car black box的？这东西做起来似乎不应该很难
吧？
头的？就是说既可以做gps，又可以做car black box的？这东西做起来似乎不应该很难
吧？
p*m
2 楼
甚至更进一步行动的，赶紧发信就是了 在这里吵吵个啥啊，难道你们非要要求所有人
意见一致才行？参差多态乃是幸福的本源啊 lol
我反正已经以个人名义发了，类似的信收1000封你敢说他们不会撤稿？
意见一致才行？参差多态乃是幸福的本源啊 lol
我反正已经以个人名义发了，类似的信收1000封你敢说他们不会撤稿？
a*a
3 楼
有的，garmin在台湾卖的就有这种类似的型号
叫行车记录仪还是啥的
叫行车记录仪还是啥的
n*y
4 楼
我也发了。明天继续发
a*a
5 楼
下面这个两个链接都是
http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/713/713146.shtml
http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=10656
【在 d**k 的大作中提到】
: 那些牌子稍微大点儿的，tomtom,garmin之类的，有没有一种GPS整合了GPS 和一个摄像
: 头的？就是说既可以做gps，又可以做car black box的？这东西做起来似乎不应该很难
: 吧？
http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/713/713146.shtml
http://www.mobile01.com/newsdetail.php?id=10656
【在 d**k 的大作中提到】
: 那些牌子稍微大点儿的，tomtom,garmin之类的，有没有一种GPS整合了GPS 和一个摄像
: 头的？就是说既可以做gps，又可以做car black box的？这东西做起来似乎不应该很难
: 吧？
b*D
6 楼
同意
自己想怎么抗议就怎么抗议
不要强求别人按你得方式抗议
自己想怎么抗议就怎么抗议
不要强求别人按你得方式抗议
J*3
7 楼
支持！
【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】
: 甚至更进一步行动的，赶紧发信就是了 在这里吵吵个啥啊，难道你们非要要求所有人
: 意见一致才行？参差多态乃是幸福的本源啊 lol
: 我反正已经以个人名义发了，类似的信收1000封你敢说他们不会撤稿？
【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】
: 甚至更进一步行动的，赶紧发信就是了 在这里吵吵个啥啊，难道你们非要要求所有人
: 意见一致才行？参差多态乃是幸福的本源啊 lol
: 我反正已经以个人名义发了，类似的信收1000封你敢说他们不会撤稿？
w*o
8 楼
Ignore them. I think you did great. A lot of those people's posts smell
fishy. Not sure what's the motive behind those posts.
fishy. Not sure what's the motive behind those posts.
w*o
9 楼
Don't think they would stake their own real name to what they are "fanning".
t*8
10 楼
支持！
i*c
11 楼
I did. Even they throw it right away, thousands of emails will at least
disturb them.
disturb them.
n*k
12 楼
这次完全赞成
我个人的看法是，既然你们已经提出这样的要求，就不能别人一做出一点让步就收手；
这样在策略上对将来肯定不好；我一开始和现在都是反对强行抵制，但是，既然你们已
经走了这一步，就不应该浅尝辄止，一点甜头就歇手，所以，我现在同意你继续的做法。
另外，NATURE肯定有压力，而且反应至少比我预想要好，要快（我太短视哈），按说这
种结果应该至少算是阶段性胜利了；但是，说到真心道歉等，那还真不是，只是想差屁
股，混过关，完全以主编等出面和稀泥，缺乏任何实质性行动。现在应该考虑把NAOH
GRAY等人的一些东西引进来，希望NATURE能够给个说法或者清查；个人觉得这也许会是
个口子。
【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】
: 甚至更进一步行动的，赶紧发信就是了 在这里吵吵个啥啊，难道你们非要要求所有人
: 意见一致才行？参差多态乃是幸福的本源啊 lol
: 我反正已经以个人名义发了，类似的信收1000封你敢说他们不会撤稿？
我个人的看法是，既然你们已经提出这样的要求，就不能别人一做出一点让步就收手；
这样在策略上对将来肯定不好；我一开始和现在都是反对强行抵制，但是，既然你们已
经走了这一步，就不应该浅尝辄止，一点甜头就歇手，所以，我现在同意你继续的做法。
另外，NATURE肯定有压力，而且反应至少比我预想要好，要快（我太短视哈），按说这
种结果应该至少算是阶段性胜利了；但是，说到真心道歉等，那还真不是，只是想差屁
股，混过关，完全以主编等出面和稀泥，缺乏任何实质性行动。现在应该考虑把NAOH
GRAY等人的一些东西引进来，希望NATURE能够给个说法或者清查；个人觉得这也许会是
个口子。
【在 p*****m 的大作中提到】
: 甚至更进一步行动的，赶紧发信就是了 在这里吵吵个啥啊，难道你们非要要求所有人
: 意见一致才行？参差多态乃是幸福的本源啊 lol
: 我反正已经以个人名义发了，类似的信收1000封你敢说他们不会撤稿？
l*1
13 楼
已经有华裔人士动议啦
2012-08-06 12:02 PMReport this comment | #48586
Allon Field said:
I am happy to see that Nature started to do the right thing by adding
Laijiang's comments which was intentionally deleted before for some reasons.
