 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 3 T( ]0 ~: ?; S f
+ @& Q! G. d4 p7 T6 @2 C5 P
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
$ V W) ~# d; E$ A' a. s! P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。
N! T% g. ]8 g2 {. C& O总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
9 O6 R* K$ S& b: x- q3 H% r6 k8 ]. Z$ k- I6 J
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
- u: Y% f! `8 l% p1 ` P7 d% u# w" H* J! b3 h: o. s# r" y* t
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选+ D" V1 [0 ?( x: B3 U7 Y
* H K, k# O- u3 d' V- P
英文原信附后,大意如下:1 N/ Q0 d# U& |. S, r
$ H! W: ^8 [% h0 G5 `, ?斐尔,- I, ]! P% t( f7 h8 ]. ?
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
" s9 p" C! |$ T6 z- oemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。' ^6 [& P: c2 I% S* c; h
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9 I' i2 U$ i2 V+ s
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
0 i! |* M1 L! p* a- f" f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。
3 |! I3 i) I: T 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
. }( _) r O7 p* b4 K: ^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
$ Y( ^4 d5 l: C }! y) b* J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9 c3 c4 K* H( W/ u
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。
, i- x9 }4 u9 L 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
1 q: p1 E1 K2 D. Q* H,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
" W- ^* v' |% p! Z”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
* O; I% Y9 Z9 }' I7 y7 n 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. ]( N$ I( u2 j) H
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
! I9 ~+ S9 p" |8 y7 r o3 M( D9 M! [,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
% I6 W# t0 G& M) c/ R2 C8 ?, E/ p6 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
' I' S9 |1 {. v0 i3 A4 i4 b. U2 w2011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
( s7 u% L7 ]3 g合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二0 f2 ?% r# L( _ ?$ }
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
* p: W' J1 r4 O" A$ x1 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
* H+ v7 G2 N/ U2 p! W) _+ Y% 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" `- k# B5 C% `8 ^! H$ C H4 W/ B
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
1 b+ t+ n/ R5 E* ^7 f) w。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 Q" t$ P7 o) C% B& h8 \
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
: }3 i2 ?! c6 I5 x1 m/ M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
% P4 c. D1 Q f3 s! W2 B [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; |5 W$ u5 P0 j" w+ o. \( w1 |. g
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
4 y2 }/ T; h: |* q: i& n同意见的专家。, ?7 H$ ~) C: {
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. i+ i# G9 z3 }; 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4 K9 w4 ]4 _4 Z% O5 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
2 m/ \: l4 b, Q3 J; `& v# X2 g7 O6 S《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。% A5 M8 z O/ \2 y* v C
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)
3 K2 ~1 ^+ }& V4 [" \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
8 C2 U# \. T$ j, k. E4 g* z5 d1 O《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
& l1 o0 Y3 d- ^/ o& d4 B这些被Callaway忽略。
( H* K( c6 {# 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
7 Z. H2 K" X' X% [, m- m) 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( A8 f% h$ M9 M! Q' A
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。% k! U! n. G+ L, R5 s4 ?* J. D* U' g
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
8 s$ S% z% X2 o* b+ c$ `3 L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
% y) d- I2 d; b: a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$ c& A6 e2 B5 t& ?* R
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。
" \4 t1 d# t/ D2 m) ^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
2 S, V% ]+ I+ y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
, A& g' y# O) j: `1 C. \0 @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$ M' @; @6 r6 o; {8 `; ~
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
; b/ _) U9 d: I1 ~# J6 H5 h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# B; H, g7 ~, @5 }/ |, 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" C$ ^4 a! j0 t8 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
+ }2 l9 |' {% W- a& r4 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$ N5 @, {; N, k+ z) N, 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7 t7 \3 |/ H1 W# z) f
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
7 Z4 Z% _" d" Z3 ~2 D我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
& O% R' E+ o. G0 S& T/ ?: I* V- P0 s1 c7 X6 @& E, x
毅! n0 j1 m& G/ |: ]1 y
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
- V0 p) ^3 Q$ [8 ?) L. K3 u4 R& z
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
8 Y3 }' h$ u) A4 q+ H! M; v附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email* |1 c4 m# e( M3 U( C8 n
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见, O, X# f8 [1 t; l% ^) r
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见* R9 B! W" @. }7 }
2 p3 Y# J9 h9 p$ B: o9 J
' O$ m/ [# {/ p0 V& [' _/ h( ]: B5 L, ?1 G2 w8 D& R1 R; d4 Q
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
3 q6 G8 P- z5 S, jDear Phil,! D3 T* h% ~4 }4 a
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
: ^' G+ e. ?, N0 @report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20/ |: z) {/ G0 K( W% J+ l
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
@: V/ ]2 O# p3 k2 d3 Ayou.
