 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 " O! r' j. i2 g% l; ~
" O" Y. x i' ?- ~饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
, D% B9 o& h+ t1 y7 P: ?$ i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。
: t6 C$ O4 i) s5 [总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
, O T8 w6 I- ` w% a! P# Z: B4 \. |, c. F$ D& M8 \8 g
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html, e! \* }% J! Y- ]/ R# e
% A3 G6 `8 K+ O+ ~* }' P. L
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选& s [ p' k! c* X! h) ]( C
2 V2 a4 v& C& K
英文原信附后,大意如下:
1 a2 r8 [- Z9 @4 Q' S0 D' x# s- W( ?) i( G
斐尔, k' h. I& I9 F8 p F2 S
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
: o M9 }0 ]4 L+ ]email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
- L3 U1 { }# J) [ 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 i3 i- c& D+ N1 F/ ]) g- Y
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6 F A, V, Z( N
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。
+ W0 P! _/ F9 H6 ? 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
3 @* a$ k. `5 V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& D; M- T( x: q% q" |
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
' G5 z- H- h: _9 o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。: w& h3 N+ ]% n
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: R+ _6 W6 {9 q/ \ w H# }" i
,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& i& G6 G1 S: X! W
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。5 b* `- t* z/ s/ r
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
7 S, A3 A0 p0 _! ^7 `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! [# M0 R: l; v7 Q9 E1 W* g$ ]% y,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。( X! t7 g! i8 J* G+ Y
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
& J- j m% Z5 _6 G7 `! y2011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; E. ~3 s- S# v5 ?
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
% u5 i. G( j3 K7 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
& _' N5 C+ Z/ j6 o: M7 B0 w, r6 g300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+ L% F, v0 N8 a* 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
t( a, g N, w! E4 A' d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
+ W6 c. Y+ D: ^) s3 {" M! e7 ^ G。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5 a* h3 I3 l# a8 h2 ~' X8 L- w/ z& H
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。, \5 L1 b3 i4 }: s) C) f9 u
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: V. D% W( J5 q7 U: W9 {3 m8 c* N! }; c
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 k D: @2 j' R* t3 UWikipedia。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
) U/ h, p) l8 } ?同意见的专家。
# E% } u) \$ y5 ~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
! ?( u7 k' S" O; `, M! v8 j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6 x7 M4 X" c9 g2 o" F
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 |6 E1 z( n, E# h《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。' ^9 }" o" w; C# s
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)
# R+ W- k3 U" s7 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, k2 _$ n! t" Y: t" X$ 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
O3 w% y J2 t1 j# [- s, \这些被Callaway忽略。! v1 ^4 K$ F1 v& T4 I' |
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
/ r4 S z3 |7 i5 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
; K/ y, s- g9 v% }$ ?+ _8 h. U3 N教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% Z- h: \8 _2 D9 c z3 ~
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1 S/ O" N L% ^, F( \5 u2 H' A4 b
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/ X+ w; I0 A* o/ P- g ^( T5 ]
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- |- J% D" p3 s9 ~' e+ r0 ^
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$ |: P/ `2 T- T6 o
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
1 C" ^1 m+ ^8 B2 w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
! u0 v5 J* d( |) E2 ?$ i. K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
0 F% Q& b/ N, f2 l1 @$ f”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。7 x* i* t6 E) Q' M' ?7 J6 D
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 K; n4 l- Z( I- M; L6 _
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 C+ B4 T9 _# Q/ Q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
( Q( j/ g4 e/ c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! E* Q- c1 B1 {7 [' M- E1 Q) N
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' s1 \/ i; K( J2 \% l
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
; N" O. w4 I2 M3 ^我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。* u9 C& M m9 z7 {% o
. d' x( @5 V( v( f, U
毅& }5 l0 M2 ?: p
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅# u2 C8 O# C( P% [. i
9 Z7 \, G- C9 v& q; J0 c# k附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结# I) f9 U$ e0 s7 Y: n; f
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email$ a3 A, \* f* O" a2 u
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见3 K1 U( Z3 \- P8 R8 M
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
8 ? U2 B/ C, T3 W2 G6 `" F; ~# l6 R7 P% A" K6 e
# t* H; I; N5 ?* X7 B/ P
& G' A4 r1 S6 W9 S$ I1 k+ S
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送). A, O, v$ {, c
Dear Phil,$ N! ^# {) ^5 I6 j. x% w* ]
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s0 x# x4 @' Z a. d5 {2 Z
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20! X: j, @4 j+ f/ I0 H. | S
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: Y/ k" ] o: B1 m4 B! pyou.$ I" ~! E: A2 g: \( I( Y
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( `, c; a8 E& v ]& x* {* Qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
; |! ^. q! K6 N- h7 ereaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the: J# Z! s6 J8 ~% q& ?9 i8 v8 D
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature) M8 j" Y- x- ?+ t
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
& T z K5 B3 Yseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news0 r1 e6 e3 {8 A; M# B5 d, ^ g
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
! M* M. Q! p0 |) L1 {0 G9 ` The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 T( l. e: s: S: |$ `1 V
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a+ y8 c5 L* J8 s2 i u: w& y, u; U
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish, Z( h; W, P9 P0 k
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
a- d8 p0 F3 {did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# D1 k8 h/ t6 z5 m. h s2 @
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- C' c% E0 G+ M [8 l1 ]. F
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
1 u7 F5 g9 i7 Land could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
2 S( B: Z# C# d" `: _to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
7 |! n2 C* E% J: ^( Qreporting.