Nature also apologized for this at a hardly noticeable place.
However, Ewen Callaway's article has caused very very bad impact on Chinese
community. His work led to false accusation to Ye as well as the whole
Chinese community. Therefore, we look forward to see more actions from
nature.
We hope to see an official apology from Nature on this issue which will be
highlighted in this journal. We also hope to see Ewan Callaway leaves his
position and avoid some "great work" from him in the future.
//www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109#Ed_
note
法。
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: 这次完全赞成
: 我个人的看法是，既然你们已经提出这样的要求，就不能别人一做出一点让步就收手；
: 这样在策略上对将来肯定不好；我一开始和现在都是反对强行抵制，但是，既然你们已
: 经走了这一步，就不应该浅尝辄止，一点甜头就歇手，所以，我现在同意你继续的做法。
: 另外，NATURE肯定有压力，而且反应至少比我预想要好，要快（我太短视哈），按说这
: 种结果应该至少算是阶段性胜利了；但是，说到真心道歉等，那还真不是，只是想差屁
: 股，混过关，完全以主编等出面和稀泥，缺乏任何实质性行动。现在应该考虑把NAOH
: GRAY等人的一些东西引进来，希望NATURE能够给个说法或者清查；个人觉得这也许会是
: 个口子。
2012-08-06 12:02 PMReport this comment | #48586
Allon Field said:
I am happy to see that Nature started to do the right thing by adding
Laijiang's comments which was intentionally deleted before for some reasons.
Nature also apologized for this at a hardly noticeable place.
However, Ewen Callaway's article has caused very very bad impact on Chinese
community. His work led to false accusation to Ye as well as the whole
Chinese community. Therefore, we look forward to see more actions from
nature.
We hope to see an official apology from Nature on this issue which will be
highlighted in this journal. We also hope to see Ewan Callaway leaves his
position and avoid some "great work" from him in the future.
//www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109#Ed_
note
法。
【在 n********k 的大作中提到】
: 这次完全赞成
: 我个人的看法是，既然你们已经提出这样的要求，就不能别人一做出一点让步就收手；
: 这样在策略上对将来肯定不好；我一开始和现在都是反对强行抵制，但是，既然你们已
: 经走了这一步，就不应该浅尝辄止，一点甜头就歇手，所以，我现在同意你继续的做法。
: 另外，NATURE肯定有压力，而且反应至少比我预想要好，要快（我太短视哈），按说这
: 种结果应该至少算是阶段性胜利了；但是，说到真心道歉等，那还真不是，只是想差屁
: 股，混过关，完全以主编等出面和稀泥，缺乏任何实质性行动。现在应该考虑把NAOH
: GRAY等人的一些东西引进来，希望NATURE能够给个说法或者清查；个人觉得这也许会是
: 个口子。
s*e
14 楼
支持，同学们期望值太低了，nature partially 满足了一下我们的要求，我们有些人
就觉得胜利了。其实我一开始也很意外，甚至有点欣喜，因为我的望值是nature压根不
会道歉。但是读了editor's note, 虽然用了道歉这两个字，但是他们并没与之相互和
的行动：1） 宣布撤文章 2）解雇作者和编辑
这可能就是我对nature道歉的回复：你们虽然表面上道歉了，但是没有行动，所以我不
接受。
我可能不会再花力气去抗议了。希望通过这事，大家对CNS的顶礼膜拜减轻点。再好也
是别人的杂志，人家靠你们的科研赚名声，那天想恶心你就恶心你。中国学术界要好好
考虑怎么办好自己的刊物。
就觉得胜利了。其实我一开始也很意外，甚至有点欣喜，因为我的望值是nature压根不
会道歉。但是读了editor's note, 虽然用了道歉这两个字，但是他们并没与之相互和
的行动：1） 宣布撤文章 2）解雇作者和编辑
这可能就是我对nature道歉的回复：你们虽然表面上道歉了，但是没有行动，所以我不
接受。
我可能不会再花力气去抗议了。希望通过这事，大家对CNS的顶礼膜拜减轻点。再好也
是别人的杂志，人家靠你们的科研赚名声，那天想恶心你就恶心你。中国学术界要好好
考虑怎么办好自己的刊物。
m*e
15 楼
华人生物学家协会出面要求撤稿
http://www.cbisociety.org/
Nature should adhere to fact-based and unbiased reporting
Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Nature
Dear Dr. Campbell:
We write on behalf of the Chinese Biological Investigators Society (CBIS) to
express our deep concern regarding a recent news article, titled "Why great
Olympic feats raise suspicions" (www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-
feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109, August 1, 2012), in which Ewen Callaway
discussed the performance of Ye Shiwen, a 16-year old Chinese swimmer who
won the gold medal in both 200m and 400m medley (IM) during the London
Olympics. We respectfully request that the article be retracted, as its
entire premise is based on manufactured "facts". We do not intend to defend
the innocence or guilt of a particular athlete, but feel that Nature, a
prestigious scientific journal, should stick to fact-based reporting and
minimize bias.
