Home > Uncategorized > Nature apologizes to readers and Ye Shiwen

Nature apologizes to readers and Ye Shiwen

If there is anything that the British should be the most proud of, it is their establishment of the science peer review process. Because of it, science research work are inspired to be top notch and published works stand scrutiny. This culture has taken root firmly in America and other developed countries. Developing countries like China are too working to have it ingrained. And, perhaps, no other than the science journal, Nature, epitomizes that culture the best. Nature is the most revered around the world and the most cited magazine within the science community. Scientists around the globe dream to have their work published by Nature. Once published, it is instant fame and even promotions for the scientist. So, what does the paper have to do with Ye Shiwen? I will start with the journal’s apology to readers and Ye Shiwen by Chief Magazine Editor Tim Appenzeller and Editor-in-Chief Philip Campbell.

I should first take a moment to offer this contrast, where, in an earlier article, I criticized the UK’s Guardian paper in which reporters Branigan and Walker instead of apologizing for their paper’s irresponsible propagation of Leonard’s accusations, they tried to dismiss rightful Chinese indignation at the British and American media.

Nature is a highly regarded journal also inside China. When the paper’s writer Ewen Callaway weighed in on Leonard’s accusations, sub-titling it, “Performance profiling’ could help catch sports cheats,” it was clear which way the author was leaning, never-mind the flawed analysis to begin with. Criticisms from Chinese scientists poured in, and many pointed out the glaring flaw (also see our author, jxie‘s prior post, “Ye Shiwen, the 16 year old dreamy girl superstar, and the ugly world.”) The journal’s editors then weighed in, first by changing the sub-title, then publishing a criticism from Lai Jiang of Pennsylvania University’s Department of Chemistry, and finally issuing a formal apology.

When the Western press is capable of a similar class act, perhaps I will stop blogging. Kudos to Nature. You have constituents around the globe and I am proud of the fact that you aspire to be worldly. With the apology, you can be forgiven for succumbing to the urge to write such an article in the first place. The apology is assurance that you do not intend to repeat such a mistakes in the future.

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.)

[UPDATE 8 August 2012: The technical problem has now been resolved and all of the posts that were inadvertently hidden have now been restored. In order to keep this problem from recurring, we have closed the story to further comments.]

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.

FROM LAI JIANG, Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania

It is a shame to see Nature — which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as one of the most prestigious and influential physical-science magazines — 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 populace to be in touch with and appreciate science, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within the proper context, which they blatantly failed to do.

First, to identify Ye’s performance increase, Ewen Callaway compared her Olympic 400-metre IM time with her performance at the World Championships in 2011 (4:28.43 and 4:35.15, respectively) and concluded that she had an “anomalous” improvement of around 7 seconds (6.72 s). In fact, her previous personal best was 4:33.79 at the Asian Games in 2010. This leads to an improvement of 5.38 seconds. In a sporting event in which 0.1 s can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason for 5.38 s to be treated as 7 s.

Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 seconds over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but it certainly happens among youngsters. An interview with Australian gold medallist Ian Thorpe revealed that his 400-metre freestyle time improved by 5 seconds between the ages of 15 and 16. For regular people, including Callaway, it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures and undergoes scientific and persistent training. But jumping to the conclusion that it is “anomalous” based on ‘Oh that’s so tough I cannot imagine it is real’ is hardly sound.

Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50 metres to Ye’s is a textbook example of ‘cherry-picking’ your data. Yes, Lochte was slower than Ye in the last 50 metres, but Lochte had a huge lead in the first 300 metres, so he chose not to push himself too hard and to conserve his energy for later events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the ‘use one’s best efforts to win a match’ requirement that the Badminton World Federation recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, though probably not in Nature). Ye, on the other hand, was trailing behind after the first 300 metres and relied on freestyle, in which she has an edge, to win the race. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 seconds faster (4:05.18) than Ye overall, creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Putting aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies to the reader that there is something fishy going on.

Fourth is another example of cherry-picking. In the same event, there are four male swimmers who swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 s) and Ye (28.93 s) in the final 50 metres: Kosuke Hagino (28.52 s), Michael Phelps (28.44 s), Yuya Horihata (27.87 s) and Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35 s). As it turns out, if we are just talking about the last 50 metres in a 400-metre IM, Lochter is not the example I would have used if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness is Callaway trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume that he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.

Fifth is the issue I oppose the most. Callaway quotes Ross Tucker and implies that a drug test cannot rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to teach its readers? By that standard, I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers inNature 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 to demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered, the theory works to a degree, and that that should warrant publication until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that Callaway has a sceptical mind, which is crucial to scientific thinking, but that would be put to better use if he wrote a peer-reviewed paper that discussed the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced, non-detectable drug that the Chinese have come up with in the past 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This article, 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 the governing body for water sports, FINA, to determine if Ye has doped. To ask whether it is possible to obtain a false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is possible: other than the athlete taking a 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 so there is a probability that the drug in an athlete’s system could tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight chance it may be, but should we disregard all test results because of it? Let’s be practical and reasonable, and accept that the World Anti-Doping agency (WADA) is competent at its job. Ye’s urine sample will be stored for eight years after 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 Callaway failed to mention. As noted in the president of WADA’s press release, drug testing for Olympians began at least six months before the opening of the London Olympics. Furthermore, 107 athletes have been banned from this Olympics for doping. That may be the reason that “everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing” —  those who did dope have already been caught and sanctioned. Callaway is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fooled the test at the game, but this possibility is certainly ruled out for Ye.

