一位年輕人被冰刀嚴重刺傷而頑強堅持，卻換來莫須有罪名的心靈創(chuàng)傷。不能要求人人都善良，但是，人能夠沒有惻隱之心嗎？

朱易不是自己爭取回國的。因為中國冰雪運動較弱，中國體育總局想方設法物色海外有華人血統(tǒng)的運動員，請了多位回國，朱易是第一位。

當時體育部門根本不知道其父親的重要性，家庭對朱易回國也有很大的猶豫，最后決定順其自然、讓孩子追求她對花滑運動的那份熱愛。

朱易2018年回國在先，北大清華聯(lián)系其父在兩年之后。科學家允許孩子耽誤學業(yè)而參賽主要是不阻礙其興趣和特長，而不是一定要參賽、一定要獲獎。對父母來說，早不參賽可以早上大學。有人猜測朱易參加奧運是為了入美國高校。這是不懂美國大學的誤解。朱易的父親與我和我的朋友一樣是美國教授，知道錄取的常識。我們的孩子都參與體育，但只需要一般中學的校隊、最多一些地區(qū)性小型比賽就上哈佛、耶魯綽綽有余。為了有說服力，我在此第一次公布女兒的隱私，她是校排球隊，足夠申請美國所有名牌大學，實際上每一所她申請的大學都錄取了她，輪到她拒絕哈佛、普林斯頓等。朱松純教授不可能為女兒上大學而冒冰刀傷害的危險。那是不懂的人以小人之心 度君子之腹。

朱松純是中國農村長大，靠自己讀書在美國成為科學家，在中國不過是一位專家。就是北京的出租汽車司機，也知道北大教授不可能影響體育總局在奧運選拔這么重要的決定。把他當成權貴批評，不僅誤解，而且是傷害依靠自己而成功的窮孩子。

就是在北大，朱松純也不能獨斷專行，他的提議也經常被反對，包括我的反對票。我們不是以關系而演繹事情，而是以事實和邏輯進行判斷】

從美國國籍轉為中國國籍（“歸化”），代表中國參賽冬季奧運會的朱易（Beverly Zhu），在中國被網暴，美國的CNN也幸災樂禍把她滑倒的尷尬照片掛在頭版頭條顯著位置，說她歸化中國， 卻在中國遭受網暴。

從1月17號獲選到2月6日參賽，長達20天的時間， 朱易受到大量的攻擊， 使得她賽前承受了比其他運動員更多的、無法想象的心理壓力。

在她沒有做錯任何事情的時候，創(chuàng)造了“被網暴”的記錄。

而且，網暴在前， 發(fā)揮失誤在后。

一些人認為：朱易記錄不好，為什么成為中國參賽選手。如果她參賽獲獎了，可能改變這一看法，如果失敗了，網暴就是應該的。

有些人甚至認為：她參賽是因為她的科學家父親影響了中國體育總局，和所有選拔過程參加評分的眾多中國裁判員。

說中國科學家可以影響奧運選拔，那是某些人對中國科學家的幻想，一千年后是否能夠成為現實，應該存疑。

中國科學家從來沒有這么大的影響力。可能有人忘記了中國知識分子多年受過多少什么待遇，也不知道現在的中國科學家除了在自己圈子里有江湖，離開科學界唯唯諾諾、怕官員的科學家遠多于敢發(fā)言的。

對奧運選拔的影響，全中國沒有（體育之外的）任何一位科學家能夠有實質影響。

中國體育部門決策者們對運動員的重視遠高于對科學家的重視。

體育總局選拔參賽運動員的過程有5輪比賽，很多裁判員參加評分。據體育部門公布的規(guī)則， 5場比賽裁判員都有輪換， 而且還有紀檢部門監(jiān)督。不要說科學家，在近年嚴格的巡視制度下，能夠搞定這個過程的官員可能都沒有幾個。任何人都可以匿名舉報。查下來，沒幾個人逃得掉。

朱易是我國第一個正式邀請“歸化”的運動員。決定邀請她的時候，是按她當時在青年組顯示的潛力。那時，我國體育總局不知道她父親的重要性，不過是國外一位教授而已。

北大清華聽說“歸化”一事后，才覺得可以試試請朱松純回國，之后才有她父親回國一事。

不是朱松純幫了朱易回國參賽，而是朱易回國，才有后面的朱松純回國。

質疑的人，從時間到因果關系，都搞反了。

質疑的人，先設定朱易及其家庭有罪，要求自證清白，或者體育總局證明其清白。體育總局可能驚訝的不得了，何時我們聽過哪個與體育毫無關系的教授，這也要證明？以后干脆請大眾打分，不用專業(yè)裁判員打分了。

朱松純是北大、清華競爭的教授。但被如此重視的主力教授，對其工作，北大清華也同樣有規(guī)則和程序。朱松純的研究所，聘任一部分研究員同時擔任北京大學教授、副教授、助理教授。我一直在北大理工科聘任委員會，就曾投票反對朱松純提議名單中的部分人選。