The premise of Callaway's article is that Ye's performance is anomalous,
implying that no one else has accomplished such a feat without the aid of
performance-enhancing drugs. This premise is based on two pieces of so
called "anomalies", which are completely manufactured by cherry picking data
to support an accusation that does not have a shred of evidence.
First, Callaway stated that Ye's 400m IM improved by 7 seconds over a period
of one year. This is misleading because Ye's personal best was not set in
July of 2011 but in 2010 when she was 14. She improved her performance at
the Olympics final by 5 seconds over her prior personal best. Most
importantly, such an improvement is not anomalous but instead is EXPECTED
for elite swimmers of Ye's age, as they grow bigger and stronger. There are
many cases in which elite swimmers experienced a significant improvement at
a young age. For example, Ian Thorpe, a great Australian swimmer, took 5
seconds off his 400m freestyle between the age of 15 and 16, and Adrian
Moorhouse, a great UK swimmer and a Seoul Olympics gold medalist, stated
that he improved by four seconds at the age of 17. The same happened to
other elite swimmers, including the other seven swimmers in the 400m IM
final (Fig. 1). Furthermore, if one looks at improvements as a percentage
among the gold medalists in swimming in the London Olympics, Ye improved her
personal best by 2% in 400m IM, whereas, R¨±ta Meilutyt?, a 15-year old
Lithuanian swimmer, improved hers by over 4% in 100m breaststroke.
Second, Callaway stated that Ye really raised eyebrows by her showing in the
last 50 metres, in which she swam faster than American swimmer Ryan Lochte
did when he won gold in the men's 400m IM, with the second-fastest time ever
for that event. What Callaway failed to mention is that Ye actually was
over 23 seconds slower than Lochte, an eternity for elite swimmers at this
distance. More importantly, Lochte's last 50-metre swim is no where near the
second-fastest time ever for that event, and several other swimmers in the
same final were faster than him and faster than Ye. Lochte 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 time was 28"93.
What really troubled us is how Callaway could have made such mistakes, as
the information described above has been widely reported in the media and
could be found on the internet with only a few clicks. We find it really
unfortunate that, with manipulated facts, the article leaves readers with an
unmistakable impression that Nature is putting a stamp of scientific
approval for the unsubstantiated speculation in Western media - namely, Ye's
feat is humanly impossible without the aid of performance enhancing drugs.
We would like to further emphasize that while our data provide a more
complete backdrop to Ye's achievement, they do not and should not negate the
spectacular performance of Ye in winning the gold medal and shattering the
world record.
Many of our members have published research articles in Nature, which we
hold at high regard as a top-quality scientific journal, and have been
helping Nature to review manuscripts. Thus, we are deeply disappointed that
your editorial process allows such a news article, in which data were cherry
picked to support, consciously or not, suspicion of doping on an athlete
with clean test results. This type of journalism should have no place in pop
media, let alone a journal like Nature. We hope you are not abandoning fact
-based and unbiased reporting, as is required for a scientific journal, and
will take appropriate action to correct this unfortunate mistake. This
includes publishing a rebuttal article countering Callaway's article and/or
retracting Callaway's unsubstantiated article.
