 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 " X* i' J1 y5 p$ c" C* \
( ~# x$ I4 T7 {: a' _2 N饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
; e7 f: m M4 ?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。
$ m7 [9 l K0 f; g. B总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
& _! D" |$ S, s+ b4 Y' ?0 r/ H6 j# b8 L: G9 d1 g; Y; ~
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
7 q& s: v3 k4 N1 M
3 F: M/ d" Z/ a4 i致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
P3 s0 Y& o/ [1 G
. ] h; f7 F; B' D+ x+ G+ @! {# E英文原信附后,大意如下:7 }# Q7 n' q2 r6 Z: _* ]) {
) ?- e! r' }8 d! p! u7 x斐尔,& F% z6 y' f3 v0 E. ^
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
5 S3 O, K2 i) s6 u- Jemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
8 z' I2 e J: t Y# U 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
6 D# {1 w! h2 y0 h$ j( J4 d1 l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
4 D7 e/ R# V' k! ~' i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。1 h0 z) s/ s! D3 x
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( Y3 ?% y8 a* Y
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
: ^' U m2 |. F9 K& F# M3 d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
: _/ l- U, ^# a& O1 [0 g5 T1 `2 O9 K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。3 A$ r. q1 P7 ^# { f/ ]
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* H5 y* R8 V5 d( ?9 n) P- Q% d, {
,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
+ r1 \' Y* y/ P3 i3 _”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
" G n* S/ H, l8 ? 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
0 {3 w7 ?4 g7 O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$ r2 X. Y3 p, c, `
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。8 b' }" o4 z5 H0 u
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
' l5 Z9 c r$ C! R, f2011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
5 W% f7 r) W# g# b ]合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 S" r n: W: B
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
4 @$ K, W' M4 d/ M% m300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. k! h5 h9 e, [; V* ~$ Q
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
. o7 Q$ m2 c! @ y: ]0 q4 ^& p! \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
$ Y; V9 E- n3 ]4 s6 D+ Y8 P。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6 {/ O7 x, C V* @" w% Z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。' N- n& w4 k P; t0 v# J% g
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( _: r# X' h7 P( w8 K# x" S1 u
1》,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
4 s5 q3 M* |8 |" DWikipedia。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$ V( ?; W# |6 m; P+ O# l; t
同意见的专家。% N' Z1 _3 J7 J, u$ j: `
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
+ q" y z# d; z F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
& Q" x+ M$ F# d7 \' H# [' t+ T" H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
! Z3 y# }+ Z8 A9 A& @6 y《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。- E5 j, p2 ]0 f
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); E. N: v2 ]/ e/ _
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
9 H/ F4 {5 ^9 r《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: S6 L4 L4 T, |1 @ }4 c- C
这些被Callaway忽略。
0 G& p6 H- z% J; |# _# S1 t# ]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
& m. j9 G J% V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1 m g) S7 o1 W( t/ U
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
L6 j6 `8 j) S5 w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# j0 W. j) D$ e$ k4 ~
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
1 u7 u0 ~7 n4 H, m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
, ]- Y8 c+ T- u& B6 E* n* Q+ N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。
O- k3 g0 w$ i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; Q$ H0 |8 b! v. A7 x/ r
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8 r* E$ Y+ o7 ~1 q2 n7 Z# \
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
% Y N8 p7 k4 x”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
+ c$ \; J% n( Z. N' k3 U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$ Q% g. ]+ W2 I# a. N
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6 d- y) N8 W8 Y# ]
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
* e* k) @9 Z1 x7 g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) d5 k4 g# [* n/ Z" |* b4 Y1 J: |
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9 n8 p! {4 R) M$ g
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。; N4 i8 G) Z; w/ ^' |
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。0 Q" s3 i6 O; R N, a
' ]0 |* e7 {1 |" |( ^" Z; I
毅
& W2 o' i4 m0 l8 T5 b北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
- E1 I" {- M/ P/ g2 W9 r1 W3 m* ?& H8 Z
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
) X+ D. k% S2 U附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email$ M8 o4 n; T" |0 z
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见: S) K+ u' Z: A4 d0 N
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见3 f, U% b6 G8 x2 Y6 ]9 a: h
' v. T0 ^6 u g9 q$ S
2 l( z2 q$ C% I. d5 B
5 X- p; ]8 n6 M- O( f+ @$ h原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
- ? D0 {, y7 E' b3 d& dDear Phil,
9 E! l' U& p/ n( w6 z$ c You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
/ E( s; l9 |3 ^* wreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20/ x' E, p: p1 _& G/ s7 I
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# k5 ] W" n* G; |5 Q+ t
you.