另外，我上一篇短文里面客氣的解釋，這里更直白一些：

到朱松純這樣程度的真正科學家（區(qū)別于國內有各類頭銜但不愛科學、對科學理解不深刻的科技工作者），認為科學是人類文明的結晶，不可能高看體育比賽成績，而是尊重孩子的特長與愛好。

科學家對于自己孩子的愛好愿意支持一段時間，看看孩子能夠到什么程度就什么程度。絕大多數奧運金牌，不僅不會被科學家認為與科學一樣重要，而且都難以管吃飯。在美國，不少奧運金牌得主，以后的工作不過是在兒童青少年的體育課外班。我有位同學的兒子，游泳教練就是奧運金牌得主。那孩子跟著學游泳，得一些地區(qū)性的小獎牌，就足夠上哈佛大學。出現孩子的體育與學業(yè)沖突，大部分科學家家長會要求孩子適可而止，不可能把獎牌、包括奧運獎牌看的那么重。好玩、尊重而已，而并非需要想方設法參賽、想方設法獲獎。

體育運動的獎，在白左教育下，是好事、但不是需要犧牲個人品德而獲得的榮譽。不惜一切代價----包括開后門、放棄人格----獲得的獎牌，不是榮譽，是恥辱。

朱易在2018年被中國花滑界認為很有潛力之時，不可能預計后來會冰刀插進右腳，嚴重受傷，需要較長時間恢復。最初選拔她的時候，也沒人能夠預計后來會出現疫情而影響參與國際賽事。

從來不是她自己主動要加入中國隊，而是中國出于國家需要爭取一些人歸化。中國冰上運動部門也不可能百分之百看準確，運動員成績的變化也有一定無法預計。何況，中國冰雪運動部門在朱易之后邀請歸化的谷愛凌，看的挺準，說明中國冰雪運動部門發(fā)現、邀請這些人，本身挺合理。

朱易在負傷之后，繼續(xù)努力。中國有關人士也都知道她的傷情。中國其他人沒有入選，只是說明我國冰上運動有待發(fā)展，其他人不如她，才只能選她的結果。

對一個負過重傷、熱愛花滑運動、愿意為國效力的孩子，盡其努力，大家應該有惻隱之心。

知識分子家庭支持孩子體育運動，迄今都不是非常多。北大化學系校友谷燕的孩子谷愛凌、北大清華現任教授朱松純的孩子朱易，都屬于比較少見。

她們如果成功了，我們?yōu)橹吲d。

她們如果失敗了，我們應該支持其運動員精神。

--------------------——------ 

這并非我第一次對體育發(fā)表個人看法。2012年8月，我為葉詩文事件致信英國學術刊物《自然》，同樣是路見不平。

致《自然》雜志總編的信：有關葉詩文的新聞報道

英文原信附后，大意如下：

斐爾,

你可能因Ewen Callaway對葉詩文的報道而被email狂炸，過去二十小時，給你email的人里面小部分也給我來信。

如果你奇怪《自然》非本質部分一篇報道為何帶來這么大的反應，你應該高興中文讀者比世界其他讀者更看重你們的新聞報道，與科學相關的（即使關系很小）也可能重于《紐約時報》，中文媒體報道用你們的新聞也遠多于一般西方媒體用你們的新聞。

Callaway報道說的好聽是草率、說的難聽是種族偏見：1)最初的副標題暗示葉可能舞弊; 2)Callaway用了兩件事實說明葉驚人地異常，而兩件都錯了; 3)Callaway沒咨詢意見不同的專家，導致報道不平衡，低于公平報道的最低標準。所以，Callaway至少不負責任，可能太快就暗示中國運動員容易舞弊。他肯定沒有達到新聞報道的通常標準。

我很高興看到在我草擬此信的過程中，《自然》可能意識到原副標題的偏見，將之由“成績追蹤記錄有助于抓體育舞弊者”更正為“成績追蹤記錄有助于驅散疑問”。舞弊的前設改為疑問。

Callaway報道用的兩個“事實”讓葉詩文看起來比真實的要更“異常”：說她比自己在2012年7月的記錄要快7秒，說她在最后五十米比男子冠軍Ryan Lochte還要快，而后者是男子第二快的世界紀錄。

第一個“事實”錯了，第二個誤導。1)葉比自己只快5秒，而此前她的記錄創(chuàng)于2011年、不是2012年，這位16歲運動員用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)葉只在混合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快，而非整個400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二快的記錄，葉在400米絲毫不能接近他（慢了二十多秒)。葉只是自由泳最強，而在前300米落后于好些女選手。雖然Lochte在400米很快，他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六位男選手。葉最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以，葉只在她自己的強項而他的弱項快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功課，他就難以用這些“事實”來使“問題”醒目。如果Callaway多查詢，他就能發(fā)現其他游泳運動員也曾在十幾歲發(fā)育階段顯著提高記錄。這些事實更正后，Callaway的報道就沒基礎。

