 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑
& I* E5 g" W/ _* l5 j1 I- F2 g6 M5 z# a- L# ^8 y& r
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。, \: L& G- N! Z* ]
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。3 Z9 g" N2 `. L2 Z
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。& p, S! V& ^$ H' ` o6 l
9 a" o2 F) z* Qhttp://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html: j- u( V# M7 y" B( N- |! u! k
7 z9 F1 s2 V3 Y7 Q2 J致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选. V: E7 c& b5 y- ^( n) n
7 p; G- c7 ]( m! q
英文原信附后,大意如下:8 L* B( k' `! y
$ Q" N) m4 p4 S) z5 j斐尔,$ W6 k3 I: i z* j' f$ Y7 \
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
3 _/ k- m6 b& q- f4 Semail的人里面小部分也给我来信。7 R b3 G# S) z7 r/ W; O
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# b% Y z& n7 L
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
5 q8 \4 x% u" z: w3 K# h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。' b! J7 O; v, }
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
4 Y& p1 ?/ N2 [# ^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
9 i6 O2 P# E* ^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
4 G0 x& l7 Y2 P7 O- g# O( a' _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。
. k! y, J0 f0 p1 o* w 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
]+ A4 V ]0 j& D1 m,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! o3 m6 j0 h$ e v% J
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。
0 H& ^$ ^7 c7 [* Y 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" q. o+ P& f' g. R
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
0 T4 ^+ t) o4 m6 U$ X4 _,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。5 W F! H8 ?& f( E# P4 _* 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
& [+ B: k- g N( n+ e& I W# B2011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( P5 N- M. G1 |" W
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! q. [( B- Y7 v$ E
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 d7 r5 h) p- }, v) _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
1 y: P) g9 E" s$ E$ q* r G0 u. y. S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& [7 J3 ]) X9 z, o4 p6 y
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 h, y6 ?# w* ]+ z9 j5 f4 z9 \。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( T! @5 g' s N% n) q2 B9 k3 R9 Y
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
7 Z, j/ g) l& L4 t: F& m/ W/ S, x$ Y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* Z. J; l+ n6 q- `7 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& \ }7 A5 o* A3 I! y
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
/ R- `0 Z$ L6 |& ~! i: V同意见的专家。5 U9 P7 `7 u" o& `' s B
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
2 v g9 k) ? J5 V {3 L5 a' U; T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
0 L# ^4 B" n$ u) ?4 T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& G: c1 u$ Y$ y `6 R H0 |) B5 R
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
# Z8 R1 [/ n# ]: o+ o; ~3 VCallaway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)# q" e9 q! c1 Z& D" G
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
5 G! u D, y2 ^) }《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0 K+ V5 J h( E, b3 y& k2 Z# W% A; T
这些被Callaway忽略。
4 L/ ~' W _3 C, V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
( }: m& b9 U% u5 F4 [; H( K' K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+ v- J8 }; C3 F) }+ p1 Z
教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。$ t/ v% A; i6 A- s2 K! f
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/ [% M9 C) L8 `$ C
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' ]2 ^, d2 f( O* M0 ]1 i* I% F
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: `' k% v6 i% S q2 n4 ]2 y
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。, j/ B, N/ | V. h- @/ A
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
% t* @+ u; V; ^- i* O4 o1 A* K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: k/ o6 M. G$ j6 J
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/ v2 u: t7 o; l# m4 |
”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
. F; j! B9 K5 Q* l% p9 K, S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
- g* D) m7 N/ g/ 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
$ M7 i4 f, D6 r& k* R6 m* w. [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7 h! B) `# F3 ]( A# X
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
% y, U3 d$ B( l: V; L) M9 Y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
5 a' T: t, c" J' M- e& A而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。+ @2 Q# o- ~- A! M4 q
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
! \* S0 g0 {, d) X+ F/ l+ v- b+ A% [1 e
毅
+ F* L" c! ?8 n3 `" h北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅( F- {8 z- ?6 y' q* W- y6 H
: y; S: E9 P" u( L' ?! k$ G
附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结
4 y- P2 }3 n: v+ f附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email
) \& f8 g1 l& K附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见& ^0 f7 n; H7 S. q. n9 z2 Z. A
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见- h$ U1 b% n- L2 V# k, A7 C
6 [. D! |+ v5 \$ H' K( ?
1 I- D4 ^2 Y' D$ w b
9 k, c: Y8 w/ k R
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送) V( I! h2 c# w: { v; w7 p, N
Dear Phil,, s0 E- ]+ n3 ^) |, n4 H
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s
' ~6 t; g3 J2 g' G! W, a( Areport on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
4 j" y) P1 W: ~. G' I& t# [( m2 p9 Mhours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed0 `5 J9 X9 v8 y k
you.
