 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
- I3 c3 w3 g) Q Q8 P$ E" I. u7 p! J- ~/ ]2 y2 I+ y
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。2 |; q: D8 J2 [
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。
1 m ~7 d7 l) Z0 R2 B0 {* E% ]总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。9 D2 }8 f8 b$ Z: q
- F8 t- j8 I# h' y2 C( a
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html' B& O9 u5 q# k
; `7 W- y( J; q% t% _. G D致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
0 `" _3 k7 y3 Q; k8 I7 G
" i2 k/ w! N3 }9 |1 ], ?' T3 {英文原信附后,大意如下:
& D& Q! Y( r( p
+ r4 d8 H! Z! ~3 V5 ~斐尔,) q* g W2 N6 \ w# H w
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
! S, f P8 j3 K+ Y' J0 Q6 N3 memail的人里面小部分也给我来信。 `$ j/ R3 W% o# 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
9 }) l" t" j9 Q9 h8 j& e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9 L. |, e' L% U, \3 E
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。! }+ D N4 T: P# m2 T' h# M
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
" i! u& ?6 X" A; a( u# A: a4 `1 M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: W2 _0 w0 ~$ v0 V$ Q
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
1 @% J4 c* h9 Q6 h1 s9 q( 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。
e2 s/ c8 U+ `8 G# O0 P- s 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
- E4 |* N" a) Q7 `,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 D" H: x: L" i. M5 z”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; i2 ^9 x4 p$ l! d' g" S 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
+ P' ~% p) z. f0 W; }& G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
2 m1 ]8 P2 i% e9 W' B,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
9 \; ]- I" `$ N$ X" Z8 I' h) C7 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
0 `6 ^ \% U5 x& {3 Q! Q! B6 v2011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$ M- v+ V, t$ R4 t$ y5 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
# n9 {5 L) i3 z+ r9 P! p8 T1 p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
/ u' D* [5 E9 W+ z R* l5 {; G300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( l/ R! }4 \& [% _8 o: y, Z* @
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
( S) d7 h! G5 c- f4 L+ `( s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
. J3 O( E1 g) p! n3 V) R) `' ]。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' V1 I9 A4 u/ C( W
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
& A& m( @( d2 @/ ?2 L2 @, P9 n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( A) }* |7 P5 Q) 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) q- ]- _' Q; P' t! G% w
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& X/ b! R8 D, e$ C7 T4 p, ~
同意见的专家。
; a/ I$ F' d1 |1 x/ M+ O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
, F, D# p! f9 [% I/ I' {6 Q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
+ v+ S* D! y1 F* 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* _9 j9 `# d$ z$ u/ N& z$ i* `
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。% j' E$ l, w* i+ @; D; c
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)
1 p5 w! D. f1 [/ Y& n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
- v5 j5 K+ V+ O: f《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
: V& f! d6 t, y# w1 t这些被Callaway忽略。
4 z( m! j6 t/ m: G2 N7 X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% [. R: i& U- P" c
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: n/ c+ C/ U) f& P5 h8 J" Z
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。: n5 D2 p' k. _
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
% }4 O( ]5 @! C2 S$ p% N: h; e$ g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
( W1 p+ ^( F" P+ r* W/ ?8 a7 B% ?, o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
6 A$ M9 r4 ~- c5 \5 {) ]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。
: c2 z! r. { m1 t+ g7 m& a$ L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
; V' X ~$ l4 h8 P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- {. ^' o) V! `+ V& N
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2 q# i( a/ ?3 {+ N% v
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。! u: p) y, P/ q4 R1 Z7 u2 Z
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' M5 t) Z& N: _6 W5 r3 Y [8 A4 G
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 [9 B9 y5 Y5 r% l" N
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, c3 t) Y8 I5 W# W
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$ x. h, Q1 E0 `& b% |3 p( ~1 v) t
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
4 b+ H1 E% x2 T" |$ k5 k. o而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。. R% l- B) d# l. y% b
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
, K! W7 R. o J! [- N# J0 c
4 t" \9 B' t/ F毅% g* c, V+ C: O7 g4 P$ E$ c! }
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
; @4 E! i2 B1 Y9 \7 J
% l. `$ }- k; h' q附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
' L" O9 Q# P, _$ M1 B& Z附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email! `& y) E8 r0 f1 w1 i( m) {' t3 b$ r$ l( s
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见8 D5 p! Q. L8 B( x- Z$ \1 m( Z
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见" h* d. ?( e9 Y4 \/ x4 p5 ]" y
. [, g3 i( L& |# g7 y' _
5 G% N& v Z' A. a5 R2 {
8 j: J7 {8 B' |+ r1 Z原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
6 ]# S7 y3 l# D6 ?Dear Phil,
+ N' v6 T6 Q* D: L) b You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s8 K/ m8 a- C1 \/ d% q0 ?1 F
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
/ I$ x [! v1 Bhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
+ p' e, u3 T9 k, Q# |you.5 N9 I/ K( `$ n3 M
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
: S, B0 T- {5 T7 d. }, F" C$ qbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! _, z3 r( e- }" z Zreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the# H& V. F6 h) B% A4 x/ h
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature# I& g! I2 J4 d5 |9 A$ F, K
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more5 _: M! n: c6 R/ p1 n! l3 b/ ~9 R
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news# m" h1 I3 `' x
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
. O1 t, e( }- T$ ? The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
: h5 b( c: e5 n+ e w) c; Aworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a; ?3 l8 d6 N) j/ c( z6 o
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish9 @/ Y# N8 ]+ n! C$ J) i- v
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway1 j: l, m" F" t- j/ ^, }# {
