大脚怪研究组织爱称大脚怪DNA研究毫无意义(Bigfoot Field Research Organization Head Calls DNA Study "Meaningless")

英文版原文:http://blackbag.gawker.com/bigfoot-field-research-organization-head-calls-dna-stud-1605135585/+laceydonohue  中文版翻译部分

Cryptozoology was rocked this July by the release of a two-year study on alleged Bigfoot DNA by London's Royal Society (paid for by producers of the UK series Bigfoot Files). Now, the chief of America's largest Bigfoot research group (and host of Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot) has cried sample bias. Who's correct?
今年7月份,英国皇家学会（由英国许多大脚怪研究研究者提供资助的）发布了一个为期两年的关于大脚怪DNA研究的重磅消息——对大脚怪的DNA研究毫无意义，这个结果让很多神秘动物学大吃一惊。与此同时，美国最大的的大脚怪研究中心（也是美国动物星球频道:“寻找大脚”的制作方）主任宣称样本太少不足以说明研究DNA毫无意义。那么孰对孰错？

In response to an email request for comment from Jennifer Viegas, a senior correspondent at Discovery News, the founder and president of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, Matthew Moneymaker, called the Royal Society's study "meaningless scientifically."
为回应一封来自《发现新闻》高级记者珍妮弗•维埃加斯的评论邮件，大脚研究组织的创始人兼总裁马修称英国皇家学会的研究“毫无科学意义”。

The actual DNA analysis by Sykes' team was surely performed with the highest integrity and accuracy but the overall effort was already corrupted by that point. It was corrupted at the sample inclusion stage.
赛克斯团队对实际DNS分析的完整性和准确性是毫无疑问的。但是，所有的努力都已经被一点破坏掉了，这点就是在样本纳入阶段存在瑕疵

Note: The BFRO did not provide any of the North American samples, nor did we endorse those few samples from North America that were focused on in the associated TV program. None of the "bigfoot" samples that came from the US had a strong *credible* connection to a bigfoot sighting or some other credible corroborating evidence (i.e. footprints).
注：BFRO没有提供任何北美的样品，也不认同这些样品来自北美，尽管这些样品在相关的电视节目中赢得了相当的关注度。没有任何一个来自美国的大脚“样本”与大脚照片存在可靠联系，或者说不具有任何确凿的证据证明（例如脚印）与之有联系。

Moneymaker (Yes, his real name. Yes, I did a background check and now know more about his minor traffic violations than anyone should.) goes on to point out that a considerable portion of the 57 hair samples — submitted to the society's research team from across the world — were not even subjected to analysis. (18, by my count, based on the paper, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.) He asserts that these samples were excluded specifically "because there was a relatively small amount of material in the sample (i.e. only a few hairs in the sample ... like MOST authentic bigfoot hair samples)." [Moneymaker's emphasis]
Moneymaker（是的，这是我真实的名字。现在我做了他们的背景调查，现在知道比任何人都了解他们，他们曾经有轻微违法交易行为）进一步指出，世界各地提交给皇家学会研究团队的57个头发样本中相当一部分并没有进行分析（大概18个，我通过发表在《英国皇家学会学报B》上的论文计算得来）。他（摇钱树）说，这些样本为什么被排除在外，“因为这是样本微不足道的材料”（即样本中只有几根毛发…这些与最确凿的大脚的毛发样本相比）。”

I've contacted both the society paper's lead author, Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes, and Moneymaker for additional information on this discrepancy. In specific, requests to clarify why the BFRO did not submit samples in the first place, and why the Royal Society opted not to examine 18 of the viable hair samples that were submitted. This post will be updated as needed.
我联系论文的主要作者——牛津大学遗传学家布赖恩•赛克斯和Moneymaker，为的是在差异性上获取一些额外的相关信息。具体而言，要求解释为什么BFRO没有将提交样品放在首要位置？英国皇家学会为什么选择不检查提交了可行的头发样本中的这18个？本文将根据需要随时更新。

As is often the case with pop-sci articles on any subject, the conclusions and finality of the Royal Society paper have been greatly exaggerated. Venerated old media institution Time magazine, for example, published not one, but two, grossly inaccurate headlines about the study "DNA Study Proves Bigfoot Never Existed" and "DNA Analysis Debunks Bigfoot Myth, Points to Unknown Bear Species" ignoring even the Royal Society researchers' firmly enunciated clarification:
对任何学科顶级SCI文章来讲，情况经常是这样的，英国皇家学会论文和结论被无限夸大了。举个例子，历史久远且受人尊敬的媒体《时代周刊》出现过不止一次（是两次）不准确的头条报道，“DNA的研究证明大脚怪不存在”和“DNA分析打破了大脚怪的神话，指向未知的熊类”，这些报道甚至无视英国皇家学会研究人员坚定地阐述和澄清：
（后面实在翻译不下去了，专业术语太难了）

While it is important to bear in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and this survey cannot refute the existence of anomalous primates, neither has it found any evidence in support. Rather than persisting in the view that they have been 'rejected by science', advocates in the cryptozoology community have more work to do in order to produce convincing evidence for anomalous primates and now have the means to do so.

Even the Guardian went with the headline "Abominable news: scientists rule out yetis" despite simultaneously quoting the study's lead author, Sykes, as saying, "Don't give up yet, the yeti may still be out there."

These are important nuances from the researchers themselves and cause for optimism, if you're someone who wants to believe.

Pitched as a disappointment by many media outlets, the study's most newsworthy finding was really anything but: Two of the alleged Yeti samples, one shot by an experienced hunter in Ladakh, India over 40 years ago, turned out to be a "100 percent match with DNA recovered from a Pleistocene fossil more than 40,000 BP [Before Present] of U. maritimus (polar bear)."

So, to review: Ancient polar bears were causing trouble and fighting with people in the early 1970s! That's news! Cryptid enthusiasts perhaps ought to take some time and fully appreciate how weird and interesting that is.

Just look at this thing:

Bigfoot Field Research Organization Head Calls DNA Study "Meaningless"

[this purported Bigfoot photo was allegedly taken at Avocado Lake Park in California and sent to Matthew Moneymaker's Twitter account, according to Adam Bird of the Facebook group Bigfoot: Believers Only; ancient polar bear illustration via Icon Films]

Email matthew.phelan@gawker.com, pgp public key, to contact the author.