 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
% [* y, q* A: }
$ h2 E+ Z0 }) ^( z/ \8 |- Q; v# l饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
0 @* }* ~8 X) t1 }: B% z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。
8 k, A3 |/ D( R% Y7 Q总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。5 X: l1 P9 Z- C m! @3 z
% J8 s. V$ F. u [7 d
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html7 |, T4 R: p9 y
" t! P$ U9 v5 I, j8 n: j7 ^致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
9 T/ }7 M% F& z
* p; P+ b5 ~- e9 a; K% i0 \英文原信附后,大意如下:4 r9 I: d+ }: Q4 p+ J' ?6 ^
# w1 y# Z0 Y4 I- x& V0 `& e5 m斐尔,: E. ?. P9 e2 w0 {
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6 i9 J) V0 @; g6 k( j3 t
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。$ L8 {9 H- A1 Q1 Q3 w! o
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
! M, P8 G% M' ?! {) M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
, c! E, F X) ^5 i6 N( k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。
! j Q$ M r1 [/ g 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
: W4 J# L: S; N G7 u) W! |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+ O6 ?' Y6 f. g5 [6 e
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 H7 m4 j, z( a0 f/ M7 }! @
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。
, J9 ~% P8 n* O8 Q0 H. ] 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
8 Y, k3 W+ L- a' I6 g,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
! \* m4 t- X) d”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
2 N% n, `7 N" M; G 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
6 Y% ^. S) q \/ q2 @# ?+ I5 Q% i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
, Q. C+ [2 q8 Q/ c+ `. t- z+ A,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
I: @- q7 E2 y( H8 ^/ 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( c2 o+ W8 ]# L5 {2 G- s
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8 b+ i1 M. n* X K2 R4 d
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; f9 \# C, ^+ {5 O" Q* ?
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
! f' D! w( M9 A) A6 x. _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
8 V) f d( W [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
& J( ]( `* e; Z v: o3 C9 M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; |$ T4 _ e0 b) l5 R
。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
7 t8 a# N- l2 _& n+ W录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
" n, A- p; ~. |" q& }, n2 _* [$ B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
) i/ z: l5 [' z- F- x. S) m1》,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; u* Y% P* I1 x* J( \
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) \# ^% L; |, G: _
同意见的专家。
1 t- s6 i& r2 q! I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
7 N% T4 M" T! Y" ^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 o, P' g* a1 S$ G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
3 P& \% I( x% T2 ?《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
0 h$ j' T, k8 t8 V1 N8 q+ _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) u" _- p- _% q/ j
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6 t/ [$ n% l5 x9 p1 {5 z' V9 G" @
《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
4 n. O$ z# q1 w$ A0 Q这些被Callaway忽略。$ B* l7 q3 d& n8 O0 L
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% }6 _3 ]8 n# n" [% w. q( m8 l
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, K! C0 h/ I/ q3 s% r
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
6 r6 ~, ?$ z' {. u: s1 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
2 n3 C. r7 f) p% D; C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
- z% C- f3 t- [4 i) 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1 U0 T# ~' A: E7 E3 S# q' c
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。
0 [; H+ K% |; S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 o) P1 }% N# S: I
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: L) X: D$ u h( @2 N8 o; 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6 e3 J$ p4 J6 r
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。! }" F$ h! [: ?3 _: |; u! v- T; H4 F
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
4 S$ ^! {! l. K: T7 d: 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
! y! j0 W3 p. @7 X% x! P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5 H0 `7 P) l9 K) u# Q$ F; k
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9 _% P9 m8 D% g% x) [
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7 A7 I- Y( X0 r. e# D% r
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
- J4 ]9 h- {, E" E1 L6 A2 {我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
" K/ q# p" Q( v' Z* G( W+ _$ c: H+ {% T) p) {
毅, \8 W0 H* ?9 s' V- Y+ U
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
3 b# t ], k- Z4 u" @. T9 g- P( _/ d! K- [
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结& G7 E3 { w) Y+ z
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email4 l9 \, \/ L; I) K- n8 W
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
6 h7 m" L* b. H) u3 H附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
1 F$ B/ K. U+ [* T* H! Q- `7 i$ B/ a# {. ~ @3 A
' h. | k: D4 ?' _0 `; J$ T
; R! p% K$ V P! y& T, U' c原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
, l, Z% E6 r: y' uDear Phil,
+ A$ {) }% a) y% G% }5 y- N7 l You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
2 P+ c8 y& r! h) i- [ R" h" Oreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20& y! _! x Q |4 }
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed Z% X- g1 r" c: ~) g1 B' |
you., s$ Y- Q3 K5 Y6 o" x7 E
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
6 k e6 @( a" `' ~3 fbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
6 i* D5 \, m7 A9 N2 T6 q+ Yreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the+ s \. o% H w2 P0 U( L' Z+ Y
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
( j0 k' @0 q' D1 l! p. ~publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more6 o, S' _; d' h/ U. |/ Y$ ^
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news7 ] a0 C" I. {
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.3 W5 m$ @$ ?* m7 u
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the8 X4 m/ R" L: ~3 J
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
; D! Z& }0 y/ ~+ Snegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish8 H- L5 l) w4 `
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 y2 I7 ^ |, s' Y9 d% B
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
x* d* b- f% ?/ e" j% Zexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
5 v7 F0 F) f% c6 D, m, ?standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
5 h5 K {5 ~3 {" P: D' aand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
% q- y& y7 n- o0 Hto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news9 I/ X: M$ ^, Y
reporting.; c2 _) J4 x$ e6 h& h8 g
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have5 o w& ?& B; F& ?/ w: o; k
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
' {8 h) k& f; b, r4 uchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
2 e: X& V$ l& V2 }sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
3 n8 D# `* j- D% ?' {presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
2 m) g3 U8 l6 V( S% f9 v+ j The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
4 H3 |, m, a. h0 O5 p1 dmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds# C. I$ v7 p* h8 a1 _4 _; g( v( F/ V
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
: Z; `4 f8 D- Z9 b1 L J: Lmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same$ r3 I' y6 { E
event for men, with the second fastest record.8 p; [& @: L7 o, Q4 G
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye5 ^/ y% ~4 O; }+ P, k
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
3 T- x5 V" i) g1 jyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 }$ m' i& N; r4 D& s. E0 e& X' T9 f
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400! p' F" H6 S- L7 {" x" |% ^
