 鲜花( 5)  鸡蛋( 6)
|
本帖最后由 bigsnail 于 2012-8-4 10:50 编辑 ' @$ b/ F4 Q! N; d6 o
0 c" W: o7 ?) W3 h' T' h
饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信。
9 R% ^% ~- q3 [4 k# J7 z7 X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。. F1 k; l; x) T* d6 j
总体上中国对外宣传还是以自己的思维方式,效果不彰。: G7 h t" x5 G {# N2 [& X. G
* ]- N# K+ b7 |3 `http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
; Q6 X! P' m3 ?: M3 }: q, ^ G' W* p# e0 S& X: @" r& p5 [3 t& {
致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
2 F2 n& L4 T) @( G* x7 k% D6 N% n5 s' |, Y& Q o3 T
英文原信附后,大意如下:
6 D) n7 E: ~, l6 J5 R4 U: R
: _' Q C. F) K& j& Z- k0 v) N' h! ~斐尔,5 [0 i( o$ V* v
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
& Z6 u, n/ G9 g1 s+ u# F7 @5 Wemail的人里面小部分也给我来信。
V# @* m0 d0 L/ d0 n 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( _8 C& u: t: } r) I
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
% z, O, I J5 C* U ~& ~+ Z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。 q. I; v5 D& v2 m! l. t2 K3 y8 K
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' r( l6 |- P) U' e8 E7 E8 b
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
: o7 j8 v" [% G8 V0 h$ y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0 x0 U! [' |3 D( 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。- o$ d4 \; q6 E, U L
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
& Y V" f0 `) w1 k; X,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
* b' }( M0 o; F1 w”。舞弊的前设改为疑问。" X$ O9 `) O7 `* E
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 H( W) u( P F% Q4 d% P `- n3 u0 Q; x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
% @2 e/ n/ q0 n,而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。
, v v4 P) A0 c( v- K0 ^% D9 n& b 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: y# m- ]( D+ E' p% `
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& | V- q- b& z: P/ ]! D. ]
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 s* E! i- l' s, F0 m( C9 w9 M
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( \' b; b, v& a2 }' ~. W
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
0 Y4 {$ q, e; \5 ~6 E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
6 i0 x! ?, @ q; M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" k2 C9 i. x+ }, p2 I
。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' Y( E% S1 ]& Y t
录。这些事实更正后,Callaway的报道就没基础。
* h" J; t+ H- O% V8 Z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
, o+ _( e' k+ o; ?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
8 i. [8 d6 t2 tWikipedia。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
, U6 Y% Y* U/ {9 k$ _- _1 E' q5 Y同意见的专家。
& e4 G/ V+ s9 R/ a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
9 t" Q9 X1 o7 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
" N2 }; q5 H. N- t7 q1 t# c# H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* B$ k6 F: X* ?3 G" E
《附件2》。他email给了我、要我看看此事。
9 F- u9 ~. C3 A$ m5 \3 x6 z& BCallaway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), r, v5 w3 i1 j- _* u% K4 x8 p$ 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8 c% r/ E- |2 k; T/ d7 b5 E0 g
《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+ P1 ?; o/ H* d% M$ P3 y0 e/ u
这些被Callaway忽略。
! e# A6 T/ I0 y) @1 k( 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- j/ ~0 l0 H( e5 L+ Q! _4 z3 O
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
# ~# D; h( l) d9 A教授)在香港开会时,发现她竟然也是这么认为。
2 G3 N" m9 r+ j! u5 z3 _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
; A6 j; ]2 s8 P' B" U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
8 s5 I. l# o& i- I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
6 C, h' _& R' C: k: p. A% J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 d4 e! b, O% I* e3 {
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- m6 o7 _" V" ^/ [" D" ]! r# t
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& R3 i- }# S* Y4 Q
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
. m( ]3 d$ T+ b/ \( v- |5 o”(借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇)。
7 Z+ ]& [$ c6 i9 y e7 b6 U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
+ K( q- ` w8 b# D5 N6 ^8 ~; R* _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
( m; _/ n/ |3 H5 n; h2 M! C# J) A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
9 L. U) z, t& z0 W4 R' C% o* r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! v' D# c# w6 J8 N8 U- m
