 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 & A% t9 L- k$ x, l( n' C
) v$ G% |" Q2 ]2 E& G7 g
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。% z8 W4 j5 l V' [+ m, [# @
就像当年傅莹在英国《星期日电讯报》上发文一样,要争取到话语权、影响别人的认识,就得多一点这样的人。" y+ t, D: r$ v- x+ G" {: \: C; l0 ?
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。$ I* O+ {# v3 ^
7 u7 C N1 c% E* i3 a% Shttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
4 V% m1 f% S8 m6 b& ^. }$ m
( s% J O; Y- V致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
, ^3 J, s% u5 }3 N5 z% G3 o. d* ]0 K& ]# {" w1 J) U
英文原信附后,大意如下:
8 L. @2 w. h* e4 C4 {
7 m2 t4 q3 G0 Q; x; M! E斐尔,
) m9 `2 V2 h% O. x* m7 @ 你可能因Ewen Callaway对叶诗文的报道而被email狂炸,过去二十小时,给你
1 ~% A( c( i, d8 ]3 cemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。 F: s3 R+ b% f1 @; U1 \% S4 S# C m
如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应,你应该高兴4 F, S& Z1 _) H) w! S. h
中文读者比世界其他读者更看重你们的新闻报道,与科学相关的(即使关系很小)也可' C0 x8 m' x3 L$ n, e& r8 m
能重于《纽约时报》,中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。
- T* s1 M9 z% ?: h Callaway报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见:1)最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞
( [2 {8 Q( M" A/ E" _" E弊; 2)Callaway用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常,而两件都错了; 3)Callaway没咨询意
' q) o7 u1 O* s, T1 H1 G2 t* O! x见不同的专家,导致报道不平衡,低于公平报道的最低标准。所以,Callaway至少不负% U* Q! O8 ^0 Y# m# s8 S3 `+ m
责任,可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。2 i& X& x Q9 Y: H" B; x- y% Q$ M" p
我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中,《自然》可能意识到了原副标题的偏见
+ _6 L; ?- q7 u4 j,将之由“成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者”更正为“成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问
9 t3 l) k1 R: B" g/ Z, m- G; ^”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
) O( i- u" ?0 X) Q Callaway报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”:说她- A k u5 \5 i$ u
比自己在2012年7月的记录要快7秒,说她在最后五十米比男子冠军Ryan Lochte还要快' w3 u- }* Y% A+ I
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 s# L- P: o K' u' Z
第一个“事实”错了,第二个误导。1)叶比自己只快5秒,而此前她的记录创于9 q$ D+ i( J# N# A% @/ B
2011年、不是2012年,这位16岁运动员用了一年而不是少于4周刷新自己。2)叶只在混7 ]9 R. c4 Y3 `( v6 F. t
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二8 Y8 Q& s5 ~) g$ g3 C* b" J! Y
快的记录,叶在400米丝毫不能接近他(慢了二十多秒)。叶只是自由泳最强,而在前& q9 L* B# t% j2 V7 I( u
300米落后于好些女选手。虽然Lochte在400米很快,他在最后50米的自由泳慢于五、六
5 V) _; s. w( F* g% V位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以,叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱" q' ~5 O$ y/ k, s/ b0 z- t
项快于Lochte。如果Callaway多做的功课,他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目
; K( r- s. y1 p7 I8 b# L。如果Callaway多查询,他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记4 f2 ~) c# _; n, J: ~ T, h
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
8 C+ P; K' |, @# }还有好些事实,可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩,我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件
! t2 c. K; O5 B0 N1 B, k& b1》,wikipedia对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
* y5 }! B% v8 w f* ^Wikipedia。Callaway报道与Wikipedia条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不& J5 K% ~. z+ Y/ A
同意见的专家。
, a" E( H9 Z- p你应该收到了"XXX"博士的一封email。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的" m/ i2 h, Y+ `0 ]& z
第一作者论文后,获得"XX"学院的博士,并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"大7 K) @! g, o3 m" G1 B- J' J
学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的email埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中,我将其拷贝为
, s* b8 Y+ Y* u |6 Z+ K: P6 x《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。6 e9 G9 L$ l: Y' P' `# G0 X
Callaway在线报道下面有很多跟帖讨论。有些学生以为有些很有道理(且有实质内容)1 o' Z6 S4 {$ b2 o% T* d% ]
的讨论被删了,他们寄给了我。我选Lai Jiang的一份为《附件3》,Zhenxi Zhang的为
1 |- j* k( {+ t4 G; |7 l《附件4》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的,而
: p' p" L9 `5 e% O) |( i3 F; Z9 A这些被Callaway忽略。0 F. K6 t& H0 d/ v: o! H9 l) c. H
英国人常常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记,世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给
7 t+ t1 z8 |8 c/ u- y( p英国人。我自己6月份(这确是2012年)又经历一次,我和一位老朋友(麻省理工学院
8 E) T3 K h2 T5 M; N, K, v2 k3 x1 h教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
# @9 C2 I" U' v6 l2 p英国人的国际形象好,部分原因是你们的科学和科学家:当全世界中学生都要从教科书
: a7 ~7 j, ~1 P( P学牛顿和达尔文,英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大(且客观)的科学. j5 Q) e& n! o$ ~ o
家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文,才有《自然》的! p5 C4 \; c8 P. F, d& b7 S
今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害,可以加强你们的声誉。# Q4 ]! K) X$ p- P5 w
英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉,即使在1997年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而9 |6 ^8 Q( F* u: v$ `. o$ y
香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以,记忆是犹新的,而不仅是1840年) q% l s& F3 }( l; S4 ^- @: {. D
