 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 0 E/ I! l8 e% M( u, Q
n+ O+ L: T4 L: D% _饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
* _- t( R @# P4 w8 I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。. y; I$ R7 ?5 \
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。/ A3 u: }# W; A3 l W/ Q# v
; }* ~9 O' F/ s. e' Yhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; C# y2 ^ \. L: ]1 Z+ r
4 [: a- C+ Z# L! q4 k7 ^$ A- S3 G致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
! w$ o" {; f1 Q i- n$ V. A: y7 `( u- w& U5 d5 I: l
英文原信附后,大意如下:% F6 K: |' R- z6 R( ]4 X& D
. c2 u0 u" O' t9 R/ s
斐尔,9 e% H% \3 d. Z' }7 u: M: @, \. D
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& q- l5 R9 y1 n0 _. F: H2 c
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。
: ^5 s' H& c2 @% C% g% T 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0 h# w0 c; U; K- o3 X \3 |. @7 N
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8 b4 L! \* Z3 f! G5 H: 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。, U- A2 S0 `7 a; d/ F' ~% D, u4 b
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5 r* B/ h0 ~0 G! W; @& a) P: Q
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2 K" g0 _ c$ `6 L! X: R Y; M
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
8 }! `+ x2 z- S. l8 l+ x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。
% m- E' a9 D2 f8 U: Z' 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
% j' w8 e$ D8 q2 t" Q,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
9 `$ n- q. g: k8 G" Q' m”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。, W) _1 Y1 y: G$ X9 d2 _% ~" 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
' a9 \- \5 [& d& B+ I _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
p" ?4 w; l, n/ A' D# X/ e,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
6 B% C# v. J4 f. \0 X9 ?. B7 ] 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 G' F# N# m& @! j# ?3 \+ ?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; i, Y* e& N# I5 H' \, F# o* a7 {
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
8 E2 F8 h! p) @! X6 n. x, U) g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5 H i/ e+ l! j) u1 C: [# J w2 _
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# X& ?: r7 u, ~: K5 n' V
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
+ ~0 Z9 _1 ~3 }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# \' V5 T: b0 c. l
。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, r' g; F8 L/ s录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。: E4 X) G( M! S! c- x
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+ J6 E" S# E& G+ F
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1 ]6 y" B% B: I* h
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
+ B" L. `, N) W( m1 B同意见的专家。# |$ Z/ R1 D0 S' i0 I8 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7 o O4 _3 e( y3 U: h" H) e# K1 j$ i
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
8 C, m- j! ?0 L1 O8 R7 l$ I& r* g6 `& m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
! G: m$ X6 _/ L6 m《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。2 {) `1 \9 w- i+ L5 V1 L, s) f! ~2 Z
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)
0 q/ T0 s. K# ` ?( Z# 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# t& F/ R/ y1 X+ i, l6 _
《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
& G" I, Y5 e4 `+ r0 w7 X这些被Callaway忽略。* X' r- f7 ?' X/ n6 _8 R( _
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 Q ], g# |( a& e& U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( e: W$ E0 B8 T" v
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
' [: o/ M& H9 N N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
; N3 L+ M3 u8 \( v( S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3 ~5 O" R# b& ^3 _* f. 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7 b' N1 d! L3 y; s4 _8 ~* 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。; @0 s9 X0 E, g5 K: ]7 j
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 a9 m2 o4 s0 f/ s L f
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; Y" j- `0 d( y F
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: }' O1 `; C0 U( c+ d
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
/ [4 C) @& _& B$ G4 g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
" Q9 `2 y: j, V! U! o$ b& w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
9 O" @8 C0 {, ~- t) 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
+ {5 W0 f ` z4 v% k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1 T! p4 c5 z+ A
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. d/ A/ R% k- Z8 M2 S而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
: _. F% A$ w( }! k8 w0 R; G! l: x我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。! m6 E$ O& I" ^& S
) N6 w w5 D) h3 {4 ^# k2 {7 J
毅( W. R' {# i" X8 _
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅) f+ F6 \0 L) U; S
. T" Q7 T: |* d; \9 h7 @6 b
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
: S8 w) H1 W7 `( r附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email( U5 p8 Q o# d7 X8 |( {
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见$ Q2 r) u+ k" x Y: I7 \; G% E* r& j
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
# B8 m) u# v' R- b
) U4 C1 Y, l. u0 H2 n
) p% f3 z8 L$ R0 Z0 p
6 y. |3 n* S# d7 K1 ?0 ~原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)9 p. q$ V0 l$ N) a. ?( P* R# T
Dear Phil,
6 N5 X7 U8 A" g7 y- _5 Y You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s$ N, v9 K5 m0 m2 a- T' X
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20" s1 R& [8 |: K2 x- J4 o
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed0 e, R+ l, f5 w# S- f$ ?5 F
you.
