 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
' G' ?5 X' i% a0 y8 _: @
! X& j& u3 z u) Z k饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
( A$ u, P. a3 |* e7 a# m- j9 _3 l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。% I1 M' V! F0 x* n) j4 w
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
, d' r2 z5 |2 L4 O d5 s+ j/ X$ q4 K8 `4 l; F0 z2 k- K
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html+ `! T! w/ u) |% b$ S2 {
2 C+ o/ G: K2 k d- Z( Z: r4 N2 R8 V
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选) v% C; d( ~& c$ r2 N. C7 ^
7 E& C; D k0 u
英文原信附后,大意如下:
# m) V8 O4 s( ^* F$ U5 H/ ^& I' u4 @
斐尔,1 ]0 J2 |4 h1 T6 n2 z) R5 }, e
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
7 x9 D% h2 i |/ t, v0 p! e" Uemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
4 _$ V4 F" z) C 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* a' G$ L& ~, w; F$ v1 d
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/ k! }; y2 Y1 \9 F
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 u6 N" |- w$ @0 X, e9 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: h1 E# d3 y( p3 P) l9 S
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
- J+ e1 O; ?1 j9 ^7 S/ \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* I1 n; I. F9 { c' p
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。2 R3 Q5 h! T" G" E8 K9 ?
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6 [, y( p/ E( y+ 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: `: H" s( p4 N7 G1 A u' ~% Z( v
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。) ~0 ^2 R+ n% X# I" X
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 s" t, @5 o# e8 k4 M! g# M7 k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
' x6 o% {& j+ |# b D8 m( ?,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。9 O% N1 g9 f) k
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 Q4 j! P/ Z2 d2011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
, Y; m1 _/ P V. ~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+ Y% @ `; T9 k/ B
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
; y6 ]" @, v" M# I }0 b$ Z300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# e( D( n( O1 \$ P
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 i$ S( G5 R$ V
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
8 n6 Y( H! C; H。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
+ K) [3 C1 K" g' w- g0 K录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。- h e# M3 }% K
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
7 _' }' b0 v" u- V4 n; A1》,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
6 @* \* F! `# v7 ^2 a' @. YWikipedia。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 ]5 i1 L3 \. c+ X7 s
同意见的专家。3 w9 N: z3 F8 Z, F
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
! e8 a/ {5 Y! b3 L8 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
$ `) R; \8 `+ q$ Z! b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* O( D' ?9 N% L# Z; _4 l2 M
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。" O# I$ D& p9 ~; _# p- h
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)) N# [3 v0 u6 ~, r0 q
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- P. j9 j+ Z% w
《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 ~' ?" S) `( g, G$ [
这些被Callaway忽略。
2 f# V- u" |/ o! N4 K: X- M7 {8 s3 C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
1 U" l- K& V( I1 g, ]5 X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
+ |4 {4 G/ o9 N1 @* D教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。) D% k" X5 C8 Q* s0 d$ \
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% Z4 b7 E" j' u, [0 y+ X/ y
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 U0 e6 d8 s: y2 Z+ } K) e
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
( g1 M' b# t. G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。
* F% Y: V: q& F9 Z! G5 s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/ U- [, i4 v' ^0 J
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7 ~2 j8 R- N- G$ ~. g! B! Z8 R6 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8 i) w: Z5 g! g) N
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
' i! k f" H7 a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
1 X3 W3 z$ N' S# M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' N0 `6 [" R; `
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 v" Z# W7 t8 Q
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7 ~9 R" H% a. P1 S1 |# o r" \
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
7 h+ u# @; u$ `$ z: k8 M而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。7 I: B7 E( H- [. k2 [
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
; _3 I4 d( \7 C3 y- ~' R L, h9 \$ W$ k! f& R
毅
% U8 D) y7 I) M2 _, h$ S) e t北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅# y, j% P: `% E9 c4 V
& K9 _9 v) t* R8 g S; ] C附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
/ v' i3 e7 {+ R附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
/ ^8 X% H; B5 e+ }2 L; c附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见& E& P$ J- H( F* W J+ M7 [# }) s
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见& ^. }/ Q6 t; _. N
$ H- }6 n# ~* C* ^0 }1 n
. ?4 `; Y. j9 T8 i7 ^; e) p
0 |8 @# K4 y5 Q5 H3 l原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送) ^. `: ?) Q, i9 J. c5 c3 ^
Dear Phil,4 {2 o! U) B- M) m4 _; f% T
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s) S' B5 k1 C- f0 [4 j; x4 i4 J
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20: \7 ~; z6 d2 m& o
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed* ~1 S3 [" ]* I& q5 b2 X! d; k* d; @2 @
you.
( e2 X# X/ h1 E: P; K* c If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
/ k) X/ Y" x; N( A" z2 G/ Z, [' V4 {brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
! T$ ~# R2 r, F. M8 S; p$ w nreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the8 x' I! C7 i. b6 ~; J4 Y. ?