) y! N5 j" D3 I; e8 S4 O" N, _: ^ If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
* k' V+ X" L* g- F4 L& Y; U" O$ gbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
% _& u6 `$ ?$ A. zreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the- |# u) n8 d! r4 a6 N z- \ u
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# X# C1 \& T5 T9 ~ h
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more1 L( S# x( T! X
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
/ d" g `) l/ E4 k9 l1 x: \ gpieces much more than the regular Western news media would./ M6 V$ x1 _+ U* D. [. M
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
. A: ]$ g7 U" kworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
* k" t6 |/ d% X; P9 C3 L! {5 H. Onegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish. X' _" e2 w$ V9 Q9 z: K
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 D* g4 D" e6 x: Fdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping3 Z5 J/ { y, |* X
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal. _+ i9 V$ b: W. ?% N
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,4 h- n z& P! Z' p: g0 E& b
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# R% O- G; _( S/ u5 ]- r
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
0 g% ~4 p! `5 x/ J! X) E5 {reporting.+ A7 S& N& x! l" m
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; s9 z, a: C2 P, C, N; halready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by4 K8 f; @* g. `
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
8 k7 K' o- ^. Ssports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A# \, ~$ A/ c( ~' Q) h
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.0 ?" O! a r+ \, V5 S$ r
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem" G0 @) X- ?0 E; C/ s
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" h4 ] ~$ D" }4 Z( E# u0 s
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50' |' J- A9 D- g2 D, W8 [
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
: C( s% W0 Q7 Pevent for men, with the second fastest record.
8 ~. j B1 D) n( f4 k: p5 w The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
6 [2 C* A0 h+ [6 k: rwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16- f4 i0 g, u C: Z* A
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
; O; \2 H% v, _( y. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4007 m9 R( Z1 ?! b0 K* b1 l
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,5 n6 f* [. E; l0 g* j
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
# o7 r" i/ c2 J( D- bLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
4 y* b6 \& s8 \behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the; t& j$ _0 s5 v w% g1 V
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower4 ~6 W8 q) A _$ z
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
4 _4 n7 `0 `3 P, G" e) b7 n. Hthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
- ?) E" I0 o' Uher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
, F K0 v i3 H3 `+ f# c( q5 bhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “9 [$ h3 z+ X0 O9 @# F
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other5 K$ {- }# d6 q6 n) e- n7 e
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
+ u' z9 v2 Z5 l7 _2 ^+ wteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
& R% d* ?, i0 q/ [1 e& j) nCallaway report.
0 Q H% o/ k$ r# a& B8 t1 tThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more- |: o2 ~, F9 F9 y
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details8 r& X6 W6 u2 |( X( a) u
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
2 a0 @4 G; E. A/ {' h; b" S% wof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
* @4 _$ c4 Q8 B+ c9 ebetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
: }, Q- L6 }5 ^; dWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
) V- Y. n( l! ?# xpublicly voiced different opinions./ @ k9 Q* c! j) S
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD9 J1 o7 C5 l9 b2 M0 l
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature! O4 {" e1 K# h6 t9 t
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) } q" i u9 V9 d+ M1 o4 t5 a# zpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
) w6 d0 w! A6 C& ^( ayou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
( l2 m( i" i" @5 V0 oof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.% ?. s, V# `5 |2 ^2 b3 [/ F8 a
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think& l! n* e( I% ?7 c5 O% G1 P: ?
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
* B4 Q. m( j; p X8 i! ^2 Bhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
0 w( L; ~0 ]3 J( lAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
# V' B& C, a6 d! e6 X' j6 i* Q6 qthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was5 _* H6 z" [7 ], o/ P6 z6 a
supported by facts neglected by Callaway./ Q: U& z$ k2 y# l% h( r5 o/ @( j
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that9 b5 }: G \$ l ^# y$ M1 {8 a
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
- k: a9 _) n0 u3 A' |Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June# t `" p) _2 N1 r& ], N$ L
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
% ~' e6 F0 U' T0 s |' l Dand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.' H( ?: C) d, d$ F7 q
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, a0 M @0 V. Y N( Band your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and1 ~/ b4 {1 A8 A! R3 j3 Q- S C0 G
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.3 A# [9 R. F" h, F1 J
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and* v5 @% Y& O, M, R0 b& f2 V& z
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature; P+ S' i1 \; H
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to5 M$ Z7 e7 n! K) r7 n: l+ _ E
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.( p. r9 |) N( ?& n5 U+ C; ^+ v2 B, `
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
. W/ ?* l; i6 Dshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
- b# \3 [, M4 uus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
, P7 [! x4 b& s, n) Gfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
* R ^1 }1 a( G* f' Ythis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
+ g D1 ~ g: \" I+ `about British supremacy./ Z4 U; m2 d6 J8 V/ ]# r, _$ R; ]
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
# B4 T# u: _( t" N: B9 {2 f1 `unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more# s" y, e& C3 _! X
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
8 ]* E1 Y" p' z9 h6 }# [our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. o4 T3 |% r" N9 H3 vOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.2 J% u0 Y" D* D8 ?& j0 P+ X
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of B5 Q1 L/ n# J2 m
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests4 V% o% h: `1 k. V' B
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,7 Z6 w: [. [/ }& j0 I
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; H. C H( \' Z6 e+ e3 n' q
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like) {% b' M2 i% y: W2 @2 ~4 L0 j
Nature.7 q$ V' C2 S+ k2 w# m6 H& Z
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance# s! M, w2 H4 [( f& k& ?8 {- D) E
the Callaway report.
, X# x4 M& x, W4 L; ~+ _ d7 E1 \/ v
Yi
; b; Y: b/ m% Q: ~; o0 F8 N' |# q0 g/ J/ A) I9 b
Yi Rao, Ph.D.2 h3 ^. f( G! x: C: o U
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
% g( j! W* o" S- d) V# tBeijing, China- }. V$ X) X( t1 e. u' u- N
|
|