 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
( c$ b8 R8 p' t$ p. j9 I* ^; ]% C+ v' i. Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
+ Q7 s( e2 I' j9 E$ s5 P# 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。, D$ X# W; {1 @/ R
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。# p9 \" V5 J( M9 U3 j# |
* U8 h# p' o& P u
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html& ]' B9 ^- d$ b
7 d8 N: g( {5 p! i- {' U6 |7 s& c
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选, m% v" i! {' O% k) q
/ [6 G5 I9 D R$ Z8 S5 |
英文原信附后,大意如下:/ C* F+ k {1 E' U- k4 E2 i1 w6 e
9 j) D* R% O. }+ {" h; R! |斐尔,
& S2 }, ]) L# k& Z2 | 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: ?6 n! f" I. n, L6 @% E* I) m
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。, L; T# D9 p4 a
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
5 O/ s8 b4 W' D. |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 [- }" t: X2 V6 Z% C5 D. r
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。# ~' V) L5 N! T$ B2 b% N9 p
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9 e, e* `- k$ k# f& U5 V7 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
" J* b4 `- x! ?- J; M! R2 h4 S7 R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( o2 ?% x# F& k
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。
/ {& G0 e! {4 t c/ ^) Z. r# Q 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
, E+ g. K' Z9 s+ y,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
( b( h J9 o3 ~”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。& N2 Y8 T$ N q% |
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
) |9 h- x* j3 A' ~( a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* c1 X" H- r- o( {5 h X$ ?
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
4 M' g( S ?( ]0 { _5 C 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
8 n: x2 Q1 b& l2011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9 c: c7 E+ ?" r
合泳400米中最后自由泳一段比Lochte快,而非整个400米。Lochte在400米是世界第二9 g! W* Z: t7 |8 J
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& x/ C7 l# w ^5 \
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
1 p; `0 j/ B/ ?& 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8 n5 u' ]1 S2 W1 p t
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 D3 f0 L7 _$ k/ J/ 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" [/ @5 M/ L, S9 Z( E J
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。, @$ O- x* q9 {$ D
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
/ h8 ^3 y: A! g8 c/ _/ 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
6 t' H: ?7 s4 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, ~) M1 K* t! t
同意见的专家。8 A4 {0 X: p) S% q2 R9 |$ e$ j
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
8 o. E* y x* t* \$ A1 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
1 v5 o. O7 g) f `& C y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
' i f) E( e. n3 o$ p《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
6 Y9 |% n5 o& ?, O; O( ICallaway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)( C7 y- w& W5 \2 v
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
4 ^5 w, Q1 j. u: h" U) m《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
9 ]1 q. ]$ E: L( i9 G" T: L, B这些被Callaway忽略。- h- n7 q6 Z0 K, E* [: s: \) H4 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
5 ]' ^0 B8 o% N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# ?) g* ]7 D c: W( P6 S8 ?
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。8 g" U8 h. e6 U# m: U; h+ C
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 P5 b6 a% c6 P, V) g' A
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
( ]; C2 j _+ W- o C. \8 c# Y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- k+ L/ {) P! i+ I- X: a
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。3 R2 P8 r \- A/ Z
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 [3 V0 K/ D4 [1 W' Q0 P. 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! Y7 N& v- h% h8 q, j) H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
8 ]& v" N5 J3 S' ?. x”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。$ p b' C; ?; \8 ?1 Y' v9 l3 B
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) @9 _( i9 Z. N7 v9 F
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
" s+ ?8 n! S" Q+ R$ }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 K( I9 {9 a& X9 J
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/ s4 b) b6 {% K% C7 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( b* u; q& w; g! a% e. f$ M
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。% y* p" ^* j* {2 O* B# B/ B
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。( L5 a6 b: b# j3 Z& M( P. B3 ^
: @8 E7 {% B. B' b `8 I: p毅9 F, M( a, B1 `3 y" p7 A
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
8 k2 R! |0 c* B8 c2 e
6 D5 w. t6 G* }" ~- X: ?& G0 }附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结 p4 A- v3 C1 _4 n0 Z) L: G
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
( | U9 d% h1 L) t7 E" M附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
* g( Z) f" T# \/ W S/ L附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 C& L, s6 f2 a+ Z
) E2 I; R3 C9 x9 z( F
' G( P1 j3 h/ h
' g* N2 E+ T1 d K; T原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
: L1 Y4 Q# |# Q, w a- Z( L( Y8 `( gDear Phil,* ?0 d7 q0 S9 s5 q: M* v2 P
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
0 O4 n* G$ Y: D' l. j; u. i3 A& Dreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 202 j1 s. C! J9 {2 ?; J1 \
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed# y& B! [ |4 }( e/ K. t
you.7 e0 j9 x) z8 _' O9 F' B
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
& r- U m A' w$ \brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese& k" P3 p; C5 Z% F; W
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the* n. q& e. y/ W3 K) ]/ q
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature0 d/ {# X) n+ P6 ^9 B
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
& H) Q9 c+ v: D/ K, T# @8 pseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news& t( I5 o, Z2 W9 \' c
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
. r" Q9 E" o" ~3 T0 M The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the: Z$ G& u, J; H9 V# c7 C
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
, @- k+ R7 H: J! T. |+ w' v' mnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish- r, k/ l2 M+ [! e5 g; J1 m
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway# u, W! m8 g- w) P
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
# S- y* E! H D! K. u$ Rexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal! ~7 `$ P* G1 Z
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,2 r$ Z: p! ]: z& }& C5 ~. S* m
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
6 ?% ]; w9 B" Z$ Nto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news! O4 _' i$ P# Z* n/ k( ~
reporting.