Weimin Zhong¹*;, Hao Wu²*;, & Linheng Li³*;
¹*;Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA, w**********[email protected], 1-203-
432-9233
²*;Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Children's Hospital
Boston, Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology,
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA, [email protected]
harvard.edu, 1-617-713-8160
³*;Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, Missouri 64110,
USA, L*[email protected], 1-816-926-4081
*The authors are, respectively, Vice President, Board Member and President
of the Chinese Biological Investigators Society
Figure legend
Figure 1. Substantial improvement of performance within one year is not "
anomalous". a, The 2005-2012 timing record of the eight finalists in women's
400 IM, 2012 Olympics, pulled from the website of the official organization
of aquatic sports, F¨¦d¨¦ration Internationale de Natation (
FINA). All data points represent the best performance of each athlete in
each calendar year, with 80% of them ranked top 20 worldwide at the time on
the event. b, Recorded performance leap of the same athletes early during
their career, with ages marked above the bars. LZR swimming suits and their
counterparts, which reportedly could enhance performance by around 2% (
roughly 6 seconds in this event), were launched in February of 2008, and
later banned by FINA in January of 2010. Of note, at age 16 and as the
youngest of the eight, Ye's improvement from her top-level performance in
2010-11 is indeed a remarkable achievement. However, fast improvement at an
early age is not isolated in this field. This figure is courtesy of Guangbo
Chen, Stowers Institute for Medical Research.
http://www.cbisociety.org/
Nature should adhere to fact-based and unbiased reporting
Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Nature
Dear Dr. Campbell:
We write on behalf of the Chinese Biological Investigators Society (CBIS) to
express our deep concern regarding a recent news article, titled "Why great
Olympic feats raise suspicions" (www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-
feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109, August 1, 2012), in which Ewen Callaway
discussed the performance of Ye Shiwen, a 16-year old Chinese swimmer who
won the gold medal in both 200m and 400m medley (IM) during the London
Olympics. We respectfully request that the article be retracted, as its
entire premise is based on manufactured "facts". We do not intend to defend
the innocence or guilt of a particular athlete, but feel that Nature, a
prestigious scientific journal, should stick to fact-based reporting and
minimize bias.
The premise of Callaway's article is that Ye's performance is anomalous,
implying that no one else has accomplished such a feat without the aid of
performance-enhancing drugs. This premise is based on two pieces of so
called "anomalies", which are completely manufactured by cherry picking data
to support an accusation that does not have a shred of evidence.
First, Callaway stated that Ye's 400m IM improved by 7 seconds over a period
of one year. This is misleading because Ye's personal best was not set in
July of 2011 but in 2010 when she was 14. She improved her performance at
the Olympics final by 5 seconds over her prior personal best. Most
importantly, such an improvement is not anomalous but instead is EXPECTED
for elite swimmers of Ye's age, as they grow bigger and stronger. There are
many cases in which elite swimmers experienced a significant improvement at
a young age. For example, Ian Thorpe, a great Australian swimmer, took 5
seconds off his 400m freestyle between the age of 15 and 16, and Adrian
Moorhouse, a great UK swimmer and a Seoul Olympics gold medalist, stated
that he improved by four seconds at the age of 17. The same happened to
other elite swimmers, including the other seven swimmers in the 400m IM
final (Fig. 1). Furthermore, if one looks at improvements as a percentage
among the gold medalists in swimming in the London Olympics, Ye improved her
personal best by 2% in 400m IM, whereas, R¨±ta Meilutyt?, a 15-year old
Lithuanian swimmer, improved hers by over 4% in 100m breaststroke.
Second, Callaway stated that Ye really raised eyebrows by her showing in the
last 50 metres, in which she swam faster than American swimmer Ryan Lochte
did when he won gold in the men's 400m IM, with the second-fastest time ever
for that event. What Callaway failed to mention is that Ye actually was
over 23 seconds slower than Lochte, an eternity for elite swimmers at this
distance. More importantly, Lochte's last 50-metre swim is no where near the
second-fastest time ever for that event, and several other swimmers in the
same final were faster than him and faster than Ye. Lochte 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 time was 28"93.
What really troubled us is how Callaway could have made such mistakes, as
the information described above has been widely reported in the media and
could be found on the internet with only a few clicks. We find it really
unfortunate that, with manipulated facts, the article leaves readers with an
unmistakable impression that Nature is putting a stamp of scientific
approval for the unsubstantiated speculation in Western media - namely, Ye's
feat is humanly impossible without the aid of performance enhancing drugs.
We would like to further emphasize that while our data provide a more
complete backdrop to Ye's achievement, they do not and should not negate the
spectacular performance of Ye in winning the gold medal and shattering the
world record.