代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平,可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问
) u0 \/ V. X' f8 Q”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ f* S. F) _ B3 b* e7 t6 V7 r8 c中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题,包括舞: ]8 Z" }* k% Q+ p- ]0 Y8 |' n- o
弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评,我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问
. V5 _8 C5 ?) r) _- E题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个16岁; f) C+ J H9 V% l/ _5 b
的年轻人,本该为自己职业生涯的成就而庆贺。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次$ N. D+ Q/ A8 C) G
测试,而毫无证据指责她的时候,却有很多媒体,特别是《自然》这样的刊物,的渲染& ?! ^; }* |; Z& y( t" q
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: p6 m9 O8 {3 [; o2 ~! p我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
3 `6 J9 L. h8 g8 i0 y* ]5 T4 Z8 r* y: @4 P# s$ P- G, j
毅
- R& x# D5 b- Z; a6 \7 ^1 v6 i- N北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅 B3 M! v d$ w; T$ Y' l2 u/ p
$ c. G2 {2 q5 b0 W, k5 N& s; D) T
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结( q/ Z: ^: `! w2 T! a! k8 H
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email1 z2 K- X0 h: w( q3 T
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见$ j1 r4 E6 [5 X! i
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见% \1 e: |& O: B% c6 o9 P8 u" }
* @3 j- F6 q6 X# q$ n" T0 D* q+ c. [+ @9 r# W. H
6 n, ?2 C0 B2 o; y, u) g原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)8 I% C1 L* P/ ~: M
Dear Phil,' G, ^) c6 N) A* p" W
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s8 |5 y* s/ ~9 p' u+ E, z. f, I4 ^
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
4 o* f0 p0 ]: p6 h6 d* Zhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed' Y! F g, [9 C5 M( w( y
you.$ m( T4 _1 Y1 G) n0 H
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have' x! }9 V2 P2 c* T F! c' G
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
& ^: @7 x+ e6 A; J" x6 Ireaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
: h9 U# \/ k2 X' ]) d1 Zworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature7 U. K' c+ J; q$ o7 C; J( a9 Y
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more% ^$ [0 ~+ H: m9 _
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
1 j m% R) }) [' z+ K! g3 ~4 cpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
9 U& b+ c j9 h" U$ X3 z The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 ]; l4 `9 G% F# V: t2 T- `
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a( H# j% u4 G+ t1 m
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
0 m+ B& f4 [; n/ h! t/ Ythat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway& H$ V& M* {" m+ r
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping$ s; [. q. S8 g+ q6 v
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal+ [4 E* ^+ _/ \8 k" W
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
- n; N, H$ M2 g7 c/ Uand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone3 B Y# M5 E! W, G" H( U; z
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news3 h8 ^5 `; D/ z0 d
reporting.4 o9 J* ]9 R# b
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have' U; h$ G8 l+ X6 g, F
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
# y% T5 f9 ?7 o( L0 L0 w% b- Uchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
# g7 p7 A7 a3 ^* xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A5 A$ o( ]" K6 R2 _+ W% E/ z3 Q
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
4 `' r6 O/ l1 k9 Z5 w: X. n The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
0 b, a( N/ `2 {5 }more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
7 G3 p4 @/ W' X+ I4 a* O/ ~. yfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50$ a0 l5 }, ~$ f9 j( o: e/ Z0 I
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same+ T6 S8 r# i1 [. o0 N) O& Y$ p( F; h
event for men, with the second fastest record. w p, o4 v q8 x% F/ p9 M) T
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye6 x L( _5 `3 `: ^
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
4 C$ w1 i1 S- E8 D- c0 f& ]8 z7 hyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record8 f' s- X4 S/ g, N; z6 r
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
: r& N+ J- S, A& d; o1 f' J& Ometers. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% }# W2 j8 ]. Q, p$ Ffor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than+ l6 P$ B' [9 w; P% L( Z. f4 @
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
# e6 a$ J7 L9 M7 Q" ?) g) i8 T* {behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
: k: ]0 U% z" Z% Y$ q" p3 xindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower( ]- L# N5 b, n3 w+ N
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than% e2 f3 f* P: s: t. f' ~
