 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 ' L* R; O; m- f
6 G& t0 H. B0 w% N饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
' O: v% v! O/ }3 U( E5 p1 E) @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。. ^ Z( V. H7 e( K! T& C5 t
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
7 g6 X2 ?/ t& X# G+ F
+ E6 a- P u9 Z, S. u& e4 _http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
& t# l0 M- }6 j; _: |8 g4 Z2 P- {
! r& Y7 p, v# P9 V) y- o/ X% k致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选 _0 ^- J8 N3 v0 y- ^7 ~: r( i
8 W2 Q! j- W) E英文原信附后,大意如下:0 o; X) R5 L) h7 A
# W1 e* l. `" O8 I! U" J" y
斐尔,. V' |1 V' t1 w7 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$ k' E& L8 l& g! D2 I& H
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 B5 s: C; \# E1 ~: Y
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
% Y& [8 B( a6 `, W# c! J8 i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
; p; o V6 j6 F* s& e! O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) [9 `% p6 |0 E5 l' u- _9 l: U 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 ?1 b5 W$ e3 f3 N# |: Q/ S% [8 c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
& |/ A6 y! T4 Z; ?( K# q1 x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% A; w& G4 t1 e, | c+ D; L
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。* C3 _" f% n/ o' v" q7 Z0 {
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
- t! T& b! C) D3 V4 d,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
2 ~: R) M0 Q2 p( ~" n; y$ E”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
' R& Q& s w% C* z$ \; T 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5 _9 S/ b9 Q% v! ~
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
1 d3 c0 [( u+ u' [ e,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
3 ^0 k9 b/ e7 S5 G' N 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4 Q5 D1 h( e5 B! g( T# Z
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% w9 ~# o4 _# p( F+ N
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二1 C9 p* Y4 |1 N: J) m% A2 f2 e
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
" j0 {& K& h, `" S# X6 m- @- V; Y1 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
# Z( j0 b9 h& I. U* I5 K$ N5 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* ]) o4 r5 Q8 G0 F4 F
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
# Y" T* r# I: @) k6 L/ O。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
9 w1 ^. B% R1 N& L* ^录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。/ e- I7 Q, f) o5 P2 x" J* i' r
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
7 b" s( k+ B( R6 i" z1》,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) _. I/ n X4 w9 k; O/ V
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
- @: Y3 A3 E, ~3 X同意见的专家。
: t! M5 }2 k4 r4 Y3 N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' x" z% C+ {9 f) q4 C+ L
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* M/ K0 P$ Q! a! B4 U, D9 Z3 a6 O
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4 v) J6 |3 X9 a8 q. z. t# ^" Y# x- g
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
/ ~; a" a3 z) z C* bCallaway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)
, G2 w! e; W `7 x: m- `6 D7 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
! v9 y/ g5 X( l5 `' b P《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# [0 ]; I+ K: G, z
这些被Callaway忽略。0 Q! R1 P/ [, T. D
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- o, v6 f9 J# z; o9 R7 ?" u- \ D
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
1 _! a4 {% N' Q教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。" }' f4 O6 w) f/ D8 w0 Y \
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 j2 [$ s. s* q; Y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1 K$ L* Z) P# p* O4 |& c
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
4 a+ d7 e2 `, R6 N- O# n- N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。2 A9 o9 z7 Z+ }3 c
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 [% w4 u" C6 Y* b! P; q6 ?7 B1 }
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
: A3 ?/ L1 M' I6 T; P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
J9 D) ?# y+ C- e# U2 p”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
! P6 g0 v, J2 t1 b* F, d' X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 v+ s( W5 v" e( Y9 L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
9 Q* Q6 q* |) ^. c% \: S" h; d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
7 I) \% L$ {8 u* \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
( O! x7 b8 k( B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
# W! k& B* G+ Y6 P, g7 G/ F1 j而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。; K- i# N. J+ D( f
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
$ F, W+ o. j, r6 X# P+ y' f) W. z* n$ ^* ?8 C3 U+ c9 `
毅
; }" n2 |* v: T8 ] z" f5 [: w8 I北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
" B7 s/ N: @7 C9 ?6 |5 r7 i: l5 @/ E1 ]6 K& k
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结4 J( Q+ E; w7 N2 g) b" M
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email$ G0 c8 L# ]/ v( m$ ]
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见- C* q( ]% i% j) g* h/ h* B
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见: D P# l+ @& J: w4 N. n
1 r& F; Y9 W* D5 S& K' ]! b
+ d, p! B1 g; A1 V& `/ X8 G! A' t4 c E8 N o1 T9 Q. @+ \
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
* U. @ V9 p. I+ `( e# T( ZDear Phil,
, q+ R; r: Z; O4 Z You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
9 k {# H* U4 e' n+ Preport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
- K" F. b9 w' V/ n9 I. |hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed7 t, e) O( b9 W2 ]
you.
- Y1 S) [* k6 d- ?* |, D$ p If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have' b& \) u" D" U5 N H
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
: r$ B. ]2 F- h" }9 Q `readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
6 M B! d9 x' n! M7 O6 B6 Y. jworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature2 u4 t' P) |( Y. S: q; D3 F
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
a2 S7 R+ s7 O1 Y* U2 w. lseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news, z( b( M! s d9 d6 s; B- ^
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
3 w: g! [1 N4 b c2 @ The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the/ @7 _8 ~# r; ?% J1 I. R
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% s9 G( {5 R% Pnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
! F' n1 ]/ z# A. C6 @/ z. W9 g7 Dthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway3 J9 A+ G3 E) C e7 i1 ~6 h
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping2 ^3 s, Q I8 E7 H+ x5 U
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
7 V' N. I6 |; T1 q" C" Lstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
$ r2 x4 `8 k, h6 Pand could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone# p+ z; [9 |: }
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news# H1 K6 m8 h) m: G7 [
reporting.