Over all, even though Callaway did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry-pick data that, in my view, are far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased. 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 showing only evidence that favours your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal such as Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or reporting should be done.

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

  1. Black Pheonix
    August 11th, 2012 at 11:10 | #1

    “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.”

    I like the Editors to further explain why they thought it was “fair” to call her performance anomalous, by cherry picking data/analysis.

    They acknowledge that it was merely “accusations”, and still affirms her performance as “anomalous”.

    To this date, we still have no definitive answers as to WHAT objective rational standards Nature and others have began to use to define “anomalous performance” in sports.

    So, while we may forgive the errors of conclusions, unless Nature has define some objective rational standards for “performance profiling”, I think Nature is straying into the realm of voodoo and crystal balls, and men like Mr. Leonard are relying upon their own unclear irrational motives to accuse and defame athletes.

    For NATURE to venture into such line of irrational speculations, in itself, is “ANOMALOUS” performance, away from its stated rational goals. Perhaps NATURE’s staff should be questioned for cause of this anomaly?

  2. pug_ster
    August 11th, 2012 at 12:24 | #2

    This kind of stupidity demonstrates the follow the monkey, lemming like attitude of the Western Propaganda to even post stories like this, the very thing that the West believes that the Chinese Media are doing. Like the other readers in that post, what I am disappointed is what the supposingly scientific and analytical Nature magazine follow the herd of the Western Propaganda.

  3. Black Pheonix
    August 11th, 2012 at 12:56 | #3

    On 1 hand, I abhor official propaganda. If it’s open and public, it always sound stupid. If it is covert and implied, it always sounds nefarious.

    On the other hand, I abhor non-official media nationalist propaganda even more.

    At least with the Official propaganda, there is only the implication of an Official view. It doesn’t say any thing about the People.

    Popular media propaganda is just an agreement of the stupid and the loud, viewed by the rest being intelligent and rational. It says every thing about the People.

  4. August 12th, 2012 at 03:24 | #4

    I thought the Nature response was a non apology. It was defensive and made convenient excuses for itself. It’s no excuse but thye quality of non peer reviewed articles written in Nature is a whole different animal than the peer reviewed science papers. But because of Nature’s good-name, they should seek to protect that name and cases like this justifiably sully their reputation.

  5. Zack
    August 12th, 2012 at 10:22 | #5

    @melektaus
    testament to the increasing politicisation of science; i remember the bullshit that was propagated by so called ‘sociologists’ who tried to claim that modern China was incapable of innovating due to culture, whilst ignoring the invention of the gun, compass etc etc.
    Idiots like these are guided more by old colonial prejudices and incipient racism; in fact, it’s the reason why the rise of China was such a shock to so many westerners, they actually believed their own propaganda and bullshit about the destiny of their own culture and systems.

  6. August 12th, 2012 at 17:38 | #6

    @Zack
    Now the racist ones like to ask why there is no innovation coming out of China for the last 500 yrs! And if China is on the rise how come modern China can only produce copies.

  7. Zack
    August 12th, 2012 at 22:37 | #7

    @Ray
    only the truly blockheaded or retarded would still hold the view that China doesn’t innovate; even the formerly sneering media outlets have been forced to report the truth To their credit, the American research establishment remain scientists first and have so far remained fairly objective, and as scientists we naturally wish to communicate with our peers across boundaries. Not so with the restrictions on Sino-US scientific research in space, materials etc etc. THe paranoia of those in Congress is only rivaled by their collective stupidity.

  8. August 19th, 2012 at 13:02 | #8

    The human spirits of the Olympics

    It shows the best of us and the worst of us during the Olympics.

    First start with the controversy that the US Olympic attires are made in China. What attires are made in USA?

    Despite the no positive testing from the Olympics committee, John Leonard accused the ‘suspicious’ Chinese 16-year-old swimmer. Another US swimmer from nowhere did the same and no one accused her of doping. Guess which country is among those whose athletes have been tested positive? Not China. He represents the silly swimming coaches, but not me.

    Then the media got into the wagon as controversy sells. The ‘prestigious’ Nature magazine did apologize in the web; due to the pressures from their sponsors? Some pointed out the human sufferings of the athletes in China. They forgot the same sufferings of the US athletes and their parents. Some were bankrupt and many do not get good jobs after the game despite a fistful of former medalists making good money. At least there is no sexual abuse reported on Chinese coaches. If they have sex with a 14 year old or below, it is automatic death penalty. If we have the same rule, many coaches in US should die and we would not have clergymen molesting altar boys as part of the sport.

    Some argued China should win more medals as their population is four times ours. From this logic, India should be #2. They forgot it is not the population, but the resources per capita or GNP per capita that matters.

    China never wants to be #1 as US always wants. I’m glad China is behind in medal counts by now. The disqualification in badminton game is good. The timing is bad as it happened before. It is the rules of the game to be blamed, then the coaches who plan for win according to the game rules, and then the athletes. I would be angry to watch this game that I pay good money for.

    The better human spirits are shown by the Muslim girl. I wonder what they wear in beach volleyball. Religion needs to adapt to the global culture to some extent. The amputated athlete won our hearts. He could be the only one who participates in two Olympics in the same year. The Malaysian diver just lifted the spirit of a nation, same as the one Hong Kong won a long while ago. These are the treasures and why we enjoy the Olympics.

    ——-
    There are other 75 similar articles:http://ebtonypow.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-nation-of-no-losers.html

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.