- o; P4 \5 \, D$ r$ \ If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have% ?+ \, c6 M+ Y* q
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
8 q: S. R5 t2 e, P' o9 N3 k1 Zreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the6 K+ {7 \# r: _( A
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature% \1 U# I* L9 C2 s" x4 g$ `
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
3 I- k, v1 P! G% |seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news9 ^7 c( [# _3 M; L- I3 b6 g3 n H
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.4 E8 F0 P$ \0 w) z! ^
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the7 C/ k9 L8 t( H* R+ x
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 A( E, k3 |% x3 y, c9 S- Knegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
3 v! l: K! i8 ]# H( E) a2 fthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway0 F( ]& V) m0 p" ^9 [0 h/ i$ Z3 J
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
9 l( s1 G) a+ e6 L" w/ \explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
1 j0 B; t+ `. \: ]standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,: q, v' U2 O3 m5 T" d; i1 h
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone; D# p; O; m5 H- {% [
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news- k4 t9 ?0 s+ L' V6 n* ~' A/ m
reporting.1 D! k! y7 ~. ^" S7 J8 y6 J3 L
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have5 e, `) R" F# ~- K& p. R
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by) e5 S2 }5 g5 d: N# d4 `& R
changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in: w+ c! E' a! \' S' M
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
" v" ^: P$ w2 o9 A3 @0 L- [- `: d# zpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.% ~- W$ r# x+ m# Q0 ~: u% Q
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem! R; ?$ y1 _7 k7 }
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds6 L* N( _! U p8 V; c$ V' u
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50( o, c4 R5 s2 P0 p1 M
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
- v$ [0 V8 O. x* _event for men, with the second fastest record.) `1 v/ G( ?) d
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye, _) x' ~- m% W" w, q5 H0 Z
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 168 t+ z# R# x, h' n
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
/ L2 q% f3 r. V# ~. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4003 x1 R- c8 v, p. i
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
; ~6 W5 k% {( m) Q8 \, J7 c; zfor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than# p3 Q5 r: W/ }5 e* v
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
- O7 D5 {7 K+ {2 J- Y- l& |behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the# E( P. z& N2 a0 S# n! M( t: Q
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower/ t( ~" U/ [( j4 Y% p+ h
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
. f9 ~1 k4 f- l, R' j7 Fthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was% {' c2 V6 a& A
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
, F) B3 e g7 t5 q+ Uhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
: r" U0 W! a. N* [ k4 iproblem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other* W% t0 o+ J, M) F- E; j+ E
swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
; h8 e! x, |! k1 h V$ eteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
$ R6 i4 J& u8 R1 g& WCallaway report.# \2 I4 w; D6 Q' N2 z! U* G# m3 r
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
/ D) K& J; ?# S0 vunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details4 l: D4 d" N- E5 R: q, j0 J3 Z
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
4 ~& S$ |; Z* S, J) uof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
" [ }3 l m V0 n6 D% Nbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
+ a/ n/ y) m; V6 G7 h) HWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had! |+ p6 g6 A* U& V5 ]
publicly voiced different opinions.
0 J" r3 v$ D) CYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
2 p* U" y; \ f' z& o3 \, X6 rfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
V" ]8 R' d8 J* D' \1 s4 C( ANeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent/ ~# ?4 D# L$ \: f
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
3 b3 S7 M+ x& Y4 W* T- [; Iyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy. W k! u0 A6 t/ L
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
6 ]) T# s4 d2 n. qThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
, K6 A3 `' ]4 }( M, ythat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They3 b q. r. ^3 G1 p& Z
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as* [" G3 ^ c4 V" d, _# F
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
; x) {9 g7 w9 O4 i! R" A5 w6 Rthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
! M% h6 n! M% \, esupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
$ c# V' q# _' |One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
% v+ l( _9 D- R. w- qmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
, W3 L. X; m9 c3 lChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
, m/ w; J$ |& w/ ]1 g(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
& R! ~ \5 S2 q* d/ q3 ~and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.: {' a$ E U. p/ ^% ?
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science2 o: f6 Z' P& L4 E. d; p' t
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and* A, q. {, [9 u/ ^# _4 f. q1 d
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.
. T1 r" S5 D6 ^( D4 \8 M, bNature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and& E ~" _( R4 U# o3 H$ H0 J
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
7 v Z$ _- c' R+ zwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
- r+ N6 }7 F2 G, prepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) v& P) X: m: ?1 q9 e) R/ HThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not! l0 V1 @6 ?. y3 W ~% o
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
' v1 {8 a) _5 `8 dus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
0 e9 E, ~( ?3 Z/ u* _* Sfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
9 v2 o9 p- A$ Pthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
) V- C6 x. ]: jabout British supremacy.7 o: \0 F8 u6 q a
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many' S. p* U( C- L
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
) H3 M7 O; o$ p2 K0 @; OChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
; ?5 B$ d K& ]; Y5 h0 Rour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
" C8 Q) a3 Z! O& COlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.5 M. m" i% B% P+ z9 ?6 v C
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
! V2 ^$ h% ~# ~7 f4 }$ rprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests. p: K4 Z6 v# J0 r ^1 @
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,% _- u R1 B1 a( k i! O9 z
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly$ N5 l5 {. R, _- `; s1 H3 @; h2 S& Q/ m
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like/ r B/ ]2 i2 z7 I% [/ i
Nature.$ R* m* {2 ~4 c6 w: i7 u- j; E
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
5 q) ~$ m8 w; `: }* b* f: ethe Callaway report.- Q3 v2 j' X( B; W G
0 U: a5 i! c6 j1 g7 Y. w% oYi
4 I% M) {, a3 f/ w6 s
" k5 P- N% u. KYi Rao, Ph.D.
; d- Y# j3 z- yProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
) W' m, r; V1 ~/ x; FBeijing, China a& ?+ C- N" J' J
|
|