1 @2 L( p/ f) ?4 G! t% w5 f If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have& `- }0 w, K% g( G l/ r
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
( n+ `) u0 J# s2 m3 Freaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the
" _7 O1 r, q2 j! W( w5 y8 oworld does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
}5 I9 H5 k/ v- N8 `publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more
2 H/ _ G- B# p4 aseriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news6 B9 N2 X& K( o- w1 ~! l/ Q6 w
pieces much more than the regular Western news media would.9 ~) m2 @. k$ V+ H, ~, ]3 O
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
$ \/ W" C$ I3 a, f8 _worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a
% z! R# @% F4 q: m! j( Anegative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish; v7 h: I& r7 n! f: p3 Y
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway7 Q- F: h; q' U: C" V$ P
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
7 H9 n3 v; i5 {explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal- G1 k/ l. q2 P2 N
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,
4 }1 k+ x: K) |and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
5 f0 w k* `' ~, C- N5 M) B7 U& fto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
& s3 b. j V5 Z8 ^reporting.0 [" j7 v3 D( ~- }
I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have0 ~" S* Y* a% Y! e, N3 _% E
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
* @. M1 F3 r4 Y, tchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in4 x6 t0 V- D0 X
sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
0 @: ~% a3 i, N! t8 xpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts." B1 z( h! k6 Y
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem/ r6 }. `: g2 G+ p
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds$ L7 F: _$ u; S# s
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50. ]0 v) X* l/ Q. @/ m
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same0 G# w& H0 Q. r. {
event for men, with the second fastest record.% r! | t" `9 k# X4 [5 g/ G7 b3 b
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye, o, G/ d1 v6 n
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 167 a- Q3 H9 l/ L' _" F
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record/ s. k* E# \+ q% z4 x
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 4002 S6 S' `2 m* N' j) [. f5 q
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
. g8 D. ?3 ]; {: `" f$ L( U6 }for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than
) S& L! t! y! n. I% N) T8 Y/ X& [6 `Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed m# T# ?; f2 w! c' c4 v0 F
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
& ~+ k e6 X: r+ S9 W8 Q* K, dindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower) i; }! t) _. A7 M' a# H8 Y
than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than& X( Y7 q+ S4 Z
those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was
2 E" ^/ @8 J: I8 pher strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
( d& ]/ H+ U; P0 k2 l/ E/ Che would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “& P; @, {/ e/ h& ?, c2 k( p" T
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
* A3 Y4 u$ [/ B! T+ Aswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the1 t* v" v S. c5 O, ]4 h
teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the, o9 w- }* U5 A7 ^$ p4 r8 Q% I# ~$ L
Callaway report.
4 O/ n. f* X3 R! Q! u- l+ g2 n' OThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more# I% x5 `0 E( z+ H! w! o* n
understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details
+ J7 [9 W: w* w* O2 q& ihere. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
1 O" }1 X P- v% x% Fof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been6 z6 w$ q8 d; o4 p0 G7 j! h, R1 H$ e# U! G9 Z
better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the- H2 h) C/ h: Y/ {2 W( q; M# n
Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
9 i x! N4 x( [9 {publicly voiced different opinions.
& W" s( T, `, A8 b% hYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
; x, @ Y/ R! x* z$ b# N& jfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
: q2 I' u$ N. K2 U+ SNeuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
3 R0 [/ G$ A. z6 c$ r$ {* Tpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds
* w; x% R/ v" {; y' p, ~you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy
/ ~2 q/ w- ^ d8 R+ Cof his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.+ s+ o6 H8 x; D6 R9 U( x
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think
+ S# x7 A. l+ ]* t' Tthat a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
. e+ O2 [) L! vhave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
8 y. H" Z% W1 C+ d# o( CAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that0 _/ U5 f+ l+ f$ m
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
) ~% b$ R" ?5 D% A8 C3 Z0 G+ ~" psupported by facts neglected by Callaway.* G1 x2 Y" ~6 c' h8 Y1 Q4 i$ B9 ~
One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that
# U- Q8 [+ _1 G& o9 C( nmany in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
: F' j5 L! s: v3 y5 m1 KChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June9 `, ]+ D2 A. X# V8 n! q
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she, o) a: A0 t( ~& H0 }, F9 H- P
and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.
: k9 G1 o. v* X9 l) f- P2 g, q2 PThe British have a good international image, partly because of your science
5 O! F2 t* T- P5 W5 ?9 R+ Fand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
D5 P* U S: d+ BDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.8 F- }1 V/ u* y! T
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and& {) }5 k( G( d
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 P9 w, [$ E; |' _6 B# G0 C5 @2 |1 L
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
, \2 s" y0 K2 U( N, rrepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
7 R# g$ h7 d) p4 s3 r _1 fThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not' C! r/ ?: X: @4 l4 \' C& m* B
show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
9 i7 s0 z" q" _1 Gus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather3 I( }0 x) @5 [; t% k
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that% O/ K5 J2 n3 n8 E& \, v F
this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”$ o) ]: H9 Z2 B/ q& {
about British supremacy.
- U# d, q& U3 v; \7 l: yThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many, j; [* X7 Z6 L
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
( m/ Z" F% X" ]0 ^ P9 ?9 q5 RChinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by' K/ i) X0 l, H0 {. v$ w# A: [
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London( c/ R% b" T+ D3 L% w
Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
! j; |# A$ [- i% T( c V6 [Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of3 C; R) c6 R C# y
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
: r1 Y+ O r. y. b: N. ]before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,% A. A4 l7 c! G" @
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
, n# S% [( L* {6 D; Tpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
* m$ s2 O4 Q0 u' ?) e, dNature.
0 \1 j% {9 x* Y5 ?" Y: EI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance8 N) B2 F6 y2 w+ G8 |
the Callaway report.
0 y2 a% B* j* c( \% r: e6 Y
2 p( f5 K! p+ K8 TYi
5 ]6 B8 ]6 g8 b) J% y; I3 j2 o! g0 Q9 q; o* H
Yi Rao, Ph.D.8 W! i2 L' ]8 \, X5 s" f
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences/ m" i/ q" G. p7 s& N
Beijing, China
: J! q+ V6 f, j. F* w |
|