 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 % m3 \8 |- I2 ~' O
& a p( |) \7 Y1 ~饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。" @8 x% V( Z8 {6 `. g& }8 c! b
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。8 _. a; t: P. g: ~
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。! M2 H/ d4 L; g( ]
; s, x% E: c' g; Z
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html( K% I. q5 ?7 d$ I) ^* d5 P! V& H: b
6 P( z, a T7 J- M5 Q4 ?致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
- e" q: r- d6 Q8 h. U2 q# c* k6 p v# Y% w
英文原信附后,大意如下:
1 g8 g' j3 v% R! b3 L; P+ A$ H" P% s$ V, D
斐尔,/ b1 Y- k( l6 @2 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8 Q$ O4 O M/ [# t* j! A- i$ Q
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
' J) q$ o4 T1 h8 ] 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
/ d0 {+ I/ l9 W% O5 v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
- d# M2 L5 o) e5 X- ?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。
6 q. F. ?* b, I- I6 M7 K" G 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# A( Y) `$ X! d; a& A
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- h7 j1 }& t% U, _* Z
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
. N8 d8 G6 {% u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。; U& }5 }8 l8 i' V3 E3 F, g& @
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0 k3 ?$ |9 ^+ G$ W6 L5 X! s
,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/ D9 Q+ \2 q! o4 R" {9 \+ Q8 f9 E
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
; L9 T$ K( k2 D }/ F6 ^( r) m4 j 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
1 V- w# I: z- u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
/ o4 V/ ^0 H- @9 V0 j$ E, |, Z, h,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。+ b+ \, w5 x$ q: c' f( A7 z: 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1 C' W/ A# o9 A. s4 E+ S% O% R
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4 o2 y3 x0 T9 j+ @6 {+ F7 I
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) g- i. U% C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8 q, |9 k1 y$ B z
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
- Z( m! B% p; q0 [ @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( ]5 Q' s3 N: b) O2 o" L
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) n) h P( ]/ w0 S i
。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
, l5 h J" Q" C# i( n% g录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
: N0 C& J8 q, j0 m0 f8 m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
9 A$ g! j% ]# E5 N( I$ C8 m" ~' ^! P# h1》,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
, B* ~/ O6 C! g. [) e9 D- Q( o# CWikipedia。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- s) X4 r3 K3 y H, [8 i
同意见的专家。
e/ w7 v% ^5 O. k/ R/ t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
* a8 ~3 |/ V5 y. b; C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) H6 W) J" w) Z8 @1 S* X5 G
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
1 Q o$ f. w- H7 b《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
( t+ m9 N5 V3 W, I" q. E* n: wCallaway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)
' a3 }, m! {, ?% z, p8 R; U1 d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$ a" M% C: Y% a' Y3 @, m" K* R
《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
5 i+ x; }; c+ j6 h这些被Callaway忽略。
; S2 b) @; f1 Y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
* Z/ y- B7 e' N( j0 o) h- e" i5 m! g! e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; \5 L: e& j/ p, j
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
" Y E; \- }* ?5 n9 O9 ?# U. D+ 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+ g2 H+ w9 ^, }
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
4 M; h% V( @* A) P0 e) G$ r" [4 z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
$ a, @+ ]3 A, v/ ~! s3 h) P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 c v3 y% f- W$ n% `/ g, g
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
8 F' ?. k5 m# v8 ~9 q. i- B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) x# X+ z( e0 y4 I( s( V( B- ]
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
! y2 @* k) a( h5 O( ^”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。 l8 F, e& o2 N; N( 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
8 Y3 U; k* L ~5 F6 ] R( 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; J& w# T I w' Y. x
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$ _3 N, j: C3 x" l9 a% C1 ~
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
# T( p9 u& O# |" }- P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
0 l( U" M# W3 n5 s0 O5 G) @而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
* {8 O" j) ^* s; x我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
: t$ _4 X) @$ ~
+ W+ ^& s6 ]. d3 y2 i d( u毅% G0 y* ~/ Z; [) f! j1 E
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅% j1 |, s& M! y' l4 x1 X8 A
; J2 n2 C& \8 N& d5 Y M5 \. I/ d
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结$ z/ _8 J, u( ?# l) u
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
+ l2 }9 z8 O# y/ D# m$ e$ h附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
& M4 o! \. h4 [6 W/ d' z0 f附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# b5 I( E) y+ C3 {0 n3 t: ]
: y6 Q: s% S4 Y8 I
c* J3 A( [' v& U5 Y2 W
" H1 t6 Q5 y3 v2 h& x原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
& C8 T$ ]+ a/ BDear Phil,
7 c" b- T7 J W. C, F You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
9 x$ }9 }, f5 r* Yreport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20- M1 T$ s: a( Q" ]
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
7 u& F- T* k4 p2 Dyou.
+ l8 R$ ^' `. W1 ~# P0 S If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have1 S+ c/ P, G P; ] S7 d0 s
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
& t% d: d0 M. nreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the2 [: T+ L) h; ?' q; D
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature4 Q3 r7 w& l" A7 I* K! p2 D
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
5 _: F1 H- v" N9 |seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news) m2 U$ W& M" P; N
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
$ q% E9 f. q; g$ w0 y The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the2 Z$ p: f& I- G( S. b3 h
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a$ L1 s* x: h5 ^8 H$ _2 _
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
, \6 A5 s& A2 i& c+ w8 \8 \3 i" hthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway% e! V8 }/ u' T$ c3 P
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# l5 T2 ?) m+ u8 I
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
/ O3 [4 A+ i; @: }standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 p9 ~) S G: ]4 H
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone5 Q% b+ a; l, ~6 l
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news6 L5 ]$ g3 F# R J- z) I( @8 \
reporting.
