 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
: ~3 v/ M5 p4 p9 Q% n- n s+ S9 u% r+ Q2 Z
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
: w+ b% T* H: x% c3 \( g- W- L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。" u: z* N+ m. c2 ~
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。6 |8 | V w: M: `# b4 u6 O3 c
, W0 {' q; r! S/ k' k( ~& ehttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html8 J1 h' ^ u4 a8 H6 F
+ q H$ H7 R# s& h" w5 n
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选* o- h0 l) Z2 R
1 }. u# x' S0 K) E英文原信附后,大意如下:
6 M6 T: V5 Y: w" O2 B! l6 `: {: U) b4 `! C. t& t4 o
斐尔," P6 k3 i" [ E, L7 @( ^9 G8 g# L
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 F6 N% S" D0 X8 _* U
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。( _. F6 x2 ~1 d! E( s" w) q
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
N( E4 E* Q. y; U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: A3 s* {6 d0 e# K
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。+ S3 M }' A3 W0 X: c: z0 ]6 S
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) p% S) A9 i) W' k0 V9 Y9 e3 Z
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
, N1 n4 j1 y$ \4 ?6 p3 t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) {4 S' s: G9 j: R% x4 D
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。
7 B: f1 _0 a& s- b$ U- m+ 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4 P/ V, z" ]8 |, H( a
,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
' k7 ^$ S, O* v5 V K”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
5 a* P0 O7 e, f9 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) c" \: z9 T% n2 p1 O- X, y
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
5 R( r; L h2 _- [# x* ^& ^,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
" f% r: B( l4 ~* V L+ e 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( r/ E, U$ e# F) C- O
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
9 |6 a4 C1 J* T J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 Q! C6 h( _6 C- X1 C- d4 D2 s
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
2 C& P' ~ L l( `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
# l1 g3 r6 @' ^* ]( a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 T V8 `7 {* U
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
$ I2 c) z9 t% m- O L& L/ p0 q。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
S# W( p' ?1 A% S录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
, B. @' @9 ~& O0 ]) M! 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
, E$ H6 O1 c) K' A% m6 h7 Z8 y1》,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
( a$ j: K& f$ A/ AWikipedia。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 N$ ]% L o2 S, `同意见的专家。2 a# M% V5 a7 n# j+ i
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, c9 \& ~- u2 X% _
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& Z7 w: ]: G) y8 d6 \
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5 _2 z9 d; o' R* p8 @; V0 E
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。, V, T$ u/ c% b% e
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)& E# z& m1 t5 R# h$ i
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" U. G& e9 O' y- u" O" @8 e0 U
《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
# I) P, Q$ I: r: D这些被Callaway忽略。
) `6 S# J ?7 B, N3 r% u1 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
$ s1 E; L5 a" X) U$ B+ u' R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2 T4 Z5 {! [! p1 P% K: {; B9 |
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
: S: o. O$ y; \3 e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6 o2 r; |6 Z7 K% 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
* w% |- {4 f* P) D; a7 Q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* Z- Q/ }- Z! V0 U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。
* E- O/ L, q9 u6 j- W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
. Z4 m5 a! I2 o% u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
7 }: A9 l+ W, m" A5 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/ Z# x# D+ \' |# f5 s! P( b5 x
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ m$ ^ y: N' ^ b5 [4 d0 a8 i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 p2 i$ \7 p( l7 a$ _* Q" G! o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; f( V- a g5 K
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6 B: V- g. U( e
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
* f3 E+ R }; @4 q: F* ~" Y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
' C4 B7 J+ t" A+ A% d而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。/ ~1 l+ H/ _, x% R
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
. e# J" ^. ?8 x4 W N1 }" l( e( U9 v5 M9 z6 l$ w8 Y& e) K7 _& W
毅
! M* k8 y+ |$ f, {! y' A% w# z9 k北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅" Z' R# D" P. G; \6 Z9 ^" N
M6 b2 h5 B$ [7 D0 h. g附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
& V8 n) d9 F5 p, g附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! E$ X9 c- ~9 m% o
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见' s. Q5 U- V6 W) v w6 h
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见; o- X; W i9 ~# a
& |6 ]5 }( L: ?4 ~8 m
$ y! {( L+ D' B. q+ N
& Y X8 V, j4 |# \' U: Q4 X, P% [3 @原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 K) X7 ~( X* c& T; k* s# ~
Dear Phil,
+ z/ C/ V+ P" }( m3 j; v) x/ K: Q You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
7 C, a- c! n$ J9 T$ |3 nreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20- I, m0 \0 d. u, N x- g2 b
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed8 y4 p; A, c( H& k* l2 z9 c
you.0 D( k# X, x% ]7 e6 [4 ^
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have* H. I( |- A4 r8 k
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese# |! o s2 I- U" T j
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the/ }0 |- u2 u3 H" l! @/ h9 T# l
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
! Q9 I: V" c6 p6 rpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
/ D7 y+ D# B2 {( a7 @seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news& d5 {1 x; u# N$ B$ I
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.) q+ E& d9 N" p& ]0 U
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
! R2 x- P2 D2 |8 k4 yworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% Z* Q% _% Q+ enegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
R0 k' C3 Q& V. k; P+ e$ `) Nthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
9 ~0 O* q6 J0 b& ]/ X! Kdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping% l/ e! U' ?8 R* I1 I5 N
