 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 : M9 S; O1 O+ O% Z8 t7 y4 n
9 R7 L1 G/ i& R- C; ?, T( V* j0 Y
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
! `7 A: S, I( l+ F% C a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。% p1 S- H6 D& T3 P8 t4 C1 F/ B
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。
+ c' V1 c" [8 ?7 ]' [- \0 }/ z# P8 Z) B
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
% R e" v1 t0 u4 g+ w2 s6 k
7 F3 |$ Z, [. ^6 w致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
* f: B! n& H& E) Y( F! L$ e8 t9 q5 `# j, z" b
英文原信附后,大意如下: i. ?4 j9 A9 A: ~
7 G1 w, W7 U5 E: ]斐尔,* @" {& D% [1 F% 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
- J3 U% z6 b3 V4 ?email的人里面小部分也给我来信。/ k5 v z1 }. ^, M, o. H" _
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; ?7 f+ {% A- M. |
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
3 j) S6 e8 P! P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。
! L- v3 _7 B! l- b( O6 A$ @- h 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7 k% v# Z- T# H' I3 x! E+ ^
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
3 _ x1 c9 V; l( M% R0 t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
' r" S/ P( j" j; ^# [$ Q; k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。+ Y( @5 e: r- C& D8 K' {+ G$ y' d, F3 ~
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# m' B% R8 }: J9 Z
,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 q3 b% F, M' a7 X3 j9 M
”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。" E3 y9 ~3 V+ t# U
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
0 s2 p& W: m7 Y% `) j- c- 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
8 _4 ]: L2 [% [; K3 a,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。: t8 P4 E) c. q% q1 F7 u1 _
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
8 Q6 Z) N' f$ J, i7 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( |2 J5 \$ c3 f" a q
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
! a4 m0 {. G* {. `) u5 N: e, Q8 w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; {( M3 P$ z$ ?7 u) O
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 B' \* O+ |4 Y h+ N: {6 w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) [, N: _2 m) V) f" d, b
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
, U& ~' F1 p; n" 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% ]7 g- V2 Q2 Y! g1 |
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。, `/ W: E- ?# w; L8 Q
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* s! o5 O: ?& s; X) @2 S
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
+ ^$ T$ h1 U5 S1 OWikipedia。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. x% z+ C% O4 H: l9 V
同意见的专家。- ]% W \2 [% b9 H/ K6 }
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5 Q. ~. v; O* y- C- v8 D
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
9 h, R t' h1 I+ ]4 T: o' `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
$ T7 d' G7 _+ V2 q《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。& [5 _, Y- I! m% {1 f4 P/ A2 D- i9 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)+ j) S2 H# ^; C* A
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
9 I& o3 f H; q1 \《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 }; S0 n; }
这些被Callaway忽略。1 t3 j Z. a* d+ \( Q% D4 Q
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
# y- b8 i, H3 j' [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
& B3 J0 `9 V M0 a, I+ o教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。- ^4 X4 R3 J' N* T6 x1 V% m
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
& r7 r4 T F" f0 l2 e# G/ L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9 ]3 H2 ?, x. {( r
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
/ {9 r1 H3 r# 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。+ d: P, R0 a$ F, ]9 t, W
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- ~1 W" b2 A7 e( }) K3 l
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
4 _! Z% w& \0 }$ W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
* g8 }$ t0 r" Y/ s) p7 @8 s”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。- F: w. i" P1 S; ~9 a5 B
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3 I3 r. M( e1 h) h: T2 S/ T
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! U/ @" S& c# Z7 z1 b% `
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* L1 v# X0 ~* m& A
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
' S, K7 p3 l Z5 e. E1 {& c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 p3 H0 t, F4 W/ T" ]+ G
而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。0 @9 F5 ^1 ^$ b9 d+ X0 m; O
我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。; z' n& o, i: t3 d; ]
1 r! n8 L1 b* Y/ K; g毅& j2 g+ ^$ I% {( O8 s K% x
北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅
, _# D( P1 ^/ g6 i: T) Y1 J7 ?
# q, c5 ^2 t3 Q, l附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结/ l4 g1 a& Y3 J
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email% e3 T% d* M f( \( v: \0 P
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
9 x, W1 d' g4 u, \. A" J( s' c6 u附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见) C1 i/ G9 i' u
3 x0 g) Z- Q4 @: c( {' u1 |% O, [0 F; R7 r9 O" B' u7 D( a! Y
( Y2 Z, t% `5 n原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)4 J- V% M6 n5 X/ Z* ?# h
Dear Phil,
4 N/ q$ c2 Z6 f( x9 W You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s9 C( M, ~; Y9 G2 Z+ J
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20. t! s4 Z+ w3 X. ]7 G4 H) N- J: n
hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
: E) S3 D& b7 s/ Q& j* byou.
2 z' }* L8 a" R# U# } If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have; ]+ T9 M, g9 E L1 K
brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese6 J* u. ~ H& y+ _
readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the: L+ F0 a7 x7 V+ \
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature& A1 D3 g/ I. H2 n
publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more1 X9 @( C" R$ [8 e6 E
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
9 e0 L; _- T2 a$ r2 x6 \" opieces much more than the regular Western news media would.% p6 e8 [+ D; s# W) S9 g
The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the5 P1 ~' g" g3 M- Q
worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a, C' a* ^7 V+ o4 ]( C; f5 q
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish+ H8 S; Q/ {* t3 o8 v' M0 a
that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
" e% U6 P" V$ K5 @( w/ \did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping# h/ A* _! I2 q, r# f i: T6 m! f' O
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal1 X6 n; `2 k; I# D$ L. l
standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,& D/ C* P4 ~ \4 Q" e2 B: Y: E- o
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
" \. A8 A: B" v* _5 Rto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news. E% r" f% l* F) b& `4 J
reporting.