還有好些事實，可以讓一般讀者更理解葉詩文的成績，我不在此贅述。可以參見《附件1》，wikipedia對葉的成績有一個相當快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》報道應該優(yōu)于Wikipedia。Callaway報道與Wikipedia條目的差別也顯示該記者未采訪已經公開提出不同意見的專家。

你應該收到了王立銘博士的一封email。他在發(fā)表《自然》和《自然神經科學》的第一作者論文后，獲加州理工學院的博士，并因此得到有聲譽的獎學金到伯克利加州大學做獨立的博士后。萬一他給你的email埋在你收到的成百上千郵件中，我將其拷貝為《附件2》。他email給了我、要我看看此事。

Callaway在線報道下面有很多跟帖討論。有些學生以為有些很有道理（且有實質內容）的討論被刪了，他們寄給了我。我選Lai Jiang的一份為《附件3》，Zhenxi Zhang的為《附件4》。你們可以看到學生和一些更有經歷的《自然》讀者不高興是有依據的，而這些為Callaway忽略。

英國人常忘記、而現代華人不易忘記，世界上很多人以為鴉片戰(zhàn)爭是中國人賣鴉片給英國人。我自己6月份（這確是2012年）又經歷一次，我和一位老朋友（麻省理工學院教授）在香港開會時，發(fā)現她竟然也是這么認為。

英國人的國際形象好，部分原因是你們的科學和科學家：當全世界中學生都要從教科書學牛頓和達爾文時，英國贏得了世界的尊重。《自然》應該以這些偉大（且客觀）的科學家建立的傳統(tǒng)和聲譽為自豪。他們其中有些曾在《自然》發(fā)表過論文，才有《自然》的今天。你們如果采取措施修復你們的新聞記者造成的損害，可以加強你們的聲譽。

英國人從來沒因鴉片戰(zhàn)爭對我們道歉，即使在1997年離開香港時也未顯示絲毫悔意。而香港是英國在鴉片戰(zhàn)爭后強迫我們割讓的土地。所以，記憶是猶新的，而不僅是1840年代的殘余。如果《自然》拒絕承認此報道不公平，可能很難“驅散”英國至上的“疑問”（借用《自然》對葉報道的詞匯）。

中國人受形象不佳的牽累。我們也知道我們還有很多感到羞恥的未解決的問題，包括舞弊。越來越多的中國人能接受合理與平衡的批評，我們在倫敦奧運會為我們羽毛球的問題公開道歉就是證據。但我們對缺依據、有偏見的批評還很敏感。葉詩文不過是個16歲的年輕人，本該為自己職業(yè)生涯的成就而滿心歡喜。當已知她通過了奧運會賽前、賽中多次測試，而毫無證據指責她的時候，還有很多媒體，特別是《自然》這樣的刊物，渲染負面輿論多于正面，當然令人深感不平。

我希望你們能澄清記錄，發(fā)表平衡Callaway報道的意見。

毅

北京大學生命科學學院 神經生物學教授 饒毅

附件1 Wikipedia對葉詩文的總結

附件2 伯克利加州大學王立銘的email

附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway報道后的意見

附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway報道后的意見

原文（2012年8月4日1:57am發(fā)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 has brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese readers place much more weight in Naturenews 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 useNature 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 support 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 andcorrected 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 thoseother 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 hadsignificantly 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'sperformance 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 havereceived, 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 personally experienced this in June (2012) when a long timefriend 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 Shiwenperformance

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: exec@nature.com

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'sperformance “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????????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????????spress 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 ??????”everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing???????? 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 ?€“ shegets stronger and bigger naturally. Yes she can make up 5 seconds (NOT 7 seconds in the article) in a 400 IM that has more room for improvement, with good training she got in Australia.

In both the 400 IM and 200 IM finals, Ye were behind until freestyle. Well I guess there is “drug” that just enhances freestyle, but not the backstroke, breast, and fly. Does that make sense? Also, it is not professional to only mention that 'her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men s 400 IM'. The whole fact is that Ye is more than 23 second slower than Lochte in 400 IM. Plus, Freestyle isn't Lochte's best leg, but it is Shiwen's best leg. Lochte had a huge lead on the field, and almost coasted to the finish. He wasn't pressured by the field to go all out that last few meters. 

And before we get into the fact there's no way a woman should be able to come close to man's time for a final leg of 50m. May I present the following: Kate Ziegler set a WR in the 1500m freestyle. In the last 50m of her race she had a split of 29.27, which is ONLY 0.17s slower than Lochte final 50m. This was after she swam for 1100m longer than Lochte! 

I feel the author would probably not write such a piece if Ye is an American or British. Neither country is clean from athletes caught by doping (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games). Let's try not to use double standards on the great performance from countries other than US and European countries.