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
1 W, ]8 a( c5 y: r而导致负面舆论多于正面,当然令人深感不平。
/ b/ e ?7 E2 X' |" n我希望你们能澄清记录,发表平衡Callaway报道的意见。
. n/ G# O$ R F1 \2 p% Q/ C' j
. E H5 ~/ P9 {& K毅
4 b+ s. B, h6 y北京大学生命科学学院 神经生物学教授 饶毅" T+ M9 o. h! Q
8 }4 G9 Y- [+ |. W附件1 Wikipedia对叶诗文的总结6 l4 r- D. t# J; e( ]" M5 B8 Q
附件2 伯克利加州大学王立明的email; T8 r+ B9 _; r2 V+ N7 o
附件3 Lai Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见1 x9 N6 D' t+ A
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
: L; m5 }- a/ M+ i
3 T2 [8 N9 s& f' U5 }4 i3 I3 R' W8 }5 z' h
8 ~& d! z/ o# p* [: q5 e h
原文(2012年8月4日1:57am发送)
) _) o/ G8 A! cDear Phil,9 Z( D* b* a9 Y" [5 K- W3 ]% V7 d+ ~
You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s8 `* c2 H$ \% V6 q
report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20
. C3 m+ j# Z" I6 q% l2 u+ {hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed
& ~, r; m; `7 h( i! Q* Gyou.
" Q* C% T( e8 A$ ~ If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature have
7 |5 X" x3 C( T, L% q3 }brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese
' x/ G/ O7 x; jreaders place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the! j Z B* f4 s" z2 ~" B
world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature
" l, c; e5 f* p# epublishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more9 Q+ P2 E) ?0 j
seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news
! T; n6 q( Q# Q. L4 Lpieces much more than the regular Western news media would.
0 f0 c2 H, x$ G# k The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the
' V+ A9 W5 R! i6 A2 |worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a" P) M1 _ G* c! M* f; @
negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish
4 x* Y" ?% y g- v8 _& Uthat Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
1 n: u7 x* W1 t8 ?; F0 Qdid not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
) ]/ b) z& N% G. m5 W; K* C' A6 nexplanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal
' Z {/ N7 r3 v* gstandard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible,5 o+ u1 t# x9 S8 R) }4 | i
and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone
8 F5 ~$ T; V. N( Qto cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news
9 i; j! ]1 e& G, s% a5 e* V6 freporting.
! ]. Q' A1 W* {% s3 Z I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have
9 ~, r+ j0 Q# c# P& zalready noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by
6 P# {7 m/ X4 | _9 A! r7 jchanging it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in
; B( x9 s1 U- O& Dsports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A
2 A9 |& r) W7 vpresumption of cheating has changed to doubts.0 L2 n( a0 E. k, ?: ]' d: Z9 Z, T
The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem
' Y1 H3 o r( N' v4 Lmore “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds4 y& D3 |* N* u2 I& o& U, P
faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50
( Y$ w. j. `, i$ _" [7 Gmeters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same6 e, M$ V2 l) I [6 i1 D2 k. u$ S" `
event for men, with the second fastest record.
1 n8 @* y# g. n$ ?. A The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye% O; F7 B8 X* X
was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 165 r% O- ?7 X. A0 l
year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record+ O" s8 r1 Y: [3 T: x1 q
. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400! ]4 p* ~9 R, g8 X c
meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters,& V! {+ v5 p2 R0 e; Q
for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than% X. [ z' ]+ k
Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed R ]: r+ p. g& W
behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the
" g+ y3 U8 F' @/ l% q8 Aindividual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower
P0 c" A8 J" t. g0 ]7 Uthan 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than
& \# U- ^6 _8 ?those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was4 d2 a9 A @5 Z5 L$ h d2 ?
her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then7 {' B" _' W) M7 G8 h" j! c. A
he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “- m" }2 l2 O3 z1 w+ O% ^
problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other
( m. \( l0 J4 J1 wswimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the
& P, M, @/ \( W; i f5 |teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the0 W# N: h* t8 K2 J; o/ P7 K
Callaway report.
