 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 # R2 B, M) s. U. v" i& h) a$ g, g
% j5 \5 A6 [6 t( j U, E
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
5 b5 ?8 X/ P2 \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。: A/ g: u) e7 X9 A3 U
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
$ v7 |6 i- @. Q/ ^% t L9 ^, r
* ], F- ^* ?& K! F- Nhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
) L- z8 Y0 B9 e- e/ v" a8 p
) b# J8 v, E6 c( \ K致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选. a! f% V7 x" n4 _ \& L& G+ D
4 [1 Y' u9 W- F) l8 y* `英文原信附后,大意如下:
" B) I- A0 H5 f7 K. i' @4 b/ M0 B! f: _1 H) ]4 c" o
斐尔,
! Q A5 B3 Q! r& b 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
9 S8 `/ q# W3 Y7 l! s1 Hemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。- N6 V, L: N8 G8 ?2 t/ Y
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2 }& E- v! O4 \
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
# I) n0 d( H5 g: M$ j9 A6 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。4 [; H, \- I& u/ g% E
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, x5 \1 d2 w1 F5 O7 A9 I
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; S0 d6 _- S; u- i4 T1 S' V
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% w# r# f" S. I) e2 m' R, {
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。9 |5 k2 {9 |1 [7 Z9 I# G
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2 ?8 q4 h6 N, g: X! b
,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
( r: G6 J; F V! l: Y# S”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
' C7 ]; Y4 l9 {; y3 ] 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* t _6 v: u V3 b6 T. a* Y/ [( r0 j
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
/ l2 k i e4 D' o$ V7 k9 s* x,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
# K! l6 K# W7 A- [ 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, E; H+ U' m( Y7 Y3 X
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
# w2 ^6 K2 U- ~7 C6 }- s2 v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
) C) `& e2 s6 c1 C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
* E% [% g2 S7 g+ C' k$ r2 |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# w! U! Q3 E0 H* o- M6 X
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4 K3 K! r) U" ^
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- A! _& s; C4 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1 W7 }6 H1 \$ [7 p! [+ Z
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
$ l* o8 ^+ q. b! C! o& T: ]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' C4 h# Z; A/ J q
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
1 _. A' o" h- T, O7 JWikipedia。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& @ E( { Q# q; {
同意见的专家。
( P2 Y& J! I: y" U+ b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
0 l) D; Z, e8 g6 [5 f$ g4 O5 K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& l4 |2 e! w0 T5 a" t
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
' I3 S5 @% B# U& {7 a# i《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 m2 Z" k4 Q6 j: \ E o
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)
. o* ~; a( k1 o5 F( |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 Y$ V, c9 i8 V《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- W3 U( M9 @/ X; k& V5 ]' E* b( b
这些被Callaway忽略。( d6 ^& S z) Y B# ^* G7 a+ D& ]
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
8 P2 z1 M T N; s: ]. ]* H4 N2 V5 Q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
6 @1 P* s, z. v& G u3 m+ z教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
: t! [2 L2 T1 B4 y. C$ A8 N2 m! Q1 H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. v! K6 M- d% v, P O
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
& k' }+ K5 B2 ?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& O c, l9 X3 u; j, A, t
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。
, g* W0 ^( R4 f% [" F. K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
4 w4 g' y: d( o% x- l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& R# V3 N v* y* {- {9 {9 h
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
' E3 Z" z9 q% V”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
, P3 y9 B1 l- F5 w) j% ^* _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0 }7 u( ~/ [" z4 v) @
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
. l8 ~5 i& {1 D! U: o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+ w0 g% G0 e$ w4 z' h
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4 _! O- K' n% B% P" Y! e) T9 h
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
" [" s; y# |9 ]1 n而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。% s1 a- o7 j% U, d% A( R v
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。 `3 A. W6 C) [ |, k
' k: L8 y4 F- l毅5 c ^6 w, c7 u1 E! P3 Y
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅# J4 {3 @8 B9 L" ]
2 Y4 M+ H) f' }/ ]
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
4 q6 F1 t, \- h* E1 }8 K0 c: Y2 }附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ K9 H: U* S6 e' `附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见3 Y: N; @# R$ F4 C! r
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见! u2 Z, ~5 ]% v) k. T2 n5 @
8 h* c" K+ p0 d6 H) I1 U5 M
0 h+ |/ I; j0 |( M- m, R+ J+ J2 k, `9 e8 z6 |
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
# T6 m& Y* A* p- ~7 c& [; L7 bDear Phil,& U. X, Q$ M4 Y" b' X
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s |1 X9 c& K4 @' d
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 209 I" e, F# K7 {8 T" `' A0 s
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed7 @8 ~" A. K i. Q! }
you./ G! t4 |" _) W: g2 \
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
4 b/ z5 l/ e% z6 v3 W' O+ xbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
. ~( r7 x0 J+ q& D, z" N+ Mreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
. B& ?: J+ k8 Qworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature5 |. Z" F3 ^1 l5 s8 s
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more7 u/ D# Y/ G1 {5 k7 L2 j* Y
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news: K1 N9 u5 p3 u t# j! |/ U6 C! O
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
6 X' I4 F1 P- \: u- h1 G& U The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
, ?/ m5 E) Q3 l+ C& K7 gworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a: y. h9 T: }2 p3 X% x0 K
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
' J" z/ I7 \. W! zthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
/ Q! y5 ?1 T# i; v# M; L, N; `did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
. Y/ {* X _/ d9 V1 E) G) C& y/ G" t/ |explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal5 u6 ~2 \- C* P7 C& G
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 o7 ?" x) m2 ~2 c2 D' b6 g5 b+ {! h
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone3 P% }/ F3 K2 B6 M
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
: {, S/ p; _% ?$ E+ Xreporting.4 b: j9 U2 Q' c- o
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have5 x' I" U0 { d% A& X8 Q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
. Z4 k* G8 \1 echanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; J8 r: T. Y- b4 [' @sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A: a+ Q$ v: T \6 c& ?! [( b
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.! D1 z& D" V% W: t. M
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem& Z8 e. ~; s% U2 I
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
8 w7 B* c6 K2 G+ ^( zfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
* L n/ _& j4 D8 i: k, wmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same/ r- G, i8 f# b& `! ~
event for men, with the second fastest record.