~$ @) |, a/ ^9 H% D P" F% o I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
, ]$ _8 x/ _, i. u& u1 }3 }6 {4 jalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by6 e1 P6 k1 e( l% f1 C2 w6 ]
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in* ]2 |1 o, ^$ f- Y' F% ]8 Z
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A( y4 s9 g; y+ N& W# \6 R/ T" ~5 e
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
0 z& _0 }" T% _4 x& I5 J The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem. b3 w2 G' E# w, ~$ N: H
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds V& k+ j( Y. P: |* }/ U0 L; v
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
. _* L: b7 E7 h4 y% nmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same: [ t6 Z$ \8 Z( O- t) W6 R) t4 m6 E
event for men, with the second fastest record.; q5 \9 S6 I( E, ?
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
( F6 [8 O/ g. p0 d' _/ @was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
$ ]; u, i+ z z0 u" v" n! C0 R% uyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record/ D5 G# @3 V+ w! ]
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
6 ?, E% }1 T5 }/ ?/ l& D; U4 Z$ bmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,; R0 @4 [% Y. Y% a/ k$ N/ q
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
^ B. f ?/ c5 l. ^Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
) i" w: p/ T& z, U, P* V+ ubehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& L8 [: S0 u8 _" A+ Z; T( S( _5 O gindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
, R: ^6 {, p( E) o& y. T( Z {" bthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than& A3 ~- Z* Y# H& W! r
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
# x1 m! s# d- n# ~% D& Kher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then/ P: k1 I+ h) O1 v/ b! G2 s
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
5 y: z0 x8 f6 Oproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other( k, P. ~8 D6 o% M8 c" `8 _
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
* {7 P) i) U" Z% \teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the" c$ R0 H" i9 w/ s% v6 P e
Callaway report.
# K& \, ]1 k, K$ s7 C/ z( cThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more, r" ]+ M0 V. G) I& X# O0 [" A
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details5 x, h" c+ ], J7 }# r6 J
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
+ \6 o% L" S% M$ M2 a* Zof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been# k) q4 Z$ A8 l2 K5 e" u; E
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the8 {4 k! K4 N& X& d/ j3 }6 x
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had- B) Q( c4 E9 C$ Q1 k3 j, K1 X
publicly voiced different opinions.
: U8 C3 x- g3 y7 nYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
- {. K$ A. Q$ t$ c0 m- B @$ lfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
% n& J1 J! K4 x7 r# mNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
/ p7 e4 K7 g+ u: |% s! n- }' M: J- e9 Dpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds& L- d% ^- I% {# `
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
" L7 J8 O" D+ |+ yof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
: N0 W7 g" e& H9 Q3 V9 {( j8 bThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think$ R6 _( t5 J+ w2 l% C
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They, C) P7 z* F. H; X
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as$ P& c# V9 E2 Y, r- `
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that. d3 _) g1 ]; |! I
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was$ {/ |) N3 I5 K8 S
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.% t8 h/ B1 o' W; i7 Z& D% R. r
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
. M7 h3 k4 v3 t6 Pmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the" [4 d5 J B* W# o7 S" u
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 B' \% v5 G1 s6 G$ T, B' E% V3 I
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
) V9 E* l5 F. ~! G1 yand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.; B& s/ j- ~& a$ `$ U9 _
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science: b8 a7 ]$ w' D1 q( U& T5 i! s2 `
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
/ }! G1 s# Q5 y9 N% J8 ~9 ~4 m! ^ c0 ?Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.4 P5 s( D7 D3 {) r$ O
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and9 B* G: o+ Y7 H, S0 g. ]
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature( V5 V$ U: z& ]9 M& k9 a+ W* f3 C
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
v7 o, n1 W3 z" s5 {9 A0 ~* Xrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
; ~+ X- n- A4 G/ W6 S( rThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not8 n7 D/ t! R3 T' o, L" V8 C
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
6 z: D" y& U1 ]2 I8 o' L: Sus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather: y4 w& N: \7 L7 s
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that2 g7 ]$ F3 g' |) H2 m* ?9 u
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”3 f; h& J( V! {% s: u; B$ ?3 Z, U
about British supremacy.
! g& k$ g2 R! X* ^7 MThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
- J0 D6 A1 ?& kunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
6 N7 T9 R! B, F" K- ]9 mChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
& e8 j) F: j7 A4 h. y' X* W, nour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- J# v- y" w# a+ y4 ^5 j$ C6 H# OOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
) I3 s$ m9 P3 y" _Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of/ J8 B. J O' L+ C0 W! d
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests. t2 ]! J$ p8 K# l5 c; x
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,( T( [& l: |2 q* d! |
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
: M" p( n2 N: ]; Bpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
+ j+ f! e7 X. |! C( s, LNature.5 k# G" i% q* g" t) y" A
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance; t% r8 U/ |$ B9 u
the Callaway report.4 {5 B8 \5 k5 @" v' d% I6 {
# w, q6 b6 b2 l. ~3 E
Yi
+ m8 P4 n# V e9 O' @% R& `
# h# P! h5 K4 X+ JYi Rao, Ph.D.: f. J2 z, Y4 `4 r W* _5 @, q
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences( {7 U& s- e% E8 X. r3 n
Beijing, China$ g3 I3 D9 v# z
|
|