! \0 `2 w7 G, U: iThere are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more
( b, W7 N+ r: ?understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details) ^9 o9 h7 P0 P2 x' g4 S
here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description, M! @; `4 ~+ g8 m2 D
of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been
' n' x' ?9 z3 K( |better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the
+ @7 r; i/ G/ z6 TWikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had. ]0 y# o* |# J( h
publicly voiced different opinions.! x; \& O) r0 Q( o8 w
You should have received an email from Dr.XXX, who obtained a PhD0 U' W4 B6 ^0 s" B \( \# f' o+ F
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature& T9 ]: w9 I9 H( c1 ?; B
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
! a4 p4 }9 s) x, Gpostdoc at xxx. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds6 A; f! p8 z! T
you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy6 D9 V2 ?; _6 b/ }
of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue.
. g" y- z1 _" n G/ J% O: i7 ]9 sThere are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think" {( h$ f A$ _ V2 h
that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They
3 q1 Z* Y" l7 B6 E+ z, phave sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as
0 u, Z% _6 ]9 R. u5 S) RAttachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that* _0 J6 d- ~: D$ T9 D
the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was8 z4 @3 J- ~" }: {$ n- Z
supported by facts neglected by Callaway.
& g( K6 ^% f* L9 HOne point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that2 J9 Q) X' m$ v+ T- i8 D. f
many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the
7 \% n2 M0 f0 ^* ]$ S6 qChinese sold opium to the British. I had personally experienced this in June8 H y' Q' F1 w' Y: Q; W
(2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she
: _4 p! ?9 s6 A3 q5 q/ fand I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting.* G7 H3 Y8 W7 _: _" X. R9 z
The British have a good international image, partly because of your science
9 E, |! U, L3 G. dand your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and
: K& B0 S$ g+ f$ q* VDarwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world.: Z$ N; O$ C9 ]; P
Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and6 @9 `2 d6 Y$ ]4 g" } Y
objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature
; N+ N* E8 {4 ]2 k. f0 S& Vwhat it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to
8 {8 J1 a7 j# {" u$ ]2 irepair the damage caused by your news reporters.
) c5 B1 S. d1 l9 DThe British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not
3 t" i* Z" O) R2 V9 t* y' n( S; ?show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced
, o, ?" r- K- Y. i& l9 G$ yus to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather
6 t2 b0 V& C+ dfresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that
/ d! D0 }: x( p8 _; Kthis report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts”
! K: [( S' o* {) |6 h/ w$ b }about British supremacy.
# M% k- e( ?" b/ X$ I+ j' D( A F& kThe Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many# c" E+ W9 ]+ L$ g. B/ S& d
unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more
6 y/ W$ L3 C! H0 }' D7 _/ V1 }Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by
, S# K5 ]3 m" m/ G5 `our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London
. W1 I" h$ l9 V2 mOlympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases.2 Y c; M4 _! |. [" N* Z3 w V" Z, L
Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of* R" [: z! y) C
professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests
/ ^# H! G& v5 H5 _$ z, T! lbefore and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her,( b1 d' a2 V6 o
it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly
) E& j. I- E3 w5 h# p. }& M# Z9 Npublicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like% C6 C$ B2 s4 e3 r" s. I7 v+ t1 |
Nature.
+ z1 E P. z, `! ^+ d$ `( HI hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance
; A; T, R0 k- u; a- sthe Callaway report.
; z& W' @0 z6 G% { O& ]: Z, N* ~- |8 j6 I5 T$ n
Yi. Z# T7 b. N9 ~* D
" T: A3 r2 G. y' f1 ]Yi Rao, Ph.D.
; b- _: ^9 C7 r6 A7 `* i0 G% vProfessor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences7 ` ^- |8 N/ _) }8 `( O$ g
Beijing, China
" G" b6 j# y* _( b/ \" K4 \4 H, Q3 K |
|