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
M9 `3 T" F: Apublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
: O/ m& q, A" x9 Tseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
; e' V! b5 L5 R% S( hpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.. Q% Z: R- O8 t7 n
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
, e+ Y0 Y8 m/ zworst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a% ], _, q% ~% @ U1 H
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish+ f/ v$ b- [, H: A
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
, b; v9 C: _0 ^+ y4 G) j. H5 t$ Odid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
5 [/ ~4 F/ q! Y# n' Z( Mexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
4 g0 y3 l# e' P, {6 b1 A, O* p. lstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,* S+ x, @8 z" R8 Z
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone2 o7 p: s; \( D7 y+ l( S
to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
% V. c4 M& v8 R% Z" preporting.
7 @: H+ x) ^/ W3 f$ J I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
1 S4 E: m9 b4 D2 A" oalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
4 _; k. L, k8 ?9 pchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in. v# g5 {2 H, h
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A) d" J' Y* {, A: D
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
5 I9 O3 v2 B% E6 C' t" R The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem B+ m, }; t" R0 H8 h p
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds& V- ?6 k+ S: L1 e
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 502 L& b4 Q5 x! k3 m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same
$ d# j7 `0 `, k" y& C! A# Z# revent for men, with the second fastest record.
) M B8 O2 W. V! [0 s" _! o The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye
, {' H4 q( Q! `) A! [' rwas only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
" b E# j& S' W7 Xyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record3 i3 m, I% T9 c1 [6 s! e* @
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400+ Z, W/ S9 X0 ?$ X9 U' t
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,# I8 o% ^4 ]" l" i; K: V5 f) A0 G
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) n" x/ Z9 W H. J) e/ M+ YLochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed
0 k) K; _$ ^# l( }- E) }+ J8 nbehind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the* d7 T6 e2 O! ?( K
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
. ]0 J' H# l9 Q4 Y- @than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
, n& r, D( y6 E: M hthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was- O* P9 D) y) i# `4 C2 @* G: _
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then# k5 r) Y' M0 t
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “1 j. ?9 F" u8 _
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
# ]& O3 R2 {/ M {" B6 d+ sswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the' K( E" K3 M3 v6 A
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
! y6 G) D+ O- r' d# |# [7 pCallaway report.# w; O/ c0 q/ g. Z' r
There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
2 y2 K, @. ?# Yunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
# m+ F% Y. {2 `1 |1 T3 R9 P8 chere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
8 c/ l3 \/ O; b) E4 G/ G; cof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been5 S1 l9 V* c5 J- R, x
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the( d7 X" q4 v' y# m* c
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had9 Y s" ]3 x+ }, E0 j
publicly voiced different opinions.- J, T3 e+ y/ y) m9 {
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
; E+ f8 `+ a$ Z8 X, ^1 Kfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' d n9 i% L" B
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent! J# Y1 V$ P; C7 Q, Z
postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
3 O2 v; U! A' yyou have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy" [! V+ n" r8 F0 M* k5 [
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
1 u U/ ^4 o; G; i" uThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think, m0 }) w( T0 T; m2 |; o
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
3 M4 h8 e2 [* v/ }$ a+ thave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as# H. i% A; t. {
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
+ _7 P6 g; f$ G$ r" ithe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
, {& c# i4 Z& C6 {0 |4 E" hsupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
5 z. G1 i8 P3 E8 f+ iOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
1 F: q( t( O0 Y+ e/ jmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the9 f2 D3 O9 t" I$ T
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June
4 P6 W6 _" `2 |3 X6 D(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
$ ]. H( f* T, ~& Y' j' c3 Iand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
! D% p$ J" g; w/ pThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
. e# Q" Q5 w! |; g5 ?2 Eand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
, i% \* M' i5 n3 TDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.6 x$ Q1 o; l, u. ~0 j5 e, t# p
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
2 k* H* q# I# v2 h" Eobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
9 g# S0 t0 M% Y" f! K. A7 `what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to" a$ a1 _& |( ~; u: q& U- W+ r7 @
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.+ T- y# ]& }2 v
The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not ~5 D' w$ C6 N4 k: Z8 ?
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced9 M* l! b! C, c E% c3 b0 Z$ t
us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
2 M( a8 b( X- h; x8 y8 B4 F, rfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that6 y: d2 w* g9 C7 C0 T
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”0 V( H Q ^3 K. A6 ?3 g1 }
about British supremacy.7 F/ W {; f& T; _, k6 p' |. ]" _# Z
The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many
% C q0 m2 i/ h M V& I7 P, Bunsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more f' y- D4 f9 h: x0 i1 c1 ~
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
6 E! z- t. D% U# o0 z" {5 Y& P7 bour public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
# @+ h2 V: c9 T" F0 X4 ]8 p9 ^) YOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
% l; e3 H: E7 M+ `, c, T7 ]Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of. y- V3 u7 W% W. M
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
, q! j' e n; ~before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,/ H! d* _+ f9 w
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly/ F2 ?6 g1 `( n
publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
. L! x1 s4 K4 a7 N5 m0 x) mNature.4 b+ j/ t3 V0 W" ~( s3 Q5 B
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; }8 |# K4 F+ r" J" Cthe Callaway report.
' r$ h" w1 T( V5 S
p6 f+ C! D. yYi
& w" q) Z5 A" o# j5 v& Y/ [/ f1 A
8 r4 z, X2 K0 I9 JYi Rao, Ph.D.
4 ?# `; `" h* Q, c& I! G0 ~: yProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
" Y3 H9 G5 l0 ?8 G( E/ HBeijing, China& @& X( N Y3 q
|
|