 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 1 J1 S, l5 S( I# F) t1 ^5 h
! e9 I% N; C3 m1 @
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! g5 s0 x' U$ l3 w1 ~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。$ V) D6 X) X% [- M1 ]# H9 i+ Z
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。$ K5 k- u6 ~0 |1 z9 C
* n- v6 i. v* J, t2 r. Shttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
5 H1 b# ?' `; K+ d8 j$ e( m9 Q7 I
. ?7 D% `* j# w6 }. @" L9 G) Y* z致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
; s/ ~& @1 E, Y& J* L2 W% I+ Z
8 o5 }8 W& q( H9 Z$ \" r7 q$ ?英文原信附后,大意如下:
' R( c) Q2 [' l5 ~, x
% n+ V2 g2 M, Y3 h: x h$ E斐尔,) s4 ~ [/ I# B c6 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% G3 ^$ N' q- F: _- r/ ^
email的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 f; R. t. k6 w' \: |
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1 E8 K2 q: ~! S0 V+ A& A- A
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7 N- L, K! N: Y. L+ }! b
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 p7 e/ P' B( D 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
: Q6 M5 o( g% E1 E7 D! v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
% a, c q5 ~9 I6 G, O" 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# A/ g- }: I; D, Z( f8 K& l- C2 E
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/ L5 u2 t j* `
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* Q0 z/ n8 i4 z9 T3 X0 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3 r7 l8 ]' G6 v; r9 N& l; o
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
/ [; A+ K! p8 ^ F3 b 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
7 T7 K6 f/ L0 F% 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1 P0 W' b: q3 {
,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。( i T6 S* k1 G& S. l# C/ l) h& g
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
! |4 E( v8 J3 A* O+ I/ u2011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
3 g3 u( E6 X( o0 g+ Y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
2 a! |5 q% f2 e* n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
: B4 j( g5 r1 V6 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, C3 y" }9 \7 i/ ~
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
' W. Z# @6 g" w7 m/ p2 P1 ~6 G* g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1 A# e$ D. f9 B( j% U- m
。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$ n7 t4 ^ I( e( m3 C- O6 X
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
9 |% J- ]. t& l4 n/ Z7 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
' r" j! e2 U$ p1》,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
0 l4 o5 }, x3 LWikipedia。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
! o; i6 P& w0 k6 l$ M同意见的专家。' B# z! Z! @3 P, {1 p; U6 k' G
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0 `& O% O* ]' Y2 Z8 Y4 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
. q( K7 J( b) a1 c# c7 x' ^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' v. v, E3 Q- U7 Q' q; D6 R; q
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
: m; e5 l ^8 _8 d& oCallaway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)8 F5 K# C( W+ c0 j$ ]! s
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
% m0 G0 ] ? q- F, s8 O- B( }《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* C2 N: c1 L; S6 m9 a
这些被Callaway忽略。
7 I0 g) X+ @3 F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7 q! {3 q2 N$ A+ Z, J0 w
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% h4 x6 l6 S9 y3 u! |$ K
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
8 u5 R' G$ j- `' z1 i9 j" 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
# ^, h* @ k$ [8 \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6 u7 K2 X* `9 R! h& c# o' B0 G3 H$ a( B
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
# a0 n- r0 J& m4 j; t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。# \ A1 R+ a6 k
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
: I X+ E/ D( u7 m9 u4 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8 w) ?% o9 q; A2 X3 D
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
7 u* b1 @; ]2 f* }0 Y6 p6 M”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。8 H7 v6 i* h7 C3 o* o
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% c' F$ b7 M' w' e( Z. y2 B( t( B
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 _5 h. A/ Y/ Y9 ?! v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
, R# ?8 ~% ` z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
3 s/ [; E+ j+ W: n6 n) W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6 c. W- E9 K4 m5 b
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。' y! \, a/ e7 k) h& h
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。8 u7 c3 ~% d3 z* w) M
8 Y4 J$ _, U9 V' D
毅
3 H/ i8 R! ?# q I+ Q' q北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
1 p7 [$ Y8 [& V' @1 E3 Q0 @( T5 ?, |) L3 v$ E1 x8 l J3 S* l
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
& B5 M; c6 x; O/ D& R附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email, T8 y/ {6 b+ x1 E% O$ B7 L, u1 f
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见, n- @7 P( L1 J, B
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
4 k- I( _ ~: H4 L7 C* Q- O' s s" P; M' v
9 u9 {# {3 h) V, K( i/ P- g
% Z3 L" Q6 `7 b+ |原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
( M- F' T6 T/ ?. L9 Z, kDear Phil,
: }$ X- N% ?2 } You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
0 x- l/ K/ t% R' V$ {, Creport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
, r# e7 C7 R" v! Shours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
0 D) X6 s. j, y# c; wyou. x1 I t7 R& Y9 \6 H. L5 a
If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
, C/ p: [# }' F% I& y! zbrought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
+ J4 v2 {, u6 Lreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the5 t4 e) L- \: q7 _1 w* `
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature3 @+ j3 e5 E# X& [. ]
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
# L. e9 Y4 b0 L) a* J+ b" W+ w1 o2 Wseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
% J4 P4 }5 u) y0 Q3 m0 ^pieces much more than the regular Western news media would., \; z+ S5 u* `* ?& H& r( B5 W
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
7 K3 [9 S8 n" {( k" J' uworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
5 ]% I/ }9 y7 i! g" C: Vnegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish; G8 V; Z u7 {! R) X1 m. i
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
6 [( I. o/ _7 Zdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
% J% s( w5 f$ P$ Yexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
0 a/ T# h6 x7 O! Estandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,1 T: n7 U/ c, |2 e3 z
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
# t, Y, C4 h, l& H" Nto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
% s8 K: q, m$ L' yreporting.: W* t8 f4 r, W: e% ]
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have& I. n/ H2 T, F$ D* t1 {4 Z8 Q
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
: N" j/ _$ p, l' \/ Y2 Schanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
) J& K# s$ }5 x4 d3 w: ?sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A q1 c7 k$ M6 x9 j2 a: C2 Q# _
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts./ P; U _, H7 v5 M1 R6 |6 d4 L. \
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem0 ?) S+ g/ m' S- W: w
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds/ d8 { b5 `9 S0 E# U7 N0 n
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
5 c0 B$ L* e6 i8 B7 o F0 o2 Nmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
