 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
! N7 @# k& @5 K8 z8 ~, t; ^- l3 m% [: Y \: S# S# y3 f1 \4 B
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
/ q" F5 d3 [# S; ~8 C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! s0 x9 a9 V总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。+ q" P8 E" A8 R; k1 d( W
% @. _1 J! H: P+ G
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
6 E4 C: w8 Y) v2 r' o# P. \6 h* S5 }. L' a" o6 E
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
- p5 V6 Z7 j/ X2 \1 A- H( f0 C$ S7 X! i8 [! ^* ~) h1 ~, ?3 Z
英文原信附后,大意如下:
" L, h0 w0 v: l0 r
( {8 A. M( o# U0 W+ m( j& W斐尔,
* t0 S5 h8 L! X4 {& x 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4 R8 \# Q5 x% a9 U; Q
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: l0 }( G9 j8 H4 [ 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 B5 O% g7 ?% Z3 _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; g* t2 h3 s3 c
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。
5 ?7 w; m2 `4 d& n( w3 ]) 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$ k$ ?: L% b/ N6 \6 v1 D4 W
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
1 |$ O% {" E7 e+ W, B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/ X7 i( [: c2 f0 l- w* t
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。
. `$ c: A* b. L; e+ V 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
. v8 i# H1 a6 n. Z3 Z' j,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" z& z" X& A& t( b" m v( b) Y3 I ~
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。( b- V* S; l& W# p
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
) G7 e- v# q7 s/ F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& r. M* ^, K1 f: z. s* U
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
0 t+ O9 l1 o: D6 ^. q5 J: I 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) j; a. i/ A5 H8 n6 G
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 @) W6 L8 k. G8 q3 o
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& D) J/ _' u4 @7 a3 ^- o1 ~
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
" x0 H; T. v/ a% s0 A/ o0 @" b' B300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
: K1 J9 t' H) P( `0 ?, t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
# r7 |! S; u+ t: i1 @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# r9 J2 B3 b; \1 n
。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$ X/ l% T0 Q6 g4 }! [. g& h- o
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。: h0 G/ Z& C8 i& s. F0 P% H% A
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
) u; U$ k$ z8 N& {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
; G& _, w, \" @& }* E3 V: ZWikipedia。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
2 k' F. O' |5 w0 a同意见的专家。4 P1 n0 k) A3 r9 b6 O# y
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
' a# c, Y6 K& Q! D$ `: [, ^7 s% }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
/ d/ q) a1 c2 }( {. l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
9 ^3 T5 ]: u: X. Q5 k3 D《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
8 I: e4 Y3 z5 o; m, e7 x7 r0 ACallaway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 Q% ^) X ^2 P# e" r; t4 E, Z
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/ Z" v. D8 W2 J3 E
《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7 g: |' w ~: Y+ d, [6 C3 k: T
这些被Callaway忽略。 @7 p( f( N( j; c0 N. A3 G; q
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
/ M. B o8 G3 F+ d& O5 v1 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0 p( _- d3 D6 N# m5 ?5 h
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
2 y [: ?% C1 r( g S5 l5 r7 i6 V* L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5 ]5 P- J7 P5 H% }
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
' R; k5 p4 B0 W, l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8 ~, n4 F4 a2 g0 K
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。- R& y3 F! b( b- E) r
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
& R; r) K" [* L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
+ O0 a* @/ M' T. e! 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 @1 w6 @' ]* X2 s
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
) U. Q! L% I+ F/ P0 {0 `/ |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
2 T3 ^/ S4 ?( N8 C( E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
5 R* r5 M. J# B" g6 l# \( v( ^! 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
+ @" q/ B- S( W8 f3 ~1 O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
- C- V; i* B% }) _" E/ g6 y/ N; a2 _ x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/ m/ N- B! ^& J1 M7 Y
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。: i3 L1 K) ]! L6 M
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。* S/ l5 S: a3 W: V! `- L
% [, [2 y5 v( r6 A毅& s# f. a0 H& W. Y$ K- K! o/ G$ M$ E7 W
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅, ^/ w3 n% p( O+ `9 R& A
5 a$ a, [) B- m; O
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结: z" m& x8 ~# v8 K7 D2 ^ I; [
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
# U8 ?! l* m, B% H) E, h附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见% v. r/ [& D5 P: X
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 g. o" _( r7 I9 U' y. Z6 b7 Z" O' y/ D M N A
+ r r: j7 y, n/ d
; ^3 C, I% i0 \. F
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送), Q* L0 g7 p' e9 m7 d: E9 `
Dear Phil,
. G9 g, u. _ P( J You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s1 O/ a1 j. I8 \
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
8 h# G; Q; ^ n6 O8 Jhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed' L6 o9 t% `' ^8 {* \
you.* T! M7 g$ F; O4 \& z% v1 M0 ~
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have1 E( r' \% K6 M/ A$ ?