B# g% S2 v. j7 |+ ~0 H3 y2 x If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have2 l. f x. w) R
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
. J/ s5 s. f; M; C( d. _: greaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the/ M: r' x, i8 t( u) E! n% z
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature& s+ D, i4 Q t+ s
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more! R, H3 {( f9 \" q/ j! `
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
) l( e" l+ L* M; H4 J7 b' r7 Tpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) h: U; H) A6 O) q$ e
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
& r4 B9 u! @/ n: S" wworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
' ?2 K/ j; H/ Z6 h/ qnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish, j4 `, e8 t2 V6 a3 f) k
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway: G/ l; S. z) l) N, O
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping8 j8 i% ?0 Y J) J5 A4 X: N! q
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
) L7 A6 l* E1 m: _! Q- _standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
9 j4 ?6 s; v6 a+ Band could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
& h s! ^3 W ~9 e* rto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
1 y' l; }0 F; w9 n9 z8 zreporting.9 t9 W: o5 M" L' N2 {: ~* k- ~4 D3 O
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
4 H. }9 R, v4 k3 |already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by1 z0 }$ W/ e5 i8 u4 C- ]
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
4 ]8 H( w& F; S/ `: ?sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A* B K- m4 N7 ^8 L) e- m. H
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
$ W# C% q: s, |" ~ The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem; K; }0 S& Y- m
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
4 E8 @3 X2 Q! g N. I5 {- ^) \faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
* ?/ V1 n# P* l. umeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
9 L" H9 A7 J \$ Aevent for men, with the second fastest record.
3 n, ~, k& k2 `! n' t& S! o# M4 m The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
+ o" J, Z. U5 M" d. ] A. _7 t: `was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 162 ?8 D) G* ?4 q: _
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
: v; f4 s" r/ s- B: l, M/ R. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400( z; E/ O/ g& K# c3 q' l9 I& c
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,2 r% k$ X ?1 p6 {7 d5 Y/ f
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than8 k, F$ W; ~( G. h8 P# d- C
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
; K" L2 ~; F. Q n$ r. U! H* bbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the% o: X* x. V! H! B8 p3 A- q" M) _
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
5 f% U; N/ o9 z7 x7 B d4 }than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
% i# b% {7 }# c- Q+ O+ Dthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
0 v5 E; }5 N8 |" x( E) L' Vher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
# _ `# K. p& O" phe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “- H7 D, k- K6 c# x$ h- S
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other* o1 ?3 ]( n6 F; L/ D
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the! v- \8 y V: r" I
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
5 g( E- e! v. k9 h4 {& m) N: A6 ?Callaway report.7 K9 K* g* w! z& a
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
0 e/ F/ \9 v& _/ `8 E+ ~& lunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
W$ @$ {4 L4 l. r+ U9 H g0 bhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description# Y( `: U2 s: |
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been7 b% G4 h+ `3 W! }
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 E9 [# c8 F3 W9 Q* F6 CWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had& o x) x$ G$ M1 w5 C/ Z4 C9 N
publicly voiced different opinions.0 X, R, R9 T4 G) |+ z: E, X
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD) A7 \( F* B: @' Q
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
' K! ^6 U) R- _0 \8 w/ Q0 G1 ^Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
" m. N6 E. N; O5 M: Dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
( v& s9 J" F# {* G8 a' p' H0 _you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy5 c: r# d/ U! p4 h
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
8 O: ^0 v2 N) }5 SThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
8 t# ~2 A% e5 H6 m4 Q/ v7 qthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
$ h" n. @; D, V6 k* W6 z5 Jhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as( y3 Q6 y) o0 r ?8 e! ~! Y
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that# ^2 B% y! V& z1 a% Q* c
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was& c7 c0 c' e+ l! A2 [6 d5 i
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.2 G J% u* u6 l7 q A6 m1 _
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
& F/ f# G; V# Y' _many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the- z+ S1 H3 }6 G1 a1 g! T0 Q& E
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June' K. L2 j/ D( b1 F+ V3 s
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ ~, W( n, M* C' L, ^" Fand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.$ B9 t3 L h1 x+ U
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
4 |* j, G; M; A- n2 m( J6 cand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
. V0 e4 J8 w, q& |0 M' ~/ F3 X' XDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.6 v% U$ V H% w4 x
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and" C' V: D: o8 Q3 X
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; o/ G4 e6 {9 k8 Lwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
7 g. e7 q( [+ M7 frepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
& E8 Q) n" z+ B, GThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not/ e: L" h5 v0 S! U+ I. l
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
6 N( Q) O* }# J6 n2 Kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather8 A. Z! a! D3 m0 F. m1 v# H$ B
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
- x0 }; N' k# \4 w8 t) z( U% D. ithis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
, R9 C0 e" b1 }5 x7 U9 Wabout British supremacy.
- H& o/ I; `1 Z* sThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many7 v; C) n3 p; M- l' J6 C2 e: G
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
, ?4 _; e- ]2 v5 d7 y: [Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by3 m( L0 x# O8 {9 f1 y5 _
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London* N/ b" Y, {& d; a
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
6 q2 Z4 c! H- j! v) M" `# N5 HYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of9 B+ w0 k' O! h* X& d
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests4 ~5 Q" `) X* W" }1 q
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
9 X8 Q' r& ?+ Z' qit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly5 M1 h& S( Y% I* M9 R: u
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
: S2 w$ E# o+ ~1 H+ v3 D7 y/ NNature.& _# T8 J. _* z/ C' r& m b2 ~; E: @
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance# |# o2 r$ F! h% u1 ~$ u. b
the Callaway report.0 {9 j* r& G1 N. G. H2 \
% [% p0 Z4 Q9 B! t8 C ^$ q. G2 ^
Yi9 |1 u2 `3 {0 X- w3 \
7 b" @: }4 @) c8 `
Yi Rao, Ph.D.- `. Y. k) t7 D5 d
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences8 B0 C: d+ c1 Z/ u
Beijing, China
8 T/ T4 U- P9 W# C4 x( Y( Y |
|