 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
) |/ V2 R: T* P: e
4 K: @+ { M+ x. T& \饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
3 V8 y# B3 l( t8 d/ p2 {1 v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。
; c( h" y/ x. ?% `( Z4 |- a总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。7 I# N! Y, h( q# q9 c. {* b% S
( i% _ I* }: ?0 K
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
! G* l+ {4 J0 i/ m7 J+ @/ \/ `* g p' D
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选# [! X0 |% @6 I( ~. N' t
6 p" u# E) X0 P- o- f英文原信附后,大意如下:
6 Q4 t+ b0 u- w. a, z0 f
- G/ h* m! y" G/ {) b3 z2 s斐尔,
7 i p; _# q& Y; \3 G 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- ~- q* V% }$ X6 ~* I* Q9 D
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。3 g" M- l) u3 B; P2 [* s" I
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6 ?! W# A7 L0 }3 h6 J
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 C1 B* A% H: V4 B- l1 D7 N3 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。
8 V( n) w+ |. m' t6 L 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4 s. {+ k" x/ J/ b# m( Q: B' y
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
0 q2 z: G: F/ R* I# w. W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/ c: s3 @4 C4 s( ?* F
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。5 Y2 n7 l- B2 M' N k
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
+ M+ g* f L6 A5 O% o6 O% i8 Y* S6 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
* ^- s2 Z, j& L. Y `% u' B. |”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。2 C3 r: y7 E; O" @2 T9 X
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/ Q- w2 j3 Q% A, E1 N% B
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) E3 v2 V; t& y* E, P
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。) Z5 \, Z7 x& R2 }
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0 P! C% [6 C9 E" z* R8 v, L! B& E) Y
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
+ D5 K$ ~, R" i. k9 t/ h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
* t$ Z5 X* |: r! }4 s& b6 I1 Q5 i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
( r9 y6 d. c& @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! s# ]" [4 Q' F4 [2 ~
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& @- {- h* g( v
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 U* H: U5 h( a( V4 d: L; b
。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
) B( M% G6 R. d, C录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。& k/ m0 H- ?: |$ G
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
) T8 p+ Z4 u" d1》,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8 f3 T0 S" \& r9 A* |
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
9 H4 v/ x+ K. I% g# F同意见的专家。# ]7 S, c; u w! q
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 h, i7 D4 @" e0 O: Y. r+ 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
" U8 N9 U% N$ J, c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
$ `/ f# ? J2 f' a: W《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 U- J5 b& C5 _
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 J1 I$ ?8 C |9 a5 L
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) w6 B9 T+ h8 {5 c5 E9 H" N
《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
* ]$ G: \# E* d# T/ U# p) @5 U0 X这些被Callaway忽略。
3 Z' @) V. b- w' r3 J6 |& e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
3 ~2 X; p+ `# a; P) j! 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
9 L& r0 W( G9 e) F. V教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。* j, a6 U% }1 Q" F
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
/ w+ t2 f$ h+ C. q' F4 y- Z. 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
" H. T$ U# X5 p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
& M( }9 n( Q. G$ v3 `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 W/ X: H$ p) \
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 u8 W* q+ q1 h0 L U& _3 B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
- s- @' d* g3 P X- x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
. Z' ]+ G6 }, u6 J”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- z/ ~( S, b' E$ i# r- k) t
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# x' s% u5 Z4 K0 r
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% W7 ~4 ]* _1 B/ g0 z! ~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, O6 `2 ~0 q/ A( Y N
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 r q; }* O( o7 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
' c" F; J# g8 \1 A4 t而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
+ o: R" |0 m" j) \& z我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
9 |0 H7 Q- ^% _) `; H
6 S' u7 w) X# y8 X, ^9 H! o毅1 |) x& d3 q7 J$ w a1 z+ B0 p
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅9 I$ ~" l- f$ O: m' Y3 r4 Z
1 m1 r3 ]8 G9 _ A1 \: b0 j
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结4 x% c: Z1 J- ] m8 F8 S5 L
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email8 Q: ~7 D9 ?- H3 f+ [6 W% t
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见( ]3 z$ R% a4 J5 C: U0 A% y3 l& a/ U# B
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见4 L8 g0 \0 D" _
" |8 H9 k# Q7 `, T: {5 k/ b w2 @1 T. s
: |( Z5 g* S! W. E4 E
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)5 g, v9 b* Y' u0 m9 {' H) z
Dear Phil,2 a4 J+ B7 Z; R2 v* @
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
& n: ]% U, ]$ q" h: xreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
& Z+ @; e p' e6 p9 Zhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed2 }# X4 l7 A! j- i
you.