. |; v! ~8 b: W5 w+ D( T$ c I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
; l7 S5 U. \, E0 y4 ]: ^9 k" valready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by3 t7 p4 I" W: e/ l( Z$ S
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
?8 X) L/ G8 V: Xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
! y$ a/ U5 e, ~; M; l5 upresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
$ n: ]0 W0 m V6 ?- t$ ~ The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem) t7 C$ [8 `8 f1 Z1 K& ?
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds" m" v2 V' I; b7 B
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 504 a) L4 }. ?- b/ Z0 D$ h0 F9 t* N
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same1 a0 B" Z+ ]$ E# T- ?! W0 a
event for men, with the second fastest record.1 J( E/ U% u q6 v5 V
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
: F3 i4 e8 P& K, S, Ewas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
; X6 I! J! I9 x# j8 Z% P. `year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
, c5 Z0 H" l( o! A2 ]' y. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
) j* l' u) \* ^& @) Fmeters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
% n" }- I& c: _1 p& Rfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than; h6 j) R4 ^4 y3 B7 u3 k% U* `
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ ?2 G& z' h* S& s, u4 g
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
. }, F% c% }5 Q, N8 |) eindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower5 x0 A) L: c$ d
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than. x3 l) w; @9 e+ @- I
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
" R, K2 p; D9 i9 T7 {; y$ iher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then0 \3 _3 I3 ~4 N2 Y& b5 U" x
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
% J& @9 {2 Z7 X3 r1 e ^problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other$ l6 x4 F" k) e3 o1 r7 Q
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the- |6 P5 Q5 n# N2 N" ?; P
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the, h, r( o; L+ W. y+ |
Callaway report.
( {* X9 i1 m* L ~/ i! LThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more$ B- J$ M4 ?: b& a9 o: _2 r
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details( s6 _! n6 m2 J0 p O0 s
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description$ f; h: ?: c. M2 ?% A: f a
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been# A% _* m' c4 ~; M7 ?- Z1 p7 M
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the6 }( r7 [; D+ t
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had6 ]0 a a7 j4 [, a6 O3 J. F, G7 V
publicly voiced different opinions.
$ @ l& m9 M% N; K3 k, R" o! t" k2 YYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 d9 A- m$ Z9 x
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
" P5 Q0 J4 y- f% u& i- I0 PNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
2 b+ [! _0 u- e9 opostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
4 ]( ?, Z, \0 Iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
& V% q! P$ T; F0 ~1 L. Pof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
5 n; X: }& X) W+ TThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
0 F+ Z6 e- R3 w4 J- p7 o5 vthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They7 a- r; y% O7 s2 p- X
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
) s0 J0 R- n) RAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that. p% c* b( B+ W k& m* h. F
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
4 U" S9 a% F1 {- q4 hsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.( z: J" v8 y- N) D6 R7 x
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that; n: |2 D, _8 Y
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
2 S- Z* }) r a$ u9 BChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June3 i$ \: E; \ J$ W$ P: a
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 G! U; z, v9 r F/ q: Xand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.: V) u+ D. g9 r8 N( ]" y3 x
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science6 f; m6 s7 w, ~1 ]4 v- y' x' k4 a
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
* x9 K' B# r9 x; {( `3 g8 @8 XDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
( ]. r0 x/ z: F7 y. x! GNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and+ k' _7 H) T9 z! t7 x& I: q
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
- }4 g ^2 u" ]' P& b( {) b2 H! B' G# Ywhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
' |# ?0 X! ^- Mrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.% c$ f5 q" u) v4 ?
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not1 Q5 x1 l, | y1 w( y
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced: b( j! @ m& Y# ~; o1 k5 c
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather! H; H% K0 H5 ?) S
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that J0 `! o% U4 z/ ?& \
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
: ?0 t: [+ q2 ]1 _3 x" m) zabout British supremacy.
1 @4 b5 M8 _1 {( D! _" JThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many6 Q" P# J- C6 }7 u1 g* w* q
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
8 q$ u" m, _6 @* m5 o& j+ m: q5 cChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
# o3 E! }% y. X& { p2 s7 M5 Iour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
! y( E, i/ F) u( U2 v3 |. m% N1 NOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
/ t+ c e8 W& sYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of) ^9 c! _* V4 m9 A {
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests. q0 ]! \& Q' c- G. G4 m
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,; t9 v9 x% i. O* _/ A& V# b. l
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly( R4 m7 M, r- o$ v3 S: o
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
/ @# k& b5 l2 O* ?4 k/ NNature.7 s1 g) _+ F% i( ~# I+ ]4 N
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance) R+ H4 x |% W, A0 u. I
the Callaway report.
9 N" |* ] ]* h7 d& Z5 o# W) w" f0 v
4 k! S3 U1 l) ]+ b6 J! MYi8 p. x5 p7 R; ^/ r: W! c9 b, O
7 c$ ~) e: p: S8 ~& O5 Z, N* J
Yi Rao, Ph.D.
; m- g) e$ F# i6 V% N% _# cProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
# ?% X5 t1 b \* i- E, ?Beijing, China
1 g" t* M* X2 x6 @& W3 k |
|