+ ^& L2 T3 a: Q I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
: |! S* X! X, X9 F2 M+ U9 g Q) Qalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by, o2 }4 @! P, k
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in6 T% q. P. _( r; Z0 X5 C
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A3 t, i( T D$ x# u/ }
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
7 r( E" p0 m) G; Q8 o8 V The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem/ B# G' |: C, a" ?( a* l3 E
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds6 q: \, x4 k6 L+ ]; L
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
0 {( N6 C4 g9 z) R( Kmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
4 }+ w% ~* W# d' Pevent for men, with the second fastest record.! e8 h$ ]$ j9 O+ j8 e) A
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
' H$ \& G. x7 w+ ^' d9 O4 `4 Twas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16& u- E1 C% b" G( R
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record1 {- o$ {; l: D' J+ X- G9 ]
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
! o7 b" w4 |# T% ?* b0 e0 o$ ometers. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,$ m' Z( L4 p1 B1 ^
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
" Q, F/ D3 N% ?1 Y8 ALochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
e# r% @4 G, S3 }5 N' _: y% x0 O/ [behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
! ^0 K8 }7 b/ _3 Q; S4 R6 Cindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
9 G" k6 l; |/ j# m, O" dthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
- t/ s7 s) D3 lthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
" \. ~% D* r: `; O% N5 Z5 E( u( ?her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
7 N. D6 O+ H7 {/ she would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “6 n H) Z9 N% J% J4 y2 k* w1 b' U
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other5 x+ m0 T+ @# d, F- ?0 r+ r# K6 p
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the# S- i J# o% J" a' G3 v
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the' }1 l l9 H9 q* r5 t* b. E
Callaway report.
! D$ Q; ^0 B3 J+ v1 qThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more" x( e" }0 j# H" }
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details% `& f4 v# [1 v- J. g+ u+ }) p
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description/ G3 X3 p% J3 h) O4 S' d. V3 b
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been r* p" W# d9 O' |. i3 J$ v& A0 Y
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the1 ]. V4 p% V9 V# K, V/ \" w. q* P
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had3 Y- v: t5 w- s7 v/ C
publicly voiced different opinions.
/ T7 D+ P6 w3 B; ?3 M6 z" R) {You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD# B! ?" M- X6 X1 Y4 a
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature S7 S& [) }2 J. |
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
) g( o# w: ]7 @5 Y5 j0 I) V. f2 Bpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
) f' D! Y0 p! V6 Z, E& D' ~1 Kyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
% _3 A, B$ b( z5 r4 wof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.& m( r( e; s( \( ~& a
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
! f) H Z/ \# o# ]( W- |that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
2 S0 \5 @. t' {9 |2 z9 e+ n5 D! E/ Thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, t1 L* y. k# k% f( [% v
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
7 {; `" U' \# E# Lthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was e \+ b# ]& {, D3 U
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
/ C; E& O3 ~ T- R- l& f( b# H' jOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
9 ~& s: m- ]2 cmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the/ L+ }, f Z* y* o- C: |
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
, |! C+ O, q; c(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she5 h L p1 {8 g8 Z. Z8 B3 {
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
; z+ n% `* ]" v" KThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
& q! S! h) [; t: Gand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
7 y( w% u" N! f. lDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.+ H3 Z% W: d6 P& N
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and8 t% b" U: M o/ b( B w( Y. e
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
?7 ]6 s+ T6 F9 a. N lwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to. o. d7 q# X: J" W* B6 J$ l Q6 R+ a
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
. g" L4 {, x, O# m3 hThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
" |* L2 ~0 l. c; w' Vshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
9 j) G$ O4 f7 Z- u4 f5 I6 Kus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather) Y1 G. H' {/ }5 c
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that6 K7 v4 B+ V2 W# f
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”+ ^0 q/ I# L3 r# T% y+ d
about British supremacy. |) x# C4 _0 ^
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many8 U! ^) q- Z3 O7 o7 W8 m
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more4 S& ^' M c7 @, O3 Y
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
3 A1 `% Z3 t9 i+ {0 u* Pour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( @- u5 L, L5 O$ G% k
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.8 X. |$ v! T( @
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
* o: X! y7 `$ t1 jprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, Z% o) c. G: {! h* x Hbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,* Y9 P. w% N$ E" R1 S
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly" T4 H+ V1 d1 O' g- {! p
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like. z) I" q6 P- I& j1 e# m
Nature.8 Q2 L' G6 o2 j; A% O
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ K6 m1 l+ A5 a) Y; G4 {; ^4 J& ?9 vthe Callaway report.
- ]7 X0 L( i$ n4 b
! j2 L- n) P& j; Y* ^6 \Yi) P" H4 v0 j+ ^/ q' q
- j/ @' ?% K$ e0 n- ~/ a% M, BYi Rao, Ph.D.
4 P* U: |8 w, [( R8 C+ ?7 mProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences& B2 S% W9 G2 E, {2 l# z% T9 u, k
Beijing, China
- H7 t$ p, a. o. j1 z |
|