 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
g1 o2 Z: H' c% K+ `; Z1 k) f! R, Z6 q
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。7 j& v3 N X. V1 ~" Q$ ~
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。% I' b; M* p* h. [
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
0 D8 V3 G o- f3 b# a& k3 M# }
5 [3 M) A* m2 ?http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 L6 c0 T8 m' J; h1 {; `0 `
) P d6 q, \% s6 T9 I8 g: A( b致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选- r. K, G9 I3 p/ @4 Q* J
* R; n' L; V. {# z# g- X5 b
英文原信附后,大意如下:
* G: G* |5 v5 t0 l4 h2 y, H* M n3 w, J' z8 _$ F4 q
斐尔,
7 S G; t, {3 W6 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" T1 `5 ^3 k6 }$ d+ t! f" f9 j4 u
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。8 }+ l$ V1 H* b- d; O4 q# B
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
, r( ^$ y, e% V6 X8 s( p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 d3 ~' j# C9 _
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。
* R% r0 A! c U- k) [ x# I$ Q 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; ` t; [! ~9 P* g
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
' X+ N6 T0 j- d) u* @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3 ?. Y1 [/ Z9 y% r6 ~: k1 ?$ q
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。6 t( K$ w' B1 K$ E$ 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 w! t5 J+ C T. w' ]: C% `$ B4 K
,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
: W2 P: R+ Y* R3 Q$ e1 S/ O# {”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
5 p5 A8 S; F1 o( }5 F 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/ g0 E+ M5 [. Z* r0 q1 ~- f [) U- C
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
( R$ m- i* c+ G" Z3 N+ M,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
; r" h! M. b2 P) \; L 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( Z+ }2 _) b6 F$ J
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
' a5 |& Y3 d) Z J: k8 X! S( 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
+ }8 M2 x+ V" p( m. M$ ^3 w3 A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
6 S" f* @' M6 s8 a; _! {( S- I300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 `. E+ K4 ]. V0 i7 G5 ^9 ~
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
0 o( d5 \$ F6 p6 Q" 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9 [: Z! C8 l7 q% D$ A7 j) D4 z
。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2 u" W* b0 P- j+ @3 W
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。. [/ o8 N6 Z! ?5 x% |% ?2 Y
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
( D q# b& ?# E0 `7 B5 ^6 u+ q5 ]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
3 [* S0 B* ]' N' CWikipedia。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
( O/ p3 i" Q% Y# l) V, V同意见的专家。6 Y1 E# [/ i6 A( G$ e# u
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9 U$ K% w, b1 B2 P* L5 C
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
9 p- s! l) t" V4 |5 v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
7 o( A) H) j7 |* \6 V) T《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。, O9 K1 K' q7 u. V3 N2 v& O6 g) P
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)
9 C' y5 c% Z/ b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
l" `/ ?( R; Z《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
' j6 i7 i5 {1 K+ v$ w. T9 B这些被Callaway忽略。( K8 I1 x, P% |: M) x1 D% c
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& V5 R5 G R, ^; T# W( ?
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# O0 h6 F% f1 g8 c0 ?
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
* K) Z7 c! \8 @( D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
" D* ?3 b$ s7 d5 a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+ P+ s4 Q# N1 H+ x/ d" g
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% b# \% e8 @+ q$ f4 N9 m
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。; N" c: B" L( [0 [7 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
5 I) k. R3 p9 o4 R; c7 V2 c( P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
6 i4 h' r! K" \5 S/ _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& o, t! @0 {& c0 l& m# t6 y7 _
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。* {2 ~+ m% \3 a" s @6 s& W
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 i0 u: Q& b6 u8 V. O1 q( }
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4 x7 E5 I! Q# T- u
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) T: j5 d9 o% b0 @3 P2 P
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/ H9 ]1 t$ ]* Z1 j6 d
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 U8 }7 G; i/ c. \0 q而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: b' D5 V: B: ]我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
5 P9 ]& a2 f- e
0 z5 V9 f) [& d7 J毅7 Z) B5 y1 z) f* Z' { {
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
! V4 K: d2 h, C; u' v+ A6 i3 J( k* H: q1 a! c9 q, b
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
0 w9 D" Y3 q& t" n4 v附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email* Q* m9 N r) n6 e2 {
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见# z% V) E, {/ X6 p% \# t
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
/ Z8 J4 g* L! r4 t; d" O6 _* [7 q. Q; G: a7 H7 n, H
; a# N% t. G9 I3 [, F- P& T# W; y
: V: \( H$ p( J! ^: G) a原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)8 n; L$ |& \& G- E$ ~
Dear Phil,) I9 M2 f' C% M, O
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s6 w1 }* X1 ~& I' }" ?) _( z
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 207 ]; s2 K; f6 d( D6 o
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
* Z, o( l6 D K- `& xyou.
# Q4 }- l# P3 J" f+ r3 y If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
6 H0 ]: w' e7 l5 z/ f- a. S8 t- jbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
, M, C$ |1 E$ ]) ^0 @9 T5 C" Freaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the# c3 K2 y) c* |5 N9 q% M) _6 u% a4 n
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# r4 ?, G& }' O/ W. ?' h
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# W2 {1 P; F- useriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news7 Q' U- M2 {! b
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
0 l0 k) K5 w+ R) H The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the4 A |0 c, Y" j: W! ]
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a8 Q2 L& P4 u5 \8 X4 e2 }
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
& m+ X* B7 k: ?8 Qthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
" t: n, P) H; ]( [/ F3 Adid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
9 L. G& a! Q9 T3 f e. |3 Y* [explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal/ L9 Y0 M/ u- ~8 E4 R: w1 h
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
# p! D9 j! |: g5 `* _/ P4 a8 fand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
+ U# Q! V$ b! H( [to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news2 K; d4 x) R* Z$ D0 w, C% b
reporting.