$ l# j' i0 C1 ~" W% |. s If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
( v" }# a0 S. V# E- [) B+ p" L8 Y4 tbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese1 {3 k" ^) t7 A' o7 ^
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the) y; x+ d/ V/ [. B) j+ [$ v
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature; }) }* o) F$ s/ w* A2 g( K
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: ^5 M3 H% d* ^. Cseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
- n% A- h" X1 K, C% Y R* d' Y r |' Xpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
1 O B9 H4 D* m/ b4 S/ o( c The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
. z. z- B0 @+ u9 S9 \' aworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a# `5 ~* [ X9 `1 l$ {3 Z
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
4 R- [1 Z0 o% Y9 j3 A( c1 ?that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway( J) k& L) o8 D2 j5 x( I
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping8 |3 B: s0 ^( A' p
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
' r6 P; N6 R) y% \& Dstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,: j6 V; [" {, Q* O
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
# E% k' E5 W% u4 I# K7 eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news& Z4 t* l7 k* \7 q) F6 {
reporting." N" H$ G9 O' K; Y% i3 B
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; d5 j0 {) \4 B1 `: S- A7 S% Z* f% Falready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by" A" P N2 L2 s; k8 p+ r8 W
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in' ]9 K/ a2 y- r
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
: ?. V) i% k( ?presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
" Q: @% _& X2 P. n' |' Q: k The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
. p; W3 s- Y/ U, }1 A: dmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds; S G4 }& Y$ }, x3 j( k
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50 z; L9 C) f; \: |! ?
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
5 J* y* A6 {, X ?event for men, with the second fastest record.
% @ D% V9 `+ u- v) I9 F The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye! L: H( ^/ l2 W2 ?5 n* ?
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16: ]1 p5 D. O6 q
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record( e$ R: V' q, w6 ]4 N' V$ G! u3 s
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! a) ~" F, \5 Lmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,# y, o8 A. C! J T" ]
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than" \9 p5 [0 F* _4 C4 T5 B2 R
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed0 C5 J& [1 B2 n M. \; Q
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the, F% ^* O1 o4 M: @$ j, f' T3 p' y
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
+ o. ^/ ~+ K! {) ~than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
5 g L6 M7 w Q( _) Tthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
% A9 U: Z1 W2 J0 Q$ [her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then) L1 N: r( v7 h+ c7 x
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “' l4 p% M- \1 g' m
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other) R2 B, |, t/ A! |. s6 V' Y
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the2 V2 ~2 S. \$ N! C5 e. I4 w' \( ^
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
. q8 N0 r( ~) [* \6 tCallaway report.
+ b: \3 D; c% J3 f$ uThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more* V+ K3 I- D! E2 ?
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ X8 }: {( s+ {4 A! h) t7 vhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description8 V' g- R" }( B) d
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been# ]+ n, m* d8 I `
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
0 t! s4 t: J% P, d- U* U% mWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had" J0 F* F0 k5 X) l( m. D
publicly voiced different opinions.2 G9 h ]' N# M. p N7 r
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
4 h# w; |, @9 a ]) Bfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
: P1 D% m8 G8 s6 v1 c+ dNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent: [& e* R6 V. |/ E, p. k
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds, @* O! B1 d6 R' P9 Q- O& H
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
9 t3 a% O) N, C: ^of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.$ a5 L3 R! }6 X: n H6 t7 s
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think+ L2 v0 ?+ x7 n
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
, t' w/ f% m. ?0 Xhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
# e( X8 E' \) F& l% Z$ oAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
! ^& D. Y5 O! n6 Z& S* `the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
$ ], J6 i9 x7 @+ v" Bsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.1 E( @6 E1 y* U2 X
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that6 b8 ^$ @2 j$ J) t6 Z
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the& D* z8 i8 l9 b1 x4 y
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June) e6 i* U& T ] _* D Y
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
2 E2 H/ }$ l3 M5 |5 s% Land I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
% C9 l, b- H ~7 i6 PThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
6 z# j/ }! g# p1 }& p* b; hand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and0 N; k( K8 E6 S
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.' t3 m c, v d. W# d
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
& X$ e5 V6 C- u* ~4 L ?2 Gobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* x, E, t; E% i7 R8 l+ `% e
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
5 ]8 p) W; Z( O6 M/ vrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
& Y, |" o, p b/ F' Z" F# n4 hThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
* M# e! A8 L% L' h- o" t; _show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
0 _9 P8 {$ p0 M- ~6 u: V4 rus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather* K X* c: G" W3 Q* d5 E
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that: }- s2 I. H! W* K4 Q8 `' L9 c7 K6 z
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
, @$ J1 v l" K% {/ ?about British supremacy.0 X6 Q' S. k7 |$ K( a
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
. e1 ~( T; b6 K1 ?$ {' ?; b2 Iunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
# @7 a. R8 m# A# D k9 N- ZChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
% d. y% u3 ?' {8 \" P$ }our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
: R& h/ Y9 A" ~1 l6 {Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.4 i5 x; { ]$ F7 d" [5 g3 ~
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
) t# ]1 P# V4 ]' Oprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests6 M' j5 f# p$ ?. A- V2 D
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
8 b* m5 t: Y" y: D0 b( k% Kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly' F: j: Y1 m+ j8 m" A$ ]* @ T3 N
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like( a' @ w; y1 X( _: T
Nature.5 N9 D; g+ ]5 Q) x
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance7 Q3 c1 {2 S. n7 x. }
the Callaway report.9 F7 a- N i1 X0 G) U" M
+ v6 F$ x# u+ N$ Y5 I$ v
Yi
& S5 n+ E# D& z
3 V5 _; p f( J7 d; w6 z% v/ YYi Rao, Ph.D.
^$ z6 W+ n! G+ b$ _$ }Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences: s$ N1 M# o l" y4 O% j7 G! r6 X: R5 r
Beijing, China
# b7 C5 ^( A8 Y1 s4 k1 b |
|