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
0 R5 \" `- V0 R3 t. z7 z. v! ^7 Rfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than0 L; a* R& w q7 ?
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed8 q4 d' v/ T4 V1 k
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
8 X& k; V. X! zindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
) K" O# o' g# E7 p* {4 E7 x) Xthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
9 R0 _3 |6 o$ u: h( sthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was6 w" ^- o- O% c3 O. l8 P5 j' w1 C. i! K
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 z4 v4 T; z# `; s- `, j
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
+ d: p3 Y1 ]6 _' M. X( `problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other' Z$ q& Y/ n+ \" B+ Y, k3 ^) H
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the# H7 i( X8 \7 a: W U+ y1 H
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the; }7 y7 |' |- t6 P2 K8 n
Callaway report.+ m" g! s2 M D2 J3 `
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
9 i$ _4 ~% O) f8 m8 p' Qunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
; M# W! W" B/ g0 V3 s: R! Nhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description9 p5 t' S5 { Y1 d4 q. p
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
7 p3 [, f+ z6 }' Q5 o/ d+ Hbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
$ _- z) M z: yWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had8 m: E9 a4 n& a' k
publicly voiced different opinions.) M& Y& c% h0 S; e5 o
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD) z" L* p! S) N
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" q3 P5 Z9 p- {, W+ ]2 h WNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
; M% I' A0 q% V6 ^4 gpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds2 }% Y) k# h( a& r! S: U! a
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy1 X) Y1 c1 t2 ?& i5 S
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
. p+ ?9 q1 m2 u7 K6 AThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think) K; v3 ~& H" S, L2 S: g
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They6 t- l; {# R5 i+ h! ~
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
l8 H! L3 o" s& u% v3 L c( rAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that9 h: \5 i# z( s+ m
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
' S% K) o: ~4 Osupported by facts neglected by Callaway.4 [; L, Z, B) h6 H7 e/ I
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that6 K* C( v, e) n3 \) G4 y- D
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the" _% b. z2 T$ f
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June' h: ~' `: q# ~+ z! C$ ]. c
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
# V7 M5 l* C. A; ~and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
) u* ^2 y- c# J7 M3 S3 pThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science8 R# Q, N% ~7 a
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
( A( q1 @& B0 k. KDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
1 @( i4 X( r, a& [8 R0 QNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
/ m; l% w4 p& P, C, Tobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
# \, p, L) H4 p9 i4 S9 L7 K9 q: @what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
3 L }' d0 A8 T; |2 |repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
/ k- N/ e3 r* l; F/ B- v9 jThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
0 p) L) o5 o0 g- G8 R) Dshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced& |1 \3 _0 ?; L* Y8 `2 W# ]
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 o8 T1 J5 `! [% W+ t1 T" _fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that7 X4 c1 v$ V2 u2 O% c
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
( s# l# L$ h9 \2 labout British supremacy.
8 J7 u( q) Q3 Z! D7 V( t- x! `The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
5 f4 Z& u9 K/ e+ n1 \4 funsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
4 h: T/ w, ` HChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by. l6 s0 j/ M$ `
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
4 Q! } x5 g8 z, m; x. S& x+ hOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
. E+ I D e. {5 s% T5 tYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of$ b* j! \! S. b5 i
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests: p& b7 t- ~( P i; r; M3 J3 c
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- `/ X z2 @% `1 D' L: ?it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly+ u& N, k- B, r" p' M$ g* i
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
8 Q8 Q$ \% `( B y# o9 @, V! ]7 Y: XNature.! W6 @2 T( g% K
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance: b/ U, _% \( p: L% Y9 u; I1 U
the Callaway report.
% ?' K3 n6 x6 x! I" M1 g7 Q* D3 m9 ?/ X; c; W
Yi0 z6 p* Z' `: ^
7 ?/ Q) F2 G5 z; O; BYi Rao, Ph.D.
9 b- X3 E) c( U" _7 {8 D) m5 `Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences/ |7 M) k% ] i/ f. x
Beijing, China
& V, g3 I' _) [ |
|