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese3 p/ S% S+ @' d3 N+ J! C
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the$ B$ o( Y5 U7 _+ M1 u2 a* K
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
1 a6 t, q, |! Z( J# L( J) Kpublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more* t5 E: j! B: g0 e( ]
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news6 l1 A. y/ B2 e/ R! H4 V& }1 [
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
# A1 z5 Z [) ~4 O The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
7 o: u) d3 c- u0 b. Kworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
/ Y4 R# {8 d5 R2 ynegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
* C1 w* C4 N! s8 P/ Q* E+ q K9 s$ Qthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway. H2 i |8 X9 v* R, X
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping) K/ l! ` W' F* a9 f B
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
; G9 U% u, g4 V$ ?6 l4 t- wstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,' K. B: O* @. f, O/ r ?0 [' i
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
- d s: `2 }+ i. X) G+ Eto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
2 C4 [8 O6 \0 O9 @# Z2 Preporting.
7 r7 H+ f! v8 \& P2 ?& z8 F) ` I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have2 U( \( }( I9 n2 n
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
B: E3 s- v) ]) w% w1 bchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
5 O& G0 p7 L5 Y3 Z1 E2 Jsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A! \) x+ r; d: a. C. |. x) [8 L
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
: P' J( Y1 B* B* [7 ` The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: Y o1 b1 |9 W4 `
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds n* q$ c* e0 v' B4 M/ z
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
* x$ d) w; S. N0 Q( ]* d3 gmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
! r) r3 b, W6 t3 d# d2 vevent for men, with the second fastest record.- y9 T' x% q4 m1 ^
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye# T0 k! r* f& {/ t: b! k
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
, s3 `1 z) J& c* T; U5 G9 e# z& a2 ^year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record. J; U5 }' v U% e2 x! _3 s
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4009 F8 P3 T# {, H; i
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
4 R( D" f% r# x% S/ t& Yfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
5 E) i7 j7 B& J3 [3 oLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed' E5 F# O$ O) B( [& @
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
8 D" m( e' b2 ?# x7 Uindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
! C+ o5 S4 W4 E- z( Zthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
3 n- {* F: f0 ]0 athose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was9 j8 R- `. h7 v- ?+ N# `! z
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
7 j. Z1 M! L' o% V# M6 I. u6 mhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
8 g: Q# J) Q) l& a9 l& D- U/ Oproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other8 P3 s4 t6 a, J8 p
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
, X& S: j# n: M; Eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the |& R, C% H9 h# u8 q' m% A
Callaway report.' E; ?! z6 F4 V/ `; W
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more( a2 i1 i- l, J0 V+ _0 y
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details, m8 b, w1 @+ s( Q5 y
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
0 f4 z% H8 d J+ ]$ M' {4 Uof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
' c! d4 q/ j$ c) m8 g% @2 nbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the) U0 w/ Y% U" P0 ^5 b1 L
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had( N" |( Y6 {5 d7 B, z
publicly voiced different opinions.
. J6 M- I& b, N6 ]4 O6 K& P3 i0 u6 ~You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD8 q: A$ y0 I- M$ x
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature- h! ~, Z8 ?7 h. k3 ?4 j" N% |
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
1 D, Q x- Y8 l8 A ]( Apostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds% C- A2 D) }- t! D, |4 A
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy) M- r0 t# r/ e9 Q4 R
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
+ v7 h& U# G( B+ oThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think' G& E% z5 I) f! Q
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
+ K$ w* _& k/ i" thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
4 t. {* x Z2 l, S0 l3 J2 BAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that0 a" A$ H3 ~( S3 Z3 H. s/ c) M; k: f* l
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
, m! |, S6 r5 o! p9 B1 q" L: Gsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
; t% B! n* }& h) q$ qOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ E( c" v) M) H8 K' W
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
. w3 x6 \1 c2 T9 m% k/ GChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
9 U1 _. i* n8 x6 S, R! |6 H(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she3 Y$ h, `3 _" s8 l9 D9 i7 w
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.- R1 r5 P! S" Q7 o6 o) P* R
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science5 G) ]8 u6 |+ z. |
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
- F9 H P. I" T; c: A3 ~Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; S. ]* ]% N/ [4 B/ P, u7 \Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and2 q) [0 A: s6 _0 x% H) ]* G: {% _
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature* Q$ Q9 j2 D: S$ ]
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
; Q2 O, y$ S! @* [* l6 D6 K; R9 rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.9 n# |/ T4 g1 O$ ~$ D; @( G
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not+ m3 y- U9 ]3 ], S8 q0 ]* l. H
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
7 O4 N, k6 E3 Nus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
' m, X. }3 o- @' n jfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
) G6 t! D7 v9 T! L' `& g) Dthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”7 P4 [7 A0 ]+ T5 f
about British supremacy.3 u) s, L/ v9 T# L0 ~' D0 _
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
* X' s( H! y- o: N5 g6 n& K. vunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
5 S# ^# t% u- v( V; |Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by3 F' k0 q9 f& p D* T8 Z
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
- X& [% u. a5 Y) L) w+ G. qOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases." s1 H0 N' `9 G) G& L
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
7 J, ]) X- `2 r1 C# [0 Uprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests6 r4 g' U) H1 W% ]
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
- p( v# k. x9 ]/ ]it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly/ C+ \* o6 ?" j/ w b |" l
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
7 n* d+ _& V) J0 N6 }# H$ ^# ZNature.# I# ]9 _- R0 o, y$ c
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
/ Q6 Z3 N9 n7 F' b4 D% Kthe Callaway report.
6 T* a) k o& N4 V' @& ?3 Y$ B
& \. r; \/ T/ v6 @Yi% p- Y( A& Q" d x% }: k
" W# a3 T/ }4 `; L/ b$ hYi Rao, Ph.D.& ^: u7 F- j5 h( A. R! Q# `( C
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
6 M {, k+ g" ]! r! O; aBeijing, China
! L6 S- r& y0 B y |
|