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
$ P7 W3 c, d6 l: [3 }0 [' r+ ^her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
9 }- k5 G' e- K5 r6 g' khe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
! L& c ?9 J ]8 M ^. Tproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
1 |# X5 M8 T8 P% U" Q3 o% m( {swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the2 x9 I2 K) p- p
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
' R3 |5 W t4 d' p( G; B) pCallaway report.6 B* {1 J+ Y e+ o0 ^3 {
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
) u+ W. Z' _2 Y: K/ T$ munderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details! H1 J9 p2 o8 \) ~# H- u
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description; s; a P5 C0 X4 B' H/ Z) S: ~6 n# n* Z6 l
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been6 ?: y5 `. y* W
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
/ X: A4 Q3 s+ ?9 ^ _7 XWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
6 N- L1 `* |9 D$ T. U) upublicly voiced different opinions.
" K& M* N6 ~' K3 \2 ? m VYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD' f; |7 q P1 E8 O: P
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature7 E2 L! E3 [6 \
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
/ Q7 [$ N d0 S( f* `4 Apostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
- o" X; Y8 d; O" O: cyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
7 r6 j. o4 g2 {2 ?6 |8 o& w5 I. S- P, gof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue., n5 `& R( Z* N, z0 j% h/ b# I4 @6 w
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
9 o% ^, b; R8 _& Kthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They& E3 o" D( B: m* K( M1 v
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
( l; j# _$ s$ sAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
4 H3 }; b8 T9 X5 Pthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was P: ?; ]& p( o) A
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.3 Q" j- x9 b0 j5 ^' N* e+ w8 w
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that! P( p" v3 g4 p" x4 [1 d" ^
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the& ?1 ~/ x& }. B
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 p/ G3 Y# ?9 n7 P
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
+ o* P' V3 B3 T& g. Iand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ p8 ]8 J" a* Y% b# G& K
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science+ i; b& p/ b5 Y6 C3 L
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
. r) R$ M8 d8 Q* E; a3 R( mDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.# u# c+ ]' `% F* }' n) I# |
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and! _' y6 T2 D; G4 t( w. F# @
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature3 h% }- v+ r+ e M6 d( d
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
" ~1 ~+ ?3 F3 Frepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
3 W) A3 d$ {# i9 xThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
- X; R3 @# Q8 m" _- y6 V r. R! l, Xshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced1 t" h. s6 ^6 }4 A! N, R& \7 s
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
( W a: a' v+ e i+ |( q" r$ kfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
1 i' X+ S. Z# y( C4 A4 xthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
% L) d; {" I: F' T* N% Rabout British supremacy.3 U% O. b3 i8 U) ]
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
; R5 C- R0 u5 r& h* q* z" [unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more' Y" q3 v( w }, I
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, I" V' ?3 i4 n" o) B/ c& m9 A- @# }our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
1 m; m+ D" S4 \/ DOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
5 W0 B0 Q$ U+ [6 [. f+ AYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
# y9 }/ _! V. k! s, @$ Y1 q2 m* Tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests) y6 D+ Z4 q7 @0 {) p
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,5 h- O5 I; ~1 `' S5 n
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
) z8 v9 c `" b/ R( rpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
- j' Y& y1 O! K1 F4 H+ Q; ENature.. W, \% _9 Z9 S$ s
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
# X" K1 {8 i2 O7 g* g: c+ }; Q) ithe Callaway report.& L$ W/ `4 G9 X' j) O7 A$ I# {* \
. A# {9 n3 i. Z4 [* ~Yi
2 h$ R( c1 e2 K+ a2 \3 E o# _( R/ y3 l# r# t; h* E5 e
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
# x3 ?' Y+ _ m: O0 ~4 A$ [) IProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
8 S E. o$ P- f: b* y" o/ {, h0 ZBeijing, China
" ^" U* U& o" T% f, K# J6 D |
|