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
! @2 N- i1 Q0 b4 u( r& f' uexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal; [+ y- Z0 H9 c
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,' K% Y% M" h" [3 g; b
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone. @* S; U- \. m# X
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news6 n2 l+ H* z/ D) U, }
reporting.6 `7 H2 o z( G/ t
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have* S# ?% q3 x! ]; Z/ l7 w
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
3 @8 b: \! P4 R4 ~" c L; {$ ~changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
4 V# Y" ]0 Y% ~+ a$ h7 c) isports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A/ [2 M1 ]) W+ w; T5 p1 `' U, q
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.0 c2 e5 T7 N2 e! p: N9 D# [' z" `% K
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem) `5 |) k! c& q4 q2 B
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds
( d5 G5 k: l+ ~1 Q2 e9 mfaster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
7 T+ w( w5 a5 S9 y& Gmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same& Y: A' h+ D& O" O7 A7 G# I: S
event for men, with the second fastest record., j/ X% B' z: B$ b* S$ o( Y
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye+ r9 M# f# ~8 b; L, ?: U, z* r
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 162 w! [9 \% u- a8 C: m1 v
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record, o7 h. I" l' }- a
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
% m: P/ V% ~) ]. \+ E3 S( Smeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
' J8 \1 x/ R+ M" ?for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
+ ^( _* f4 N- |1 W; M: a1 s/ lLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed7 ^0 y6 P# k6 u" k
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the' N/ D' R) } @ w/ D' Q0 f
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower5 ?( E4 ` q+ l/ o3 o" M- r
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
! I! |7 a" z8 E# {/ _( {those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was, F6 a: ?8 k, m1 L q t
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then8 C, H- R5 g% E8 K; I8 v* u# ]
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
; j& y- A" H+ u1 P3 rproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
" X9 [% v5 s# D) P' pswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
* y( B( g& u' {teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
1 C O8 S- I% ~, A3 pCallaway report.8 N! c# d8 n0 i& ^
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
' x' w' ]5 T/ D' u4 Wunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
: A. O F% M! Y B( X* Where. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description' m. \: H u+ H% F
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been$ [) P8 I* w; R& f/ i3 g5 @
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the" ]3 f0 ?/ e$ {# _* ~9 G
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
! N v# Z P& M+ U6 ~: {publicly voiced different opinions.
/ A" m) D; @2 Z0 D7 Q& fYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD+ s. V- {" r+ `# B
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
1 H! X+ p1 h3 |Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent& r m7 \/ b% `1 S; g3 ]8 A. o$ I
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
. `& i$ F) k+ _, K, K4 K Gyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
; a! n# m! U S `$ f& o9 fof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
" |7 d4 s# @, |* S; tThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
& i, d: M/ @. j) y0 t8 b2 @that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
" |4 B4 V: E, |have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
- N, Q+ q, M, U$ o) v3 r: iAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that! G1 `% U# Y; M5 M$ K+ x
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
) e# U0 W0 D5 lsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
% @- ~6 G1 k/ m6 l( pOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ s# f- c1 O- F1 ~ L. W$ i4 o
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the, O2 G& h' X( T/ ~" ]" p
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
7 [8 s0 J5 ~! F" V+ [(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
i8 D: H Z8 n7 f8 o! T- Rand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.% G5 C7 p2 H2 M, a
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
, |3 v. Y4 x, C- E1 ]0 o) _+ P# Sand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
. E. x% @; X0 M( _+ f2 v" |9 e1 yDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
; I, y. H% l2 [5 v. c" HNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
$ A8 b9 Q! Z. L4 F8 U8 gobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- X! j, X% P9 G7 \2 X3 y ]& w! |) a2 x7 Kwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
. T' D% `0 I5 r& y, t$ Xrepair the damage caused by your news reporters./ h; j7 h& N" L1 t" t
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
- U: a/ G& u- W4 B: Wshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced$ m- t6 e' b+ w# ^& B, j! U
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
5 b1 W3 E3 h3 Bfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
% {9 a* I) v$ v" U7 \4 a8 tthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
l* I# q, D* o1 m7 B# Sabout British supremacy.
# o, t1 U& }5 o3 oThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many- k! _- D, E3 X5 q' D0 `8 l0 K3 d
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more. H) C8 V7 m. k @) |
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
4 P- v, x) g8 R5 Y( [9 D, Dour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
% Z! y# y3 W+ z2 p- M gOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.+ R0 w: b, Z* h, |# i' l
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
& e1 W. e; h+ dprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
8 N( ^8 x7 X( V' V* x2 sbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ v8 G, P1 ]+ v
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly7 X0 N/ [ h. O: g L# B0 V( K
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
! |& F% W0 d& S, |Nature.
- V2 }' F/ C" j4 Z# k: w6 VI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance9 }6 i+ p1 ~2 w0 Y! b) [, |
the Callaway report.
: g$ E+ p* }1 \6 ?! B
2 Z$ F: }9 S+ ~Yi: ~( B8 G E! N# B, b& V
3 j/ u) l" h0 @. E( O( i# d6 wYi Rao, Ph.D.# W- P6 K/ L# |
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences' q' i8 ?% \4 a5 {$ N! a% Y, K
Beijing, China- Y+ E5 F5 p( x1 B: k) K
|
|