4 K* d, q; n; o2 c4 y/ f7 w The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
6 L' R# k% A" Pwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16! ~/ ?% n# ^* G0 o1 z- ?6 P
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
. W* l* k# U; a( E. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400! @- W) u9 ?, h4 B5 W% y7 L
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 M& [+ Z. l3 g" q5 b& ]% Hfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than/ d F* }' j% U' }& P
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed9 p3 ~6 K- p! ^! [
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the7 Y- r0 O! i. W# f7 S# n7 T' |
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
# V# Y! i/ |+ m+ ~0 y0 wthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than( W2 B, \( ]1 K! Q0 T
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was$ z' u0 R0 V% m6 G
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
$ V; t* N) t0 P5 X9 D$ Rhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “0 P, x1 i- c* D' {8 k
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
% m9 Y; m3 {- i8 ^) Zswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
$ n6 _" f! ]& _/ `+ ^teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the+ \0 s6 {' a- |/ i6 z1 y
Callaway report.0 `+ r4 `3 d. H/ v5 x6 U
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
( I( Q1 n, L) e* Uunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details# Q+ ?" u. l# p$ l. | ]; Y6 |
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description3 b; [) T( d2 a1 e
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
5 _; b% g+ L( V7 S4 F" I- [better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the" n v4 G6 d) C; Y1 x5 O
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
' B" g6 b# P% B/ h# c1 _publicly voiced different opinions." e( D2 A t, ?) {) H
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
' ]% I( N! c9 w2 ]* R0 h+ g. M9 Efrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature8 R+ Y4 p, n9 O" C
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
. L) |+ Q+ S) M& e% _postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
" @* b; o2 O+ X3 E. P- G+ X/ pyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
! m) ]* d8 s1 m* u5 t8 p7 F d" D* bof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
! p6 i2 W3 Y4 B | Y s+ ^/ [3 V# XThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think% y2 k+ T7 y: b: e
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They+ b6 I& C, V9 o% v
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
" S' C$ [: R0 l5 M$ {Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
# X/ Z0 d m* M/ o3 W+ ~ wthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was0 `0 P! f7 T( E4 v
supported by facts neglected by Callaway., o. r" k. S5 A8 C% j& q( i# @3 z
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
6 N( e0 R/ W' _/ }many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the. o8 t0 s# _- x# C) J
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
. [; z: h- w! M6 u- v# j(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
* H# v: [* i$ q0 F |and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.4 ~1 e' b# e/ M" C3 K, x
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science/ x- P6 A' f: r4 C; y
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
9 Y9 w6 l% {6 ^- eDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world. P9 l1 m" u7 e1 f0 t- m9 W
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 _0 e- j. [. Q8 w8 H
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature, ?; T ^& m5 F2 N" ~0 ^
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
W) R: F5 p+ _# h: crepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
1 l7 r) E0 v. V! _: w/ S# @The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not) p, ], M/ ], G
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
+ a. O! a& _8 o8 r7 B# \us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather1 k. c9 A1 n" x% U/ X, h7 A
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that* H. `' ^2 V$ @; w
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”, m# Z3 D% i- ?6 E3 I" A
about British supremacy." h4 ?$ W* N8 Q, K5 j8 Q
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
' z( a! h. e* Bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
/ J9 c9 I4 _, j! w- X) x- S: d; \Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by! b0 @3 y' n6 i& w% F1 Y
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
5 @! |9 H. ~& ]. j# KOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
- {; @3 i6 H/ f& M, w: ?( YYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
* B" u( u5 l$ N/ b- iprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests3 b; [! ]* J% _# H0 c. m; ^$ S
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,$ ^8 l0 [3 k7 d
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly4 e- v9 e+ n: ~& Q
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like2 `0 I, g( W, x
Nature.; K+ h6 J |6 V. e
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance* q0 `; y" M. @+ O7 f0 P' x- C
the Callaway report.+ p/ R) O4 q' l/ {4 ~6 n
* ]6 J1 n ?. W6 QYi( B3 {8 j! K+ T, w" g' \+ H- M
7 d: `0 U% A% l* Z7 W& n7 h. CYi Rao, Ph.D.
* R7 E% g! L* \+ W) `Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences, a: N) _+ F, v) M3 }% n: t
Beijing, China) k6 m& d- w3 p2 B& y! ~! g) h/ {
|
|