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal2 R+ c2 M) B4 u1 r/ M
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* u9 D& n) r4 `/ r
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
. P) D _0 d2 p$ Ato cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
+ @3 C6 k- W. e- Y2 D* Qreporting.) |. i2 Y$ \* r- @0 O3 B$ a; a
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have, d8 u5 j+ c- X- L; {) ^# A
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by3 a/ d4 |% j$ I! g/ W- q( U/ s
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; n/ @5 a* h3 o Jsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
$ }) R( v9 W* T* k; _8 ypresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
8 o) p/ @, V3 {) P& v { The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem+ T2 e( Y' D# H1 j2 V
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
; D( C9 [' C$ o: q+ l% e M: zfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
* V& z8 @4 J+ w. `+ Imeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
7 O2 U) J i! |4 F* ]: ~$ Nevent for men, with the second fastest record.$ k( X# n" ~7 x9 g
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye" B3 `! b5 v# _, y4 }
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16. ]$ m) k/ k8 c# S! \6 L& f
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record% c+ I4 I2 o; E! ?. m
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
; S& A; u' I6 C- \2 [1 hmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
7 {' v+ f# [3 ]8 ^6 V) u( J Rfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than6 w4 D6 |; `6 a7 `, o9 w3 T! s
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
5 k$ _5 M) C& ~' ?& F2 M. Ebehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the F! x9 R; ^; q
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
' H. W# H9 V% \ N9 B1 x9 V3 Athan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
3 _0 ]' T8 n+ rthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
+ q1 }& j3 M) Y- P3 k S* ]$ C. G* Sher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then8 v5 g9 G/ ?# i$ {) r/ p
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
9 J' v# b4 r! r4 ~% N0 `( pproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
/ Q. P* X4 d9 f7 y6 F' F$ hswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the% @8 |$ O4 H0 r7 J
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the# I D& T) J. Z( ^
Callaway report.) K: g3 c8 Q0 m, I
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more7 s- p1 @/ M% z3 q# j
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details' Q- M7 v; ?+ C p8 n
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description) s% V4 A1 G$ ]/ o$ R. f4 A' r* z
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
7 ^3 a" V3 v4 G- Abetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the Q3 k' w9 s, v9 G$ K. P* @! [
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had" ]$ a9 Q$ [( q
publicly voiced different opinions.) f( B, w0 T! b* t
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
5 Y" H* k* U# v2 c; |9 f- p nfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
2 R* f1 f6 l5 K+ o4 VNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
& }+ K; Q3 J* n/ ]9 [, vpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
2 N$ d- p1 F4 N- H9 O/ O: zyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy; G( k! Z0 H) ^* J+ A0 o6 `
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.: }5 f2 a V$ l7 M5 z- r' J
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think( }4 c P- F5 B& m) g
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They/ }$ I A# I" C
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
6 S( b) @# F0 P6 P/ e8 \Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that/ }/ h, ]9 k7 G& P7 l/ o( O
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
: K2 f, C: z* l2 P0 S& gsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
/ n/ K4 i b) \. W. h# vOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
- ^( J, n1 v, s7 m; Q% Qmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the; i- S; h: k8 @
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June1 {" A, C6 g7 N: x7 ~8 i
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she( y9 \. x2 f8 q6 k" ]2 B" O2 v
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
o |$ Y" N6 z1 g2 JThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science, J. a/ @1 ^$ e& B% L5 l, Y
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and7 T( b1 O( X* K) i" H1 H
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.. O" j1 T( S9 L' {
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and) ^9 C7 g( @8 I
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature" P, q Q" F- f3 _' Z- E4 M
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
* F1 q j3 G9 E/ t# a9 Arepair the damage caused by your news reporters.1 F3 l0 \8 _4 g$ ?0 e7 R5 u
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not4 j9 ?" S7 m& | ^
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
5 X, I( a( R" S7 L- {us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 A0 K! r& \/ s: pfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
0 p& ?0 V" r6 |2 s$ Cthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
9 B$ F$ b- o. o& z1 i4 sabout British supremacy.
% u, `" M) `* ~& _4 x5 GThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many8 X' A* R' U# X3 d
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
: O% R" j/ q2 W& [% M j1 v* p ~8 ]Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
n3 ^# d1 Q/ }1 c( O+ Eour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. t/ V: L5 o. b2 A0 ^$ r3 b& L! E) O- dOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.% f; P7 k) M; U) P- U
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
# G& |. }0 h% I1 v/ k4 I' uprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
$ j g& G7 g4 N; J, ^/ m$ V! Qbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
. v$ P+ e6 {% P C, _. o0 kit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
7 i, o. x: `5 [/ P' Z* s# W* H7 L' xpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
1 {6 Y7 k& J6 \) [. h8 QNature.
+ F. r+ i7 t5 y) F# P6 B$ Q6 T) ?: v, ]I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
" \, _( ^4 {" v9 B8 ^8 jthe Callaway report.
" E$ N, {" N1 K9 s2 ~. _
: r( ~5 i* _, v/ ~ h# G9 E0 J2 LYi; i2 c% C1 o2 ?# i% x T" B
/ n3 a" q! R J) \ w' y6 X4 NYi Rao, Ph.D.1 [8 `. n/ K! ?9 n$ b. `# g3 D# T
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences1 T/ v( i8 m2 h" i9 L/ L
Beijing, China
1 y& Q& L2 I0 i+ Y/ `7 ?) r3 \ U |
|