Many of our members have published research articles in Nature, which we
hold at high regard as a top-quality scientific journal, and have been
helping Nature to review manuscripts. Thus, we are deeply disappointed that
your editorial process allows such a news article, in which data were cherry
picked to support, consciously or not, suspicion of doping on an athlete
with clean test results. This type of journalism should have no place in pop
media, let alone a journal like Nature. We hope you are not abandoning fact
-based and unbiased reporting, as is required for a scientific journal, and
will take appropriate action to correct this unfortunate mistake. This
includes publishing a rebuttal article countering Callaway's article and/or
retracting Callaway's unsubstantiated article.
Weimin Zhong¹*;, Hao Wu²*;, & Linheng Li³*;
¹*;Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA, w**********[email protected], 1-203-
432-9233
²*;Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Children's Hospital
Boston, Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology,
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA, [email protected]
harvard.edu, 1-617-713-8160
³*;Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, Missouri 64110,
USA, L*[email protected], 1-816-926-4081
*The authors are, respectively, Vice President, Board Member and President
of the Chinese Biological Investigators Society
Figure legend
Figure 1. Substantial improvement of performance within one year is not "
anomalous". a, The 2005-2012 timing record of the eight finalists in women's
400 IM, 2012 Olympics, pulled from the website of the official organization
of aquatic sports, F¨¦d¨¦ration Internationale de Natation (
FINA). All data points represent the best performance of each athlete in
each calendar year, with 80% of them ranked top 20 worldwide at the time on
the event. b, Recorded performance leap of the same athletes early during
their career, with ages marked above the bars. LZR swimming suits and their
counterparts, which reportedly could enhance performance by around 2% (
roughly 6 seconds in this event), were launched in February of 2008, and
later banned by FINA in January of 2010. Of note, at age 16 and as the
youngest of the eight, Ye's improvement from her top-level performance in
2010-11 is indeed a remarkable achievement. However, fast improvement at an
early age is not isolated in this field. This figure is courtesy of Guangbo
Chen, Stowers Institute for Medical Research.
q*w
16 楼
赞
to
great
【在 m**e 的大作中提到】
: 华人生物学家协会出面要求撤稿
: http://www.cbisociety.org/
: Nature should adhere to fact-based and unbiased reporting
: Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
: Editor-in-Chief, Nature
: Dear Dr. Campbell:
: We write on behalf of the Chinese Biological Investigators Society (CBIS) to
: express our deep concern regarding a recent news article, titled "Why great
: Olympic feats raise suspicions" (www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-
: feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109, August 1, 2012), in which Ewen Callaway
to
great
【在 m**e 的大作中提到】
: 华人生物学家协会出面要求撤稿
: http://www.cbisociety.org/
: Nature should adhere to fact-based and unbiased reporting
: Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
: Editor-in-Chief, Nature
: Dear Dr. Campbell:
: We write on behalf of the Chinese Biological Investigators Society (CBIS) to
: express our deep concern regarding a recent news article, titled "Why great
: Olympic feats raise suspicions" (www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-
: feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109, August 1, 2012), in which Ewen Callaway
h*r
17 楼
大赞
h*r
18 楼
找不到email邮箱地址啦， 谁有给发一个
Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Nature
Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Nature
b*k
19 楼
nature的信箱，好像都是名首字母.姓@nature.com
【在 h****r 的大作中提到】
: 找不到email邮箱地址啦， 谁有给发一个
: Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
: Editor-in-Chief, Nature
【在 h****r 的大作中提到】
: 找不到email邮箱地址啦， 谁有给发一个
: Philip Campbell, Ph.D.
: Editor-in-Chief, Nature
h*r
20 楼
发了，大家都去轰炸轰炸。
相关阅读
求牛教授们推荐一片MALDI-TOF做蛋白结构的综述 (转载)谁用过DSP protein crosslinker?被饶毅删除的帖子(谁给转到生物班？谢谢） (转载)急求一篇paper, thanks!!如果饶毅参选的不是中科院院士会怎么样化学PhD 请教大家别吵了，饶其实想当官了细胞老往瓶口跑怎么回事？清除体内僵尸细胞：延缓人类衰老的一线曙光请问：DTT 还原/断裂二硫键（disulfide bond）时反应条件，谢谢 (转载)急问博士后同校转成技术员，J1签证能不能waiver，对以后申请绿卡是不是很难了？找博后几封推荐信合适？中国农业大学校友报到征集 (转载)博士后和学生找实验室时要观察思考的两大要点谁动了我的manuscript? --颜宁大家来看生物PhD牛人请教做单个病人的whole cancer genome 测序的意义生物牛人们回答个问题吧！饶毅：“科学领秀”PK“科学领袖” (ZZ)