7 f2 W5 S; q7 Q I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have# [) @$ K" A, u
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
@; E) C+ J9 \' K; R( Schanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
: k4 ~+ h l5 \& e Wsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A, Q: Y1 ?( q8 u$ j
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
2 M% s+ D# t; f! }. S The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
3 ]# [! G; s& S& a+ @5 P0 Mmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds1 m; g3 Q: Y, M3 M2 u
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
2 I( i- Q0 w4 ]3 a% C9 I, b# Ameters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same3 \0 ^: ^ B0 c7 x, H+ j. S2 y
event for men, with the second fastest record.* L s" e* J& A( i! ^$ l8 S! U, j4 `
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
0 m; N o" @: N- u0 Dwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
) M7 R1 I# E' C) g+ ]/ fyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
0 v* W2 ]) b5 L+ a8 K) O t6 R7 G. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400$ M9 E: `% | L/ M( m3 |
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
; [, O/ `# l& i" Q& N; l0 K0 f* @for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) j9 r9 Q* e( x* J' fLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
4 J8 E- g) _7 H; l! D' R, ]behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
% ~8 u: h9 e. X* Kindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower6 K( s$ T- m3 b% E0 r% Q
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
! n" M7 R2 O- H4 F' g* c& A* wthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
r& q7 ]8 u! Y) c. Y# ?( Xher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then4 l# a+ ^; [8 h% ]4 t
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “- N3 F/ p& G, m7 k, {: ?
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other5 f; @: |& U" p5 `
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
" ?2 ^5 H' R9 P mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the6 h* u, u H2 `5 ~! o
Callaway report.- k( |# L x. N' K0 d
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
/ R; i% y7 z5 J6 R( ounderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
/ ?) W- s4 N* T5 l c* H# F0 ]here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description# Y4 r8 p$ \8 e- s
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been8 q8 G) Y7 W, W$ j
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
& m6 c+ [- F' r* M* s6 X1 Y7 aWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
% c \0 f1 H* \publicly voiced different opinions.
2 ?% k' z" |2 o! P1 n& oYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD- U! c- ]( H1 W, R! ]5 U
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature+ S: O" `: s, K- v
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent: ^7 F: h, m; J, U: r2 k5 F
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
. V, ?! C, g# O7 @: _7 I: wyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* ~4 T8 }7 _* Z1 Z$ T$ a0 g
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.. G I+ x5 a0 n
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
/ m8 Q' P) o" i% p4 ]% \that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
9 C: Y" C1 `# D9 D5 s( n- j ~( B$ @have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
) q/ l1 i5 F' d" { ^. hAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
% |+ [5 I% d/ [8 U8 V2 \" Xthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was7 s) ]- q" `2 U. }& D
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.' F& K0 G9 W6 S& E. B J+ }/ T
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
8 a, W4 F$ S8 }6 n/ X2 d; `many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the, f h# Z$ _/ ~, w. {" {# ^
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June6 w( q1 n: k7 I7 ?" _6 X
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she! |( w& B3 D8 Y) B
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
- c3 Y; r5 W% ~+ h. K9 T* tThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
+ A& [. @7 H. X- n( A3 @ G) r/ a' Zand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
, D. D' U$ ?1 l& a: E# VDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
( g4 n, u/ E% `! }6 HNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
; X1 c( S F0 M \+ ]objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature7 d1 b& F# r! a/ w, `/ V
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
8 a- q6 H, h: \4 M: Urepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
# E' |+ R4 z E1 o9 B) d" zThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not5 x. Q0 W# R* W- O' k4 x3 K0 v$ q
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' o- k; h" U+ i( a7 ~3 ?us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather; [) m4 A9 j* a* ^7 l7 W, Q
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that" D( R$ C$ }; Q. \, p
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”% d1 I1 i8 ?9 t
about British supremacy.% t1 m6 X; `7 k. c. s
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
/ m- k# \) c) cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more: x& e- u# X7 y
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by R# d; i( T7 o( s
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
7 s9 Y4 X3 M$ A' Y* ?- Z8 G+ U, _Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
" v2 \; G. F! z7 |Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
- [6 Y7 ?- `: Q) Tprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests3 C1 G" g* E% i* O
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- t, b$ N0 {; |0 \* C; Mit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- F3 L4 s! o7 Epublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
" P! C Q J$ e5 G+ kNature.
/ j, m1 e. U3 w( I7 s6 [I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
- E0 h0 r! ~! z. Q, e5 Xthe Callaway report.
- A% ^9 ]/ ~, T+ {# ?7 C; j( R) O* u. e w' P: m9 y, x5 B/ Z
Yi, e0 j' \2 ]( h% J% a0 O) y; e
+ N' v+ f. x: u( G* `& JYi Rao, Ph.D.
" K+ S1 q% n0 L/ NProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
2 e) K8 Q3 m) F1 y/ I0 x* LBeijing, China
( Q& ~% M! I2 C& k0 V |
|