* o4 e0 r$ E! _: R7 L B, Q I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have: b: D9 w; q. l
already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
+ v, d: _9 I8 u6 Z1 l, y8 [& mchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
) n0 X+ @6 p$ g6 M9 Xsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A" ?# t+ z% ]3 a0 E6 S
presumption of cheating has changed to doubts.
/ y8 _: }; T( c$ \. H2 D3 @) Z4 U6 ~ The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem: x( m9 G$ D6 M0 k0 E6 d4 O7 d
more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds% [9 L3 d+ A! r
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 505 ~/ {8 p1 M$ [! ?
meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same. U0 o+ l7 _; [
event for men, with the second fastest record./ K) Q: d+ u0 g1 u8 }$ X. Q7 ?% ?
The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye; V0 `2 Q& t% q e6 S1 O" o! Z2 o
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16
; o1 V+ [- k; tyear old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record
4 I$ x7 w* u9 Z: K& w& k. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400
, s& ~% r$ D5 g1 }* Ometers. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,
- O M7 x1 n, ^& O- Ifor which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than* u5 U0 J: R+ \. r
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed+ i; n; s6 d& w' w" l
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the r e8 H# j Y
individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
8 p2 g( s" `$ |* o# s3 v3 athan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
4 b: j* o3 E+ d& Lthose other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was: m1 H% m( e! K+ Y$ D0 I/ w
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then
2 g& r" G0 K, Vhe would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “2 y9 E! U9 d2 Q6 T
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
: J9 _9 T9 j qswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
6 I6 D- P R5 w9 D9 B8 H7 Y q9 m0 mteens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the
: a$ }( d' E. z! G3 k3 z8 zCallaway report.
; u' i! {' R3 eThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
5 u' A& L6 [8 s2 t5 u# B+ Y1 r, vunderstandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details. R! L6 F2 s, R& ]/ N% Z
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description
# }+ T! J* L0 N+ Aof Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
- O4 Y. n7 i# j: c' U$ [better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
7 G" i/ Z+ n. }. v# }) t, V6 CWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had
1 E7 q7 t0 G4 D7 S$ Gpublicly voiced different opinions.
. k J) ?9 k! P! u* J. V9 G/ S7 ^1 KYou should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD
% F- z) ~- J/ R1 N5 Xfrom xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature' r' q7 u' A, ], x) T6 E% u% `
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
5 ]6 {, _5 Z+ R- O0 ?postdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds9 {& V( W, }9 Y
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy3 z2 k7 N1 b% H; o: h
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.- U6 U" `/ ?, h( [/ z4 L* D
There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think. d. ~6 y3 O: ]. d5 K |
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
6 C6 y& p+ ~! T6 ^4 Chave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as5 F' A: p3 f7 e9 M6 |" ]" x
Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that
+ a+ T; D! q6 H; B' Cthe anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was
9 g' s/ Q0 [8 [6 h2 X0 `" R. esupported by facts neglected by Callaway.
; k5 z' t" Q: x+ q6 eOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that+ L' R' s% M6 i3 B
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the( R: k+ ]$ V7 t8 [+ E
Chinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June, @, o+ _& z" f
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
6 O$ ?* Z: V/ [0 yand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.+ r3 H8 A' k$ G" b+ K* i
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science% Z: X( e+ R, `% f; @% E
and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and0 X7 ] C2 e8 N# X) W F
Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.9 K" O3 D: x O& A+ V' ~
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and
' D; J. j ^5 `1 zobjective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature6 G7 ^2 I* S9 C6 h0 c" p& [3 g; @
what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to! |4 C, Z6 f* ?7 G
repair the damage caused by your news reporters.
( E5 D/ G; j, p* A3 Y& X+ x MThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
7 F/ \8 m) L* m6 d3 E# cshow slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
1 z7 @) }8 v' f% ]9 H; b2 h2 h3 nus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather, K+ @( `" X: d0 n6 ?
fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
- T0 m9 B' |( O3 Hthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”9 Z' s* W2 ]+ Q
about British supremacy.
% R6 v# z/ E3 u# y1 `6 h* xThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many; ]2 j% s8 `* V# y
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more, t: L- d4 ~" j+ {. ?
Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by4 l4 ^4 H- |$ k; p+ x
our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
6 A1 P; V) J' ZOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.
5 Y0 e& L( H# rYe Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of
" p/ [7 ^' \& t, |/ p7 G3 Gprofessional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
- n+ c& A- X/ |: A: l$ a# n; Kbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,
/ s! @3 ^8 T% f Sit is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
6 e, q F& U% d2 h/ }: cpublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like
, G% ]+ G J- U2 i" H2 kNature. L. Q0 m c( O& o
I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
* R6 t2 o3 ^7 A% K! Y2 Q8 \8 `' Qthe Callaway report.# p, i" n( @8 L9 v8 z
& q7 p+ m9 z$ v; _) G% f8 a! _Yi7 D4 N9 d+ J7 q5 M* H1 c" `
% a5 V- U5 ^5 B/ W1 G" cYi Rao, Ph.D.4 j7 ^, l( |: n+ u" L5 h1 }
Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences
* |6 p* e; _: c IBeijing, China E* O* @# F4 B) ]# X$ _, ~
|
|