( @' I6 d* k% {: [! @& g I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have8 R" _4 @+ t6 y9 X/ o& M
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by3 v$ U O$ k9 R0 i4 H- |) n9 K
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in1 R% I$ b) \6 Y$ a5 l6 \
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
. v. n n) m9 F7 Tpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.; h5 ~( H, G- t5 q, g5 _1 G2 y
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
1 X6 [+ h5 _$ a8 }more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
& a4 T- p$ j2 {- bfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50/ y2 O% [, r( k! n
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same- R2 a- k5 R$ e. J% o5 f6 B5 D
event for men, with the second fastest record.# l9 K8 O6 T; G
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
! k0 F9 u7 y& G# V4 u1 gwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16+ `; ~4 G; Q: z0 g v, l
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 q8 ? t% a0 v/ k# d: e
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
2 C" T# W% f m. }0 ]3 \meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,- j* D4 M6 c, ~
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
3 k' v" |7 r0 l: S, m: R0 iLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
. p# `3 g* l& K, U, L' Zbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
2 |8 ^: P1 a) Y8 A I" Uindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
5 P, T9 s1 q) ?) X& o3 Z5 U1 L( }than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
; V5 m5 `! j9 @/ q9 ^those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
( Q! j) ]7 @9 K/ h$ sher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
0 w% A; E7 e q. ~6 nhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “% C/ ?" S7 p2 A4 @, y# ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other C- q2 \& H6 X) l7 T
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
& ^9 D) [) v- {teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the) q; L0 m0 k4 z, W, k
Callaway report.
8 c" F' d- [, e* yThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more- Q& m. K) e8 q4 l' ]
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details; b- o @( w4 c
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
$ L8 @+ q% P- D E8 t! O4 u2 \of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
/ V: a& v9 _ k; w9 }' x" }better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the" z# j" R I- E4 r4 p7 d; @9 |
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
( C2 a o! k' Z, a( \1 y6 F& Q# Dpublicly voiced different opinions.
* v# Q( A3 v2 V/ T6 @You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD& ?: c: ^" ]+ z3 c4 ~2 a
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature# ?% K! p( r; ~2 {$ K% p2 b* C
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent% b; S9 D3 Y( m) v/ M3 K( e" l4 F
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds- w; g& F' |& O' w2 ^
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
( v8 O E" `& kof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
& W& c2 B9 Q2 S7 _There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think9 T9 K( W- b$ `1 y9 G4 U
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They7 a3 Q6 A! T L% }
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as2 {- H3 i) P9 }1 q
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
7 t0 p5 Y+ a, b- l7 U5 Ythe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was9 u, T, q2 E! ]* r8 E5 d
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& W/ `+ g+ _ |8 Z( p7 aOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
& ^! o- x0 ?7 U0 B$ xmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the' Z: N, j! E% U" ^
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June, f. z! }& f; b# G8 [7 a4 T
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she, Q, w+ i% c7 W! F
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.0 E8 X' `6 _9 C$ H+ G) [# Q
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, f* u8 K; l( Q! y; m' Sand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and0 a6 f' f/ a$ J! ]# g/ V& D
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
8 ]/ g. N& q% Q, X6 ?" qNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and k, U! Q" [' m- e4 k, l
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
6 ^8 K8 B& ]2 k+ J! B* Lwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
Y1 L, H: z, y$ B3 Mrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
* D* B6 B4 x' _) J3 RThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
* U+ k) ]+ P# t' u+ Yshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced1 y9 ?% J1 B3 D/ i: Z) Z9 Z
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
$ C, n2 R- _# x& J, Afresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that* v/ Y2 _% }$ u) D
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”' N/ l$ O- S% i! a/ F# H- E, }3 `1 w
about British supremacy.. V4 r( {& L% S' Y* W) Q
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
6 o$ L, N* h0 x2 P. H; Cunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more, U7 d$ l; R3 g. C! ]* w
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
- |1 Z) p+ x, S. M/ Z: j. Your public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London, o4 z6 Y/ b9 Y, U
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.& f J3 e# A) |$ |' O6 F
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of) {! w" O" r0 `% u1 v1 Y; c
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
: O5 J4 B& `6 k# Z% wbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
( ^4 H* w, M O' fit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
- j3 R9 d# x- [. S1 tpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like4 @$ |7 @9 x* z0 |
Nature./ x5 Y; P6 l# Z5 S
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance# P* }- c/ l, }) B
the Callaway report.
7 h; i8 U( S+ k" a* w
/ \4 w) w( l0 v K$ p: Z9 n$ ~Yi
# k# f6 q2 P$ ~0 l4 X9 v
- t9 d C, n* xYi Rao, Ph.D.
% g5 v3 b1 d* f$ ^Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences0 ^1 F$ O l2 j: C
Beijing, China
d: L& H6 ^. I+ e" R |
|