# k8 a7 k' Y. C8 I. devent for men, with the second fastest record.
) a# A0 i- h# z3 o% k( e9 ]+ O The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye, j2 A6 |' S/ M3 o( ? e0 D
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
7 Y% D6 @8 x: { Zyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record" h7 k( x5 v; v. j; o9 B- P, c7 p4 B
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4001 T# g4 [6 m8 _5 a
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,6 \7 @! [: F- Z7 J9 e: E% O* f) q5 H
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
2 D% e& H0 {6 R: h/ CLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed4 k( H4 p! L1 A
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the: ]! I. B7 G8 D: z* \
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower6 t$ e$ F I0 K6 \: t( ^
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than9 a9 J1 g$ }0 F, S
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
9 E, R8 R9 L% I/ X9 L dher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 m" c1 r' m7 U: b; \
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “
$ z* o2 Z7 p* I8 ]problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( X5 g/ a( e# w6 Z* H+ b7 j; sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
9 Y: D9 k5 f8 |0 @5 f% N5 gteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the6 H, n2 ^- k3 C8 Y. D1 R
Callaway report.! e+ Q" q. Y9 u& \
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
$ v0 S6 e. U' W0 Lunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
u. [" K$ _; xhere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description( o4 L" s4 P2 z6 }( y' p9 r# i
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
" r' P3 q# H$ T1 l8 f8 f1 Z( tbetter than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
, H* {0 l$ D" m5 V, `Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
- O: v6 _$ y3 [# Mpublicly voiced different opinions.' G/ X. r0 f0 p3 Q
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD6 O; F* d: O( T4 r8 C
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
4 o- a& d) }% L/ `Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
7 P: y s# n9 B. Z' Ypostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds# A8 `2 r5 c9 T) G) E. O" P) v
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy* ?6 u4 Z u4 P5 B; u9 a) H9 x
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.* ~5 `8 H ~7 D4 c/ t0 j S
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
+ N9 B7 q+ J! b6 ?# f7 Tthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They8 N! C' p6 _8 `5 z b
have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as, B" D, z7 Y7 m9 I, Y7 \/ ?% A
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
- B7 I* y2 m+ b. b; r9 |' E0 a+ tthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
8 K7 |+ B F, f; bsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
5 z7 k% }; {: r8 y0 SOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that# b/ v4 P5 N$ c4 s2 }5 T
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the0 O! A$ x0 k6 e% q: ?" ^
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June6 s/ K& P* u$ K3 m3 V( d
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
7 s2 [; x& y7 F, Zand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.3 _4 G+ j# u: N7 w
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science9 _/ u& F4 f3 P0 A
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
! }4 v) P% n0 y" Y9 \5 R3 TDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.& S" Z% A, S: f
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and0 L% h& X5 \1 R2 J
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature/ N' [6 i5 V* ^ p
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
. O2 x( n2 d- l3 Qrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
: o a. I$ N4 C& h% a. G1 g$ AThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' ?3 _6 U0 c9 w0 b4 R! j
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced, ^. \' s. p M! l
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather1 ?+ O& y, \# V% I
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
7 `( ^0 i5 A* h" {' |" a; J, ]this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
* w! z# y+ F% m) n5 }+ a! G3 Qabout British supremacy.
" d9 A: P, Z5 k" n3 N' r. BThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
2 d" w6 h' R* s4 {0 g) V3 j9 ?unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
0 C8 V6 H! \) W, a6 QChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by4 m7 E5 H; g. H5 [1 ^9 Z( r! s
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London4 z/ ^! t0 D& }# E. s% ]$ j5 d& O) m
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.! S, k' b/ ]) H, v
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of& n& t: Y$ u; \$ |2 ?
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests2 b" b c( k7 z; v0 Q7 x
before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,: W9 e" b% v' X" g- d4 z9 a& v' R0 @
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly; p, K1 Q: j4 D Y) p# Q8 e
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like& {" A6 g" w: O" q- s$ I
Nature.
% K. ?9 P2 X" tI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
0 ?4 Z, Q8 T* R, n6 hthe Callaway report.
& v F7 j8 G9 q6 J( T
z( u, t3 |: gYi
) Z% `9 Y/ v( P' b$ a& V9 Z6 v9 h& r4 L0 g
Yi Rao, Ph.D./ f7 j1 b1 z, `% F. `9 l7 K
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
5 r' r% [3 p8 Q# p8 e; @6 U; u( N- HBeijing, China
6 {' A$ ]' g% r" J |
|